RSS Feed MenuWhy are the world’s political leaders so intent on returning deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to power?
When the onetime businessman-turned-politician sought to change the constitution to permit him to serve a second term as president, the Supreme Court said no, the attorney general said no, Parliament said no, the army said no, and Zelaya’s own party said no – and they combined to kick him out.
That may not be the way we do it in our democracy, but it seems more democratic than what Mr. Zelaya was trying to do.
The puzzle is why the U.S. and Canada are so concerned.
No one relishes a return to Latin American coups d’etat as a means of changing government, but clearly Zelaya is at odds with the pillars that support Honduras – not usually thought of as one of the world’s rogue states.
Prior to being bounced, polls showed Zelaya’s popularity hovering about 25%, with the country’s murder rate at around 12 per day, mostly drug related. Not bad for a country of 7.6 million people. Journalists critical of his rule have turned up murdered.
The only countries of Latin America poorer than Honduras, are Haiti and Nicaragua - yet Nicaraguan troops are reported to be moving to the border, as if ready to invade and restore Zelaya in the name of democracy.
What nonsense. It’s significant that Zelaya has thrown in with the left. The likes of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Raul Castro are supporters, along with Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega.
Perhaps U.S. President Barack Obama supports Zelaya (or, to be more accurate, deplores the way he was deposed – dumping him in neighboring Costa Rica, clad only in his pajamas) as a gesture towards the left, implying that the U.S. is more sympathetic these days than under past presidents.
Controversy abounds around the Zelaya name. His land-owning father was sentenced to 20 years in prison for the 1975 murder of farmers found dumped in a well on his land, shot with his rifle. Dad was freed on an amnesty in 1980.
If Zelaya were a patriot, and had the interests of his country at heart, you’d think he’d bow to the will of his party, of Congress, the Supreme Court and even the army (whose commander he attempted to fire) and accept the reality of his position.
His gambit for power failed. Back to the drawing board.
Suspending Honduras from the Organization of American States (OAS) serves little purpose, and imposing sanctions even less. Zelaya ignored the advice of Peter Kent, Canada’s minister of state for foreign affairs in charge of the Americas, that the “time is not right” for him to return to Honduras. As a former journalist, one hopes Kent sees the folly of what Zelaya is attempting, and steers Canada away from the issue.
A plane carrying Zelaya was denied landing at the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa – as awkward to spell as it is to pronounce – by soldiers and vehicles on the landing strip. He is not wanted.
The OAS is comprised of states that dread the spectre of those in charge being deposed by the people – or a faction of the people. The OAS prefers the status quo, whatever it is (especially leftist), to radical change.
The interim government in Honduras, led by the Roberto Micheletti, has suggested elections scheduled for Nov. 29 might be held sooner, but remains adamant that Zelaya will be arrested if he returns to Honduras.
The more one looks into the situation, the more one is forced to the conclusion that Honduras has had a bellyful of Manuel Zelaya, and that its future doesn’t include him as president.
ottovbvs // Jul 7, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“The puzzle is why the U.S. and Canada are so concerned.”
……..There’s no puzzle about it. The democratically elected head of a country has been removed without due process in a military coup. If his proposal were rejected they were rejected. Should FDR have been removed when he tried to pack the supreme court or Nixon when he tried to resist the authority of congress. Of course not. This action has been condemned by every member of the OAS even the ones we have good relations with like Colombia and Mexico. The notion that the US should support this action when the principal reason why our prestige and leverage in the hemisphere have been so badly damaged is because of our meddling in the affairs of South American states and supporting previous military coups borders on the deranged. In moral terms we should along with Canada and the rest of the OAS be working to restore Zelaya and in practical terms we have bigger fish to fry than getting into a fight with every other state in the hemisphere over this dispute in a not very important country. There are times when I think the neocon movement and its representatives like Worthington actually want to damage this country. It’s hard to understand what their motivations are.
barker13 // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Otto. You’re confused.
(*SMILE*)
Here… this might help you out:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/07/a_solution_for_the_conflict_in_honduras_97335.html
BILL
Observer // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Agreed.
Worthington, a Canadian, is joining far too many American observers in watching this through hyper-partisan, ideological eyes – not a surprise in his case, but a surprise in many other cases. The simple clearcut answer here is that if the institutions which objected to the referendum for reasons of law wanted to stop or blunt it, there were dozens of remedies with less backfire potential in law available to them to have made their point, and then six months later Zelaya would be retiring and he’d have zero sympathy beyond the support he already had. It’s so typical of conservatives these days to say, hey, the rule of law matters for our opponents, but not in how we oppose them.
