« $1 A Day -- to Not Get Pregnant and Money for College? | coonsey's Blog | Soldiers are Dying or Gettine Hurt: While We Discuss What they Can and Cannot Do Socially? »
Honduras vs Iran?
I need to be educated a bit over the situation i Honduras and the one in Iran.
President Jose Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, who was ousted in a military-led coup this past week is being supported by President Obama. The U.S. is supporting 'his' protesters and against the citizens that removed him from office, saying that Zelaya must be reinstated as the Democratly elected leader; but in Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was also Democratically elected (even though we all know the election was rigged) but the U.S. is standing with the protesters against Ahmadinejad's regime saying that the citizens wishes must be heard.
In one country we feel the right to intervine but in the other we don't?
Can somebody tell me what is the difference between the two nations events and why we feel we can step in on one but not the other?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing anybody - just asking for information.
President Jose Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, who was ousted in a military-led coup this past week is being supported by President Obama. The U.S. is supporting 'his' protesters and against the citizens that removed him from office, saying that Zelaya must be reinstated as the Democratly elected leader; but in Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was also Democratically elected (even though we all know the election was rigged) but the U.S. is standing with the protesters against Ahmadinejad's regime saying that the citizens wishes must be heard.
In one country we feel the right to intervine but in the other we don't?
Can somebody tell me what is the difference between the two nations events and why we feel we can step in on one but not the other?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing anybody - just asking for information.
Advertisement
I'm not sure how much we've intervened in either case. I don't think making statements has all that much effect, especially in Iran, where President Obama has condemned the abuses, but not as strongly as some want.
In Honduras we may take steps to isolate (in other words, intervene) against those that removed Zelaya. The inter-American democracy charter is part of the OAS and only countries with democratic governments are supposed to be allowed (so no Cuba). Obama has also condemned the coup and we may take coordinated steps with our neighbors (like withdrawing ambassadors, etc.) The irony is that it appears Zelaya has been removed by the Army and others to protect democracy there, although the coup itself is a very anti-democratic action that will weaken democracy. I haven't followed Honduras closely, but in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia authoritarian leaders have been elected by the people and then used the very instruments of democracy, i.e. constitutions, congress and referenda to erode democracy and civil liberties.
On Iran, the idea of calling it democratic is a joke. While he was 'elected' the first time, Ahmadinejad's recent 'victory,' was stolen which is quite ironic in that the authorities there were able to decide who runs for office, who votes, what newspapers and media say, and station armed thugs on the street. But they still found it necessary to steal the election. Elections don't make a democracy. In the case of Iran they are just a facade.
Whatever we think of Zelaya, the U.S. government recognizes his last election, and not the coup, which is why we support his reinstatement.
The U.S. government also recognizes Ahmadinejad's last election ('05), but wants to wait for all the facts to present themselves in this one, especially considering the abnormalities and violence. The U.S. stance on Iran has actually been more concerned with the violence against protesters and media restrictions than making a statement about the election results.
June 30, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but this is stupid.
US Government wants a re-instatment of a future Honduran Chavez/Ahmadinejad wannabe because we don't recognize a "coup" as a form of democratic process and only an election?
But in Iran, even while the election as you say was a joke, US Government actually recognized Ahmadinejad in 05. (And we now pretend that we reserve the right pending the results, or something)?
Conclusion: we don't care what you do as long as you pretend to hold an election.
Either there is a scary obsession with formalistic process, or a double-standard driven by geography, or a total lack of coherent foreign policy.
OR all of the above.
June 30, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well it might be a little premature to label Zelaya a Chavez protege. He's shown sympathies and apparently State had been counseling him about anti-democratic moves. Unfortunately, even if other countries want to screw themselves up (like Venezuela) that should probably be their right or else we end up in a situation like Iraq.
I haven't researched this, but while Honduras is not a perfectly functioning democracy I don't think there was any doubt about Zelaya's election being considered "free and fair" by independent nat'l and int'l observors (which Iran doesn't allow). So even if he's still not a good guy, he got in democratically and should be voted out, not removed.
Ahmadinejad was elected in '05 and it wasn't disputed, so why shouldn't the int'l community have 'recognized' him then as the President? I guess I can see why there is frustration and confusion on this issue.
As far as us recognizing...I'm not sure how to phrase that since we don't have formal relations with Iran anyway. But, it'd be a hard pill to swallow to plan our future engagement through a 'president' who not only stole the election, but doesn't have any influence anyway (cuz Khamenei controls everything).
Conclusion: we don't care what you do as long as you pretend to hold an election. Either there is a scary obsession with formalistic process, or a double-standard driven by geography, or a total lack of coherent foreign policy
It's hard not to disagree with what you're saying. There is an obsession with process and look where that has gotten us in Iraq and Afghanistan. What if our version of democracy is not the best system for some countries? Is the type of benevolent authoritarianism in Morocco and Singapore not better than the great majority of semi-functioning and pretender democracies all over the world?
