PDA

View Full Version : Honduras (catch all)



AnalyticType
06-25-2009, 11:33 PM
From Stratfor today:


Honduras saw several siginificant developments as tensions continue to rise following the June 24 dismissal of the Central American country's military commander....
Source: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090625_honduras_tensions_rise

What reaction/action do you perceive will develop within the Honduran military?

Zelaya wants to re-engineer the 1982 constitution, likely to his personal benefit: currently the constitution allows for exactly one presidential term. No doubt he wants more. Has he been studying up on the sweet deal Turkmenbashi had?

Source: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090625_honduras_political_crisis_brews

Blackjack
06-28-2009, 05:19 PM
It looks like we have the answer to what his opposition will do. Appearently the Army has arrested the Honduran President, but things went for warm to hot overnight.



From Stratfor today:


Source: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090625_honduras_tensions_rise

What reaction/action do you perceive will develop within the Honduran military?

Zelaya wants to re-engineer the 1982 constitution, likely to his personal benefit: currently the constitution allows for exactly one presidential term. No doubt he wants more. Has he been studying up on the sweet deal Turkmenbashi had?

Source: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090625_honduras_political_crisis_brews

Watcher In The Middle
06-29-2009, 12:39 PM
...about what actually occurred:

This article is slanted toward Honduras exiling President Mel Zelaya, and then moving on.

Honduras Defends Its Democracy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html#mod=rss_opinion_main)

This article is slanted toward US involvement for forcing reinstatement of President Mel Zelaya.

Separate Article With Different Viewpoint (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1907600,00.html?xid=rss-topstories)

Looks to be more of an internal political crisis in which nobody was willing to stop pushing the envelope, eventually push comes to shove. Somebody gets to take an extended vacation out of the country.

This is going to be an interesting case to see how much political resources that POTUS wants to spend regarding Honduras - if any. You only have so much "political capital" to spend, and one of the big issues is going to be "Why Honduras, and why not (enter name here)".

Smart Move: Let your Sec. of State handle this, apply the appropriate level of outrage, and then move back onto the more pressing issues.

jmm99
06-29-2009, 06:38 PM
WH denial (http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3738311,00.html) of involvement (apparently confirmed by Zelaya) and Chavez (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chavez-threatens-to-invade-as-honduran-army-stages-coup-1723090.html) on military intervention (by him).

JTF, since you're my go to guy on things Central American, what think you ? Or is it too early to tell ?

John T. Fishel
06-29-2009, 08:51 PM
It appears, from what I have read - the articlesposted by Watcher seem to cover the possible realities - that Zelaya was deposed constitutionally, if in a rough and ready manner. The general reaction in Latin America has been knee jerk rejection of any military involvement but who was to carry out the Supreme Court's order to arrest him if not the military? This was hardly similar to the attempted coup against Chavez or Chavez' own coup attempt against constitutional President Carlos Andres Perez in 1992 (exact date?). In neither case had the other institutions of government charged the President with wrongdoing. The closest analogy I can think of is the period that led up to Augusto Pinochet's coup against Salvador Allende in 1972. In that case, the Congress and the courts had turned on Allende but neither had directed his arrest. Pinochet acted alone, in the end. The proof was in what happened next. While the coup itself was popular, the expectation was that the armed forces would return to barracks having done the job - they didn't. In HO, the armed forces were directed to take action by the court which was confirmed by the Congress which named Zelaya's successor according to the constitution. Appropriately, Secretary Clinton has not accepted that this was a military coup and the Adminsitration is acting cautiously.
Personally, I think the WSJ article got it right based on what I currently know, and therefore, we should act more forthrightly to support the Honduran congress and the court. That said, more and different information could change my perception.

Steve Blair
06-29-2009, 09:00 PM
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8125292.stm) to a BBC article on the situation. Looks like Obama's already made a statement of sorts.

John T. Fishel
06-29-2009, 11:49 PM
Yes, he made a statement calling it a coup and condenming it. That hardly changes the apparent facts which, in addition, include a statement by the new Pres (formerly Pres of the Congress = speaker of the House in the US) that scheduled free presidential elections will take place this Fall with international observers.

I happen to think the Pres is factually wrong; this is not a coup.

Cheers

JohnT

PS The military acting under orders of a civilian branch of govt can hardly be conducting a military coup. Indeed, when its actions were ratified by a second civilian branch - the Congress - I'd say 2 out of 3 ain't bad!

jmm99
06-29-2009, 11:56 PM
Mucho gratias for the briefing.

My thoughts are that 24 hours, to digest the facts and come up with a definitive legal opinion based on what WH legal, DoJ and DoS Legal Advisor think is the constitutional law of Honduras, is a very short time.

However, the crowd (OAS) is on Z's side - so, Pres. Obama here is probably being "practical" - keep even with Hugo ??

Not my area - so, JTF, keep us posted.

-----------------
My sat dish is haywire - some high winds in the last few days. I guess I'll bring a shortwave into the living room and go back to the old days of monitoring via radio - yikes !

Watcher In The Middle
06-30-2009, 01:09 AM
POTUS has basically done what he had to do (sort of), but it gets tricky from here. First off, it's a whole lot easier to get in than it is to get back out - A lesson we've had a hard time over the last few years.

The real problem is that POTUS is now more subject to the whims of folks like Hugo Chavez in regards to where do we go from here; re: Honduras. What happens if Hugo Chavez gets the OAS to endorse military action against Honduras, and Hugo offers to lead the way?

or...

The US is Honduras biggest trade partner. What happens if the OAS puts drastic trade sanctions on Honduras, or any other national entity trading with Honduras?

The real problem out of this is that I see POTUS has potentially put us into the mix where the least stable LATAM leadership could easily turn out to be the band leader, and then, it's "What's The Plan??"

John T. Fishel
06-30-2009, 01:11 AM
I don't know what the Honduran Constitution says about removing a President but Latin American constitutions usually don't say much since Presidents tend to dominate. Still, there has been a slight trend toward more respect for other govt insitutions in the recent past.

That said, if the WSJ interpretation of the facts is correct, the Obama, OAS, and Chavez position is like saying to the US that Congress had no right to impeach Bill Clinton or bring impeachment charges against Richard Nixon forcing his resignation.

This is, IMO, a case where the traditional Latin American doctrine of non-intervention is most appropriate. If followed, it would allow the Hondurans to deal with their own problem...

Cheers

JohnT

Ken White
06-30-2009, 01:28 AM
If the Honduran Supreme Court and their Congress agree...

This is a time to wish Honduras well and do nothing. If we roll for Chavez et Cie., we'll pay later.

John T. Fishel
06-30-2009, 12:02 PM
President Obama had the choice to be as cautious with HO as he was with Iran. Instead, he jumped in up to his eyeballs. What he appears to have failed to do is recognize that threats to democracy can and do come from elected presidents as well as unelected generals. As recently as 1992 we have the autogolpe of Alberto Fujimori, Pres of Peru, immediately followed by a similar attempt in Guatemala. Of course there are the current cases of Chavez' Venezuela and Morales' Bolivia where democratic freedom is being whittled away by presdientially sponsored plebiscitary democracy. In the former, democracy is gone... voted away democratically.

Cheers

JohnT

Steve Blair
06-30-2009, 01:33 PM
President Obama had the choice to be as cautious with HO as he was with Iran. Instead, he jumped in up to his eyeballs. What he appears to have failed to do is recognize that threats to democracy can and do come from elected presidents as well as unelected generals. As recently as 1992 we have the autogolpe of Alberto Fujimori, Pres of Peru, immediately followed by a similar attempt in Guatemala. Of course there are the current cases of Chavez' Venezuela and Morales' Bolivia where democratic freedom is being whittled away by presdientially sponsored plebiscitary democracy. In the former, democracy is gone... voted away democratically.

Cheers

JohnT

Quite so. I found that reaction especially disturbing from someone who has a legal background and should be able to recognize the difference between a coup and what appears to have happened in Honduras. BBC accounts seem to jive with what the WSJ is saying.

I think our best course would have been to stay clear.

tequila
06-30-2009, 02:24 PM
I think our best course would have been to stay clear.

Staying "clear" is very close to essentially agreeing with the coup. It wouldn't have been as blatant as Bush's tacit endorsement of the coup against Chavez, but in the face of a universal condemnation from the OAS, the EU, and pretty much every responding country and organization in the world, it would be a clear signal that we approved of the coup, or at least its results.

Moreover, that members of the coup itself have doubts about its "legality" can be seen in the faked resignation letter and the immediate declaration of martial law, as well as the clampdown on opposition media.

As for "jumping in to his eyeballs", needless to say I disagree. The Administration didn't recall the Ambassador, didn't declare an immediate cutoff of its quite significant military aid to Honduras, didn't call for Zelaya's immediate reinstatement, etc. The Administration did the minimum required to stay in step with the rest of the world.

AnalyticType
06-30-2009, 02:28 PM
Quite so. I found that reaction especially disturbing from someone who has a legal background and should be able to recognize the difference between a coup and what appears to have happened in Honduras. [...]

I agree with SB and JTF. Several times on the news I watched Obama make those comments. My slip/bias may be showing a tad here, but given my perception that he's taking us toward (if not down) a similar road, I sensed a bit of defensiveness in his facial expressions and tone. There appeared to be the desire to speak his mind battling with the need to filter his words.

"democracy is gone... voted away democratically."

Just my 2psi

tequila
06-30-2009, 02:41 PM
My slip/bias may be showing a tad here, but given my perception that he's taking us toward (if not down) a similar road, I sensed a bit of defensiveness in his facial expressions and tone.

The Administration's thinking (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/world/americas/30honduras.html?hp)is likely along the lines of this quote:


Even so, one administration official said that while the United States thought the referendum was a bad idea, it did not justify a coup.

“On the one instance, we’re talking about conducting a survey, a nonbinding survey; in the other instance, we’re talking about the forcible removal of a president from a country,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity during a teleconference call with reporters.

Steve Blair
06-30-2009, 02:58 PM
Staying "clear" is very close to essentially agreeing with the coup. It wouldn't have been as blatant as Bush's tacit endorsement of the coup against Chavez, but in the face of a universal condemnation from the OAS, the EU, and pretty much every responding country and organization in the world, it would be a clear signal that we approved of the coup, or at least its results.

Moreover, that members of the coup itself have doubts about its "legality" can be seen in the faked resignation letter and the immediate declaration of martial law, as well as the clampdown on opposition media.

As for "jumping in to his eyeballs", needless to say I disagree. The Administration didn't recall the Ambassador, didn't declare an immediate cutoff of its quite significant military aid to Honduras, didn't call for Zelaya's immediate reinstatement, etc. The Administration did the minimum required to stay in step with the rest of the world.

I'm still not convinced that what we're seeing here is a coup. All the reports I've seen indicate that the army acted at the behest of the Honduran supreme court, which in turn was acting based on legislation passed by the Honduran legislature. That and I wouldn't call Chavez a disinterested or objective observer. Of course he's going to act to keep a potential ally in office.

And is this really necessary?
My own slip/bias may be showing here, but do you also think that FEMA is building concentration camps in Amtrak repair facilities, or that the President was actually born in Kenya?
AT appeared to be simply expressing an opinion, and framed it with a statement indicating possible personal bias. No need to mock that.

tequila
06-30-2009, 03:09 PM
I'm still not convinced that what we're seeing here is a coup. All the reports I've seen indicate that the army acted at the behest of the Honduran supreme court, which in turn was acting based on legislation passed by the Honduran legislature. That and I wouldn't call Chavez a disinterested or objective observer. Of course he's going to act to keep a potential ally in office.


Faked resignation letter, declaration of martial law, shutdown of opposition media, forced expulsion of the elected President. Pretty sure the last measure is not in the Honduran Constitution any more than some of Zelaya's moves towards his nonbinding referendum on a possible Constitutional convention.

When did I even bring up Chavez? He's hardly the only one calling this a coup --- pretty much the entire world is.

Steve Blair
06-30-2009, 03:13 PM
Faked resignation letter, declaration of martial law, shutdown of opposition media, forced expulsion of the elected President. Pretty sure the last measure is not in the Honduran Constitution any more than some of Zelaya's moves towards his nonbinding referendum on a possible Constitutional convention.

When did I even bring up Chavez? He's hardly the only one calling this a coup --- pretty much the entire world is.

Glad to see you've made up your mind. My position tends to be closer to JohnT's, but to each his own.

Ken White
06-30-2009, 03:55 PM
...The Administration did the minimum required to stay in step with the rest of the world.Some day, those in this country who wish to do that will learn that it makes absolutely no difference in the way we are perceived by the rest of the world. Nor will it change the fact that we are both envied and despised by much of the world.

Been that way since World War II and while the viscosity goes up and down the scale depending upon events, it never fully dissipates. We waste much effort in even trying to cater to it.

That's is not likely to cease in the foreseeable future and all the apologists in the world won't effect any change...

What we should have done is express concern about the way it was done while in the same speech roundly and solidly and very publicly criticizing Chavez and Ortega for interfering in Honduras and encouraging Zelaya to attempt to subvert his own constitution.

Anyone who does not believe those two did and are doing that with tacit encouragement of many to tweak the Yanqui nose is living in a dream world.

AnalyticType
06-30-2009, 05:04 PM
John T's comments here bring up a very valid point.

There is a fair bit of mirror imaging occurring in discussions of this event (internationally, in the media, and in discussions like this one.) Specifically, the situation is not being viewed from the Honduran perspective, but rather through the lens of what our Constitution dictates, or what other international bodies deem appropriate. That the military's actions apparently were at the behest of the Honduran Legislature and Supreme Court indicates the likelihood that their legal procedure was observed.


I don't know what the Honduran Constitution says about removing a President but Latin American constitutions usually don't say much since Presidents tend to dominate. Still, there has been a slight trend toward more respect for other govt insitutions in the recent past.

That said, if the WSJ interpretation of the facts is correct, the Obama, OAS, and Chavez position is like saying to the US that Congress had no right to impeach Bill Clinton or bring impeachment charges against Richard Nixon forcing his resignation.

This is, IMO, a case where the traditional Latin American doctrine of non-intervention is most appropriate. If followed, it would allow the Hondurans to deal with their own problem...

Cheers

JohnT

J Wolfsberger
06-30-2009, 05:13 PM
My own slip/bias may be showing here ...

No "may" about it.

"Faked resignation letter, declaration of martial law, shutdown of opposition media, forced expulsion of the elected President. Pretty sure the last measure is not in the Honduran Constitution any more than some of Zelaya's moves towards his nonbinding referendum on a possible Constitutional convention."

How do you know it's faked? It may very well be, but at this point the Supreme Court of Honduras, the Congress in Honduras and the military in Honduras all seem to be accepting it as genuine. What evidence, other than the purported author's denial, do you have to the contrary?

"Declaration of martial law?" According to AFP, "... Micheletti imposed a 48-hour curfew on the capital ..." Referring to a curfew as martial law? No.

"Shutdown of opposition media?" What opposition media are you referring to, because I can't find any stories from reasonably reputable sources. In the meantime, see this (http://www.laprensahn.com/).

I will agree that the forced expulsion was probably wrong. Since the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya's arrest, he should probably have been placed under house arrest.

And on that topic, do you know for a fact that the Honduran Supreme Court overstepped its authority in ordering Zelaya's arrest? Could you present the relevant articles from their Constitution to support that?

So far, everything I've read and heard from reasonably reputable media indicates that Zelaya was replaced in an orderly legal manner. Maybe I'm wrong. Could you provide the appropriate citations to show the illegality of his ouster? And just to anticipate, "appropriate citations" from Honduran law and its Constitution is not the same thing as politicians making that assertion.

jmm99
06-30-2009, 06:19 PM
UN Charter, Article 2.7 (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml):


Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
....
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

How interpretation and implementation of these principles have changed since 26 Jun 1945 !

Chapter VII applies only if international factors apply. Have the "coupists" done anything beyond the borders of Honduras ? Has any nation-state (or for that matter, any transnational actor) had a material role in the "coup" ?

Just as the President of the United States (over successive administrations) has become more and more the Mayor of the United States, the United Nations has sought to become the City Council for the World.

Assuming arguendo (that is, accepting as true without proof, solely for the purposes of this argument) that everything that the "coupists" did was illegal under the Honduran constitution and its laws, all of that consists of domestic acts within its borders.

And, since the OAS has been mentioned, OAS Charter, Article 19 (http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/charter.html#ch2):


Article 19

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.

Since we live in a period of interventionism, non-interventionist principles are interpreted and implemented in a very different manner than the drafters intended - or, are simply ignored, as appears to be the present case.

tequila
06-30-2009, 06:43 PM
How do you know it's faked? It may very well be, but at this point the Supreme Court of Honduras, the Congress in Honduras and the military in Honduras all seem to be accepting it as genuine. What evidence, other than the purported author's denial, do you have to the contrary?


Well, yes, they would be considering they were the ones who ousted him.

Given that the purported author of the letter says that it was not genuine, that would argue that he either did not sign such a letter, or that it was signed under duress. Either way, it would indicate he did not resign willingly but was forced to, as would appear quite obvious by the expulsion. It's a bit much to believe that he left willingly and then changed his mind.


"Shutdown of opposition media?" What opposition media are you referring to, because I can't find any stories from reasonably reputable sources. In the meantime, see this.


RSF lists these (http://www.rsf.org/News-blackout-after-army-ousts.html).



Soldiers went to the headquarters of the daily El Tiempo and the TV station Canal 11 in San Pedro Sula on 28 June and insisted that the journalists stop relaying information coming from members of ousted President José Manuel Zelaya’s government,

Several journalists with the international TV station Telesur and the daily La Prensa have talked of censorship by military officers who asked them to “moderate” their coverage. Soldiers also threatened to arrest them if they continued to broadcast footage or print photos of the demonstrations in support of Zelaya.

Around 10 soldiers stormed into the Marriot Hotel in Tegucigalpa on 29 June as foreign journalists were transmitting footage of a demonstration from their room. The soldiers arrested Argentine journalist Nicolas Garcia, Peruvian journalist Esteban Felix and two Nicaraguans who work for the Associated Press as assistants. They were taken to the Immigration Bureau where their visas were checked and where they were released an hour and a half later after explaining they were journalists. Adriana Sivori, Maria Jose Diaz and Larry Sanchez of Telesur were also detained and then freed.

Two TV stations, Canal 66 Maya TV and Canal 36, were ordered to stop broadcasting on 28 June without being told when they could resume.



Some day, those in this country who wish to do that will learn that it makes absolutely no difference in the way we are perceived by the rest of the world. Nor will it change the fact that we are both envied and despised by much of the world.


So, just out of interest, should we close down the State Department and remove the United Nations from U.S. soil? Are the billions spent in those areas a waste of money?

John T. Fishel
06-30-2009, 06:43 PM
I said I didn't know what the Honduran Constitution says. I have since looked it up and it is silent on the subject of removal of the President although it appears to give the Supreme Court the power to oder his arrest for certain crimes. Operating word is appears Operating condition is ambiguity.

The Constitution actually establishes four somewhat independent branches of government: the Executive (Pres), the Legislative (congress), the Courts, and the Armed Forces - the Pres must act through the Army Commander-in-Chief and does not have hiring and firing authority (as demonstrated again by the Supreme Court ruling that provided impulse to the crisis). What this is is a power struggle in which 3 of the four principal constitutional branches of the Honduran Government are in conflict with the fourth and traditionally the most powerful - the Presidency(by law if not fact).

Recent US policy toward Latin America has had as a major focus trying to instill real checks and balances to overwhelming presidential power by strengthening the Congress and Courts and developing a civil service especially in defense matters to balance the power and expertise of the armed forces. The POTUS response flies in the face of this policy which dates back well into the Clinton years and even earlier. It also is a case of getting on a bandwagon of international agencies and regional governments who either don't know what is going on or have their own agendas some of which are clearly anti-constitutional even if they are not prima facie anti-democratic. Sadly, they are, in fact, anti democratic in such cases as that of Lt. Col. (cashiered and jailed for his attempted coup against CAP) Hugo Chavez.

