- ‹ previous
- 132 of 2794
- next ›
Messy but Effective in Honduras
I was on vacation and not watching the news back in June when Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was ousted in a coup. Ever since then 
I've used this as an excuse not to blog about it, since I hadn't really kept up with the twists and turns that got it all started. But today, both sides signed a deal that restored Zelaya to office for the remainder of his term and allowed the scheduled November election to proceed with everyone's blessing. Tim Fernholz comments:
If the election in Honduras goes smoothly — doesn't every foreign-policy article these days include the sentence, "If the election in ________ goes smoothly"? — then Honduras' democratic system will have been reinforced without harsh sanctions, which would mainly affect the people of the state, or military conflict. Affirming democracy in Latin America is a positive step, especially coming from the United States, which does not have a particularly good history in that department. While the White House's domestic opposition will no doubt call this deal a sham or attack the president for helping restore a controversial leader to power, this outcome will likely improve inter-American relations, and that is a win for a relatively green foreign-policy team.
The truth is that I still don't know all the ins and outs of what happened in Honduras and whose side I'm supposed to take. But what I do know is that conservatives came out of the chute almost instantly with demands that the Obama administration adopt the hardest line possible in favor of the coup leaders. This appeared to be for no special reason except that Zelaya was friendly with Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, and to call this idiotic would be an insult to idiots everywhere. Tim is right: the Obama administration's calmer approach was the right one, and messy or not, it helped get the job done in a region where the U.S. is not exactly known for subtlety and respect for local customs. Not bad.
"This appeared to be for no
"This appeared to be for no special reason except that Zelaya was friendly with Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, and to call this idiotic would be an insult to idiots everywhere."
Well, there was another special reason:
Zelaya broke the laws of Honduras and his "ousters" followed the law, removing him from power. Heck, even the UN eventually agreed that removing Zelaya didn't break any Honduran laws.
ha ha
Do you mean the UN that " “condemns the coup d’état in the Republic of Honduras that has interrupted the democratic and constitutional order and the legitimate exercise of power in Honduras.” (General Assembly Resolution 63/301 adopted on 1 July)???
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32543&Cr=honduras&Cr1=
Or are you talking about the United Nutballs? I'm sure *that* UN found it legal.
There was a WIDELY
There was a WIDELY circulated story that the UN ended up condemning it. It was so widely circulated that the UN had to come out and repeat that it stood by it's initial condemnation of the coup. So, you're right, the UN did not decide it was legal.
The military ousted Zelaya
The military ousted Zelaya because he was moving to put aside the restriction on another term - like Chavez. Obviously he has backed down on that - at least temporarily. Both he and the opposition will be looking to control the election.
Maybe you should read more
Maybe you should read more about the subject before writing about it. Everyone from the UN to the Law Library of Congress, which was commissioned to examine the legality of the removal, concluded that removing Zelaya was legal (although kicking him out of the country was not). Now John Kerry is trying to get the Law Library of Congress to retract that report (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1305472.html). Shocking that anybody but Bush would attempt such a feat, right?
I have to admit, this is one of the weirdest things to come out of this White House. The only realistic reason I can think Obama supports this guy is because he issued a public statement very early on, probably when he wasn't aware of what was going on, and is now trying to save face by not having to chance his position.
ho ho hee hee
"Everyone from the UN to the Law Library of Congress"
.. this means just the Law Library of Congress. Because the UN found the coup to be illegal, and there never was anyone or anything *between* the UN and LLC. But if you're idea of discourse is to treat the LLC as infallible, knock yourself out.
"...to call this idiotic
"...to call this idiotic would be an insult to idiots everywhere."
If you have to resort to ad hominem attacks to make your point, you've already lost the argument.
You're the dumbass.
You're the dumbass.
Well, in response to MacG's
Well, in response to MacG's usual nonsense ... "Whoa! Honduran law allows legally removing a naughty president by force and throwing him out of the country? I have always said that politics is a contact sport, but Honduras apparently has taken it to a new level."
Two other things to note:
1) This has been, as far as I could tell, a pure left vs. right power play. Z was trying for a power grab by changing the constitution to get another term, a la Chavez, and the right, especially the U.S. right, pushed back, but they did so mainly because Z is a lefty. For instance, Uribe is trying to do the same thing right now in Colombia, but our brave Democracy defenders on the right have not uttered a single peep about that power grab. I'm sure Uribe's politics has nothing to do with their refusal to defend Colombian democracy.