Or maybe, when we talk to Afghanistan and others we should't say you need to change your system, 'you need to be democratic'; but rather you need to change your practices 'like shooting women in the stadium.'
June 30, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to say it's hard to disagree with your conclusions.
June 30, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concede your point about premature assessment of Zelaya, despite indications and evidence so far.
But I also believe that as long as we choose to have a foreign policy that allows any kind of political alliances or intereference, it is wrong to stick to the formalism of the process selectively or apply moral judgement only when it's suitable to us.
If you strip the two issues to their core, you have a potentially oppressive leader in each country trying to rig the system to his advantage, both in Honduras and in Iran.
In Honduras, Obama took state action immediately; in Iran it took days of pressure for him to act.
In my view, the difference in our action is likely to be explained by the fact that in Honduras you have a left-leaning president and in Iran you have a right-leaning president.
June 30, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll disagree with you about the "core." Iran is not "potentially" oppressive, its government is basically the Evil Empire, totally rotten to the core. What we have there is not only the stealing of an election (though not as significant since their prez is a figurehead anyway), but also the shooting and beating of peaceful protesters, total restriction of press and summary arrests. It's quite disgusting, but not surprising given the nature of that regime. Obama has moderately condemned it. Would a stronger condemnation have done anything: no! Though, it may have played into the ayatollahs' hands. Some have brought up Hungary '56, which this is not since the Hungarians were opposing occupying foreigners, which applies to neither Iran nor Honduras. We also should not overstate our ability to affect change.
Honduras is different. Again, whatever we think of Zelaya, he was elected. Now there is this story about his arrest being ordered by their Supreme Court. If this is affirmed then so be it. I wouldn't overstate the similarities to Iran since people aren't being shot in the streets and they don't seem to have the same massive protests. Also being removed by the military is quite different than a popular revolution--that's not to say the military isn't fulfilling the popular will, but we just don't know.
The real issue here is that we're trying not to be embarrassed here as we were with the short-lived coup against Chavez in '02(?). I can't argue with the justification for removing Chavez (who was eroding democracy by democratic means), but in the end that move was not sustained by the Venezuelan masses or institutions. It was a failure and it made us look bad. It's a fact that Chavez is one of the 2 most unpopular leaders in Latin America, but that does not mean Latin Americans want the U.S. to remove him.
We're doing the smart thing now by letting the facts play out and adhering to the Inter-American democratic clause. Trust me when I say that Chavez is further alienating himself at home and abroad with all his bluster, warmongering and conspiracy theories. Just cuz he won the right to stand for election again does not mean he will be reelected again. And because of how Obama and Clinton have conducted themselves everyone is seeing the total fallacy in everything Chavez alleges.
As far as the left/right thing, I think the labels are kind of silly. Wasn't Iran going left when it threw out the Shah, but now it's right? Zimbabwe is left and I don't think we've let up on them. Though, our very tough love treatment of our friends in Colombia definitely supports your point. And as a strong Democrat, I've never understood why we love to hate Uribe, a flawed leader, but still a great friend and one who has done great things for his country.
June 30, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But I also believe that as long as we choose to have a foreign policy that allows any kind of political alliances or intereference, it is wrong to stick to the formalism of the process selectively or apply moral judgement only when it's suitable to us." Lalo35
A political alliance or any political interference is FOR the purpose of creating an outcome that is seen as favorable to our interests and is therefore "suitable" to us. Thus, such interference will be selectively applied.
An evenhanded morality applied to our international politics would most often disallow any interference.
June 30, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was the point. I'm glad you're pointing the continuing truth of our foreign policy.
June 30, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point that I was stressing is that if our government is going to act politically to affect the actions of other governments we cannot expect them to use a consistent standard, something you seemed to be calling for. Unfortunately, we cannot, based on history, expect them to necessarily act wisely or rationaly either.
June 30, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Obama's point in both cases is that the rule of law must prevail and that the succession of power must be legitimate. To support one ruler vs another simply because of ideology would be to weaken the U.S. hand in all cases.
June 30, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rule of law and freedom of speech...legit elected officials --not appointed fraudulentlly...Then there are the HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES!!!In Iran....
Honduras used a dictator tactic to remove an elected official...which after some thought, may be exactly what the clerics and the runt did in Iran!
June 30, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another similar question about the ones protesting in Iran and Honduras.
Iran: Obama said the government/leaders should LISTEN to their constituents (the leaders work FOR them)
Honduras: Obama said to IGNORE the constituents (the ones that are part of coup).
How does that compute?
Each group are a set of constituents (whether right or wrong with their political desires).
