Paraguay Denies Diplomatic Immunity to UNASUR Observers

[Judi Lynn]

Paraguay Denies Diplomatic Immunity to UNASUR Observers

Asuncion, Dec 27 (Prensa Latina) The Paraguayan government denied today any likelihood to grant diplomatic immunity to a mission of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), invited as observer to the elections of April, 2013.

In a statement, Foreign Minister Jose Felix Fernandez rejected the invitation made to UNASUR by the Superior Electoral Court and said his portfolio will not grant any facility to a delegation of that regional bloc.

Fernandez, said the government of Federico Franco will not grant the immunity requested by the Court or invite UNASUR to observe the polls in response to sanctions applied by UNASUR in the wake of the breach in institutional order occurred here in June, 2012, when apolitical operation by traditional Paraguayan parties and Congress controlled by them allowed an impeachment against constitutional President Fernando Lugo, who was toppled in little over 30 hours.

All this prompted UNASUR and MERCOSUR to suspend Paraguay´s membership until democracy is restored in this country by installing a new government through free, transparent elections under international observation.

More:
http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=845691&Itemid=1

[naaman fletcher]

1. translation

when apolitical operation by traditional Paraguayan parties and Congress controlled by them allowed an impeachment against constitutional President Fernando Lugo, who was toppled in little over 30 hours.

A nice way of saying "When the elected representatives of the people (including the President's own party) followed the constitution and overwhelmingly impeached the President in a constitutional manner.

[ocpagu]

2. You see, it's not the first time...

...Latin Americans get told that yet another coup d'état in their continent is legitimate and constitutional. It has happened dozens of times before.

Most of the previous coups that occurred in Latin America during the Cold War were also claimed to be "constitutional", and right-wingers were always ready to accept their faked "legal" status. Generally speaking, Latin American Cold War coups were conspiracies between military AND the judiciary OR the legislative power (or both together) to overthrow the president. The 1964 coup in Brazil was also labeled constitutional by the military, the congress, by the justice systems, by the mainstream press and by right-wingers. The Brazilian Senate voted in favor of decreeing the presidency vacant and the president of the Chamber of Deputies Ranieri Mazzilli replaced João Goulart in the presidency until the military junta took power. Yet, there's not one single person in this world nowadays that would have the guts to say it was not a coup.

The most recent coups in Honduras and Paraguay were a bit more sophisticated in their attempts of covering their illegality. But they'll need mor than that to convince Latin Americans. We are schooled in coups d´état. We recognize one when we see it.

But try as much as you want.

[naaman fletcher]

3. I agree with almost everything you are saying..

Except in this instance there was, in fact, a vote by the Parliament and even all the people (except a couple) of Lugo's own party members voted against him.

How else shall we possibly judge if a voteis legitimate or not?

What is your suggestion?

[ocpagu]

4. I guess it's not difficult to see why this is a coup.

Impeachments per se are a legitimate, constitutional and democratic tool. But, as any other tool, they have to be used in the proper manner to get the proper results. They will only be legitimate, constitutional and democratic if they follow the premises of legitimacy, constitutionalism and democracy. The one in Paraguay didn't. When people try to defend the illegality of the use of impeachment in this case, they simply disconsider the fact that any legal process has to be fair - just for a start. Specially if it is a legal process involving the democratically elected president - by the direct votes and the will of the Paraguayan people.

There was no popular outcry for the impeachment. There were no factual proves of anything that could justify an impeachment. It was not even preceded by a political crisis. It took the Paraguayan people entirely by surprise. The congress didn't comply with its duty of representing the popular will. The defendant was given two hours to present his defence.

Why 2 hours? If this was a democratic legal process, why did the Paraguayan congress feel the need of making the fastest impeachment ever? That was obviously a conspiracy. They were just waiting for an opportunity. But they feared that the "opportunity" couldn't stand if it was subjected to a normal impeachment process, with more sectors of society involved. They just decided to make "in the dead of the night". Why?

[naaman fletcher]

5. I dunno

I do understand what you are saying, and if it was just the Colorado party that impeached him I would totally agree... I am hung up on the fact that over 90% of Lugo's own party was all for this.

As for there being no popular support for the impeachment.. is the population vocal at all against what happened?