The Honduran “Coup”: Obama Sides with Chavez and Castro

The military intervention in Honduras last Sunday was democratic.  The military expelled President Manuel Zelaya on orders from the Supreme Court and a unanimous Congress.  The military then immediately returned executive power to Roberto Micheletti, the then president of the Honduran Congress and member of the same party as Zelaya.  Both the judiciary and legislature remain intact.

The military intervention was precipitated by Zelaya’s refusal to halt a referendum on constitutional change, an act that had not been countenanced by Congress and was declared illegal by the courts.  When the military refused to help Zelaya strong arm the referendum he sacked the joint-chiefs-of-staff chairman, General Romeo Vasquez, and resolved to ride a wave of popular enthusiasm to the polls (or so he thought).

In sum, the military, obeying a judicial order, averted a serious crisis by removing Zelaya from power because he was unconstitutionally overriding legislation passed by Congress, ignoring Supreme Court rulings and illegally dismissing the head of the armed forces.

These facts are being ignored by the Obama administration.  President Obama has joined Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez, amongst other paragons of Latin American democracy, in condemning the “coup” as illegal and demanding the return of Zelaya to power.  The Obama administration even co-authored the UN criticism of Honduras, taking the lead in the international arena in a way that it recently found itself too timid to do in Iran.

Most troubling is Obama’s failure to separate Micheletti from the true despots and democratic frauds in the region.  The events in Honduras need to be considered in the context of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), or, more accurately, the Venezuelan led anti-American coalition including Cuba, Bolivia, Dominica, Nicaragua and Honduras.  Hugo Chávez was democratically elected in 1998; however he has since devolved into the region’s most destructive despot: eliminating democratic institutions, fueling corruption and crime, and even sponsoring Colombian terrorists.  Chávez packed the Venezuelan Supreme Court with allies in 2004 and has systematically corrupted the Venezuelan National Assembly.  Just as Zelaya was attempting to do, Chávez changed the Venezuelan Constitution by referendum to extend his term limit this year.

In 2005, Chávez funded Zelaya’s campaign and helped him win the presidency.  In 2008, Zelaya directed Honduras to join ALBA.  As a member of ALBA, Zelaya has been increasingly hostile to US initiatives, and, most recently, Zelaya delayed accepting the credentials of the new US ambassador.  Unsurprisingly, Zelaya is accused of drug ties.  The Honduran foreign minister, Enrique Ortez, reported yesterday, “Every night, three or four Venezuelan-registered planes land without the permission of appropriate authorities and bring thousands of pounds [of cocaine]… and packages of money that are the fruit of drug trafficking.”

On the whole, Obama has handed Chávez and his ALBA cronies a political victory by failing to recognize Honduras as a champion of democracy.  Instead of slipping into the autocratic grip of Chávez’s influence, Honduran democracy prevailed by asserting strong and independent judicial and legislative processes.  Obama should be praising Honduran democracy, not chastising it.   In the case that Zelaya does return to Honduras as acting President, the Obama administration will have succeeded in promoting a rabid enemy of US foreign policy.

Supporters of Obama’s approach will argue that he is shoring up democratic rule, setting precedent against military intervention, and avoiding historical angst; however this is shallow logic.  The era of military coups has been succeeded by the current era of rigged Constitutions and strong-handed despots.  In Honduras, as in Iran, a little more backbone would be nice to see from the Obama administration.