June 30, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coonsey - Is this really what he said? Or is this your paraphrase to fit a preconceived idea.
I would say calling a military coup illegal is not the same as saying ignore the constituents.
June 30, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Military and the Supreme Court, no?
June 30, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
An informative read:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1907600,00.html
A money quote:
As someone who has a bit of experience in Central America, military coups, CIA and United Fruit compliance and interference I think we are striking the right balance for a change.
June 30, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting how people like you insist on ignoring absolutely everything else and focus on the "military".
"A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder" (Wikipedia)
Or, one rival removing another from power.
Where exactly is that taking place in Honduras?
June 30, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF! The only reason I am focusing on the military is that it was the military that removed him.
And please explain to what the hell people like me means what are people like me like?
June 30, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who else do you could have removed him?????
The judges from the SC in their robes? The congressmen themselves with their bare hands?
June 30, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another similar question about the ones protesting in Iran and Honduras.
Iran: Obama said the government/leaders should LISTEN to their constituents (the leaders work FOR them)
Honduras: Obama said to IGNORE the constituents (the ones that are part of coup).
How does that compute?
Each group are a set of constituents (whether right or wrong with their political desires).
June 30, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't understand the difference between an election and a military coup; maybe you should leave foreign policy out of your repertoire.
June 30, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should, instead.
Honduran Congress appointed an interim president from the same party as Zelaya, Honduran Supreme Court agreed with Congress and the military - all AFTER Zelaya insisted on a referendum that had been ruled unconstitutional.
Of course it was all about the ability of a President to get elected.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/28/AR2009062801569.html
June 30, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no lack of understanding the these situations and the comparison of one to the other.
One involves an election the other is a military coup. Anyone passing judgment on this post should be able to recognize the difference.
It is my belief that your ideological bearing is clouding the issues.
June 30, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would it be considered a coup if a large group of American citizens for the sake of their nation (in their view - right or wrong) to take up arms and remove the current leadership? Isn't that one reason for the right to bare arms in our Constitution?
I am NOT trying to cause problems or call for one. Just asking questions and hopefully getting educated doing so.
June 30, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing anybody - just asking for information
This should help:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/artappraiser/2009/06/honduras.php#comment-3513104
After you read it you might have a better idea of whether you want to criticize or support.
June 30, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
So could this:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/06/29/fetishizing-the-presidency.aspx
June 30, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
much more on Obama's policy and strategy today, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/world/americas/01venez.html?ref=todayspaper
July 1, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So while we wince at the image of soldiers kidnapping a president, it's important to recognize that the move against Zelaya was, if not strictly speaking constitutional, certainly institutional."
This is from your linked article at TNR.
It would seem that the people who perpetrated the coup acted outside their constitutional mandate. That might be fine with the Bush/Cheney administration and their acolytes; but, that's not "how we roll" around here. At least not anymore!
June 30, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, calling this a "military coup" is just plain inaccurate. It wasn't the military that removed him. It was the Supreme Court. The military acted pursuant to a decision made by the Supreme Court to remove the President, they did not initiate the action. The legislature then almost unanimously endorsed the move and elected an interim president. The nation has elections scheduled for November of this year.
I have NEVER heard of such an arc for a military coup. If you can find one, I'd love to see the precedent.
The question in my mind is: if the Judiciary and Legislature can not act to remove the Executive - it's pretty difficult to argue they have a system of checks and balances. What *is* the law for removing the President in Honduras, and in exactly what way was the process deficient? I think if that question could be answered, I'd feel better about restoring a guy into power who recently formed a mob to overrun an air force base in defiance the seemingly lawful decision of the Supreme Court (and likely many Honduran trespassing and security laws) - over the protests of the entire elected government of Honduras.
June 30, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's the crux of the matter.
Tanks in the streets and exile to Costa Rica sounds extreme.
But ultimately, how much physical force is permitted to prevent a President from acting unconstitutionally? If the Supreme Court rules the President acted illegally and the President continues in that conduct, is it impermissible for the police to detain him until the proceedings to remove him from office are complete (assuming there is such a procedure in the Honduran Constitution)?
June 30, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was the military that removed him. They acted outside of their constitutional mandate. Why does Honduras have a constitution or elections?
July 1, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You guys have made some VERY GOOD points and taught me a lot. I'm still confused however, but that's cause I'm a little slow...LOL
I just hope we we follow LuLu's advice:
"But I also believe that as long as we choose to have a foreign policy that allows any kind of political alliances or intereference, it is wrong to stick to the formalism of the process selectively or apply moral judgement only when it's suitable to us." Lalo35
A political alliance or any political interference is FOR the purpose of creating an outcome that is seen as favorable to our interests and is therefore "suitable" to us. Thus, such interference will be selectively applied.
An evenhanded morality applied to our international politics would most often disallow any interference."
June 30, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink