[Gasfghj]

If the Obama administration had simply adopted the position I advocated in the first place, there would have been no need for it to retreat so embarrassingly from its pro-Zelaya position.

[exsmoker]

whos' right? was Chavez backed Zelaya in the wrong, or was he wrongly removed from power?

[Precturge]

Generally, anyone Chavez backs should be out of power.

[preachadaq]

Generally, anyone Chavez backs should be out of power.

Generally, anytime a democratically elected leader is removed from power without due process, it's wrong.

Zelaya was overthrown because a) he installed socially progressive policies which irked the Honduran elite who have profited mightily off the backs of the proletariat for decades and b) he began to migrate from the US governed CAFTA, and move towards an independent trade bloc in ALBA which would cut the US out of valuable imports and cheap labor.

Dole and Chiquita, specifically were "outraged" when Zelaya attempted to raise the minimum wage for the banana farmers (some as young as 14) who toil in the fields under brutal conditions 7 days a week, 12 hours a day.

Remember Chiquita (formally United Fruit) has a long and bloody history in central America, specifically Honduras, and became (in 2007) the first U.S. company to be convicted of conducting financial operations with a terrorist operation (right wing Honduras paramilitaries). Thanks to our current Attorney General Eric Holder who brokered the sweetheart deal, they were able to settle for a small sum of 25M over 5 years.

There's also the fact that Zelaya was attempting to repurpose the current military base in Palmerola for commercial use seeing how it is home to the only tenable runway for commercial jumbo jets. The only problem is Palmerola is one of the few airfields available to the U.S. in Central America and so obviously there would be a conflict of interest here as well. It was only a few weeks after Zelaya announced that he was going to proceed with plans to convert Palmerola into a civilian airport using ALBA funds that the coup was executed. Could be a coincidence.

Bottom line though... the U.S. connections to the Honduran elite run DEEP and LONG. Not to mention, most of the generals who orchestrated the coup were trained by the U.S. via the School of the Americas.

To quote Michael Parenti:

"The Honduran military is trained, advised, equipped, indoctrinated, and financed by the United States national security state. The generals would never have dared to move without tacit consent from the White House or the Pentagon and CIA."

The coverage of this is a joke, not surprising, but a joke nonetheless.

[exsmoker]

how do we know you speak the truth and not the line that chavez and castro are using to support zelaya?
Mr. Zelaya took power four years ago as a centrist. In the past two years, the Stetson-hat-wearing, ballad-singing president has hewn increasingly to the left, finding a soulmate in Mr. Chávez....He then took another page from the Chávez blueprint, pushing for a referendum and constitutional rewrite on re-election. The country’s courts, congress and other institutions lined up against Mr. Zelaya, but he vowed to challenge them all, with the people at his back.While the provisional president, Mr. Micheletti, has taken power in an undemocratic fashion, few Hondurans worry that he will want to stay on. Mr. Micheletti has vowed to hold already-scheduled elections in November, hand over power in January and limit his own presidential aspirations to six months in power.

Angel Nuñez, a 30-year-old Tegucigalpa taxi driver, thinks Mr. Micheletti did the right thing. “Zelaya wanted this place to be Cuba, he wanted absolute power in this country,” he says. Pushing the ex-president aside was the only way to stop “a man who got to thinking he was above the law.” Manuel Zelaya and the Cult of the Caudillo - WSJ.com
Mr. Zelaya, a close ally of Venezuela's populist President Hugo Chávez, was seized by soldiers acting on a Supreme Court warrant, and sent into exile in his pajamas on June 28. The military acted after the country's courts said he had violated the constitution by trying to enact a referendum that would permit his reelection. Prospects Look Dim for Honduras Plan - WSJ.com

In Latin American, in countries with long histories of caudillos dating back to spanish colonial times, I'd imagine even you must admit there might have been cause for concern? at the very least, you are only portraying half the truth.

[fuslkdhfma]

whos' right? was Chavez backed Zelaya in the wrong, or was he wrongly removed from power?

We should not be in the business of endorsing coups. It's that simple.

[preachadaq]

"Mr. Zelaya, a close ally of Venezuela's populist President Hugo Chávez, was seized by soldiers acting on a Supreme Court warrant, and sent into exile in his pajamas on June 28. The military acted after the country's courts said he had violated the constitution by trying to enact a referendum that would permit his reelection."

This is the pillar on which the entire coup was based and yet it's patently false.

Zelaya did no such thing. All he did was propose a vote on whether or not to have a vote to modify the constitution. This is a perfectly legal action. But even if he pushed for an extended term (which he didn't), why would that warrant such vitriol? It's not like he's calling for a dictatorship. He'd still have to be duly elected. The threat is that he WOULD be elected with an overwhelming majority of the vote and the Honduran right know it.

Not to mention, we act like a country without term limits is the watermark of a rogue empire?!? By that logic we should overthrow every parliamentary republic in Europe... Germany, Britain, France, ect... If we have any bombs left we could toss one of Australia as well. Hell, we didn't even have term limits until the ratification of the 22nd amendment.

[Gasfghj]

Well, the Honduran Constitution is a bit of a mess, but since the military acted on the orders of the court and with the backing of the legislature, I don't see this as a coup. The military acted not against the state but on behalf of the state against the head of state. It's a mess, but it certainly isn't a bunch of generals assuming control over the government.

[AdvertisingPo]

The coup was wrong to say the least. However the specifics of the events leading up to it go something like this. The president is very unpopular in his county, however that did not stop him from seeking a referendum on allowing himself to run for another term, which is not allowed under the constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that he could not do this. He ignored the orders of the Supreme Court and printed the ballots for it and then ordered the military to distribute them. The head of the military refused and was sacked. The supreme court then re-instated the leader and once again, with the backing of the legislature, again said zelaya could not go forward. In response zelaya led a group of his followers to a military base and carted off the ballots and distributed them. Hours before the illegal vote was to take place, the army under the orders of the supreme court and the legislature arrested him and shipped him off to Costa Rica. The reason they said, there is no procedure in their constitution for impeachment, which is true. The people of Honduras appear to be happy with the outcome.

THE UNITED STATES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!

[preachadaq]

I'm not a lawyer but "the constitution is a mess" is not a legal basis for overthrowing an elected official.

His crime was nothing more than enacting a referendum that at it's core was a non-binding opinion poll. A legal action under the terms of the "messy", yet legally binding, Honduras constitution.

But you say that since it was carried out with the blessing of the far-right Supreme Court stacked to the ceiling with the business elite and implemented by the generals who are financed, trained, and supported by the United States on various levels, the non-coup was a perfectly acceptable course of action?

[exsmoker]

We should not be in the business of endorsing coups. It's that simple.

nothing is ever that simple, especially in events like this.

"Mr. Zelaya, a close ally of Venezuela's populist President Hugo Chávez, was seized by soldiers acting on a Supreme Court warrant, and sent into exile in his pajamas on June 28. The military acted after the country's courts said he had violated the constitution by trying to enact a referendum that would permit his reelection."

This is the pillar on which the entire coup was based and yet it's patently false.

Zelaya did no such thing. All he did was propose a vote on whether or not to have a vote to modify the constitution. This is a perfectly legal action. But even if he pushed for an extended term (which he didn't), why would that warrant such vitriol? It's not like he's calling for a dictatorship. He'd still have to be duly elected. The threat is that he WOULD be elected with an overwhelming majority of the vote and the Honduran right know it.

Not to mention, we act like a country without term limits is the watermark of a rogue empire?!? By that logic we should overthrow every parliamentary republic in Europe... Germany, Britain, France, ect... If we have any bombs left we could toss one of Australia as well. Hell, we didn't even have term limits until the ratification of the 22nd amendment.

yeah, I don't know noam. you both can't be right. five apples account jibes with what I've read and what my parents have read in chile. did chavez openly call for a dictatorship at first? no, but he's systematically dismantled the democratic system, such as it was, and I believe has stated he intends to be in power for decades. As for our own term limits, they were enacted because FDR disregarded civilized convention and, if there was ever a president who thought he was above the law, it was him (up there with Bush II anyway). I'm not following your argument for throwing out Europe's Republics. to be sure, eventually we may have our own reasons for throwing out our own government. nothing lasts forever. in light of the past, though, term limits would seem to be extremely important in latin america.

The coup was wrong to say the least. However the specifics of the events leading up to it go something like this. The president is very unpopular in his county, however that did not stop him from seeking a referendum on allowing himself to run for another term, which is not allowed under the constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that he could not do this. He ignored the orders of the Supreme Court and printed the ballots for it and then ordered the military to distribute them. The head of the military refused and was sacked. The supreme court then re-instated the leader and once again, with the backing of the legislature, again said zelaya could not go forward. In response zelaya led a group of his followers to a military base and carted off the ballots and distributed them. Hours before the illegal vote was to take place, the army under the orders of the supreme court and the legislature arrested him and shipped him off to Costa Rica. The reason they said, there is no procedure in their constitution for impeachment, which is true. The people of Honduras appear to be happy with the outcome.

THE UNITED STATES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!

why was the coup wrong? to me it says they didn't trust the institutional process to work, that they expected it to break down. It's not right, but it's hard to say it was wrong. IMO. Ultimately, the outcome will judge whether it was good or bad. If they go ahead with the elections and the country moves on, it wil likely be viewed as a good thing. If it recurs, not so much.

[preachadaq]

however that did not stop him from seeking a referendum on allowing himself to run for another term, which is not allowed under the constitution.

We can keep repeating this, but it's always going to be false.

An excerpt from Why Zelaya's Actions Were Legal by Alberto Vallente Thorensen:

For example, most reports have stated that Manuel Zelaya was ousted from his country’s presidency after he tried to carry out a non-binding referendum to extend his term in office. But this is not completely accurate. Such presentation of “facts” merely contributes to legitimizing the propaganda, which is being employed by the coup-makers in Honduras to justify their actions. This interpretation is widespread in US-American liberal environments, especially after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the coup is unacceptable, but that “all parties have a responsibility to address the underlying problems that led to [Sunday]’s events.” However, President Zelaya cannot be held responsible for this flagrant violation of the Honduran democratic institutions that he has tried to expand. This is what has actually happened:

The Honduran Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General, National Congress, Armed Forces and Supreme Electoral Tribunal have all falsely accused Manuel Zelaya of attempting a referendum to extend his term in office.

According to Honduran law, this attempt would be illegal. Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution clearly states that persons, who have served as presidents, cannot be presidential candidates again. The same article also states that public officials who breach this article, as well as those that help them, directly or indirectly, will automatically lose their immunity and are subject to persecution by law. Additionally, articles 374 and 5 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982 (with amendments of 2005), clearly state that: “it is not possible to reform the Constitution regarding matters about the form of government, presidential periods, re-election and Honduran territory”, and that “reforms to article 374 of this Constitution are not subject to referendum.”

Nevertheless, this is far from what President Zelaya attempted to do in Honduras the past Sunday and which the Honduran political/military elites disliked so much. President Zelaya intended to perform a non-binding public consultation, about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly. To do this, he invoked article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. According to this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. That is, until the president of the republic employed it in a manner that was not amicable to the interests of the members of these institutions.

Furthermore, the Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution, which the Honduran public would need to approve. Such a popular participatory process would bypass the current liberal democratic one specified in article 373 of the current constitution, in which the National Congress has to approve with 2/3 of the votes, any reform to the 1982 Constitution, excluding reforms to articles 239 and 374. This means that a perfectly legal National Constituent Assembly would have a greater mandate and fewer limitations than the National Congress, because such a National Constituent Assembly would not be reforming the Constitution, but re-writing it. The National Constituent Assembly’s mandate would come directly from the Honduran people, who would have to approve the new draft for a constitution, unlike constitutional amendments that only need 2/3 of the votes in Congress. This popular constitution would be more democratic and it would contrast with the current 1982 Constitution, which was the product of a context characterized by counter-insurgency policies supported by the US-government, civil façade military governments and undemocratic policies. In opposition to other legal systems in the Central American region that (directly or indirectly) participated in the civil wars of the 1980s, the Honduran one has not been deeply affected by peace agreements and a subsequent reformation of the role played by the Armed Forces.

Recalling these observations, we can once again take a look at the widespread assumption that Zelaya was ousted as president after he tried to carry out a non-binding referendum to extend his term in office.

The poll was certainly non-binding, and therefore also not subject to prohibition. However it was not a referendum, as such public consultations are generally understood. Even if it had been, the objective was not to extend Zelaya’s term in office. In this sense, it is important to point out that Zelaya’s term concludes in January 2010. In line with article 239 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982, Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could have not been reelected. Moreover, it is completely uncertain what the probable National Constituent Assembly would have suggested concerning matters of presidential periods and re-elections. These suggestions would have to be approved by all Hondurans and this would have happened at a time when Zelaya would have concluded his term. Likewise, even if the Honduran public had decided that earlier presidents could become presidential candidates again, this disposition would form a part of a completely new constitution. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an amendment to the 1982 Constitution and it would not be in violation of articles 5, 239 and 374. The National Constituent Assembly, with a mandate from the people, would derogate the previous constitution before approving the new one. The people, not president Zelaya, who by that time would be ex-president Zelaya, would decide.

It is evident that the opposition had no legal case against President Zelaya. All they had was speculation about perfectly legal scenarios which they strongly disliked. Otherwise, they could have followed a legal procedure sheltered in article 205 nr. 22 of the 1982 Constitution, which states that public officials that are suspected to violate the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress. As a result they helplessly unleashed a violent and barbaric preemptive strike, which has threatened civility, democracy and stability in the region.

[SashaLionx]

There was a pretty comprehensive PB thread on this, with some crazy translations of the Honduran constitution. From what I remember, the basic problem is the Constitution is not very clear on the legality of the plebiscite that Zelaya wanted to hold. There we're pretty strong arguments for and against its legality because its just so damn ambiguous. What is NOT ambiguous is that there is no process of impeachment in Honduras. The constitution actually empowers the Army to uphold the "welfare" of the nation. So when the president acted in a manner that the countries' legislators viewed to be illegal, they followed the proper procedure of having the army remove the president.

So I have no idea how you reconcile this. Clearly this is a crisis that would have been avoided with some due process. They need some body to rule on the legality of the plebiscite (maybe that happened? Someone ruled it illegal I remember, but not sure if the Honduran congress just passed a law saying it was illegal or if they have an equivalent of the SCOTUS that interprets the constitution.) My understanding of the situation is that everyone is right/wrong depending on your reading of their constitution. They are in need of some serious mediation and due process.

I do think, given the history of Coups in central America, that even though I do believe this is not a typical "coup" per se, we are right to side with a democratically elected leader who has been removed from office without any clear process or legality.

[AdvertisingPo]

I actually don't think the coup was acceptable, however Zelaya defied the orders of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the final legal rule and interpretation of their Constitution. You are right to disagree with their ruling, but it is binding and proceeding against its edict plain and simple undermines the democratic process. The coup also itself was a violation, but to paint Zelaya as some poor victim of the elite and the Unites States of America is not fair either. He is where he is largely due to his own actions.