Cheers

JohnT

Ken White
06-30-2009, 08:39 PM
Headline writers and media editors are hilarious. :D

You listed four incidents of "shutdown of opposition media." You can call that suppression if you wish but three of them look more like idle harassment to me. The fourth, the two TV stations; no indication if they actually did go off the air and / or are off the air at this time. I don't think you have much of a case for shutdown and none has been made that the media discussed is 'opposition' -- merely that it was reporting things someone decided would be better not reported. However, it doesn't look like they were really very serious about it...


...It's a bit much to believe that he left willingly and then changed his mind.Don't think anyone's saying that; the issue is the legality of his arrest and expulsion from the country under Honduran law and none of us seems to know -- including you.
So, just out of interest, should we close down the State Department and remove the United Nations from U.S. soil? Are the billions spent in those areas a waste of money?Well the State Department doesn't get enough money IMO, so 'No' with respect to shutting them down -- we also need to resurrect USAID and the USIA that Bill Clinton and Maddy stupidly trashed...

So, indeed. Give State more Billions; rebuild AID and the USIA -- but realize all that will make little real difference in the way we are perceived through out the world. Nobody likes a guy who is rich, big, attracts all the girls and is a bit prone to act in his own interest. The others in the world act in their interests also -- it's just that when we do it, we're so big it rattles their cages. Badly. Only when China and India get a bit larger and the Turks and Brazilians start throwing their weight around will we be better accepted -- but even then, cautiously, just as we were between WW I and WW II. :cool:

Where to get extra $$ in a time of declining budgets (hopefully)? Why, cut DoD -- it's way over funded and wastes Billions (have to get on Congress about that -- much of the waste is at their insistence). :wry:

Get some also from the UN to whom we give too many $$ for what we or the rest of the World get in return. Like DoD, they're over funded and that breeds waste and abuse. The World needs a UN but it needs one that is not dysfunctional and hell bent to have a World government while not fulfilling its obligations as is now the case... :eek:

John T. Fishel
06-30-2009, 09:37 PM
BBC has quite a balanced account of the Honduras events with interviews of Hondurans. Their assessment appears to be that the Honuran people side with the de facto govt against the ousted Pres.

AnalyticType
06-30-2009, 10:37 PM
A rather interesting Op-Ed article in the Latin American Herald Tribune (http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=338175&CategoryId=13303) is asking the appropriate question and shedding some light:


In Honduras, the Constitution orders that election laws may not be amended or submitted to referendum less than six months before elections to public office. In Honduras, general elections are slated for November 29 this year.

Despite this constitutional precept, the then-President of the Republic of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, considered that he was not bound to comply with this rule and called a referendum to decide whether, at the November general elections, a constituent assembly would also be called that would permit him to run for reelection. Who violated the Constitution?


This next paragraph I found to be of particular interest in light of the aforementioned OAS Charter's Article 19, prohibiting other member states' direct or indirect intervention.


So, he ordered the chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, to transfer and safeguard the electoral materials that the Venezuelan Government had prepared and donated. General Vásquez Velásquez refused to follow this illegal order, and, as a consequence, was dismissed. Who violated the Constitution?

But wait! There's more...


But Zelaya carried on with his preparations and only performed a cosmetic change to this illegal referendum: on Saturday night, he verbally stated that the referendum would not be binding, but confirmed that it would go ahead as planned. Who violated the Constitution?


You also get the Ginsu Knives!


It is more than likely that the OAS will, once again, succumb to the demagogic temptation to defend certain fledgling dictators disguised as democrats.


Interesting too is the author(s)' (http://www.veneconomy.com/site/index.asp?idim=2) parting shot.

tequila
06-30-2009, 11:53 PM
Prof Fishel - Is there a better source for the Honduran Constitution out there than the Google translation of the Georgetown link here (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html&ei=Jp1KSvCMBJOKMbr0gLMK&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html%26hl%3Den)?


Recent US policy toward Latin America has had as a major focus trying to instill real checks and balances to overwhelming presidential power by strengthening the Congress and Courts and developing a civil service especially in defense matters to balance the power and expertise of the armed forces. The POTUS response flies in the face of this policy which dates back well into the Clinton years and even earlier. It also is a case of getting on a bandwagon of international agencies and regional governments who either don't know what is going on or have their own agendas some of which are clearly anti-constitutional even if they are not prima facie anti-democratic. Sadly, they are, in fact, anti democratic in such cases as that of Lt. Col. (cashiered and jailed for his attempted coup against CAP) Hugo Chavez.


I disagree with much of what you wrote here. Combating overweening presidential power, for instance, does not track with what the U.S. has done vice the Uribe government in Colombia or the Fox and Calderon governments in Mexico. As for bandwaggoning with "international agencies" or "regional governments", I suppose that's a pretty crowded bandwagon we're jumping on --- to include the aforementioned Uribe and Calderon governments and noted Chavez-style leftists as Stephen Harper from Canada.

As far as legal parsing goes, the Administration has not come to an actual legal judgment on this as a coup (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/30/politics/washingtonpost/main5125109.shtml), which would trigger an immediate cutoff of military aid.


Clinton told reporters that the situation in Honduras had "evolved into a coup" but that the United States was "withholding any formal legal determination" characterizing it that way.

"We're assessing what the final outcome of these actions will be," she said. "Much of our assistance is conditioned on the integrity of the democratic system. But if we were able to get to a status quo that returned to the rule of law and constitutional order within a relatively short period of time, I think that would be a good outcome."


Not sure why people here seem to interpret the Administration's response as taking sides with Chavez, when all it has done it what is essentially required to do given the military's actions --- much less interference in the country's affairs, given that if it really was its intent, the Administration has far more levers to push than what it has done so far.

As for what the Administration is actually trying to do:


But the Obama administration has had cool relations with Zelaya, a close ally of Venezuela's anti-American president, Hugo Chávez. While U.S. officials say they continue to recognize Zelaya as president, they have not indicated they are willing to use the enormous U.S. clout in the country to force his return.

Asked whether it was a U.S. priority to see Zelaya reinstalled, Clinton said: "We haven't laid out any demands that we're insisting on, because we're working with others on behalf of our ultimate objectives."

John D. Negroponte, a former senior State Department official and ambassador to Honduras, said Clinton's remarks appeared to reflect U.S. reluctance to see Zelaya returned unconditionally to power.

"I think she wants to preserve some leverage to try and get Zelaya to back down from his insistence on a referendum," he said.


Which appears to be bearing fruit (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAkMGKIUDg_ngUiZboxQbYj5_DPwD9958LT80http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAkMGKIUDg_ngUiZboxQbYj5_DPwD9958LT80):


Zelaya backed down from the referendum on Tuesday, saying at the United Nations that he would no longer push for the constitutional changes he had wanted.

"I'm not going to hold a constitutional assembly," he said. "And if I'm offered the chance to stay in power, I won't. I'm going to serve my four years."

He said he would then go back to being a farmer — a humble description considering the wealth he has accumulated in ranching and agribusiness.

"I come from the countryside and I'm going to go back to the countryside," he said.




Since we live in a period of interventionism, non-interventionist principles are interpreted and implemented in a very different manner than the drafters intended - or, are simply ignored, as appears to be the present case.


Seems a bit odd to call diplomacy "intervention."


You listed four incidents of "shutdown of opposition media." You can call that suppression if you wish but three of them look more like idle harassment to me. The fourth, the two TV stations; no indication if they actually did go off the air and / or are off the air at this time. I don't think you have much of a case for shutdown and none has been made that the media discussed is 'opposition' -- merely that it was reporting things someone decided would be better not reported. However, it doesn't look like they were really very serious about it...


Given both the history of the Honduran military and the fact that it just dragged the President out of his own bed and bundled him out of the country, I think the media could be forgiven for being intimidated by threats from the men with guns. Sure, it would certainly look worse if they simply shot up the offices or beat them up, but I think if police or military members showed up to NBC or Fox News studios with similar "idle harassment", we'd call it what it was: government intimidation and suppression.

Ken White
07-01-2009, 12:41 AM
...Sure, it would certainly look worse if they simply shot up the offices or beat them up, but I think if police or military members showed up to NBC or Fox News studios with similar "idle harassment", we'd call it what it was: government intimidation and suppression.We just send Lawyers and Platoons of Process Servers to have even more chilling effect... :D

Or buy a Congress person to slip an amendment into a Bill... :rolleyes:

As for this:
...Not sure why people here seem to interpret the Administration's response as taking sides with Chavez...Because 'we' are taking precisely the same attitude he, Ortega, Correa and Morales have taken while eliding the almost certain efforts of at least two of those folks to influence Zelaya to do what he proposed to do -- get himself reelected to an illegal third term, itself a violation of the rule of law it would seem. I realize that worked well for Hugo and Castro y Castro but I'm not at all sure the US should tacitly encourage it.

That may not be what you think we're doing. It may not be what Obama thinks he did -- but I'll wager Hugo will make sure the World sees it that way unless there's some backpedalling out of DC forthwith.

jmm99
07-01-2009, 01:13 AM
not mentioned in post #24 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=75613&postcount=24) that I can find; nor in the quote from that post with your unanchored comment:


from tequila

Quote:
Since we live in a period of interventionism, non-interventionist principles are interpreted and implemented in a very different manner than the drafters intended - or, are simply ignored, as appears to be the present case.

Seems a bit odd to call diplomacy "intervention."

Post #24 certainly does contain basic international legal principles, adopted by the UN and OAS, prohibiting intervention in the internal affairs of a member by international organizations, groups of states or a state.

Whether "diplomacy" (which covers a broad spectrum) constitutes intervention or not depends on the specific reduction to practice of that "diplomacy". I did not attempt in post #24 to define or illustrate what (if any) "diplomatic" programs would or would not constitute intervention.

You are more than free to do so.

PS: The very fact that the event (Ms Clinton: "evolved into a coup"; Pres. Obama: "illegal") is being discussed in terms of violations of Honduran law (as opposed to international law violations affecting other states), proves my point in what you quoted - that the prohibitions against intervention "are simply ignored, as appears to be the present case."

John T. Fishel
07-01-2009, 02:36 AM
translations are respectable. When I went looking for the Honduran Constitution I found it in Spanish. What I didn't find in it was clarity. However, I will repeat what I said, it appears that the Honduran Supreme Court ordered the arrest of President Zelaya and ordered the army to make the arrest. Since, the Presidential Guarsd is part of the Army, it sees prudent to order the army to do so rather than the police who are much less competent and disciplined.

Part of the debate here is over the definition of a coup. It appears that you are arguing that any time the head of govt of a state is arrested by the armed forces and forced out of office it is a coup d'etat. But is it a coup when the armed forces are carrying out the lawful orders of another branch of govt? Based on the information available, this is what appears to have happened. If so, then I am not willing to call it a a coup or any kind of illegal transer fo power. What gives us the right or duty to interpret the Honduran Constitution? Seems to me that we generally grant that authority to the courts of the land and the highest court in HO is its Supreme Court which ordered the action taken.

John T. Fishel
07-01-2009, 02:40 AM
with you, Tequila, regarding the Uribe government in Colombia, I would most strongly disagree with respect to Mexico. The Fox Administration marks the first time in post Revolutionary Mexican history that Congress has been more than a rubber stamp for the President. I have seen nothing during the Calderon Administration that is different from the previous sexenio.

jmm99
07-01-2009, 03:07 AM
This document (http://www.oas.org/charter/docs/resolution1_en_p4.htm) provides the doctrine ruling: where the issue of illegality is to be determined (within OAS); what diplomatic measures are permitted (very limited); and what sanction is available if the diplomatic measures are rejected (suspension of OAS membership - e.g., Cuba until recently).

In this case, the most simple course of action (and that creating the least chance of immediate harm, and allowing the US the most freedom of action) was to say that questions (both factual and legal) have been raised about events in Honduras. The Inter-American Democratic Charter provides the mechanism for resolution of those issues. We are committed to the principles of the OAS Charter, good governance, self-determination, etc., etc., da, da.....

The Latin-American nations have a clear policy that the US should not make legal determinations concerning their internal and external affairs, but that all such matters should be referred to the OAS. E.g., my prof in the Int Org - OAS seminar, visiting the U of M from Mexico City; and all that I've learned since.



---------------------------

Lima, September 11, 2001

INTER-AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC CHARTER

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

CONSIDERING that the Charter of the Organization of American States recognizes that representative democracy is indispensable for the stability, peace, and development of the region, and that one of the purposes of the OAS is to promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the principle of nonintervention;
.....
IV
Strengthening and Preservation of Democratic Institutions

Article 17

When the government of a member state considers that its democratic political institutional process or its legitimate exercise of power is at risk, it may request assistance from the Secretary General or the Permanent Council for the strengthening and preservation of its democratic system.

Article 18

When situations arise in a member state that may affect the development of its democratic political institutional process or the legitimate exercise of power, the Secretary General or the Permanent Council may, with prior consent of the government concerned, arrange for visits or other actions in order to analyze the situation. The Secretary General will submit a report to the Permanent Council, which will undertake a collective assessment of the situation and, where necessary, may adopt decisions for the preservation of the democratic system and its strengthening.

Article 19

Based on the principles of the Charter of the OAS and subject to its norms, and in accordance with the democracy clause contained in the Declaration of Quebec City, an unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order or an unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional regime that seriously impairs the democratic order in a member state, constitutes, while it persists, an insurmountable obstacle to its government’s participation in sessions of the General Assembly, the Meeting of Consultation, the Councils of the Organization, the specialized conferences, the commissions, working groups, and other bodies of the Organization.

Article 20

In the event of an unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional regime that seriously impairs the democratic order in a member state, any member state or the Secretary General may request the immediate convocation of the Permanent Council to undertake a collective assessment of the situation and to take such decisions as it deems appropriate.

The Permanent Council, depending on the situation, may undertake the necessary diplomatic initiatives, including good offices, to foster the restoration of democracy.

If such diplomatic initiatives prove unsuccessful, or if the urgency of the situation so warrants, the Permanent Council shall immediately convene a special session of the General Assembly. The General Assembly will adopt the decisions it deems appropriate, including the undertaking of diplomatic initiatives, in accordance with the Charter of the Organization, international law, and the provisions of this Democratic Charter.

The necessary diplomatic initiatives, including good offices, to foster the restoration of democracy, will continue during the process.

Article 21

When the special session of the General Assembly determines that there has been an unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order of a member state, and that diplomatic initiatives have failed, the special session shall take the decision to suspend said member state from the exercise of its right to participate in the OAS by an affirmative vote of two thirds of the member states in accordance with the Charter of the OAS. The suspension shall take effect immediately.

The suspended member state shall continue to fulfill its obligations to the Organization, in particular its human rights obligations.

Notwithstanding the suspension of the member state, the Organization will maintain diplomatic initiatives to restore democracy in that state.

Article 22

Once the situation that led to suspension has been resolved, any member state or the Secretary General may propose to the General Assembly that suspension be lifted. This decision shall require the vote of two thirds of the member states in accordance with the OAS Charter.

--------------------
Hey JTF - what's a "previous sexenio" ? I need some excitement; my sat dish is haywire. Serious question. :D

Ken White
07-01-2009, 03:29 AM
Check the LINK (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_drug_allegations). The Drug allegations are just that at this point, allegations and I didn't really give them much credence. Too early to tell.

I'm posting this because of the one apparent fact in the article:
"In October, Zelaya proposed legalizing drug use as a way of reducing the violence, and doubling the country's police force, which reached 13,500 last year, up from 7,000 in 2005, according to the State Department report."The increase in Cops at his behest, making them beholden to him, may explain why the ol' Ejercito was chosen in lieu of the Policia to arrest El Presidente... :wry:

ADDED: Just checked. Nearly as I can tell, the reported increase made the Police larger than the Armed Forces (not just the Army). That's always the one of the first steps...

John T. Fishel
07-01-2009, 11:25 AM
= six year presidential term w/o any reelection in Mexico:)

Cheers

JohnT

J Wolfsberger
07-01-2009, 12:15 PM
= six year presidential term w/o any reelection in Mexico:)

Cheers

JohnT

Well, crap. We were all hoping for something more interesting. :wry:

Steve Blair
07-01-2009, 01:25 PM
If Honduras had nukes (or might have them), would we (as in the leadership segment) have been so quick to jump in?:D

Just sayin'....

marct
07-01-2009, 02:50 PM
Hi Tequila,


As for bandwaggoning with "international agencies" or "regional governments", I suppose that's a pretty crowded bandwagon we're jumping on --- to include the aforementioned Uribe and Calderon governments and noted Chavez-style leftists as Stephen Harper from Canada.

Okay, I just have to ask - where did you get that idea of Harper from? A "Chavez-style leftist"?????? Up here, he's usually seen as closer to ex-President Bush than to wanna-be Big Men like Chavez!

slapout9
07-01-2009, 03:42 PM
Video analysis of the situation by Real News Network.

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3947&updaterx=2009-06-30+17%3A03%3A19

marct
07-01-2009, 04:09 PM
Video analysis of the situation by Real News Network.

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3947&updaterx=2009-06-30+17%3A03%3A19

"Analysis"? Hmm, I would have said "pre-conceived theological Truthyness" myself :wry:. Did anyone else notice that a large amount of the video was provided by Al-Jezeera? I also noticed that the "commentator" (aka talking head) didn't bother to make any reference to the fact that referendums are disallowed within 6 months of an election.

What's bothering me about a lot of this coverage is that nowhere yet have I seen anyone noting that Zelaya was trying to build a Chavez-style dictatorship.

J Wolfsberger
07-01-2009, 04:54 PM
What's bothering me about a lot of this coverage is that nowhere yet have I seen anyone noting that Zelaya was trying to build a Chavez-style dictatorship.

Marc, I think you may be confusing "media coverage" with "news." What's important to the media is that a Leftist lost power. The facts are minor details of no particular significance.

What I would like to know is whether there's any confirmation of the assertion in the NY Post that Chavez has agents on the ground. Would he be likely to start/support an insurgency/revolution?

AnalyticType
07-01-2009, 04:58 PM
how the video jives with truth on the ground now, several days afterward. Specifically, Prof Salas referred to Zelaya's referrendum as a 'survey', giving it a very different (and far more favorable) connotation. He stated that an unknown number of Legislators had been kidnapped, but I have not seen indications of that elsewhere (yet.) He cited the electricity having been cut off deliberately to create fear among the populace, as well as declaration of 'martial law' for the same purpose. I have not seen evidence of those allegations in La Prensa, though in full disclosure my spanish is rusty (making the translation perhaps less than accurate) and I don't have a handle on the direction of that publication's likely bias.

Having just spent four years living on campus at a very 'liberal' institution of higher education, and having many profs/administrators/students of vocally partisan viewpoints surrounding me, I recognise fervent advocacy coming from the "analyst" Professor Miguel Salas... not balanced analysis. Despite that, the video presented it's 'evidence' from a very finite viewpoint (assuming that all the video bits are actually from Honduras on Sunday), so I'm wondering whether any of the allegations made by Prof Salas from that time frame remain the situation now; or has stability and popular understanding of the full situation occurred? Again, that's the impression I got from my rusty reading of La Prensa.

And, as Marc mentioned, video courtesy of al-Jazeera?? Just a bit odd. I perceive a significant amount of cherry-picking in the information presented in the video.

J Wolfsberger, it's likely that the answer to your question is "yes."

I'm thinkin' a little structured ACH exercise is in order. (This'll be good practice for me!) I'll dig into it and post findings later today.


Video analysis of the situation by Real News Network.

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3947&updaterx=2009-06-30+17%3A03%3A19

marct
07-01-2009, 05:17 PM
Hi JW,


Marc, I think you may be confusing "media coverage" with "news." What's important to the media is that a Leftist lost power. The facts are minor details of no particular significance.

As Stan would say, that's the romantic in me ;). 'sides that, it would probably be more accurate (if that means anything :wry:) to state that "What's important is that a demagogue using broadly Marxian rhetoric to establish personal rule under the "one Man - One Vote" rule (and he's the one man with the one vote) got turfed by the supreme court, the congress and the military."


What I would like to know is whether there's any confirmation of the assertion in the NY Post that Chavez has agents on the ground. Would he be likely to start/support an insurgency/revolution?

Now that is an interesting question. Honestly, i wouldn't be surprised if he did. You know, if Aristophanes was alive today, he would be having a field day - can we say "Brakakax, koax, koax"?:D

J Wolfsberger
07-01-2009, 06:07 PM
... it would probably be more accurate (if that means anything :wry:) to state that "What's important is that a demagogue using broadly Marxian rhetoric to establish personal rule under the "one Man - One Vote" rule (and he's the one man with the one vote) got turfed by the supreme court, the congress and the military."


Well THERE'S my problem. As a simple minded engineering type I didn't realize THAT'S what was happening! :eek:

marct
07-01-2009, 06:35 PM
Well THERE'S my problem. As a simple minded engineering type I didn't realize THAT'S what was happening! :eek:

:p:p:D!!!!!!!

Ken White
07-01-2009, 06:37 PM
...can we say "Brakakax, koax, koax"?:DGoogle those words individually... :o

John T. Fishel
07-01-2009, 07:43 PM
the SG of the OAS, Jose Miguel Insulza, was so adamant in this crisis. Insulza is a Chilean who was exiled as a result of the Pinochet coup in 1973. It was obviously a searing and formative experience for him. Moreover, there are enough analogous factors in the Honduras scenario to offer an explanation for his position.

Cheers

JohnT

Old Eagle
07-01-2009, 08:51 PM
My read of the situation is somewhat different than many of the posts. Deep down, I think that many of the main external players, with the exception of the "Bolivarians" and the outright communists, want Zelaya gone, but through more judicial processes than having the army spirit him out of the country. The internal players (SC & cong), on the other hand, may be fearful of the street violence Z might be able to generate during that process.

Almost everybody wants to prevent the return of the ubiquitous military coups of the 50s-80s.

Ron Humphrey
07-01-2009, 10:12 PM
Chavez was up to his Mr friendly antics at the UN a year or so ago was how would someone like him choose to pull kind of a reverse history in Latin America/ blended with a Castroesque control.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor)

Take it turn it around and insert Chavez??

Probably way off but its one possible way of looking at it.
(Or do I get my own conspiracy thread:D)

slapout9
07-02-2009, 01:02 AM
"Analysis"? Hmm, I would have said "pre-conceived theological Truthyness" myself :wry:. Did anyone else notice that a large amount of the video was provided by Al-Jezeera? I also noticed that the "commentator" (aka talking head) didn't bother to make any reference to the fact that referendums are disallowed within 6 months of an election.

What's bothering me about a lot of this coverage is that nowhere yet have I seen anyone noting that Zelaya was trying to build a Chavez-style dictatorship.

Happy Canada Day Marct:D here is some video coverage for you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CykFEFwP2IU

John T. Fishel
07-02-2009, 03:17 AM
I think your analysis is spot on. What concerns me is the unwillingness of the external players - non-Bolivarian - to look at the facts on the ground. They have all created a myth that this was a coup, which if the facts are as reported it was not. Indeed, it was a constitutionally sanctioned action carried out somewhat more crudely than was really necessary - but constitutional nonetheless.

Marct and all other Canadians here, I join in wishing y'all a Happy Canada Day.

Cheers

JohnT

slapout9
07-02-2009, 03:36 AM
My read of the situation is somewhat different than many of the posts. Deep down, I think that many of the main external players, with the exception of the "Bolivarians" and the outright communists, want Zelaya gone, but through more judicial processes than having the army spirit him out of the country. The internal players (SC & cong), on the other hand, may be fearful of the street violence Z might be able to generate during that process.

Almost everybody wants to prevent the return of the ubiquitous military coups of the 50s-80s.


You got my vote.

AnalyticType
07-02-2009, 06:41 AM
I meant to post this hours ago, but well, life happens....

BLUF: Based upon the information gathered, and assuming that all of the information that has been discussed is valid, it is highly unlikely that the ouster of Presidente Zelaya was an illegal action/coup. Further, it is highly likely that the actions taken by the Honduran Legislature, Supreme Court, and military, were triggered by a significant trend of activities by Zelaya to consolidate power and guarantee his continued presidency beyond the constitutionally set limit.

Utilising Dick Heuer's ACH software, I evaluated 36 pieces of evidence/information against two sets of mutually exclusive hypotheses:

1) The actions of the Honduran government were legal; or The actions of the Honduran government were an illegal coup.
2) Zelaya was not acting in his own self-interest; or Zelaya was laying the groundwork for "president-for-life" conditions to his benefit

The list of evidence/information which I evaluated against these four theses, with a screenshot example of how the ACH matrix was constructed, and a simple graph with statistical results, is attached to this post. Keep in mind that my goal was not to prove any theory, but rather to disprove all of the theories. The results of the ACH matrix are not absolute, but they are structured and significantly less prone to bias.

BTW, I'm prolly preachin' to the choir for quite a few here...humor me? My intent is merely to introduce a little structured analysis rather than emotion- or mind-set-based determinations.

John T. Fishel
07-02-2009, 11:50 AM
Nice job putting that together.:cool:

Questions:
1. Where do you find the ACH softwear?
2. Is it available w/o charge ie free?
3.Where does one find a good and detailed description of what it does?

So much for the practical questions.:D Now for something methodologically substantive - How did you arrive at your coding for credibility and relevance? While I generally agreed with you there were a couple (1 - 3) relevances that I questioned and a few more (3 - 5) credibilities that I questioned. In a similar vein, was Low not an option? And if it was, why did you not choose it in any case (I really thought there were a couple of low creds and 1 low relevance)?

Again, ya done good!!!!!;)

Cheers

JohnT

J Wolfsberger
07-02-2009, 12:53 PM
Nice job putting that together.:cool:

Questions:
1. Where do you find the ACH softwear?
2. Is it available w/o charge ie free?
3.Where does one find a good and detailed description of what it does?

So much for the practical questions.:D Now for something methodologically substantive - How did you arrive at your coding for credibility and relevance? While I generally agreed with you there were a couple (1 - 3) relevances that I questioned and a few more (3 - 5) credibilities that I questioned. In a similar vein, was Low not an option? And if it was, why did you not choose it in any case (I really thought there were a couple of low creds and 1 low relevance)?

Again, ya done good!!!!!;)

Cheers

JohnT

I'll second that.

John, I'm intrigued by the tool as well. Here's a start: Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_Competing_Hypotheses).

Here's one tool: ACH2.0.3 (http://www2.parc.com/istl/projects/ach/ach.html)

marct
07-02-2009, 01:26 PM
Nice job, AT!

JW, thanks for the links - I'm going to try playing with the software and see how well it operates.

AnalyticType
07-02-2009, 01:29 PM
You beat me to it!

That's precisely the software I used. :D I have another one called DecisionWarning which has more graphing tools once you've completed the matrix, but ACH from PARC is better explained and easier to use.

JTF, to answer your third question, the ACH software from PARC (Richards Heuer) has a very detailed tutorial which can be utilized on-screen or downloaded and printed out. As I recall, it prints out to about 50 pages, give or take.

Regarding the subjective elements (credibility and relevance), the options are Low, Medium and High. For credibility of the information, if I had a piece of information that was obtained from a highly credible source, ie the State Department website, OR if I confirmed more than two disparate but credible sources, I rated it High. I used Medium for data which I found in two locations, where one or both sources were less than sterling. And Low I used on a couple items, but then found confirming information elsewhere and changed them to Medium.

Regarding relevance, the same options are available. I was evaluating two different sets of competing hypotheses which were related to each other but not necessarily 'linked' to each other. So I used High relevance for information which strongly was applicable to both sets of hypotheses, and Medium relevance for information which may be peripheral for one set but cogent for the other.

And yes, it is subjective. While I know a fair amount about Latin American history, culture and politics, I have not been there and am not an area expert. Someone who spent a great deal of time there (via State, DoD or CIA, etc) likely would rate relevance or credibility differently than I, in some instances.




I'll second that.

John, I'm intrigued by the tool as well. Here's a start: Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_Competing_Hypotheses).

Here's one tool: ACH2.0.3 (http://www2.parc.com/istl/projects/ach/ach.html)

marct
07-02-2009, 01:48 PM
Happy Canada Day Marct:D here is some video coverage for you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CykFEFwP2IU

What can I say but Oi Vey?!?!?

Well, 'twas a fun day but doesn't come close to 1979 :D!!!!

J Wolfsberger
07-02-2009, 01:52 PM
You beat me to it!

That's precisely the software I used. :D I have another one called DecisionWarning which has more graphing tools once you've completed the matrix, but ACH from PARC is better explained and easier to use.

JTF, to answer your third question, the ACH software from PARC (Richards Heuer) has a very detailed tutorial which can be utilized on-screen or downloaded and printed out. As I recall, it prints out to about 50 pages, give or take.

Regarding the subjective elements (credibility and relevance), the options are Low, Medium and High. For credibility of the information, if I had a piece of information that was obtained from a highly credible source, ie the State Department website, OR if I confirmed more than two disparate but credible sources, I rated it High. I used Medium for data which I found in two locations, where one or both sources were less than sterling. And Low I used on a couple items, but then found confirming information elsewhere and changed them to Medium.

Regarding relevance, the same options are available. I was evaluating two different sets of competing hypotheses which were related to each other but not necessarily 'linked' to each other. So I used High relevance for information which strongly was applicable to both sets of hypotheses, and Medium relevance for information which may be peripheral for one set but cogent for the other.

And yes, it is subjective. While I know a fair amount about Latin American history, culture and politics, I have not been there and am not an area expert. Someone who spent a great deal of time there (via State, DoD or CIA, etc) likely would rate relevance or credibility differently than I, in some instances.

This methodology is similar to the Delphi Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method). One way to approach the rating is to have a small panel of independent reviewers, then "average" their evaluations. Depending on how you want to look at it, you're either averaging the subjectivity, or averaging it out. I've used this approach in areas such as formal risk assessments for R&D programs with pretty good results.

AT, I owe you a beer if we ever run into each other. I've been looking for a package to do this for some time now.

AnalyticType
07-02-2009, 02:13 PM
but I'll accept a nice glass of white merlot. :wry:

This software beats the hell out of manually constructing a matrix!

One of the things that my professor neglected to teach was the necessity of working across the matrix evaluating a piece of evidence against all hypotheses, rather than working down through all evidence under a hypothesis. When I was first learning this method, I had all kinds of frustration going on. Between the ACH tutorial and chapter Eleven in the book The Thinker's Toolkit I found the process much easier and effective.

The thing that I like about it is that one matrix can be used to evaluate many hypotheses simultaneously. The software runs the math functions, making it easier to eliminate the highly unlikely hypotheses. Then you can identify intelligence gaps, consolidate or split hypotheses (add new ones too) and improve your evidence list, then reevaluate. I didn't take the time to refine my matrix in this manner yesterday, but if this were for a product I would have done so.


...AT, I owe you a beer if we ever run into each other. I've been looking for a package to do this for some time now.

John T. Fishel
07-02-2009, 02:40 PM
AT and JW.

AT the so-called experts could use a look at your conservative data analysis. Your critera for assigning values makes sense. Now, why don't you put together a short article for the Journal part of SWJ.:cool:

Cheers

JohnT

Steve Blair
07-02-2009, 03:08 PM
Here's an interesting little BBC snippet: link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8130038.stm)

Granted it's only a handful of people, but it does give something of the local perspective on things.

slapout9
07-02-2009, 03:58 PM
One of the things that my professor neglected to teach was the necessity of working across the matrix evaluating a piece of evidence against all hypotheses, rather than working down through all evidence under a hypothesis. When I was first learning this method, I had all kinds of frustration going on. Between the ACH tutorial and chapter Eleven in the book The Thinker's Toolkit I found the process much easier and effective.



That would be my biggest beef. From my LE view once you establish motive (who benefits from an action and how great is the benefit) you don't need a lot of other data. You need to establish his/her alibi(s)for doing or not doing something. My 2cents anyway.

marct
07-02-2009, 04:04 PM
Hey Slap,


That would be my biggest beef. From my LE view once you establish motive (who benefits from an action and how great is the benefit) you don't need a lot of other data. You need to establish his/her alibi(s)for doing or not doing something. My 2cents anyway.

Generally, I'd agree, but motive can be tricky. Did Zelaya gain? Yup, but how about Uncle Hugo? Would he gain? Probably, so we've got a whole slew of different actors running around with overlapping motives. Same on t'other side as well - congress, the SC and the armed forces all stood to gain as well (as did the large landowners, businesses, etc.), so there's a whole slew of other, overlapping, motives.

Just my 1.724 cents ;)

jmm99
07-02-2009, 05:05 PM
Dick Heuer's book is online (chapter 8 = ACH (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/art11.html)), in which he notes (para 2):


Analysis of competing hypotheses (ACH) requires an analyst to explicitly identify all the reasonable alternatives and have them compete against each other for the analyst's favor, rather than evaluating their plausibility one at a time.

as the core concept.

AnalyticType
07-02-2009, 05:31 PM
Whether engaged in politics, intell analysis, law enforcement, or academic debate, too often people tend to have a 'favorite theory' to which consistent evidence will be applied while inconsistent evidence will be rejected. To reject evidence because it doesn't 'fit the pattern' is likely to be highly detrimental. The purpose of ACH is to reduce that effect significantly by requiring the analyst to make every effort to disprove the theories being evaluated.

Remember Statistics class? (I do... :( painfully!) Similar concept as Competing Hypotheses, in which you cannot "prove" which is true, but you can prove which is false. The big difference here is that, unlike the "black or white" world of mathematics, the real world scenarios such as Honduras have far too many variables and shades of grey. Therefore, ACH helps identify which hypotheses have the most inconsistencies vis-a-vis the facts, and which have the least inconsistencies. The least inconsistencies indicate the highest likelihood.

tequila
07-02-2009, 06:03 PM
Okay, I just have to ask - where did you get that idea of Harper from? A "Chavez-style leftist"?????? Up here, he's usually seen as closer to ex-President Bush than to wanna-be Big Men like Chavez!


Take it easy, MarcT! I'm not one of those folks on "Talking to Americans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhTZ_tgMUdo)", I'm just saying that it's not only leftists Chavistas arguing that this is a coup, but even people like Stephen Harper (http://www.canada.com/Canada+condemns+coup+Honduras/1744072/story.html) are as well. Then again, perhaps he is taking too many cheap drugs from your apocalyptic socialist medical scheme that have persuaded him to become a lapdog of Uncle Hugo? ;)


I think your analysis is spot on. What concerns me is the unwillingness of the external players - non-Bolivarian - to look at the facts on the ground. They have all created a myth that this was a coup, which if the facts are as reported it was not. Indeed, it was a constitutionally sanctioned action carried out somewhat more crudely than was really necessary - but constitutional nonetheless.


Certainly the expulsion of Zelaya appears to be un-Constitutional. Article 81 and 102:
(http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html)



ARTICULO 81.- Toda persona tiene derecho a circular libremente, salir, entrar y permanecer en el territorio nacional.

ARTICULO 102.- Ningún hondureño podrá ser expatriado ni entregado por las autoridades a un Estado extranjero.

Also the replacement government has extended the curfew another three days, as well as suspending several Constitutional liberties (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.tiempo.hn/&ei=nfVMSqyNL4b2NayRxOcD&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.tiempo.hn/%26hl%3Den) during those hours.

For English-language speakers, this blog by an American Catholic lay volunteer has been quite informative - Hermano Juancito (http://hermanojuancito.blogspot.com/).

John T. Fishel
07-02-2009, 06:33 PM
here is an article in the Honduran newspaper, El Diario Exterior that details the reasons for the action taken by the other 4 constitutional organs of govt*. http://eldiarioexterior.com/noticia.asp?idarticulo=31965 It closes with the question Tequila raises about forcing Zelaya into exile.

* The Ministerio Publico (roughly Attorney General) in most Latin American countries is an independent constitutional component of govt not responsible to the Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches nor, in HO, the Armed Forces. As the Constitution of HO says, there are 5 branches of govt.

Cheers

JohnT

marct
07-02-2009, 06:50 PM
Hi Tequila,


Take it easy, MarcT! I'm not one of those folks on "Talking to Americans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhTZ_tgMUdo)", I'm just saying that it's not only leftists Chavistas arguing that this is a coup, but even people like Stephen Harper (http://www.canada.com/Canada+condemns+coup+Honduras/1744072/story.html) are as well.

Well, okay then - I never said that he was smart, just not a "Chavez-style Leftist" :D!


Then again, perhaps he is taking too many cheap drugs from your apocalyptic socialist medical scheme that have persuaded him to become a lapdog of Uncle Hugo? ;)

Hey, we aren't the ones with Gov't funded prescription medicine :eek: (I wish we were!!!)! I always try to follow the old adage that one should never ascribe to malice (or Chavez-style Leftism ;)) what can be ascribed to stupidity....


For English-language speakers, this blog by an American Catholic lay volunteer has been quite informative - Hermano Juancito (http://hermanojuancito.blogspot.com/).

Nice blog, thanks for it.

tequila
07-02-2009, 07:43 PM
here is an article in the Honduran newspaper, El Diario Exterior that details the reasons for the action taken by the other 4 constitutional organs of govt*. http://eldiarioexterior.com/noticia.asp?idarticulo=31965 It closes with the question Tequila raises about forcing Zelaya into exile.

* The Ministerio Publico (roughly Attorney General) in most Latin American countries is an independent constitutional component of govt not responsible to the Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches nor, in HO, the Armed Forces. As the Constitution of HO says, there are 5 branches of govt.

Cheers

JohnT

Maybe the Google translation is off, but I saw no mention of why the Constitution could be ignored w/regards to Zelaya's exile in the article mentioned. Looks here as if the Supreme Court, not the Ministerio Publico, ordered Zelaya's expulsion. However, there doesn't appear to be any explanation as to how this was Constitutional given Article 102 especially.

This is the closest thing I can see as to an "explanation".


Por eso la Corte Suprema ordenó a las FF AA la salida violenta de Zelaya y los ministros firmantes del decreto, ocurrido esto el domingo por la mañana, y horas más tarde, el Congreso Nacional conoció de la renuncia del Zelaya, que la admitió y procedió a destituirlo legalmente por las acciones ilegales cometidas.

John T. Fishel
07-02-2009, 08:25 PM
Tequila, in noting that forcing him into exile probably violated the constitution but arresting him for his crimes did not so violate it. Perhaps, the officers carrying out the Supreme Court order thought it was more civilized to put Zelaya on a plane to Costa Rica than throw him in the carcel - I dunno.

The linked article, however, does raise exactly the point that sending Zelaya into exile doesn't quite fit with the Constitutional rules and the paper says they will keep investigating (Veremos -we'll see - the last line).

As far as the Min Publico is concerned, nobody ever stated that the office ordered the arrest of Zelaya - the Supreme Court did that. The Min Publico has said that it will prosecute him for his crimes (its job) should he return. Please remember that the legal systems in Latin America in general follow from the french system but with their own modifications. In this, they are very different from our own. That is why Judge Baltazar Garzon in Spain could order the arrest of GEN Pinochet and the Executive could do nothing about it. On top of that, the Min Publico (at least in Panama which may differ some from HO) - as the Atty Gen - is the public prosecutor but independent of the Courts. JMM might have something to say on this topic.

Going back to AT's quantitative analysis, what we are dealing with is the preponderance of the evidence. As she shows, pretty conclusively IMO, that weighs heavily in favor of the 4 branches of the govt other than the Executive. 4 out of 5 is certainly better than 2 out of 3!:wry:

Cheers

JohnT

Surf n Turf
07-03-2009, 01:01 AM
Dick Heuer's book is online (chapter 8 = ACH (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/art11.html)), in which he notes (para 2):



as the core concept.

jmm99,
Thanks for the link to Dick Heuer's book.
I have had the software for some time (unused), now the "users manual".
Most helpful
SnT

slapout9
07-03-2009, 01:02 AM
Whether engaged in politics, intell analysis, law enforcement, or academic debate, too often people tend to have a 'favorite theory' to which consistent evidence will be applied while inconsistent evidence will be rejected. To reject evidence because it doesn't 'fit the pattern' is likely to be highly detrimental. The purpose of ACH is to reduce that effect significantly by requiring the analyst to make every effort to disprove the theories being evaluated.