And I *actively* hate Chavez and his various latin american allies. But the way to beat them is not to return to the good old Somocista days when the Army was the country and the country’s people were chaff, not least because the best recruiting tool the Left ever had in latin america was the use of the military to resolve one political dispute after another. Do you think most people would have ever even heard of Zelaya in our part of the world if they hadn’t overthrown him? Hell, it would have been easier just to cut off his water and stop paying his bar tab, and probably a hell of a lot more effective.
- Observer
Observer // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Sorry, cross-post. I was agreeing with Otto.
And I still agree with him.
ottovbvs // Jul 7, 2009 at 6:14 pm
observer // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:31 pm
……I’m afraid these neocon folks have absolutely no sense of proportion…….I’m not a fan of Chavez but if you’ve spent any time in these countries and observed the vast disparities in wealth that exist between the oligarchies (most of them propped up for years by the US) and the masses you’d need to be brain dead not to see the appeal of the populists like Chavez who are taking over an increasing number of these states. Unfortunately brain dead is an apt description of too many in the US. We’re supposed to go to war (metaphorically) with every other state in the hemisphere including Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Brazil to justify the removal of this guy by the military. These people are nuts.
barker13 // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:26 pm
……..More evidence of your registered Democratic credentials I see…….a puff piece from a conservative blog……If I’m confused so must be the governments of every state in the Western hemisphere
barker13 // Jul 7, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Re: Observer // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:30 pm –
“…there were dozens of remedies with less backfire potential in law available to them to have made their point…”
Name ‘em. (*SHRUG*)
“Dozens,” huh? Meaning what… two dozen… three dozen…?
Tell ya what… name just a dozen – just twelve. Oh… and cite the actual laws you’ll be quoting from if you don’t mind.
Oh… and if that’s too much work… why not just explain how, why, and where Carlos Alberto Montaner gets it wrong in his op-ed.
I’m serious. (*SHRUG*) I’m not baiting you. I’ll keep an open mind, but I want to hear specifics.
BILL
Observer // Jul 7, 2009 at 11:41 pm
First, the article.
1. Despite the implications of the article, I and most other opponents of the coup who I have met have zero objections to civilian police, the Courts, Congress or anyone else in Honduras arresting him and charging him with crimes he committed while in office. For that matter, since the Honduran Constitution mysteriously lost its impeachment clause several years back, I guess that means they can lay those charges without a special session of Congress or whatever. And since those steps would therefore be an internal matter of law, I suspect my government and yours would have no issue with that either. The question is, why wasn’t that sane and measured step taken before his official residence was seized at gunpoint? And the answer is, because that’s how latin americans are used to resolving their problems. And you know what? That’s gotta stop.
2. The article is wrong in that Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega appear to be the only people (maybe the Cubans, but I haven’t heard of that) who are talking about reinstalling Zelaya by force, and the former has been full of empty bluster before. The article creates a straw man by inferring that doing so is the goal of most or all of the critics of the coup, which is absurd.
3. The article’s solution is also flawed, insofar as it only repeats the error made in the coup itself. Namely, it continues to try to conform the constitution and the government to the political situation, rather than the reverse. As I said above, why is the rule of law so important for Zelaya to respect, but so irrelevant for his critics? The more his critics move beyond the law, the more they implicitly justify Zelaya’s gaming of the system themselves, since one breach of the constitution begets another, and another… Just look at W.
Otherwise, it’s not a bad article. But I don’t see how it’s a sales pitch for the armed forces of any country to suddenly be the law enforcement agency of first resort. And on that point…
Observer // Jul 8, 2009 at 12:18 am
…on that point, I’m trying to find out just who was supposed to be staffing this election once the Air Force had the ballots seized from them by Zelaya’s people; supposedly it would have been the National Statistical Institute of Honduras, but that doesn’t make sense.
Until I have that answer, I can’t round out my dozen.
ottovbvs // Jul 8, 2009 at 10:02 am
observer // Jul 7, 2009 at 11:41 pm
“Otherwise, it’s not a bad article”
……..Montaner is a respected conservative journalist from Cuba. Unfortunately he has a thing about Castro, Chavez and other leftist leaders in SA and has spent years railing against Castro and for the maintenance of embargoes etc. It’s all been a total failure, Castro would have fallen 40 years ago if he’d been embraced rather than turned into boogeyman. And that was said to me by a member of a right wing govt in SA over 20 years ago. At the end of the day this is all very small potatoes and for some crazy reason, most of their reasons are crazy, the neocons want the US to get into a spitting contest with every other country in the hemisphere over it when it’s completely contrary to our national interest. Why one should have to explain this is a mystery but there is no understanding the reasoning processes of committed idealogues.
barker13 // Jul 8, 2009 at 10:19 am
Re: Bbserver // Jul 7, 2009 at 11:41 pm –
“…I and most other opponents of the coup who I have met…”
Question: Are you presently in Honduras? If not, where are you blogging from?