2) The Obama team played it patiently because they knew how to hit the coup supporters where it hurts. I read that the coup government suddenly became open to talks after the Honduran business elite found themselves unable to enter the U.S. for their business dealings (the U.S. quietly revoked their visas or something like that). And, of course, the coup government jumped when the business elite said, "ouch." Thus, we have today's deal. Democracy saved! .... when you know where to cut off the flow of cash.
Whether you view this as a
Whether you view this as a right or left issue doesn't really matter. What Honduras did was Constitutional. I haven't look at Colombia's constitution, but if what Uribe is doing is unconstitutional, and they can legally throw him out, go nuts Columbia. A further point:
Many people view the political spectrum as linear, with Communism/Socialism on the left and Fascism/Totalitarianism on the right. This is dumb. Hitler was a fascist. Hitler was also a "liberal". The political spectrum is circular, and Communism (in execution, not in theory) and Fascism sit right next to each other, not on opposite ends. When you put a few guys in charge who have the power to deny citizens their rights, it doesn't matter if they campaigned on a "liberal" or "conservative" platform, and to oppose or support them on such grounds is downright stupid.
Not everything the Hondurans
Not everything the Hondurans military/right did was constitutional. Removal is one thing. Throwing him over the border was not constitutional.
It Might Work
The Administration's solution isn't bad - providing Zelaya loses and then leaves. Otherwise, the likelihood of another irregular removal is high. And the next time it might be legal.
Those in loudest agreement with our Administration have been the Castros, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega. Just days ago, Ortega packed his supreme court with Sandinistas who promptly ruled in favor of his request to lift term limits on the El Salvadoran presidency. Soon, we'll be able to welcome President-for-Life Ortega, though he probably won't call himself that for another two or three terms.
The Honduran people might have cause to wonder just what principle the US is supporting.
Ortega's Nicaragua. ..... As
Ortega's Nicaragua. ..... As someone has already noted, the right certainly is not immune to this "president for life" trend (see, Colombia). But you can blame Chavez for giving people on the left and the right the big idea. And even the U.S. right tried to make Reagan president for life. Luckily for us, our Constitution is still the best (partly because it's so difficult to amend). USA! USA! USA!
Obama didn't support Z as
Obama didn't support Z as much as he was against a military coup. He may have been overly sensitive because of the U.S.-backed attempted coup against Chavez years ago. But the Obama team evidently made its mark behind the scenes, which I think has been a hallmark of its foreign policy so far, as with Iran, etc. (This, of course, drives the media and the right crazy because not having a blustering foreign policy gives them little to work with. Quiet effectiveness is just no fun.)
The problem is, both the UN
The problem is, both the UN and the Congressional Law Library agreed that removing Zelaya was perfectly LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL. I can see no justification for supporting Zelaya and putting him back on that chair except as prompted by some perverse sort of guilt for earlier, ill-considered actions toward Latin America.
The fact of the matter is, on pure merits, Zelaya's side was just being a mob. They don't have the UN and Congressional Law Library reports on their side. They were the ones breaking the law, and rightfully removed therefore.
I dare you to somehow assert your own judgment of the Honduran constitution as being somehow superior to that of the UN and the Congressional Law Library. Try.
The ouster may have been
The ouster may have been legal, the forced exile was not. I'm just guessing here, but they probably decided to break the law by tossing him out because him staying in the country might resulted in violence by his supporters (and that idiot Z might well have enouraged it). .... Today's deal, if it holds, pays a small price for avoiding a possible civil war (or a massacre of Z's people by the military). As someone else noted here, what happens now is both sides try to get "their people" elected. If Z had any brains, he only had to have a buddy run with his backing to "keep power." Worked in Russia. And isn't there a South American country (Argentina?) where the wife ran and was elected after the hubby's terms ran out. That's how you do it.
Kevin represents the finest
Kevin represents the finest in Orange County and Bay Area MoJo progressive reasoning. I think you should reconsider your demand.
On the Difference...
"Uribe is trying to do the same thing right now in Colombia, but our brave Democracy defenders on the right have not uttered a single peep about that power grab. I'm sure Uribe's politics has nothing to do with their refusal to defend Colombian democracy."
__________________
Ah, where would the Left be without moral equivalency, even if it doesn't apply? No need to provide evidence that Uribe is doing anything illegal, just assert that he is equally bad. Likewise, just simply accuse anyone on the Right of supporting "their" man, regardless of circumstance or events.
When in doubt or in the wrong, snark and accuse the other side of doing the same thing. And they wonder why regular folk don't trust them.
Who said they were equally
Who said they were equally bad? I wouldn't try to guess if Z or Uribe has been the better president for their people. I just know that both men have made a power grab by trying to amend the constitution like it was written in pencil. Both men are wrong to do so. I'm not commenting on their policies, just the power grabs. But only the lefty gets condemnation from the right, and I'm darn sure they wouldn't back a coup against Uribe. I haven't heard the U.S. left rushing to condemn Uribe's power grab (especially since he's an ally in the drug fight) or flying down to Colombia for showy news conferences with his foes (as conservative U.S. congresspeople did with Honduras. Those U.S. lawmakers made their support for the coup very clear.)
Not El Salvado
Yep, my error. Ortega's in Nicauragua.
This only works if Zelaya's
This only works if Zelaya's side loses the next election, as both the UN and the Law Library of Congress have deemed him to be a crook deserving to be removed. If his side winds then we have a huge constitutional problem blowing up in our faces, as then it would then be vindication for opening flouting fundamental constitutionalism (democracy does not factor into this; this is about respecting constitutional rule.)
Allowing Z back into the
Allowing Z back into the country but not letting him run again is vindication enough for democracy and rule of law. But if the people elect a Z ally, there is no constitutional problem unless the ally also does something illegal. (I'm, of course, assuming a fair election, which may be a big assumption.)
Frankly, I expect Zelaya's
Frankly, I expect Zelaya's mob (and it's a mob, make no mistake) to try to stack the scales in the election via force and coercion, and given the prior history of involvement in the region, for the U.S. to not make a peep. And let's not even mention the Latin American countries, who would only be too happy (hello, Brazil, sheltering a persona non grata inside its embassy in Honduras?)
What the hell is going on in this thread?
Geez, if I hear "Law Library of Congress" one more time....
It's time for all the playfighting wingnuts who are trying to decide whether the coup was legal or really legal to put up or shut up: show us where in the Honduran Constitution it is legal for the military to take it upon itself to remove the President. This is not a question as to whether Zelaya broke any laws-- it's what would be a legal method of removing him.
How about you point to the
How about you point to the spot in the U.S. Constitution where it says how exactly a President is to be removed from power if he has been impeached and convicted but refuses to step down. I'll wait.
I just looked through the Hondurian Constitution and didn't see anything that says the military has the power to physically oust him (just as ours doesn't...), if the Supreme Court says it's legal. But, who the hell else is going to do it if he refuses to step down? Is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court going to march into his office and ask him to leave? The military didn't "take it upon itself" to remove him.
No legal authority
The Honduran Supreme Court did not order his removal, they did issue orders countermanding some of his orders, and these were executed by the military. The Congress voted for his removal *after* the coup.
The nature of government
The nature of government authority is that it relies on a monopoly of force to enforce that authority. That is to say, court decisions and constitutional evaluations are to be backed up, ultimately and if necessary, without the force of arms. Otherwise they have no force.
Which is exactly what happened in the case of Honduras, where Zelaya refused to relinquish office despite and after both the Supreme Court and the legislature have banished him therefrom.
What the hell is going on in
What the hell is going on in this thread?
Well, looks like a conversation, a dialogue to me. I know that discomfits you, but the Law Library of Congress says that dialogues are good things in general, and fuck the people who try to shout them down and shut them down.
Better informed coverage and commentary is available
The two blogs I read that have been closely covering the situation in Honduras are Nell Lancaster's A Lovely Promise and the group blog Mercury Rising
Both are written by people with actual knowledge of Honduras and of the course of events since the coup.
You will no doubt be surprised to learn that neither blog agree with MacGruber or James2 about much of anything.
I will say that this is one
I will say that this is one of the weirdest news stories I've ever heard. Pretty much everything coming out of every news outlet in this country points to the conclusion that kicking Z out was perfectly legal, but Obama condemns it anyway? Immediately my WTF radar goes off, thinking there has to be something else going on that we don't know about.
