Two Coups, and a Cuckoo Condemnation of Obama
The New York Times is currently hosting a thunderous editorial by Mark Weisbrot about Barack Obama's "failure" in Latin America. Obama has done "worse than Bush." Hopes have been dashed!
The occasion of this over-the-top indictment is the military coup which overthrew President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras on June 28, 2009. According to the Times editorial, President Obama should have condemned this coup immediately! Immediately!
Instead he waited almost a week.
Unthinkable!
Subsequently, President Obama has continued to express his support for President Zelaya on every possible occasion, as recently as Monday, August 10th...
"President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president and, for the sake of the Honduran people, democratic and constitutional order must be restored," Obama said during a summit with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
But "nobody was fooled," says Mark Weisbrot in the New York Times.
Fooled about what?
Apparently if President Obama had really wanted to put Manuel Zelaya back in the Presidential Palace in Tegucigalpa, he would have cancelled the visas of the coup's leadership!
No more vacations in Miami!
And what about reports that Obama has already cancelled their visas?
Not good enough!
The State Department cancelled five diplomatic visas of members of the coup government, but they can still enter the United States with a normal visa -- so this gesture had no effect.
No effect! All those generals can still shop in Miami!
And what has Obama been saying about all these terrible accusations?
"I can't push a button and suddenly reinstate Mr. Zelaya."
This is probably true, "but he hasn't pushed the buttons that he has at his disposal, such as freezing the U.S. assets of the coup leaders, or (here we go again!) canceling their visas," says Mark Weisbrot.
Push those buttons, Mr President! Push every button on your desk! Push that big red button and see what happens!
Meanwhile, back in Tegucigalpa, the "constitutional government" which the coup overthrew wasn't exactly constitutional.
"We will not obey the Supreme Court," the president told cheering supporters in front of the presidential offices."The court, which only imparts justice for the powerful, the rich and the bankers, only causes problems for democracy," he said.
Mr. Zelaya was determined to organize a sort of referendum during the next election cycle, and it wasn't only the courts which had declared his referendum illegal.
On Tuesday (June 23, 2009), the Honduran Congress passed a law that appeared to block these plans. The new bill prevents the holding of referendums or plebiscites 180 days before or after general elections.
Damn the courts! Damn the Congress! L'état, c'est moi!
But the army overthrew Manuel Zelaya before Manuel Zelaya could overthrow the courts, constitution, and Congress of Honduras, and...
Barack Obama waited almost a week before calling for the restoration of President Zelaya, and that was "a clear example of Obama's failure in the hemisphere," according to Mark Weisbrot in the New York Times.
Hemispheric failure! Worse than Bush! Hopes were dashed!
And so on.
How is it a 'coup' for the Supreme Court to rule the President in violation of the constitution, the Congress to vote nearly unanimously to remove him from office, and the military, being ordered by the Congress and the court, to escort him out of the country? Zelaya violated the laws of his country and he was legally removed from power. Why the hell is Obama supporting him, at all? Other than he is a fellow leftist.
August 12, 2009 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Congress and courts in Honduras can't order the army to do anything, any more than the Congress and courts in the United States can give orders to the army.
The function of giving orders to the army belongs exclusively to the executive branch.
The army can claim that they were protecting the courts or Congress, but only on their own "authority," which is probably going to be a misnomer no matter how you use it in this case.
The Honduran Supreme Court effectively declared that Zelaya was no longer President of Honduras because of his illegal attempt to amend the Constitution, so you might conceivably claim that the army removed Mr. Zelaya from the Presidential Palace for trespassing.
As a high crime or misdemeanor, this has to rank somewhere around getting a blow-job in the Oval Office.
August 12, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Rutabaga, it ranks with Bush v. Gore - General Romeo said so himself when asked if there was any precedent for the coup. It just so happens that unlike the Yanks, the Honduran street is not accepting this lying down.
Personally, I think that you need to acknowledge "why" folks are jumping Obama on this issue. It's because the people of Honduras are being shot, arrested, clubbed, disappeared and kidnapped murdered by the recently resurrected "Death lists" and "Death Squads." The popular perception is that every time Washington waffles, there is an escalation of repression from the golpistas. This is why the so-called "critics" of the administration are asking for more proactive sanctions against the coup government.
And President Zelaya is not a lefty. The "Liberal Party" of Honduras is clearly center right, and the National Party, the other dominant party, is further right. The political left in Hoduras is barely represented in congress by 3 or 4 members. Why Zelaya decided to push modest populist measures that were against the interests of the Honduran oligarchy is up for speculation - but one possibility is that he genuinely believed that the huge Honduran underclass, 70% living below the "bread basket" poverty line, deserved a break.
Finally, the Supreme Court. Why assume that the Honduran judiciary is a functional, even "democratic" institution? One central issue in the constitutional reform movement is to completely change the way judges and magistrates are selected and appointed, for example. But at least look at the assessment of the Honduran judiciary by the International Commission of Jurists.
http://www.icj.org/news_multi.php3?id_groupe=2&id_mot=413&lang=en
August 12, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
But in this instance, the the legal procedure that led up to Zelaya's was so solidly grounded in Honduran law that the only analogy to Bush v. Gore is that some people don't accept it as correct. There was no "gray" area being interpreted, the laws are pretty much black-and-white.
Because up until Zelaya disagreed with them, he accepted a position in the government that recognized the constitutional system as valid - and even took an oath to uphold it; including recognition of the judiciary?August 12, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
How would you know that it misrepresents Romeo's statement? It actually isn't his statement (I'll concede that point) but rather a statement in the Honduran Armed Forces Statement (which Romeo commands)
On page 10, and please advise me on how I am misrepresenting anything.
August 12, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually not exactly right. The constitution of Honduras actually does allow the courts to order the Military under certain circumstances.
On June 25, the Public Prosecutor referred a complaint to the Supreme Court. I don't have my notes handy, but essentially it was determined that the head of the national police, under the direct command of Zelaya, was acting on his behalf and therefore could not be counted on to carry out the court orders. So the court invoked its authority to enlist the help of the security forces.
The arrest order was issued on the 26th for a bevy of crimes and Zelaya was not technically removed from office until the 28th. Then he was remanded to the Penal Courts on the 29th by the supreme court as a private citizen.
Again, that's from memory, but that's the essence of it.
August 12, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, and a very late addition to this thread, I just came back to say thanks for your many intelligent comments on my diary, kgb999!
August 13, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlike our extraordinary renditions and our removing Aristide from the country, this move by the coup leaders seemed more simply a welcome substitute for the traditional custom "let's play piñata with the former head of state down the capitol steps" with a quick exit cross the border where he wasn't strung up. I actually sympathize with Obama on this one - his loyal fans have a knee-jerk reaction to all things Latino, and any friend of Chavez's becomes a friend of theirs. Of course I thought Bush's attempt to remove the democratically elected Chavez another blunder of extreme proportions, but that doesn't mean Zelaya unilaterally altering the Constitution is the appropriate continuation of power. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Good time Charlie's got the bluez.
August 12, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might as well reply to kgb999 and neoboho together, since both sets of objections are thoughtful and (almost) right on the money, and neither set exactly addresses anything in my diary.
Yes indeed, Honduras is junk from top to bottom, the murder capital of Central America, and not much more than one jump away from turning into just another narco-state like Colombia.
None of this misery is relevant to the question of constitutional government per se.
You and I may not like the outcome of constitutional government in Honduras, and the average Honduran may not like it either, but Zelaya had violated the most heavily protected constitutional principle of the Honduran Constitution, which is a one-term limit for the Presidency, and it's written in stone in one of only 6 or 7 clauses in the Constitution which cannot be amended by a simple 2/3 majority in Congress.
At this point Zelaya's government was no longer a constitutional government, and according the the simplest reading of the Honduran Constitution, which is also endorsed by the Honduran Supreme Court, Zelaya ceased to be President as soon as he attempted to hold a referendum to extend his term.
I didn't claim that Honduras wouldn't be better off if Zelaya overthrew the constitution... merely that he was in the process of overthrowing it.
About the meaning of "security forces" in kgb999's citation, my interpretation comes from an excellent article in La Tribuna by Efraín Moncada Silva, who supports Zelaya in this mess, and the money quote is...
The point is that the responsibility for enforcing decisions of the courts belongs exclusively to the National Police, and the army is specifically excluded from the judicial system, and the line in boldface above means...
The Armed Forces have no authority whatsoever (no tiene ninguna competencia) to enforce orders by civil authorities, especially any order by the courts (especialmente del Poder Judicial).
This is what I claimed in my reply to theCleverBulldog above.
August 12, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link to La Tribuna...
http://www.latribuna.hn/web2.0/?p=19617
August 12, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was replying to your comment that said the Supreme Court could not order the military, not your diary (which stands quite nicely on its own).
I don't necessarily see anything in Article 274 (as auto-translated) that would prohibit the military acting in accordance with other constitutional provisions. And there seem to be several phrases that indicate the ability to work with other institutions as petitioned and in the general national interest. Also, the term "security forces" is used to define neither the National Police nor the Armed Forces ... I'm unclear why article 306 wouldn't refer to "La Policía Nacional" if the court was limited to their use exclusively.
I'm assuming that your use of Spanish quotes means you understand the language? That's a huge leg up on my auto-translator methodology, take a look ... what do you think?
Also Article 272 which appears to create the military authority seems to indicate the military exists specifically to respond to certain constitutional issues.
That hardly seems like a constitutional prohibition against taking action in regards to many of the issues that arose in the case against Zelaya.
On the one hand, Efrain Moncada Silva is indeed a constitutional scholar; so I'm hesitant to dismiss his assessment out of hand (this isn't my first encounter with his op-ed). On the other, he is certainly a Zelaya supporter and would be expected to present the best case available to support the position of his "client". My understanding of the way lawyers work leads me to believe he wouldn't necessarily present the case in favor of the court action which may (or may not) be equally strong.
It is also fair to say that the public prosecutor is a legal expert. His petition seemed to indicate there was strong legal grounds for requesting the military be used as a result of the police command being compromised (based on Zelaya's statement "We will not obey the Supreme Court," it seems a fair assessment). I sort of see it as two lawyers presenting their cases - neither side's assertion necessarily defines the "correct" interpretation of law. (in fact, setting that definition is usually the role of the court ... with deference to legislature in Honduras' case).
I'm a total process geek ... so I love getting into the weeds on this; sorry.
August 12, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no need to apologogize for being a "procesws geek," at least to me, because I'm another, and I don't fundamentally disagree with your thoughtful comment.
I can read Borges, for example, just like I read the Times, but when we get into Spanish-American legalese, my expertise is nil. As far as theCleverBulldog's assertion that the army had been "ordered" to remove Zelaya by Congress and the courts, this wasn't much of a problem, since there isn't a trace of any mechanism for direct orders traveling along that channel.
I agree with you that Moncada Silva is arguing his side of the case, and mentioned that he supports Zelaya to make that plain. As far as I can tell from the Honduran Constitution online, it seems to me that the other side of the argument would probably assert that the army was acting in accord with the spirit of the Constitution, rather than according to a specific procedural mandate, and I agree with you again that Moncada Silva's argument doesn't seem to arise directly out of the language of the Constitution, although there apparently isn't direct support for the other side either.
In practice the division of labor between National Police and armed forces is almost inevitably defined by sub-constitutional processes like case-law and legislation, and my guess, and it's just a guess, is that in practice the role of the armed forces has been limited to national emergencies and interdiction of extra-national operations like drug traffic, while actually executing warrants has been reserved for the National Police.
None of this means that I don't believe the army was acting in accord with the spirit of the Constitution, but still without a clear procedural mandate.
August 12, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what evidence do you have to support the claim that Zelaya was seeking another term? No one - I repeat - no one has been able to produce a single shred of evidence that this is true. In the propaganda arena, however, it has risen to the level of "Al Gore invented the Internet" and "Hitler was a socialist."
Here's how it's supposed to go under Honduran law. Zelaya was handed a popular petition with 600,000 signatures requesting a fourth ballot in the November election, asking voters is they wanted to convene a constituent assembly. The next step was the "encuesta" - a national poll to guage the interest of Honduran voters for a new or revised constitution. If the response was positive, there would be a huge political contest to see the ballot appear in November. But say the people won, and the fourth ballot appeared in November, and the people voted for the creation of the assembly. Then the next political battle would be over who would be members of the assembly. I believe both the congress and popular vote would be factors in this selection, but regardless, it would be a process that took several months, perhaps over a year. By then President Mel is retired and busy raping the forest of timber back home in Oloncho. While it's true that if the constituent assembly modified the term limits in a new constitution, Mel could take advantage at some future election, it is also true that by all indications the Honduran polis does not want to change the single term limit.
See, Roberto Michelleti had a much better plan in 1985 to change the "stone" article governing term limits. He tried to organize the congressional majority, his own Liberal Party, into a constituent assembly in order to suspend those "stone" articles and provide for a second term for then President Roberto Suazo Córdoba, also a member of Michelleti's party. The National Party objected and defeated the movida, in the process accusing Michelleti of "treason." But there was no prosecution: after all, the Supreme Court Justices are selected by the two majority parties in congress, and the Liberal Party had the Supremes tied up.
I'd really like to read some comments on the link I provided to the International Commission of Jurists that I made. Just saying...it seems to me that much of the arguments made here are dependant on pretending that the political institutions of Honduras are democratic and functional, rather than corrupt, self-serving and feeding in the trough of the oligarchs.
August 12, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What evidence do you have that Zelaya was removed for the reforms he instituted? There is none. But yet you keep stating it as definitive fact.
Zelaya, was removed for violating an injunction. Through the act of violating the injunction he was charged with usurping the Judiciary, attempting to violate Article 373 (method of changing the constitution) and Article 375 (prohibition of dissolving the constitution). Through the act of trying to dissolve the constitution, he also seems to have put himself in violation of Article 374 for trying to change EVERY protected article ... including term limits. And then they tossed in some other charges based on related actions (forming a mob that overran the Airforce base, etc.).
But if the institutions of Honduras can be considered invalid and ignored at will based on not being "democratic", then there is no basis for the argument that Zelaya's presidency is valid. The legislative elections and subsequent appointment of the Judiciary don't count, but Zelaya's election does? How the hell does that work?
August 12, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your question is warped, my friend. The proposition that Zelaya was trying to extend his term limits makes no sense when it is examined fairly, and no concrete evidence has been produced to support it. Focus on that.
As for evidence that Mel was ousted for his reforms, there's a couple of problems. One is that it's an argument about motive, and there is no way you can prove a person or persons motives for doing something. So you need to address the preponderance of the evidence to make your case. On the minimum wage measure, we have a fairly large record of complaints inside and outside Honduras against the wage increase, from Dole and Chiquita, from COHEP (Honduras National Business Council), and especially the reports that the golpistas are now systematically dismantling all of Zelaya's social programs, arresting or driving into exile the directors of the programs, etc. The second problem is that I don't really think it is a definitive fact - it's just a theory among several other theories such as the Hondutel controversy or Otto Reich/John Negroponte theory. Truthfully, I think an "unitary premise" theory is short of the mark. Zelaya's ouster was the product of several factors, including the Hugophobia virus that infects the Honduran oligarchy, the US Republican party, and unfortunately many members of left wing and left progressive political groups up here in the home of the brave and the land of the free.
Mel defied the courts and congress because their decisions were political, not legal. The encuesta was perfectly legal under Honduran law, and he had the legal authority to fire Romeo. You need to pay more attention to the history of Honduran politics, which will show you that the executive has held the power since 1982. Mel's big mistake and misjudgement was his belief that he could bully his way through as his successors had. The rest of the arguement, i.e. the sanctity of the constitution, supreme court and congress, is just plain silly (although interesting in an academic sense) ;-)
August 12, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
neoboho asks:
This is what I want to know too, although I'm not stepping in because I have any authority on this issue. I'm confused by conflicting information:
Here also.
August 12, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, see ... I don't actually say term limits have anything to do with it. That's the funny part. It's the strawman Neoboho likes to beat because it's far easier than trying to defend the actual charges against Zelaya - which require the observer to accept that the courts issued a "policial" decision in a legal case and therefore Zelaya is allowed to ignore court rulings at will.
The official documentation of the case against Zelaya released by the Honduran Supreme Court does not seem to mention term limits at all. I did a pretty extensive diary about it a while back (see myth #2). Term limits are a political debate over "motivation", just like the assertion Zelaya was removed for implementing reforms to help the poor - not the basis for challenging his public consultation or removing him from office.
August 12, 2009 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch - that's a low blow, kgb. I know full well that you have already disproved the term limits meme. I'm not building a strawman argument, and I think you know that. The term limit meme is still in full circulation in the press, and Ruta repeated it, and I argued against it. What I was doing in response to your comment was to point out the difference between evidence of some fact and evidence of some motive.
August 12, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. I got lost in the thread ... I was confused that you said that to RR (who actually repeated the meme) not me. Deepest apologies for the harshness, forgive my confusion.
August 13, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
No problem, kgb. Easy to get lost in a thread. I wanted to respond to your longer comment below, but I'm just too darn tired at this point. Another day. Yawn.
August 13, 2009 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! And this is pretty funny ... from that FPI article:
The thing they don't tell you .....
http://www.wilmerhale.com/publications/whPubsDetail.aspx?publication=9120
5 members of Zelaya's government were indicted in April over it. To hear FPIF tell it, these are just wild accusations?!? Someone fucking pleaded guilty to bribery ... that doesn't usually happen as a political stunt! Even in wingnutville.
August 12, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And don't forget that Zelaya's nephew is involved - I think he's recently been arrested. And Mel is trying to sue Otto for slander to boot.
What surprised me about this telecom fight is how much money is involved. I had no idea that the profits were so high. But I guess with 400K Hondurans living in the states, calling home once a week or more, the change adds up.
August 13, 2009 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The history of Honduras goes back farther than 1982. I think the history that led to decisions behind the constitution is probably more significant than the exercise of executive authority since it's implementation. For the entire 20th century, the constitution has been the weapon of choice that political powers use to cement their ideology. For the most part, it has been discarded and rewritten either at the entry or exit to/from dictatorship. Since it's first constitution in 1825, the country of Honduras has averaged 11.5 years with a constitution before it's tossed in the heap and the next crop of participants changes the laws.
Sure, in 1924 social and labor programs were enshrined and the legislature was strengthened, but then in 1936 the sitting dictatorship just rewrote it to their liking taking all the power back to the executive and changing it pretty much at will. 1957 brought a new constitution that remade labor laws and tried to address tainted elections by establishing a regulatory body. It did them little good, because in 1965 Honduras' constitution was simply remade by a military junta and they enjoyed almost 2 decades with no elections at all (OK, one year of a civilian president in 71-72). Which brings us to 1982 and the return to civilian rule another shot at a lasting constitution.
With this background I can imagine that in addition to wanting to subjugate their poor and turn their sovereignty over to American interests, the Honduran elite might have also wanted to stop the idea that the path to political control led through changing the constitution. And after 18 years under the rule of a military dictator, I can see that they might want to limit the ability for someone to cement their power again.
For all it's flaws there are only a very few things that can not be changed in the constitution through the mechanisms therein. These seem to reflect the nature of the history of the country. First is the method of changing the constitution. Second the list of unchangeable constitutional articles (without which, having a list of unchangeable articles would be pointless). Third, the republican form of government. Fourth, national territory. Then the presidential term/qualification definitions. There's also the inviolability article that specifically lays out illegality of constituting a new government outside the provisions of the constitution. It's also interesting that the President currently can't be in the military or the judiciary.
Obviously holding a constitutional assembly would shatter the first and second inviolate articles as well as inviolability. But to what end? To change the republican form of government? Obviously not, there isn't going to be a popular vote on the constitutional provisions ... the proposal is to establish a constitutional assembly to represent the people and craft the new constitution. Honduras already has an elected legislature that can change almost any aspect of the constitution. If the constitutional assembly is selected by democratic election, why should anyone expect the makeup to be significantly different than a democratically elected legislature?
But I digress, if they plan to keep the representative form of government ... what's left? Well, there is the national territory thing. Are they planning on giving up some land ... or maybe getting some? Hmmmm. What's left that couldn't be accomplished through the already democratically elected legislature? Why, it's TERM LIMITS.
Add to that the pushes you highlight within Zelay's party to change term limits, quiet abstract questions by his supporters about why in the future someone couldn't serve more than one term, and statements that it wouldn't specifically let Zelaya serve a second consecutive with no definitive promise by Zelaya never to stand in the future ... it seems there is more than a little anecdotal evidence that perhaps Zelaya doth protest too much. But it is also totally irrelevant. The conflict is over control of the constitution, not term limits.
Zelaya's proposal was to unilaterally suspend the republican form of government temporarily (a quick bit of direct democracy) with the purpose of dissolving a constitution designed to stop the political ownership of the constitution. To me this seems to demonstrate the height of arrogance no matter what his ultimate purpose. If, as you say, the executive being largely unchecked since 1982 led to Zelaya's belief he could "bully" the outcome he wanted, maybe a corrective check on his power was a far more positive outcome than allowing it to continue to expand. Regardless the "historical" strength of executive authority under this constitution, Zelaya's move took it to heights not seen since Colonel Osvaldo López Arellano decided the way around electoral courts was to change the constitution and simply not hold elections.
August 12, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of couse I agree with you about the social alignment of the Honduran government, neoboho, and I also agree with the description of the Honduran judiciary in your link, especially the political polarization of the Supreme Court, which no reasonable person disputes, as far as I know.
But it's also worth noting that most of the Supreme Court Justices aligned with Zelaya's own party also voted to abrogate his planned quasi-refendum, and I have to side with kgb999's observation that Zelaya wasn't removed from office based on his plans for "democratic" reform, but for subverting the Constitution of Honduras, and as much as I would like to see a better deal for the average Honduran in one of the poorest countries in Latin America, I can't believe that leading a mob to seize ballots in contravention of the law of the land will fix much of anything, especially when this revolutionary infringement on the Constitution was organized by an ultra-rich landowner like Zelaya, whose commitment to improving the situation of the masses appeared suddenly, and could just as suddenly disappear.
