I’m not going to pretend that the situation in Honduras isn’t a bit complicated. The president was ousted in a coup after he defied the Supreme Court and placed a measure on the ballot that would allow him to hold a referendum on whether or not he should be allowed to run for another term. So, what we have is a situation where the Constitution was violated by two parties: the president, and then the military that forced him into exile. Here in the States, Michael Bloomberg recently changed the New York City charter so that he could run for a third-term. That was controversial, but the state Supreme Court didn’t rule it illegal. Bloomberg isn’t a dictator, and no one called for him to be exiled to Canada for his treachery.
Right-wingers in our country, however, do not like President Manuel Zelaya because he is an ally of Hugo Chavez and his politics are leftist. They are upset that the State Department has withdrawn foreign aid to the military junta there.
The Obama administration and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) are squaring off in a foreign policy dispute that has stymied the nominations of two senior diplomatic officials.
Foreign policy experts see the standoff as a proxy fight between conservative Republicans and the Obama administration on how to deal with Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s socialist president.
DeMint has blocked the nominations of Thomas Shannon, President Barack Obama’s pick to serve as ambassador to Brazil, and Arturo Valenzuela, the choice for the post of assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs.
How does this relate to Honduras?
DeMint said in an interview that he does not want the standoff over the nominees to erupt into a major confrontation but felt he had to pressure the administration into restoring foreign aid to Honduras.
The right-wingers insist that the coup was a Constitutional response to unconstitutional behavior by the president. That’s not true. Both acts were in violation of the laws. A normal response to a rogue president would be to remove him through an impeachment process or to simply wait and vote them out of office.
The truth is that President Zelaya isn’t very popular in Washington DC. Corporatist Democrats don’t like the Bolivarian Revolution movement any more than Republicans. It’s bad for business. However, the Organization of American States (OAS) voted unanimously to kick Honduras out of the group after the coup. One of the purposes of the OAS is “to promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the principle of nonintervention.” The United States is not directly intervening. Lifting foreign aid, revoking visas for some the coup-makers, and trying to negotiate the return of representative democracy are all reasonable responses, considering the unified opposition to the coup of OAS.
If the U.S. were to endorse the coup, they’d lose a tremendous amount of credibility all throughout Latin America. This is all the more true considering our terrible historical record of backing right-wing juntas in the region. Balancing the desire to support representative democracy (even when we don’t really like the results) and the principle of non-intervention is difficult. Everyone thinks we should do more or less.
But Jim DeMint and the Wall Street Journal want you to believe that we’re trying to force the junta to violate their own Constitution and that we are unjustly interfering in their internal affairs. That’s a total distortion of the facts. What’s going on is that the right-wingers are trying to dictate U.S. foreign policy in favor of dictatorship, and against the Bolivarian Revolution movement.
From what I understand as a reader and fan of Al Giordano’s coverage of Honduras over at his blog, Zelaya’s ouster had nothing to do with asking for another term– that’s just disinformation. His term was up in something like January, anyway. Zelaya was pushing for a new constitution to replace the current one that favors oligarchs heavily. I don’t see how a new constitution that might have different term limits could get organized and written before Zelaya’s out of office. It doesn’t make any sense that he would be seeking another term with this.
Zelaya is apparantly sympathetic with the Bolivarian Revolution, as are most of the Honduran people, and I imagine he gets along with Chavez. But right-wingers are raising Chavez as a boogeyman at every turn, in Honduras and elsewhere, as some kind of evil person out to destroy the world, kind of similar to right-wing demonization of Obama. Oligarchs are claiming that the only valid “democracy” is one that leaves out people that disagree with them, people actually voting against them be damned. Chavez has a strong pro-labor, anti-oligarch stance, and withstood and defeated an oligarch coup attempt. Businesses that want to take advantage of cheap labor in all the Americas are panicked about the trend, screaming socialism takeover.
Another bunch of falsehoods being thrown out vigorously are, as Giordano points out, claims from the coup that the Honduran resistance is becoming militarized in various ways and is arming. The entire resistance movement is expressly and in deed committed to non-violence, and there have only been a few acts of vandalism by over-zealous youths, that are being blown way out of proportion by coup leaders and coup-friendly media.