[fuslkdhfma]

I actually don't think the coup was acceptable, however Zelaya defied the orders of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the final legal rule and interpretation of their Constitution. You are right to disagree with their ruling, but it is binding and proceeding against its edict plain and simple undermines the democratic process. The coup also itself was a violation, but to paint Zelaya as some poor victim of the elite and the Unites States of America is not fair either. He is where he is largely due to his own actions.

What was brilliant, however, was for Obama to undercut his Anti-American victimhood shtick, which Chavez has used to good effect, by expressing disapproval of the coup. Zelaya was obviously caught up short, as was Chavez and the Castros.

[SannyGlow]

exactly. it was fait accompli. A few token words against the "coup" from the U.S. look good and also put Chavez in a bind because he can't make this look to be an American trick and blame it on America.

[esanamaserrn]

Let's face it..Latin America has always been considered part of "U.S. sphere of influence." To suggest that the U.S. had absolutely NO part in what occurred in Honduras is rather naive IMO. The U.S. has "interests" in Latin America as well as in other parts of the globe as we always claim. We can debate what exactly those "interests" may be (benign or malevolent) but we have them nonetheless. It is not conclusive what role the current administration may have had with respect to the goings on in Honduras but it cannot be conclusively claimed we had no influence whatsoever given our history and the fact that we're trying to regain clout/reestablish influence in Latin America as a result of the last administration being distracted in the Mid East the last 8 years. It's really just part of geopolitics or more accurately realpolitik ....

Powerful special interests have flexed their muscles and confronted President Obama on the most important legislative priorities of his domestic agenda. But this kind of politics-by-influence-peddling doesn't stop at the water's edge. And in foreign policy, the consequences can be more immediate, violent and deadly.

Meet Lanny Davis, Washington lawyer and lobbyist, former legal counsel to President Clinton and avid campaigner for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid. He has been hired by a coalition of Latin American business interests to represent the dictatorship that ousted elected President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in a military coup and removed him to Costa Rica on June 28.

Davis is working with Bennett Ratcliff, another lobbyist with a close relationship to Hillary Clinton who is a former senior executive for one of the most influential political and public relations firms in Washington. In the current mediation effort hosted by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, the coup-installed government did not make a move without first consulting Ratcliff, an unnamed source told the New York Times.

Davis and Ratcliff have done an amazing public relations job so far. Americans, relying on media reports, are likely to believe that Zelaya was ousted because he tried to use a referendum to extend his term of office. This is false.

Zelaya's referendum, planned for the day the coup took place, was a nonbinding poll. It only asked voters if they wanted to have an actual referendum on reforming the country's Constitution on the November ballot. Even if Zelaya had gotten everything he was looking for, a new president would have been elected on the same November ballot. So Zelaya would be out of office in January, no matter what steps were taken toward constitutional reform. Further, Zelaya has repeatedly said that if the Constitution were changed, he would not seek another term.

If we add together the high-powered lobbyists from the Clinton camp, Republican members of Congress and conservatives within the State Department, the coup government has a lot of support from Washington.

The high-powered hidden support for Honduras' coup - Los Angeles Times

[Anymnillulky]

Central America has always been a mess but since the news doesn't pick up on it too much it goes unreported. I can tell you there are a few weeks in December 1989 I would like to really forget.

[Gasfghj]

I'm not a lawyer but "the constitution is a mess" is not a legal basis for overthrowing an elected official.

Nor did I say it was. It is an observation, not a justification.

[exsmoker]

In recent days, the rhetoric from allies of former President Manuel Zelaya has also dominated media reporting in the U.S. The worst distortion is the repetition of the false statement that Mr. Zelaya was removed from office by the military and for being a “reformer.” The truth is that he was removed by a democratically elected civilian government because the independent judicial and legislative branches of our government found that he had violated our laws and constitution.

Let’s review some fundamental facts that cannot be disputed:

• The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional “referendum,” and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law.