I just perused your link to A Lovely Promise, which indicates that "something else" is the total lack of involvement form Z's supporters, which indicates why the "transition was so smooth", as that blogger put it. But, why is there ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage of any of this in the mainstream media (including the foreign press)? It makes me seriously quesiton "A Lovely Promise" (so does the fact that it's written by some Virginian non-profit worker... where is he getting all of this from?)
Call it the 'X' factor
"Immediately my WTF radar goes off, thinking there has to be something else going on that we don't know about."
There always is something else going on that most of us never know about. That's why we'd do well to hedge any 'conclusions' we may come to on this - or any other issue - with a huge, all-purpose, one-size-fits-all caveat.
$0.02
I tried buying underwear
I tried buying underwear from Hanes Place and haneswear, and the elastic straps didn't agree with me either.
So what's your point?
MacGruder is an internet
MacGruder is an internet troll in the traditional sense, - he enjoys saying outrageous things simply to try to provoke a response.
James2, on the other hand, is a very odd duck. His explanations for things are nearly always 180 degrees out of whack. Frankly I've never seen 'reasoning' like his before, but I mostly hang around with people who use the 'start with facts and reach a conclusion' process. James2 seems to start with the conclusion and then use whatever twisted explanations as are necessary to try to show that the facts supposedly support his conclusion. This process leads to some very odd contortions on his part.
Personally I ignore MacGruder and initially assume James2 is wrong, and then amend that in the odd case where he is actually right.
Tripp
I frankly think sets a
I frankly think sets a terrible precedent, of telling left-wing rulers in Latin America with authoritarian/totalitarian itches (hello Ortega) that they have nothing to worry from shredding the constitution and openly flouting constitutional strictures on populist politics.
authoritarian/totalitarian itches?
The American Right has no problem with *outright dictators*, though-- because those guys are on the right. In fact, we have a long and storied history of supporting their murderous coups and helping them torture and kill those who resist them. But try to insist on "no coups" when the oligarchs try to take back power, and all of a sudden we're setting "a terrible precedent."
Nice values, there.
Your argument is logically
Your argument is logically flawed as it assumes the guy you're responding to held the same views against the prior coups. You seem to be arguing: we fucked up then for bad reasons, we're fucking up now for different bad reasons, why are you against us fucking up now for different bad reasons when other people were against us for fucking up for the original bad reasons. Your hatred of us fucking up marks you as a right wing conversanut hypocrite.
We're fucking America, goddam it, and as we're guilty as sin, we need to now fuck up but for different bad reasons that our original ones.
That's just an American exceptionalism contra-inverse argument.
reading comprehension - needs improvement
That wasn't an argument.
In fact, we have a long and
Like in, say, Honduras?
I have to say that I'm impressed at the discipline shown by the "baffle them with bullshit" crowd. The messaging has been pretty consistent, if self-serving, in insisting that Zelaya had committed acts that justified his removal from office, and that the military properly removed him *before* the legislature's totally valid post-facto legalization of the coup.
Even the libs at Daily Kos
Even the libs at Daily Kos admit the coup was legal:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/1/748843/-Honduran-coup:-legal-but-...
They're libtards, not
They're libtards, not hipsters like you and I. Why would you believe them and not calling all toasters?
That Kos post makes a very
That Kos post makes a very weird statement. "Legal but democratically illegitimate"? What the fuck does that mean? When Bush won the Presidency in 2000 via the Electoral College but lost the popular vote, was he "democratically illegitimate"?
From my reading of the Kos
From my reading of the Kos article (which is 3 months out of date), the army had the proper forms, submitted and stamped by a legitimate authority, instructing them to detain Zelaya.
That doesn't mean, though, that the authority in question legitimately issued those instructions.
I don't know. Zelaya lost
I don't know. Zelaya lost most of the rest of his term and will be hamstrung. He effectively ceased being president since the coup which was the ultimate goal. So I'm not sure how much consolation this is.
Full Disclosure: I tentatively supported the coup as the legislature and judiciary seemed to be unanimously in favor of it. If you have three branches and two seem to be doing everything in their power to attack the third, I generally assume the third branch is at fault.