August 12, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's the whole point. The "mob" wasn't acting in contravention to the law of the land. The encuesta was perfectly legal under Honduran law. Not only does the constitution support it, Zelaya's decree called the Civil Participation Act supports. Now lets be careful with language here - a lower court ruled that the president couldn't call a "referendum" or "plebiscite" under Article 328 No. 3, of the Honduran penal code, which prohibits public consultation except for referendum or plebiscite performed by other government entities. That's why Zelaya described the poll as "non-binding" and the only way to determine if the poll violated the constitution is by submitting arguments to the "finder of fact", i.e. the court - which never happened. So as it stands, by virtue of the Civil Participation Act, which was ratified by congress and passed the muster of the Honduran Supreme Court, the poll was absolutely legal and the court was amiss in ruling it was illegal.
August 12, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What we have here is a conflict between republican principles and the contents of the Honduran Constitution. For understandable reasons, the Honduran Constitution specifies that its provision limiting Presidents to only one term cannot be amended. This violates the principle of republican government as understood by Thomas Jefferson that the people retain the right to alter their government when they so please. Zelaya did not 'overthrow' the Honduran Constitution, he proposed asking the people of Honduras whether or not they wanted to be asked to change it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
--Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
"The catholic principle of republicanism is that every people may establish what form of government they please and change it as
they please, the will of the nation being the only thing essential."
--Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1792.
August 12, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don’t know what the fuss is about since Zelaya resigned in the first place. His handwritten (by someone’s hand anyway) resignation letter was read in congress who voted to accept it by more votes than were even present!
You may be right about the degree of some of the criticism of the administration, Rutabaga, but I think the history of the US in the region is always looming in the background. Zelaya had called for a referendum, a simple poll allowed under the constitution, to see if the people were in favor of constitutional changes. Regardless of that referendum or any changes that could have come from it (likely wresting more control from the US backed elite), Zelaya would not be able to hold another term and wasn’t trying to do that. His actions were provocative as the State letter says, but that doesn't mean he's responsible for his own overthrowing.
I'm sure there is some technicality Zelaya violated in his efforts to end the elite's stranglehold and the country's shameful poverty, but none that would justify his removal and deportation. At the time of this coup, the US was enthusiastically encouraging the uprising in the streets of Iran over an effectively legitimate election between two relatively undemocratic candidates but nothing besides a few tepid statements and efforts to "compromise" on this real subversion of democracy.
A coup is a coup even if the Honduran congress and Supreme Ct. contribute to it(and even if John Negroponte gives a nod and a wink). My impression is that, as with most things, Obama is trying to play both sides, seeming to support Zelaya while moderating statements and not really doing anything.
August 12, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama made a statement in response to those who want him to take concrete actions to restore Zelaya ... but who criticize American actions of interference in the past.
Also, in Iran there was significant evidence of election fraud. But ultimately the Obama administration response has been rather consistent between both instances.
August 12, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
My feeling is that our "interference" is not just in the past, KGB. Of course, that could just be my tin foil hat (well, aluminum foil). I think the Iranian election was misrepresented here (some irregularities but not enough to overturn or question the results), and we were actually backing the supporters of Mousavi, the Butcher of Beirut. It really doesn't compare to a coup in our back yard carried out by our School of the Americas-trained military personnel; ousting a freely-elected president who was trying to institute some democratic reforms.
I don't disagree that Obama has responded with appropriate political statements; I haven't really followed them that closely. But we have had an overwhelming negative influence in Honduras (yes, past interference) and because of that, should be obliged to help the Hondurans. Calling in Arias was just a sop. Since when are military coups negotiable? Oh yeah, they always have been in Central and South America, right up to Chavez.
We use the country's largest, and only really safe, international airport as our very own military base and don't want to give that up. Historically, we've propped up the ruling families there in return for an Honduras base for our own political and corporate interests throughout the region. We ran so many of our dirty little CIA wars out of there, and it seems to me that we owe the Honduran people more than a return to the good old days of oppression and exploitation.
August 12, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, and if I had been in charge of spending $2 trillion on something, it wouldn't have been enriching criminal bankers and propping up banks whose commitments in interlocking and extremely dangerous financial derivatives are still capable of swallowing the global economy without a burp.
But it's one thing to rebuild Honduras with $40 billion, and 50 other countries likewise for the same amount of money we already sank into covering financial derivatives, and it's something very different to support an opportunistic and fundamentally right-wing demagogue like Zelaya.
August 12, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. I don't know Zelaya except by the interviews I've read. That he began as something of a RW demagogue, I'm sure. I really can't judge if he's had a real change of heart or is just being opportunistic, as you say. If he's faking it, he's damn good. But he is the only one who actually was changing things for the poor there (to some small degree, anyway).
August 12, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's comparable to Richard Nixon and his Indian policy, Don. He did more for Indians (while unleashing COINTELPRO on us radicals) than any other US presidents. Return of thousands of acres to the Yakima, return of the Sacred Blue Lake to the Tewas of Taos Pueblo, reversal of the termination of the Menominee reservation, and the creation of a reservation for the Grand Canyon Havasupai. The question was..why? I've read his presential papers on the topic, and Nixon wrote that US/Indian treaties were sacred documents that must be honored - the reputation of the USA was at stake. Others theorized that Nixon had an American Indian coach at Whittier College that was a big influence on his life.
Me? I thought it was megalomania - Nixon wanted to be remembered as a great man. But I thought, then, that concessions to Indians was a peculiar expression of greatness, or at least very interesting.
August 12, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
God knows we would be living in a much better world if every megalomaniac, or even a measurable fraction of them, expressed his or her mania with assistance to aboriginal populations, but since this happens rarely, to say the least, I can't agree with your correlation between megalomania and humanitarian assistance to Native Americans, and have to believe that there was something fundamentally decent about Richard Nixon, however much it may have been obscured by the rest of his character.
August 12, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yes, but I was on the receiving end of his federal belly-clubs, so it's hard to me to think of him as "decent." Do you want to see my scar?
August 12, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. I had no idea Nixon had done anything for Indian claims except in reaction to protests that couldn't be ignored (if it for his legacy, guess it didn't work out so well). All I remember is Wounded Knee and Leonard Peltier who could have been guilty for all I know, but was without a doubt railroaded at trial.
August 12, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dare I say it...Nixon was like Himmler. Himmler absolutely hated those Brown Shirt pograms, and put an end to them. It was because they were disorderly - so Himmler went on to "legalize" the pograms. OK, I admit that that's unfair to Nixon. I think his recognition of China was outrageously kewl.
August 12, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, at the same time, outrageously krewl.
August 12, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are probably right about a certain amount of interference from American interests in general. I tend to think that they are not coordinated by the administration to the same degree that they have been in times past. I am also a bit unclear to what extent they were the determining factor in this case.
While the military was indeed involved, I don't personally view this as a military coup. It's not like Musharraf in Pakistan or Noriega in Panama where the military establishment placed themselves over the civilian government and some guy with a bunch of medals on his chest is suddenly in charge. I think that they are still trying very hard to have elections in November is a pretty important indicator. I know the "School of Americas" training many of these military leaders received bothers you, but I don't necessarily see how that came into play here.
It seems the brutal Latin American policy of the 80's was a result of not being able to move beyond the political frames of the 50's. To some extent, I think that much of the reaction in this case seems to be a result of applying the political frames of the 80's to what appears to be a different situation. When the "coup" happened, polling showed more people supported it than didn't - I'm not sure imposing any solution on Honduras is necessarily the way to "repay" them for past interference.
August 12, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, our gunboat banana diplomacy has always been framed by the cold war, one reason being that the "radical leftist" democracy movements are not good for business. Funny, that post WWII mindset coincided with the founding of the SOA in 1946. Its graduates' history of coups, slaughter, torture and repression are echoed here. Even though General Vasquez and his fellow graduates have indeed placed themselves under the direction of Micheletti and other leaders (i.e. on the Court), their methods for repression of dissent is all too familiar SOP. Here's a decent run-down on the situation from The Guardian today (nothing new but a nice summary from an objective source). The more things change, the more they stay the same.
August 12, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the crux. Whether Zelaya is reinstated now or with a month left in office or not at all is only important in terms of signals sent but not in terms of practical governance. But I guess that I just see the aims of this “provisional” government differently from you. I’m willing to bet that the elections will go forward in direct relation to the extent the military and security forces have chilled the reform movement. The longer the coup holds, the more the left exposes itself. There are still three or four months in which to root out the “rebels” who are being jailed or shot for holding peaceful demonstrations.
August 12, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I'm reading are indication that the coup opposition is planing on preventing the elections in November if the coup holds out that long. How would they do that? I don't know, but it sounds scary. Meanwhile, the left has formed quite a formidable coalition behind Reyes.
August 13, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don Key:
I am inclined to agree with your take on Honduras and Iran. Our national media is de facto corporate, and the media's behavior takes a curious turn when it comes to coups and elections. When it comes to the Honduras, the media does not give a shit except for the occasional pundit who uses it as a stick to belabor Obama. IMO, Zelaya was overthrown for having the audacity to appeal to the plebes. It doesn't matter if he was asking for a second term or a bag of salted peanuts, Zelaya violated the unwritten law of US/IMF support: do not EVER empower the rural population. The 70+ percent of impoverished throughout our sphere of influence must never intuit that they have power.
The same goes for Iran. Ahmadenijad won because of rural support. The urban and educated vote was split, and according to the US media, that is the only demographic that matters. That just happens to be the only demographic vulnerable to media psyops. Did a single rural Iranian tweet? I will concede irregularities in the election, but the rurual vote went overwhelmingly for Ahmadenijad, because the programs administered under his symbolic leadership have benefitted them.
Elite culture hates and fears the poor above all else. And the poor, above all else, are sacrificed each day to Moloch by the thousands.
August 13, 2009 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Zipperupus. The US seems to have no truck with some leaders while genuflecting towards other, more totalitarian regimes (easy to see in the MIddle East). As I said, I don't really know Zelaya's true motives, but like Chavez, he was instituting many changes that terrified the elite (major land reforms were coming, I believe).
And thanks for the new word, "Moloch." I was guessing it meant something to "Mammon" (also alive and well).
August 13, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh heh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATrCTOgTLM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHOhD0RT9NU
When I was a kid, I wanted to be a beatnik when I grew up.
August 13, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, thanks. I opened them at the same time (watching Metropolis w/Ginsburg and New Pollutants in seemingly perfect sync) and flashed back on a Ginsburg reading I saw long ago where he read and chanted and with several others played strange percussive instruments.
August 13, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ruta,
This blog describes the Honduran situation and takes note of the oversteps in power by all the parties. I just wanted to remind everyone, because it always seems to be forgotten, that coupsters exist on both sides of the ideological divide, and that Hugo Chavez's attempt to militarily overthrow the democratically elected government of Venezuela needs to be remembered. I was there when it happened and cried that it could happen to my country, Latin America's most stable democracy next to Costa Rica.
August 12, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for commenting, AdAbsurdum, and sharing your memory of Chavez as a golpista colonel in 1989.
Of course it isn't exactly the same, but maybe I felt something like the same sense of violation that you felt in 1989, when the US Army's long history of humane treatment of prisoners was abrogated by Bush/Cheney. For family reasons, this was a very important tradition to me, and I will never forgive the sons-of-bitches who destroyed it.
August 12, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have revealed a bit of the mystery behind the RR to this detective mind of mine. Perhaps some day you'll share the story.
August 12, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
But don't you think the "people" are a party in this, Ad? If so, how are they overstepping power? God knows they have none, and that they wish to have some.
August 12, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a reality I cannot deny, because these people are my father and my aunts and uncles. Nevertheless, although there is much good intention behind it, there is a lot of caudillismo, a Latin American tradition of passionate strongman-ism behind their faith, and this has led to traits which I find shameful to hear from my own father and my own compatriots, arguments in denial of the holocaust, inter-class hatred and blaming all our ills on foreign powers when our nation has been and still is the most kleptocratic regime ever, funded by the curse of oil revenue. So yes, the people are behind this, but the story is much more complex than the same old worn out explanations that are propagated north of the Tropic of Cancer.
August 12, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a very thoughtful reply, and I appreciate it. I'm reminded of the film that I consider to be Luis Buñuel's magnum opus, Viridiana. Do you know the story? Viridiana wants to be a Nun, but she leaves the nunnery in order to help the poor on her own terms. She brings all the beggars and indigents to her father's estate which she had inherited. But the poor turn out to be complete assholes, and this adds to her disillusionment towards life. I won't spoil the plot further. A very beautiful film in its viciousness.
Nevertheless, my vote is for "the people" and then they can work out their social and cultural problems for themselves.
August 12, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Loath am I to disregard a recommended Buñuel film. I shall certainly look out for Viridiana. There is much I would like to add to this discussion and look forward to a future opportunity to do so. I am capable of discussing volumes about Venezuela and the surrounding region, much to everybody's chagrin.
Muy buenas noches.
August 13, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, Weisbrot wrote a rather hysterical op-ed. But that's the prerogative of any op-ed writer.
In addition to being hysterical, it's also a badly structured piece, probably because Weisbrot wants to make a point of his hysteria because he thinks (or an editor thought) it is a powerful (or "negative," to the editor's mind) sound-bite. But immediately following his punch, Weisbrot falls asleep.
I think your post is funny, Rootie, and you created an interesting thread, which is itself a coup at TPM and worth an automatic 75 recs.
But when I really focused on the Weisbrot piece, I found he actually had provided answers to some of your questions and criticisms, and much of the rest can be guessed at fairly accurately. For example, isn't the huge letdown (the "hopes dashed" part) about the fact that Obama said nary a harsh word about a military takeover of a government? And forgive the conflation and imprecision, but isn't a military takeover sort of what we did in Iraq (only in a much showier fashion and with more bloodshed and human suffering, of course)? Anyway, I read Weisbrot's fit in his opening salvo as a reaction to military action.
And after he blah-blah-blahs for a few hair-splitting paragraphs, he finally gets to the meat of his argument equating the Obama administration's actions with Bush's policies:
If we shouldn't be objecting to any of this, what do you think we should be promoting instead? (I'm asking sincerely; I want to say that in case I happen to sound snarky; I've been on a tear lately with some issues.)
Again, I'm definitely no expert on the situation or politics in Honduras, but while Weisbrot may be a bad op-ed writer, he's not a "bad guy," is he? I guess I'm asking for more clarification on what you are objecting to.
August 12, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Starting at the bottom of your comment, and then proceeding whichever way the wind blows...
It would be hard call to Weisbrot a bad guy, since he collaborates with Dean Baker, and together they have worked as hard as anybody to dispel the "social security in crisis" myth.
But he's a silly guy in this instance, and the rest of his editorial is just as bad as the beginning, IMHO.
I would like to like Chavez, but I don't for some of the same reasons that AdAbsurdum discusses above, and Chavez is now a significant factor in every decision the United States makes in Latin America, but no particular news item puts all the pieces together, and Weisbrot leaves out a whole series of vague threats Chavez issued about Venezuela enforcing the re-instatement of Zelaya.
For example, some high-tech anti-tank rockets Sweden sold to Venezuela turned up in a FARC camp in Colombia, and of course Chavez has no idea how they got there.
Right.
But apart from Chavez' bullshit denial, this sort of item also throws a shadow across Weisbrot's complaint (echoing Lula da Silva and Bachelet) about increasing US military presence in Colombia. This isn't a simple situation, where US engagement is creating all the problems, but that's the picture Weisbrot paints, and there really are no bad guys anywhere to be seen, except Obama and the Honduran army.
Likewise Weisbrots complaint about reactivating the Fourth Fleet in the Caribbean coincides with a couple of Russian Akula-class nuclear-powered submarines, which typically carry nuclear cruise missiles, cruising slowly up the East Coast to Canada.
Akulas 20 miles from Washington! Does it mean anything? Who knows? But the possible downside of a couple of Akulas is huge, and the significance of the Fourth Fleet in the Caribbean is... what?
Symbolic?
I'm not trying to make a particular case for anything here, but I'm also not trying to muddy the waters so much as trying to give some indication of how muddy those waters already are.
August 13, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for indulging me, RR.
Yes, the waters are muddy, and worse, polluted. I was just trying to get a better read on what you were going for. I intentionally left Chavez out of the part I quoted to see if you would bring him up, which you did right away. I want to like Chavez too, but while that's difficult because he is so imperfect (and crazy like a fox), I have to say I can't really like any of the other actors (including our own meddlers) instead, so I can't pick a definitive side as easily as AdAbsurdum can (because I don't have his emotional investment and firsthand experience). As with the Palestinians, I feel sympathy for the people who are suffering the most (in the present moment, I mean) and who clearly have the least power. And I automatically resist siding with anything neocons or hard-core Republicans think is a good idea. So I freely admit my ignorance and try to keep up.
Americans seem to hold other countries and their leaders to purer standards than we hold our own country and leaders, and that always bothers me as well. Especially since we muck up the works with guns, money, power dynamics, and exploitation of other countries' resources. The U.S. is the invisible hand.
So back to Weisbrot: I think he failed in clearly stating what Obama has "failed" at. Weisbrot means to say that Obama has failed at being progressive. But that's hardly news to me.