• Eight of the 15 votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of Mr. Zelaya’s own Liberal Party. Strange that the pro-Zelaya propagandists who talk about the rule of law forget to mention the unanimous Supreme Court decision with a majority from Mr. Zelaya’s own party. Thus, Mr. Zelaya’s arrest was at the instigation of Honduran’s constitutional and civilian authorities—not the military.

• The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s Liberal Party.
• Independent government and religious leaders and institutions—including the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Administrative Law Tribunal, the independent Human Rights Ombudsman, four-out-of-five political parties, the two major presidential candidates of the Liberal and National Parties, and Honduras’s Catholic Cardinal—all agreed that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally.

• The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran constitution. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer—as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—president of Honduras.

• Days before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya had his chief of staff illegally withdraw millions of dollars in cash from the Central Bank of Honduras.
• A day or so before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya led a violent mob to overrun an Air Force base to seize referendum ballots that had been shipped into Honduras by Hugo Chávez’s Venezuelan government.

• I succeeded Mr. Zelaya under the Honduran constitution’s order of succession (our vice president had resigned before all of this began so that he could run for president). This is and has always been an entirely civilian government. The military was ordered by an entirely civilian Supreme Court to arrest Mr. Zelaya. His removal was ordered by an entirely civilian and elected Congress. To suggest that Mr. Zelaya was ousted by means of a military coup is demonstrably false.

Regarding the decision to expel Mr. Zelaya from the country the evening of June 28 without a trial, reasonable people can believe the situation could have been handled differently. But it is also necessary to understand the decision in the context of genuine fear of Mr. Zelaya’s proven willingness to violate the law and to engage in mob-led violence.

The way forward is to work with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. He is proposing ways to ensure that Mr. Zelaya complies with Honduras’s laws and its constitution and allows the people of Honduras to elect a new president in the regularly scheduled Nov. 29 elections (or perhaps earlier, if the date is moved up as President Arias has suggested and as Honduran law allows).

If all parties reach agreement to allow Mr. Zelaya to return to Honduras—a big “if”—we believe that he cannot be trusted to comply with the law and therefore it is our position that he must be prosecuted with full due process.

President Arias’s proposal for a moratorium on prosecution of all parties may be considered, but our Supreme Court has indicated that such a proposal presents serious legal problems under our constitution.

Like America, our constitutional democracy has three co-equal and independent branches of government—a fact that Mr. Zelaya ignored when he openly defied the positions of both the Supreme Court and Congress. But we are ready to continue discussions once the Supreme Court, the attorney general and Congress analyze President Arias’s proposal. That proposal has been turned over to them so that they can review provisions that impact their legal authority. Once we know their legal positions we will proceed accordingly.

The Honduran people must have confidence that their Congress is a co-equal branch of government. They must be assured that the rule of law in Honduras applies to everyone, even their president, and that their Supreme Court’s orders will not be dismissed and swept aside by other nations as inconvenient obstacles.

Meanwhile, the other elements of the Arias proposal, especially the establishment of a Truth Commission to make findings of fact and international enforcement mechanisms to ensure Mr. Zelaya complies with the agreement, are worthy of serious consideration.

Mr. Zelaya’s irresponsible attempt on Friday afternoon to cross the border into Honduras before President Arias has obtained agreement from all parties—an attempt that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appropriately described as “reckless”—was just another example of why Mr. Zelaya cannot be trusted to keep his word.

Regardless of what happens, the worst thing the U.S. can do is to impose economic sanctions that would primarily hurt the poorest people in Honduras. Rather than impose sanctions, the U.S. should continue the wise policies of Mrs. Clinton. She is supporting President Arias’s efforts to mediate the issues. The goal is a peaceful solution that is consistent with Honduran law in a civil society where even the president is not above the law.

Mr. Micheletti, previously the president of the Honduran Congress, became president of Honduras upon the departure of Manuel Zelaya. He is a member of the Liberal Party, the same party as Mr. Zelaya. The Path Forward for Honduras - WSJ.com