I also am a fan of Giordano’s coverage. What is clear is that the constitution in question was written in 1982, during the height of the Reagan-elite power period in Honduras, and that it needs to go. Community and ethnic minority groups have decried the coup. The forces that are in favor of the coup – still in our government – are those that want to roll back the left-wing advances in the region.
Zelaya was a ‘center-leftist’ who got into power and realized that the left had more going for it. In Honduras, which has had some of the worst US military interventions, he raised the minimum wage, and did a few little things in favor of the People against the Elite. They passed laws making constitutional referenda illegal in order to rein him in.
He’s a market socialist, which in this day and age is enough to send you to the gallows. WTF!
Could it possibly be simpler than that. The GOP has sought to deny Obama every single one of his appointments. The Honduran situation is just a fig leaf for denying Obama his choice of advisers. In hopes that like he did with Van Jones, he’ll sacrifice them to avoid a distraction.
And the reason they want to deny him his advisers is that it leaves Bushies or interim appointments in place for a longer time and can potentially undo Obama’s policy directions.
I have yet to see any compelling argument that Zelaya violated the constitution as the oligarchs claim. And from what I understand, the Honduran Supreme Court is not the best arbitrator of that question. http://www.counterpunch.org/landau07232009.html
Do you have any evidence other than citing the coup leaders themselves and their allies in Washington and the U.S. media?
Zelaya was holding a non-binding vote, and as pointed out above, it wasn’t clear he was suggesting this for selfish reasons, as his enemies allege. We see some of the same rhetoric being used against Chavez–he’s really not interested in his professed left-wing causes and is only out for his personal glory (we also ignore the right-wing leaders that try to change the constitution).
I don’t think you can equate Zelaya’s actions to the coup. Holding a non-binding vote that scares the oligarchs is not the same as taking over the country by force.
I hope the good people of South and Central Americas aren’t HOPING that Obama defends their interests.
Unfortunately, Obama has a history of perpetuating right-wing fantasies, and this will probably be another case where Obama just has to give in so he can save his political capital on other fights (like caving in on health care). I’m sure Obama will mimic the meme that the coup and Zelaya’s alleged sins are equal, and what are we to do but to end up splitting the difference which means leaving a right-wing coup in place. Funny how we always end up supporting the right-wingers but have different standards for left-wingers. If that would have been a left wing coup we would be sending in the military to re-establish right-wing control.
You are out on a limb when you assert that the Supreme Court isn’t the best arbiter of what is constitutional.
You are also out of line when you accuse Obama of doing nothing when he has cut off aid, revoked visas, and attempted to negotiate a restoration.
Would you invade?
Invade when? In the 1980s? Now? I don’t think there is anywhere in the world where the U.S. should invade. In fact, I think we should go into the penalty box for a decade or so and see how the world gets by without the world’s biggest bruiser going around and knocking people to the ice. That means the Middle East, Afghanistan/Pakistan, and the Americas.
But there are diplomatic and economic tools we can use.
Yet Obama is clearly not fully using these tools:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2009/09/money-talks-us-policy-toward-honduran-
putsch-regime
Unlike the narcosphere, where speaking ill of the Great and Glorious ‘Transformational’ President is evidently discouraged, I don’t have to spin the facts for Obama’s benefit (in other words, like Baucus on health care, Hillary is not some rogue administration figure, she is doing what Obama wants–this is Obama’s two-faced policy–he owns it).
Obama is not supporting the OAS. He is not cutting off funding to the oligarchy.
Until Obama actually uses all of his diplomatic and economic tools there is no need to talk about military action (and the military action I support is our military leaving Columbia, Honduras, etc., i.e. not supporting right-wing governments and international corporations anymore).
Maybe you’re just wrong?
Well, I don’t know if that makes me wrong.
But I think it is news that both of us are pleased to see.
Thanks for the head up. Interesting.
If SFHawkguy has gone out on a limb by questioning the veracity of the Honduran Supreme Court then it’s a pretty stout limb. Such trust in a foreign country’s legal system is touching, even if more than a little naive. Actually more than naive considering it’s coming from an American whose President personally selects the country’s Supreme Court Justices (no political influence there!) In fact the United States Department of State’s human rights report for 1992 claimed that the civilian judiciary in Honduras “is weak, underfunded, politicized, inefficient, and corrupt.”
Because Honduran Presidents only serve a single term implementing major social change is almost impossible to achieve. Since Zelaya was trying to move the country left in the face of a strong, entrenched opposition no surprise he sought to change the Honduran Constitution; but his calling for a referendum to show popular support for change surely can’t constitute an illegal act since it in no way infringed on the Constitution’s authority. It would, however, unite the Honduran population in ensuring further reforms went through. No wonder the Supreme Court clamped down on him – he was actively using democracy to push through political reform harmful to the existing elite!
As to your rhetorical question about President Obama invading Honduras to prove his support of democracy any independent observer can see that the President carried out the Law only after the longest possible delay. This guy apparently supports Honduran democracy just as fervently as he supports reforming health care.
You might want to revise your remarks.
I don’t think that proves what you think it proves. In fact, I think Zelaya may be seizing the initiative (unlike cowardly American liberals) and forcing Obama to take sides.
In fact, the Obama administration was calling Zelaya “reckless” in July when he momentarily returned to the country.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/24/clinton_zelayas_actions_are_reckless.html
Going out on a limb is PRETENDING that Obama wanted Zelaya to do this.
Man.
You really are clueless.
Or jaded.
He’d never do what he just did if he thought it was going to piss off the Americans. He probably had some covert assistance.
Clueless? Okay.
As the kids say . . .. whatever.
Jaded. Guilty as charged.
Re covert assistance . . ..
Zelaya himself hints at this in the link you provided (and thank you for being Johny-on-the-link for this stuff today).
But the covert assistance was probably from Chavez! Ha!
Once again I’m with SFHawkguy in my confusion as to why you think your BBC interview with Zelaya provides a counter argument to my comments. I’d love for you to elaborate on them. On the other hand I disagree with both you and SFHawkguy on speculation of outside influence (well maybe SFHawkguy has a point). Isn’t a more logical assumption that sympathetic Hondurans are providing the support. But really Booman, I’d sure like to learn the logic behind that all too cryptic statement rather than try and guess … ’cause I’m completely baffled. To me Zelaya sounds like a man trying to get back his democratically elected office. Am I wrong?
Funny, how often the right thing is often the most pragmatic thing to do both in domestic and foreign policy. Re Honduras, backing the OAS is the honorable action and the one which will demonstrate that the US can practice what it preaches about democracy and the consent of the governed. Chavez and Zelaya and many other leaders of Central and Southern American nations clearly have the support of their peoples. It will behoove us to recognize this basic fact and conduct our foreign policy accordingly.
The time of the right wing oligarchs south of the border is over even though their reign in our nations continues to maintain its sinister strength. Power to the people!
I’m surprised you didn’t consider this possibility – that DeMint is serving as a proxy for the forces in the CIA that may well have helped foment the Honduras coup in the first place.
It wouldn’t be the first time DeMint has spoken up to defend the CIA. Could this be a case of DeMint protecting the Agency that protects his seat? Note that the contributions DeMint receives come from Virginia are the highest of any other state after the one he represents. Interesting possibility.
ignore “come” in that last sentence and it makes more sense! 😉
.
Since the Honduran military seized and expelled President Manuel Zelaya, the country’s de facto government has been losing the battle for international legitimacy. De facto President Roberto Micheletti and his allies have tried to convince the world that Honduras experienced a “constitutional succession,” not a coup. But beyond failing to show how expelling a sitting president squares with the constitution, the Micheletti camp has failed in the realm of diplomacy.
In the last few weeks, both the United States and Mexico stripped a number of Micheletti’s diplomatic and government appointees of their posts and visas. Nearly two months after the coup, the pro-Zelaya camp retains the key ambassadorships, including the United States, the United Nations, and the major players in Latin America.
… when the sitting Honduran ambassador to the United States, Roberto Flores Bermúdez, acknowledged Micheletti’s government as the result of the legitimate ousting of a president who had broken the law, Zelaya was able to replace him with Eduardo Enrique Reina. Meanwhile, Micheletti’s efforts to recall and replace pro-Zelaya ambassadors like Rosalinda Bueso Asfura (ambassador to Mexico) and Jorge Arturo Reino (ambassador to the United Nations) have failed. In countries like Chile and Argentina, where the ambassador sided with Micheletti, the host government expelled the ambassador and, at least in the interim, is conducting diplomatic relations through pro-Zelaya embassies elsewhere. In the case of Argentina, it’s through the Honduran embassy in the United States.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Its’ funny how everyone on this thread is throwing around the word “democracy” and “will of the people” when most of you probably don’t even know what a true democracy is! In terms of a coup there was no coup, Zelaya WAS ousted under the Honduran law and its’ Constitution which has term limits and explicitly prohibits anyone from changing that section of the Constitution. Zelaya, was and is a puppet of Chavez and student of his methods. Chavez did the same thing in Venezuela but eliminating all opposition in the justice system, the legislature, and the media, then pushing thru a modification to their constitution to allow him to be “president for life” under the disguise of a democracy and “will of the people”. Please this was nothing more than a power grab! Zelaya was attempting to do the same thing in Honduras, and was stopped. The US interference in Honduras, especially by backing Zelaya and violating its sovereignty and its rule of law is nothing by oppression. I am Honduran, came to the US when I was 9 yrs old and have a lot of family there. What you don’t see in the US media is the Anti-Zelaya protests, only the Pro-Zelaya protests why. There are many, if not most, in Honduras that does not support Zelaya. When Zelaya ran, his positions were totally different and then his attitude changed once in office. Sound familiar! Zelaya is nothing more than a gangster pretending to be a honorable man.
.
Appreciate your comment and perhaps you would consider a write-up of the Honduran people’s view on today’s politics and economics. Who are the power players supporting the political foes and allies? Any references to media or news reports to substantiate your opinion? However, whenever miltary are out on the streets supporting a non-elected political leader, it’s usually called a military coup and not a political process. A democracy based on the will of the people without outside influence on the election result is an utopia.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."It’s clear that you do not of what you speak. If you knew history you would know that any true democracy ended up failing because it eventually either turned to an oppressive regime because 51% ends up controlling the 49% minority, or it ends up failing under its own weight. You stated “whenever military are out on the streets supporting a non-elected political leader, it’s usually called a military coup and not a political process.” Have you been to Venezuela recently? Military troops and presences is allover the streets in that Country, and you forget, Chavez manipulated the system so that he has no true opposition to run against. And NO a military coup is not what you described, a military coup is when the military takes over the government and a general becomes the leader of the country, NOT when the legislators and the Supreme Court are still in control and they ordered the military’s actions. Please, did you go to school or just regurgitate what you hear others say.
Just to appease you to some degree, here are just a few articles which mention anti-Zelaya protests in Honduras. But I have serious doubts that you want to be intellectually honest.
http://lagringasblogicito.blogspot.com/2009/07/photos-of-pro-government-anti-zelaya.html
http://www.topix.com/world/honduras/2009/09/tea-party-protests-honduras-style-images-of-anti-zelaya-
protest
http://world.globaltimes.cn/day-photo/2009-07/441821.html
Sourcing from blogs, such as Free Republic does not suggest you have much credibility. From comments in one of your links:
How about some real journalism sourcing?
But I guess you are right and the OAS, the EU and the Pope are all wrong and form some kind of conspiracy…
I guess it would be hard to find articles from the MSM if they are NOT reporting it. But, you can do your own research because I know WSJ and others include foriegn press have reported it. But honestly I don’t think it would matter to you since you are not interested in hearing anything other than what you believe in. In addition, frankly it doesn’t matter what the OAS, or the EU say because it’s NOT their country nor their laws. Also, if you look at the OAS is nothing by socialist countries who can’t support themselves anyway. Look at Argentina’s run away inflation, and no economy to speak of.
How come you didn’t address any of the points about Chavez’s take over, his puppets in Peru, and Nicaragua? You claimed Military in the street indicated something but ignore that Chavez uses the Military to squash any opposition. But again I forget, you only see what you want to see.
You’re getting funny and you also seem to be mistaking me for another poster.
The OAS was unanimous in its decision. I guess Mexico, Canada and the US really are socialist countries in your world view.
From BBC:
The Guardian:
Not exactly the actions of a legitimate regime with massive popular support…
.
tem luz, água e telefone cortados
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."