(Hey… I’m in Orange County, NY – but then again I’ve been quite clear on the fact that I’m basing my posts on the news as I’ve been perusing it. I’m neither a “supporter” of the “coup” or an opponent.) (*SHRUG*)
“…I and most other opponents of the coup who I have met have zero objections to civilian police, the Courts, Congress or anyone else in Honduras arresting him and charging him with crimes he committed while in office.”
Well, frankly, that would have been fine with me too… but, again… I’m writing this as an American living in Harriman, NY. (*CHUCKLE*) As previously noted (by me) this whole “exile” thing is a historical part of Central/South American power (oligarchical) politics. For what it’s worth, it does seem preferable to bloody coups with executed former leaders. (*SHRUG*)
“…since the Honduran Constitution mysteriously lost its impeachment clause several years back…”
“Mysteriously…???” Ya wanna flesh that one out for me?
Hey… I’m listening… I’m reading what you have to say. (*SHRUG*) Let’s skip the melodrama and head straight to the skinny on what exactly transpired with regard to why there’s apparently no impeachment mechanism in the present day Honduran constitution. Lay it on me, Observer!
“…since the Honduran Constitution mysteriously lost its impeachment clause several years back, I guess that means they can lay those charges without a special session of Congress or whatever.”
You GUESS…???
“…or WHATEVER…???”
(*CHUCKLE*)
Observer… I’m trying to… er… “work” with you here, but you’re not giving me much to work with. Hey… don’t get me wrong… you have your right to your opinions, but the way you’re going all you’re doing is preaching to the choir. (*SHRUG*) Basically, you’re telling me what you believe, but that’s about it… you’re not advancing your “cause” via evidence nor logic – nor even demonstrating that yours is the “pragmatic” let alone “moral” position.
“…since those steps would therefore be an internal matter of law, I suspect my government and yours…”
So you’re Honduran? Is that correct? Are you presently blogging from within Honduras? Carlos Alberto Montaner cites survey data in his op-ed concerning public opinion within Honduras. Do you have reason (backed by citable data) to doubt Montaner’s portrayal of the public sentiment?
“The article is wrong in that Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega appear to be the only people (maybe the Cubans, but I haven’t heard of that) who are talking about reinstalling Zelaya by force…”
(*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)
Observer. How’s the article (it’s an op-ed actually) “wrong?” You’re saying what Montaner said – except YOU’RE adding the Cubans in. (*SHRUG*) Do you need me to quote…??? OK. Here: “That situation, fanned by Venezuela’s Chávez and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, who are already talking about invasions and resorting to force…”
(*SHRUG*)
“The article creates a straw man by inferring that doing so is the goal of most or all of the critics of the coup…”
OK. If that’s what you took away, that’s what you took away; but I’ve gotta be honest, I didn’t get that “inference.” (Honest difference of opinion.)
“The article’s solution is also flawed…”
That’s your opinion and you’ve every right to it. I simply disagree.
“…it only repeats the error made in the coup itself. Namely, it continues to try to conform the constitution and the government to the political situation, rather than the reverse. As I said above, why is the rule of law so important for Zelaya to respect, but so irrelevant for his critics?”
Fair critique! Fair questions. Thing is… what’s done is done. (*SHRUG*) You can’t undo it; at least I don’t think you can nor would I want Honduras to try since I believe that would lead to worse problems – bloodshed, perhaps even war.
Again, we come to the problem of there (for whatever reason) having been no constitutional mechanism for impeachment. Therefore, the Congress and Supreme Court – acting in unison, in accord – embarked upon a path they “declare” legal. In this they were supported by Honduras’ military. Call it a “coup” if you will, but this certainly wasn’t a “military coup.” If anything – if you’ve gotta use the word coup – it was a “Congressional coup,” a “Supreme Court coup.”
Me? As an American? I believe my country should support the Honduran Congress, Honduran Supreme Court, and Honduran military; I believe that given a choice between these three institutions of Honduran democracy vs. Zelaya… we should go with the former… from what I’ve read they seem to more closely speak for the Will of the People of Honduras.
Anyway, Observer, good chat!
BILL