August 13, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
In this case, I can't agree that Obama failed at anything, and if it's "progressive" to support an opportunistic and essentially right-wing demagogue who had already overthrown the Constitution of Honduras, then count me out of that political category.
What I hated about Weisbrot's article, gasket, was the ridiculous over-simplification of a god-awful mess in Honduras, and I don't claim to see into it much more than a millimeter. I struggled to answer your very intelligent questions, but even the form that an answer should assume is a puzzle to me.
Anyway, I'm taking up the same set of issues in yet another diary today, and maybe another set of intelligent comments from you and neoboho and kgb999 will add a little more clarity to this very confusing brew.
August 13, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile, there has been so much discussion preliminary to developing a consensus that Zelaya's ambition to become yet another "president for life" in the long row of presidents-for-life in Latin America is just a meme propagated by naive souls like me and interested parties like the American Right that I don't know exactly where to insert a comment, so I'll just drop one here at the bottom of the thread.
Once everybody agrees that there is no compelling evidence that Zelaya intended to plant himself permanently in the Presidential Palace in Tegucigalpa, an embarrassing problem appears.
What the heck was he doing with a mob at an airforce base seizing ballots for his quasi-referendum?
That's an awfully violent and risky procedure for instituting some undefined "democratic" reforms somewhere down the line.
So in order to explain why Zelaya looks so much like another president-for-life in the making, but really isn't, we plunge into a Ptolemaic system of tiny political epicycles to replace the more obvious sun of supreme political ambition, around which Latin America politics has revolved throughout most of its sad history.
But in my permanently sun-dazzled and cynical vision of Latin-America, all the lines of gravity point back to Zelaya's out-of-control ambition, no matter how many dizzy little epicycles left-wing critics of the golpistas may postulate.
August 13, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no evidence period, Ruta - never mind "compelling."
I see no "embarassing problem" at all. General Romeo Vasquez refused to distribute the enquesta as planned, so Zelaya mobilized around 500 supporters to load the forms onto trucks. It wasn't a "mob" at all - they were very orderly and the work of loading went smoothly. A lot of folks were excited and noisy, but it wasn't a "mob" and there were no confrontations with police or military personnel.
TeleSur interviewed the Independent Party Carlos Reyes around this time, and Reyes explained that after the signing of CAFTA in 2005, popular movements in Honduras said that was the end of the constitution, and they began the constitutional assembly movement. I don't understand the connection myself - but this is what Reyes reported. He went on to say that Zelaya had picked up the popular cause and rallied Hondurans around the necessity of a referendum in the next election. Maybe the guy is patriotic and thought a new constitution would be good for his country - who the hell knows? It's just a guessing game, and if you want to map out the evil chavez connection, more power to you.
August 13, 2009 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Harharharhar!!!
The Great Train Robbery was also "orderly," and equally illegal.
But what the heck! Nobody in Honduras except the Supreme Court, Attorney General, Congress, and their version of the Federal Election Commission had actually declared that Zelaya's quasi-referendum was illegal, and those guys are nothing compared to 500 "orderly" supporters.
What a beautiful "explanation."
It's too bad neoboho wasn't around to "explain" the massacre at las Horocones, when the bodies of 15 religious leaders, campesinos and students were unearthed on Zelaya's ranch in Honduras. Mel Senior went to prison, briefly, and Mel Junior, 22 years old, got a walk, but both of them should have gotten medals for hosting all those left-wing activists underground on their ranch, if you follow neoboho's brand of "explanation."
But that's ancient history (1975), and everybody knows that clans mean nothing in Latin American politics, and... everything in Mel Junior's life story as a cattle baron, lumber dealer, manager of the Honduran Council of Private Enterprise (COHEP), and managing director of the National Association of Wood Processing Enterprises proves his deep and abiding sympathy for the masses.
August 13, 2009 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
To put it another way...
At the moment when Zelaya marched out with his 500 "orderly" supporters to seize the ballots for his quasi-referendum, in contravention of the Congress, Supreme Court, Attorney General, and FEC of Honduras, the Constitution of Honduras had already been abrogated, and the acting government of Honduras was whatever mob Zelaya whistled up.
August 13, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you know what, Ruta - in the end Zelaya will just be remembered as a place-holder. Even now, and especially in the context of your blog, he represents the "default" position in the debate,i.e. "return Honduras to its legitimate form". the Lame Duck aside, the issue is more about the coup and the meaning of the coup and the impact the coup will have in the region than it is whether we like Mel or not. And to think, it all could have been avoided if Zelaya had simply been arrested, charged and brought to trial.
Why do you think that didn't happen? The golpistas had ample opportunities - they could have arrested him in the first place, they could have let the plane land and arrested him, or they could have seized him when he crossed the border. I think there are two reasons: 1) they knew they didn't have a solid legal case against him and 2) it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to purge the country of "disapproved" members of the Zelaya government and roll back the social reforms and programs that the Zelaya govenment had accomplished.
Honduras is now facing the Mother of Crises, thanks to the golpistas. The economy is nose diving. Foreign investment has slowed to a trickle, remittances (20% of the economy) from Hondurans abroad have severely declined, the super-patriotic business class are getting their money out of the country as fast as they can, the loss of oil/fuel from the Petrocaribe/ALBA membership means that Honduras must pay for oil cash up-front. It is projected that by January 2010, when a new government comes into office, the countries national reserves will have dwindled to a measly $500 million, which is not enough to stave off a dramatic devaluation of the Honduran Lempira, which will target the Honduran poor as the principle victims. Mel's minimum wage increase will become meaningless.
August 13, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't exactly agree with your take on the mess in Honduras, neoboho, but in spite of a few excursions into sarcasm above, I was delighted that you added so many intelligent comments to my blog.
August 13, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink