Time for action by Obama and Clinton on Honduras

Militarty junta? (0.00 / 0)

They were acting under orders of their Supreme Court, and the new President is the leader of their legislature.  They are following the laws of their Constitution, while the old president was ignoring it and acting like a dictator.  Aren't we supposed to be for the rule of law there?

---

by: dcsurfer @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 13:28:50 PM CDT

Exactly (6.00 / 1)

A president who was acting contrary to the Constitution was removed through means contrary to the Constitution.  While he should have been removed differently, he was acting unliterally and again diktats by other branches which he was legally required to obey.

I'm not saying anyone is covered in glory here, but this is deeper than a standard coup.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 14:05:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Utter rubbish (0.00 / 0)

CNN:

Micheletti, the head of Congress, became president after lawmakers voted by a show of hands to strip Zelaya of his powers, with a resolution stating that Zelaya "provoked confrontations and divisions," within the country. A letter of resignation purported to be from Zelaya was read to members before the vote.

But the deposed president, Zelaya, emphatically denied in an interview with CNN en Español that he wrote the letter. Speaking from Costa Rica, where he was taken after the coup, he said he plans to continue exercising his presidential duties with a trip to Managua, Nicaragua, to attend a summit of Central American heads-of-state.

Of course there was a pretext. Coups almost always have pretexts. But a quick show of hands and a forged letter of resignation hardly rises above the run of the mill.

By all means, defend the coup. Maybe there are good arguments for it. But don't insult people's intelligence by pretending that this is anything other than a group of military officers pushing pushing out a democratically elected leader.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 14:15:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Insufficient knowledge (0.00 / 0)

Bob, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't feel I know enough to agree with you, either. I've read that the country's Supreme Court ordered the president removed from office, and it seems that the Congress has designated the new president. There is, as you say, some issue about whether or not the president resigned.

Do you know enough about Honduran constitutional law to say that this was illegal?

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 14:35:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Eight soldiers pointing guns at the president, hustled out in his pajamas (6.00 / 1)

Hardly sounds like the normal constitutional protocol for replacing the president.

Just read the writing on the wall.


BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 14:45:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe (0.00 / 0)

On the other hand, the president apparently has a "presidential guard" that the soldiers disarmed. Again, I just don't know enough to know whether this was unjustified.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 15:15:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He was removed from the country at gunpoint (0.00 / 0)

That's not the rule of law, that's the removal of the president (regardless of the order from the Supreme Court) to another country - pretty crummy due process if you ask me.  

---

by: dhammer @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 15:32:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe (0.00 / 0)

Maybe you're right. On the other hand, "That's not the rule of law ... regardless of the order from the Supreme Court" seems to me to be prima facie wrong. But as I say, I don't know enough about Honduran law to say.

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 07:27:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Invective and CNN aren't enough (0.00 / 0)

BBC

Mr Zelaya planned to hold a non-binding public consultation on 28 June to ask people whether they supported moves to change the constitution.

This would in practice have meant holding a referendum at the same time as November's presidential election on setting up a body charged with redrawing the constitution.

Mr Zelaya's critics said the move was aimed at removing the current one-term limit on serving as president, and paving the way for his possible re-election.

The consultation was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court and Congress, and was opposed by the army.

So he was doing an illegal electoral act contrary to the wishes of the duly elected and appointed government of his country.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 15:12:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So charge him with a crime (6.00 / 1)

and put him on trial.  This is a coup, because he's been kicked out of the country.  Even if he's guilty (of the heinous crime of asking the people if they'd consider changing the constitution), the supreme court didn't conduct a trial, the president was not able to make a defense.

This is the equivalent of the court ruling that the war in Iraq was illegal and calling on the military to oust Bush and Cheney.  I'm not sure about the process for removing the President under the Honduran constitution and this might be legal, but if it is, it stinks.  

---

by: dhammer @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 15:37:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you (0.00 / 0)

As I said originally, nobody is covered in glory here.  But to think "Latin America + presidential evacuation = anti-democratic coup" -- as is the flavor of some posting here is simply incorrect.  This is the second coup to take place in Honduras recently -- the first was committed by the president.  Of course, it didn't involve soldiers waving around guns so it got no press.

The process was not followed, this is true.  The president should have been removed by other means, but no mistake, he should have been removed.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 17:15:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

okay I'll bite (0.00 / 0)

I'm no expert, and I'll admit I've got a soft spot for leftist regimes in Latin America.  I'll also admit I'm far more likely to forgive or ignore the transgressions of regimes who veer towards the left than I am of those who veer to the right.  So, I'm sympathetic to Zelaya, and not so much the congress.  

That being said, you're making the claim that what he was doing was illegal and a coup.  This guy says the court was wrong.  That in spite of the supreme courts actions, what Zelaya was planning was totally legal.  

He argues that the vote was a non-binding question of whether to convene a national assembly to re-write the constitution.  This would get around the problem of the constitution barring the president from running again or amending the constitution to allow anyone to run again.  

President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran "Civil Participation Act" of 2006.  According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006.

So it's not clear what he was doing was illegal, immoral or wrong.  Maybe it's all of those things, but I'm not sure.  What is known, however, is that this November there's going to a presidential election and Zelaya isn't a candidate.  So to characterize Zelaya's actions as a coup in line with what happened to him is stretching it.  

It's also worth noting that the guy who's illegally taken over as president lost in the primary to be the next candidate, so he's got some incentive to grab power and has shown he's willing to play ball with a military coup...  In everything I've read Zelaya was setting himself up to run for the next election under a new constitution - if the people of Honduras were okay with that, maybe we should be too.

---

by: dhammer @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 08:06:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Depends. (0.00 / 0)

"This would get around the problem of the constitution barring."

I don't know anything about the Honduras constitution (or functional equivalent), but it could be that the executive is barred from introducing ballot questions, or that all ballot questions must go through the legislature.  If so, his protestations that it was just a wee tiny little non-binding thing might not fly at all legally.  In such a case his attempts would be a power grab - however minor or reasonable.  Of course, I'd hope there would be some kind of impeachment process that was supposed to be followed before it came to guys with guns.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were legal violations on both sides here.  (Sounds embarrassingly Border-ish, but there it is.)

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 08:23:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Should be "Broder-ish" (0.00 / 0)

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 08:23:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

? (0.00 / 0)

Should be "Broder-ish"

Broder-ish?

---

by: gary @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:07:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes. (0.00 / 0)

Broderism:

The worship of bipartisanship for its own sake, combined with a fake "pox on both their houses" attitude

...

The belief that it all sides are equal and must compromise at all times. Regardless of the final outcome or the level of understanding or intelligence presented by each side.

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult." - Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

---

by: Mr Lynne @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:17:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can't speak to the accuracy of it, but the linked article says he can (0.00 / 0)

It's also possibly true that there were legal violations on both sides, but the consequences of those violations are very different.  In one, we get a non-binding ballot question, on the other we get the removal of a President by gunpoint.  

Obama should get in line with the international community and pull our Ambassador from Honduras.

---

by: dhammer @ Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:27:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And George Bush and Dick Cheney never lied about Iraq (6.00 / 2)

Sarah Palin is pro-environment, and John McCain understands economics.

When eight soldiers point rifles at the chest of the elected president and hustle him onto an airplane out the country, that's a coup.

If the law was being followed, they could simply have arrested him and charged him in court.

Tolerance for this kind of illegality weakens the United States because it builds popular resistance to us in countries from Mexico to Argentina, not to mention outside the Americas. We're the world's biggest debtor nation. Without the support of others to finance our deficits, get ready for a substantial drop in the U.S. standard of living.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 14:08:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

? (6.00 / 1)

How are presidents usually arrested?  The eight rifles are surely customary, I would expect no fewer, out of respect.

I don't understand why or how he is in Costa Rica and not in jail though, whether it is a coup or Constitutional, what's he doing there?  Perhaps that is also the custom?

get ready for a substantial drop in the U.S. standard of living.

Oh, absolutely!

---

by: dcsurfer @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 14:52:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

President Obama is doing exactly the right thing (6.00 / 2)

As prior comments observe, the situation in Honduras remains murky. President Obama is doing exactly the right thing by staying focused on our national priorities in the absence of a compelling reason to act quickly in Honduras.

In doing so, he models the leadership behavior I would like to see closer to home.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 14:12:00 PM CDT

"absence of a compelling reason to act quickly in Honduras" (6.00 / 1)

How about U.S. relations with the hundreds of millions of people who live south the Rio Grande. Do you think they don't remember the sorry history of this country's deposing of various elected governments, encouraging the murder of leaders we didn't like, and generally riding roughshod over their ability to run their own countries?

Or let's look further afield. Our soldiers are fighting and dying, allegedly, for the principle of democracy, self-governance and freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. It completely undercuts those missions for us to tolerate a gang of generals in our own neighborhood who decided to replace their judgment for the will of their people.

News travels fast these days. The whole world is connected. There are many compelling reasons -- economic, political and strategic -- for the U.S. to act immediately on the subject of Honduras and support democratically elected power transitions.  

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 14:20:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Democracy vs perceived US national interest (0.00 / 0)

The nation's website has an analysis:

Apparently Zelaya started out on the "center right", supporitng CAFTA, etc. but has moved left and now hangs around with Chavez and co.  

Zelaya shifted course, and over the past two years he has adopted a progressive agenda. As a solution to the disastrous "war on drugs," which has turned Central America into a well-traversed trans-shipment corridor for narcotraficantes--profitable for some, deadly for many--he has proposed the legalization of some narcotics. Earlier this year at the Summit of the Americas, he took the lead in pushing Barack Obama to normalize relations with Cuba. And he has steered his country into both the Bolivarian Alternative to the Americas and Petrocaribe, two regional economic alliances backed by Venezuela meant to wean Latin America off its extreme dependence on the US market.

The author chalks the US reluctance to take a strong stance in favor of restoring Zelaya up to:

concern about a major US military base; apparently declaring the incident a "coup"

would trigger automatic sanctions, including the suspension of foreign aid and the withdrawal of US troops.

and a desire to bring Zelaya back into the neoliberal fold

It seems like what the United States might be angling for in Honduras could be the "Haiti Option." In 1994 Bill Clinton worked to restore Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide after he was deposed in a coup, but only on the condition that Aristide would support IMF and World Bank policies.

Speaking here for myself only

---

by: jhg @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 20:25:37 PM CDT

The Nation template (0.00 / 0)

They'd write that story about any Latin American nation that was going through this sort of thing.  Zelaya was similar to Morales in Bolivia -- he reached very far, and pushed to accrue power regardless of the Constitution, and when he got pushed back started aping Chavez.  The same way that any leader in the Cold War who got pushed back by a pro-American legislature went running to the soviets.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 22:01:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]