That is exactly what LE does when it is done well. You multiple suspects and motives and evidence. Your job is to look at the alibis to disprove the evidence(ie use inconsistent evidence) and eventually arrive at factual proof. You may want to take a look at chapter 5 of the above quoted book: Chapter 5 is titled- Do You Really Need More Information.

I hope you take this in the spirit it is intended, your work was very good and you should keep doing it because you believe in it and based upon my experience that will increase your quality of analysis as opposed to subtract from it. However what happend in Hondo Land was just a plain old Power Grab and The existing Power Oligarchy gave him a spanking for doing it.


Video of Predictive Analysis from TED
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bruce_bueno_de_mesquita_predicts_iran_s_future.htm l

jmm99
07-03-2009, 01:24 AM
now we are communicating in Basic English:


However what happened in Hondo Land was just a plain old Power Grab and The existing Power Oligarchy gave him a spanking for doing it.

:) :D

jmm99
07-03-2009, 01:32 AM
may want to DL: 2009 A Tradecraft Primer: Structured Analytic Techniques for Improving Intelligence Analysis (.pdf (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/Tradecraft%20Primer-apr09.pdf)) and 2005 Curing Analytic Pathologies (.pdf (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/curing-analytic-pathologies-pathways-to-improved-intelligence-analysis-1/analytic_pathologies_report.pdf)).

John T. Fishel
07-03-2009, 02:08 AM
If it was a power grab, then it was a power grab by four institutions of the Constitutional Government to forstall a power grab by the fifth institution of the Constituional government.:eek:

Nobody here comes out smelling like a rose. The substantive issue for the Hondurans is which bad solution was the least bad.

cheers

JohnT

jmm99
07-03-2009, 03:13 AM
it gets misuninterpreted ...


from Slap
However what happened in Hondo Land was just a plain old Power Grab and The existing Power Oligarchy gave him a spanking for doing it.

He's saying "him" (Zelaya) was making a Power Grab and that the Power Oligarchy (the Four Mouseketeers) gave him a spanking for doing that.

And a legal spanking according to this Hondo JAGGIE (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/americas/02coup.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all):


NYT
Leader’s Ouster Not a Coup, Says the Honduran Military
By MARC LACEY
Published: July 1, 2009

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Flipping through a stack of legal opinions and holding up a detention order signed by a Supreme Court judge, the chief lawyer of the Honduran armed forces insisted that what soldiers carried out over the weekend when they detained President Manuel Zelaya was no coup d’état.

“A coup is a political move,” the lawyer, Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza Membreño, said Tuesday night in an interview. “It requires the armed forces to assume power over the country, which didn’t happen, and it has to break the rule of law, which didn’t happen either.” ... [much more in article]

and from the same paper and writer, Compromise Is Sought to Honduras Standoff (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/americas/02honduras.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all), which includes this OAS action to pursue suspension of Hondoland:


After a marathon session that stretched close to dawn, the Organization of American States “vehemently” condemned the removal of Mr. Zelaya over the weekend and issued an ultimatum to Honduras’s new government: Unless Mr. Zelaya is returned to power within 72 hours, the nation will be suspended from the group.

Anything beyond that suspension (negotiated compromise excepted), will get into the territory of intervention.

AnalyticType
07-03-2009, 04:15 AM
Slap, I have read Heuer's book a couple times over the last five years, and you're right. Don't worry, I understand where you're coming from.

PM inbound.

Victoria


That is exactly what LE does when it is done well. You multiple suspects and motives and evidence. Your job is to look at the alibis to disprove the evidence(ie use inconsistent evidence) and eventually arrive at factual proof. You may want to take a look at chapter 5 of the above quoted book: Chapter 5 is titled- Do You Really Need More Information.

I hope you take this in the spirit it is intended, your work was very good and you should keep doing it because you believe in it and based upon my experience that will increase your quality of analysis as opposed to subtract from it. However what happend in Hondo Land was just a plain old Power Grab and The existing Power Oligarchy gave him a spanking for doing it.


Video of Predictive Analysis from TED
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bruce_bueno_de_mesquita_predicts_iran_s_future.htm l

Rex Brynen
07-03-2009, 05:28 AM
That is exactly what LE does when it is done well. You multiple suspects and motives and evidence. Your job is to look at the alibis to disprove the evidence(ie use inconsistent evidence) and eventually arrive at factual proof. You may want to take a look at chapter 5 of the above quoted book: Chapter 5 is titled- Do You Really Need More Information.

You're absolutely right, Slap--all good deduction (or induction) involves some form of ACH. To be frank, I'm a little leery about doing it with a software package--while it avoids some common analytical pitfalls, it creates other sorts of problems too, and disguises some of them behind the apparent scientific veneer of numbers and graphs.


Video of Predictive Analysis from TED--yes, I saw that when it came out, and thought it was a truly dubious way of trying to predict anything useful about Iranian domestic or foreign policy. Give me a room full of smart analysts, and a manager who lets them debate and challenge conventional wisdoms, any day.


On the Honduran events, I agree with the many in here who have underlined Zelaya's apparent unconstitutional ambitions, and the legal mandate given to the Army by the Supreme Court. That being said, the potential threat posed by interventionist militaries in Latin America is so great that there is some value in maintaining a hemispheric norm against anything that even looks even faintly like a coup--especially since LA militaries often cloaked (and indeed, internally justified) their past interventions in the name of some higher national interest.

slapout9
07-03-2009, 06:09 AM
He's saying "him" (Zelaya) was making a Power Grab and that the Power Oligarchy (the Four Mouseketeers) gave him a spanking for doing that.



That is exactly what I am saying.......just kause I kant spel dunt mean I kant talk good. If you check.... Zelaya is a wealthy landowner...ah I mean farmer, he is actually part of the ruling elite more than a Marxist baby gang banger. When he made a play to get some extra cookies and milk he gets the big message from the snatch back men. He will have to wonder in the wilderness for awhile and then make a statement saying it was all a big misunderstanding guys and if he promises to play right he will get to come back to his farm. If he dosen't it's broke alley for him.

John T. Fishel
07-03-2009, 12:07 PM
interpretation of Honduran events and the reaction to them, except - there's always an except - that it appears to be a fear of something that did not happen being greater than the fear of what actually was in the process of taking place. The slow rolling usurpation of the power of the other four constitutional branches of government by pseudo constitutional means was thwarted by something that looked, on its surface, as if it might, could be a coup. So, shile the reaction of states like Canada and Chile, and of organizations like the UNGA and the OAS, and statesmen like Insulza (as I suggested in an earlier post on Insulza) or Harper, is understandable, it is simply wrong according to the facts as they appear to be. A significant part of the problem of understanding the events lies in the fact that the HO constitution appears not to provide a clear impeachment remedy...

Cheers

JohnT

Gringo Malandro
07-03-2009, 02:52 PM
Certainly the expulsion of Zelaya appears to be un-Constitutional. Article 81 and 102:
(http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html)
ARTICULO 81.- Toda persona tiene derecho a circular libremente, salir, entrar y permanecer en el territorio nacional.

ARTICULO 102.- Ningún hondureño podrá ser expatriado ni entregado por las autoridades a un Estado extranjero


Article 42, Section 5:
La calidad de ciudadano se pierde:
5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República;


Citizenship is lost for "inciting, promoting or supporting the continuation or the reelection of the President of the Republic."

If he loses his citizenship, article 102 would not apply right?

John T. Fishel
07-03-2009, 03:26 PM
it wouldn't until there was a trial and he was convicted of the crimes in Art 42 Sec 5. So, ex-Pres Zelaya is still a citizen; if he returns he will be arrested for the crimes listed there and a trial should ensue. If he stays away until a deal is reached or his term is over then there is not likely to be an arrest and trial.

My guess is that Zelaya was offered the choice of resinging the Presidency and gettin on a plane to Costa Rica or being dragged off to jail in handcuffs and PJs.:rolleyes:

Cheers

JohnT

jmm99
07-03-2009, 06:46 PM
First we have Sr Zelaya's take from Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aj5ebiyMceCM):


Zelaya Plotting Return, Seeks ‘Strong’ U.S. Actions (Update2)
By Andres R. Martinez and Matthew Walter

July 2 (Bloomberg) -- Deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya said he’s plotting his return to the Central American nation and called for “strong” action from the U.S. to help restore him to power.

“Their words are strong,” Zelaya said today during an interview in the lobby of the Sheraton hotel in Panama. “We’re going to see now if their actions are strong.” ......

Then we have quite a different picture from McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/71218.html):


Posted on Thursday, July 2, 2009
U.S. taking cautious approach to Honduras political crisis
By Lesley Clark | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — When the ousted president of Honduras hit Washington this week demanding a return to power, he got meetings with a White House adviser and a top U.S. diplomat.

To be sure, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton already had condemned the coup d'etat that ejected President Manuel Zelaya from his Central American nation. However, the second-tier meetings signaled the new administration's cautious and nuanced management of its first full-blown crisis in Latin America.

Rather than taking the lead, the White House has chosen to defer to the Organization of American States, allowing it to steer an effort to orchestrate a restoration of "democratic order" in Honduras, a move that analysts say might enhance U.S. credibility in a region that's long viewed Washington's intervention with suspicion. ....

AnalyticType
07-03-2009, 09:48 PM
From the McClatchy article:

"We have basically taken the Zelaya line, the (OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel) Insulza line, the Chavez line, and we haven't established anything that looks to my mind like an independent position," said Ray Walser, a veteran Foreign Service officer and senior policy analyst on Latin America at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy-research center. "We've abandoned leadership in exchange for getting along."

Mr. Walser nailed it.

slapout9
07-03-2009, 11:27 PM
Latest video from TRNN.


http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3967&updaterx=2009-07-03+13%3A35%3A38

jmm99
07-04-2009, 12:07 AM
Looks like a shift in policy to some extent - note that the Obama administration has backed off from the initial rhetoric of Pres. Obama and Ms. Clinton. The cartoon of three parrots (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=271728&postcount=2) (Castro, Chavez & Ortega) way out on the limb, and Pres. Obama as the 4th parrot, on the limb but with some separation, overstates the case (IMO).

My fantasy this evening would be to resurrect and have a debate on the present US policy between the following dead folks: Colonel King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.C._King), David Atlee Phillips (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Atlee_Phillips) and Cord Meyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_Meyer) - how's that for spanning the political spectrum ? :D

I suppose we should add Desmond Fitzgerald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Fitzgerald_(CIA_officer)) to gain some Gaelic color. ;)

AnalyticType
07-04-2009, 01:42 AM
jmm,

Your link to the professionalsoldiers.com forum works, and I can see the jpg link in the post you referenced. But clicking on the jpg link requires signing in to view the image. Can you post the cartoon here??

:D I should think that Garlic adds more aroma than color. Ah'm just sayin'... :wry:


Looks like a shift in policy to some extent - note that the Obama administration has backed off from the initial rhetoric of Pres. Obama and Ms. Clinton. The cartoon of three parrots (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=271728&postcount=2) (Castro, Chavez & Ortega) way out on the limb, and Pres. Obama as the 4th parrot, on the limb but with some separation, overstates the case (IMO).

My fantasy this evening would be to resurrect and have a debate on the present US policy between the following dead folks: Colonel King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.C._King), David Atlee Phillips (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Atlee_Phillips) and Cord Meyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_Meyer) - how's that for spanning the political spectrum ? :D

I suppose we should add Desmond Fitzgerald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Fitzgerald_(CIA_officer)) to gain some Gaelic color. ;)

tequila
07-04-2009, 02:19 AM
"We've abandoned leadership in exchange for getting along."


Does leadership = disagreeing with everyone else, i.e. the rest of the world? We are not only taking the "Chavez line, the Insulza line" --- we are also taking the "Uribe line", the "Calderon line", the "Harper line", the line of every single one of our Latin American allies, every single one of our European allies. Trying to pretend that opposition to the coup is restricted to Commie Chavez lovers or socialist dupes is silly. To believe that opposition to the coup = surrendering leadership of Latin America to Chavez is even sillier. As a matter of pure realpolitik, I cannot think of anything that would play into Chavez' hands more than legitimizing the coup against both the Inter-American Charter and the opinion of every single government, right or left wing, in the region.

Ken White
07-04-2009, 02:46 AM
Does leadership = disagreeing with everyone else, i.e. the rest of the world?Or is it 'does leadership equal simply doing what's right?' Regardless of what others do.
...the line of every single one of our Latin American allies, every single one of our European allies.I hate to tell you this but the vast majority of the people you named are not our allies -- far from it. They may not be enemies and they'll try to get along with us because its expedient but they aren't allies.
To believe that opposition to the coup = surrendering leadership of Latin America to Chavez is even sillier.Chavez, no matter how much he'd like that will never lead South America. I for one did not say he would or that we were surrendering to him. What I did say was that he would twist our actions to his benefit if possible and unless we backed off a bit -- which we sensibly seem to be doing. :cool:

I also submit that while many are calling it a coup, it doesn't really meet most of the criteria for one. To go back to your initial point quoted above; we should simply do what is right and while there may or may not be problems with Honduras' actions (well, at least three Arms of their governments actions) there are problems with Chavez and Ortega encouraging the actions of Zelaya. Condemn the one action if you wish -- but you should also condemn the other. As should the US.

tequila
07-04-2009, 03:07 AM
Or is it 'does leadership equal simply doing what's right?' Regardless of what others do.

And what if people disagree about what the right thing to do is?

I doubt that the right thing often involves kidnapping an elected President out of his bed, throwing him out of the country, and faking a resignation letter as your explanation to the world. But again, the Heritage Foundation analyst didn't mention morality at all --- simply that by agreeing with everyone else, we were ceding our leadership position.


I hate to tell you this but the vast majority of the people you named are not our allies -- far from it. They may not be enemies and they'll try to get along with us because its expedient but they aren't allies.


I'm aware that alliances rarely involve love or even a lot of like on anyone's part. That's not what I mean by "ally." However, most of these countries are our diplomatic, economic, or military allies by treaty or preexisting agreements.


Chavez, no matter how much he'd like that will never lead South America. I for one did not say he would or that we were surrendering to him. What I did say was that he would twist our actions to his benefit if possible and unless we backed off a bit -- which we sensibly seem to be doing.

I agree with you about the relative lack of a threat from Venezuela, no matter what Chavez would like to believe. Didn't mean to imply that you thought we were surrendering to him --- that appears to be the Heritage analyst's idea, and I was arguing against him. However, I think Chavez would be trying to twist our actions no matter what we did --- notice that the first thing he did, right before we condemned the coup, was to claim that the CIA was behind it.

Ken White
07-04-2009, 04:38 AM
And what if people disagree about what the right thing to do is?and that's also what I suspect is going on in Foggy Bottom and the White House. Some hope that argument will go one way, some the other way. Nothing new in the US where rarely do we agree on much. That's okay, too many of us and the nation's too big for unaminity of view.

It would be nice if we could disagree like we usually have with just a little less unnecessary acrimony that seems too prevalent today -- but even that factor waxes and wanes... :D
I doubt that the right thing often involves kidnapping an elected President out of his bed, throwing him out of the country, and faking a resignation letter as your explanation to the world.there are some things we can disagree about -- kidnapped or arrested on a Court Order? Throwing him out of the country or throwing him in jail? Choices... :wry:

I agree on the letter, that was dumb. In fact, if you'll recall, I said they shouldn't have done what they did. My concern was and is the action of the US. Got no problem criticizing the Honduran action -- but in my view if we do that, it must be tempered by criticizing the intrusion of Ol' Hugo and even older Daniel and if we're going to criticize the one; we IMO have an obligation to criticize the other. I think we should criticize the Honduran action but it is equally important to criticize Venezuelan and Nicaraguan meddling. Mayhap even a little more important, lest they think we're excessively stupid. not to mention that fair's fair.
But again, the Heritage Foundation analyst didn't mention morality at all...Didn't read the Heritage thing -- I totally ignore pundits and Think Tanks, most provide little but foolishness so I never read them unless forced and thus can't comment on that. I can comment on morality -- that's a personal construct; people differ. Your take, mine, slapout's and that heritage analyst all differ so referring to morality is very much a personal belief and perception. Nations don't have morals, people do. Nations can't act morally, people can. Nations can be honest (most of the time, not always) and nations can and should pursue their interests. In my view it is in our interest to tell the Hondurans they didn't do it right -- even though by their law it appears they mostly did (at least according to this guy LINK (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html) -- it is also in our interest to point out to the interlopers that said interloping isn't cool.
However, I think Chavez would be trying to twist our actions no matter what we did --- notice that the first thing he did, right before we condemned the coup, was to claim that the CIA was behind it.True but as most in the Americas if not the world are aware of his meddling in Honduras, doesn't hurt to call him on it. Probably do more good than harm

AnalyticType
07-04-2009, 04:01 PM
... In my view it is in our interest to tell the Hondurans they didn't do it right -- even though by their law it appears they mostly did (at least according to this guy LINK (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0702/p09s03-coop.html) -- it is also in our interest to point out to the interlopers that said interloping isn't cool.True but as most in the Americas if not the world are aware of his meddling in Honduras, doesn't hurt to call him on it. Probably do more good than harm

Ken, thank you for that link to the CS Monitor article!

Of particular import are the following elements:


After more than a dozen previous constitutions, the current Constitution, at 27 years old, has endured the longest.

[...]

It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions – one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution. [Emphasis via bolding by AT]


For years Constitutional Law scholars have argued whether the U.S. Constitution is "open to interpretation" or not. The Honduran Constitution does not appear to contain as many instances of interpretability (if that's a word?) Those seven articles the author mentioned are inviolate, absolute, and clear. It is what it is.

The Honduran Constitution apparently is very clear on the consequences of demonstrated intent to alter or remove any of those seven articles.


Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

[...] When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added (by article's author)], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

While the literal removal of Zelaya from office was immediately performed per the Constitution, yes, his pyjamas could well have been exchanged for street clothes before they took him out of the palace. Yes, they did remove him literally from the country; many have argued that this was 'coup-like', and so it may appear. It must be remembered that they did not harm him, nor did they imprison him, nor did they kill him; they removed him. In that situation, in that country, the remaining branches of the government made good choices. They removed him, as required by their Constitution.

But again, to apply the standard "that's not how we would handle it" or "they had no right to exile Zelaya" smacks of mirror imaging - applying our values to a situation in someone else's country. That country has significantly different history, culture and political reality than the U.S. does.


Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

One hundred and twenty-five of the 128 members of Congress voted to take action to preserve their democracy. They and the Supreme Court acted on principle and, as mandated by their Constitution, the military followed through. The world's leaders don't like it for a multitude of reasons, from "I could be next" to "but he was democratically elected!" Those lines of reasoning do not negate the constitutional validity of the Honduran government's actions last week.

The final comment from the article's author says a great deal:
I am extremely proud of my compatriots. Finally, we have decided to stand up and become a country of laws, not men. From now on, here in Honduras, no one will be above the law.

tequila
07-04-2009, 04:12 PM
Interview with Honduras' top military lawyer. (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/story/1125872.html)


The military officers who rushed deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya out of the country Sunday committed a crime but will be exonerated for saving the country from mob violence, the army's top lawyer said.

In an interview with The Miami Herald and El Salvador's elfaro.net, army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza acknowledged that top military brass made the call to forcibly remove Zelaya -- and they circumvented laws when they did it.

With regards to the idea that Zelaya automatically removed himself from office, one can only say that he proposed a non-binding referendum on whether or not to convene a national constituent assembly to rewrite the Constitution. He did not propose to abolish term limits. Now you could certainly argue that his intent was to eventually do this, certainly his Honduran enemies may have jumped to this conclusion. But thusfar he had not done so. Removing and exiling a president by force for a nonbinding referendum appears to me a bridge too far.

edit:

Honduras to OAS - Adios (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN0211965120090704)!

Honduran troops shooting out tires on anti-coup protesters' buses. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/07/03/honduras.video/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular)

Hermano Juancito links to this Catholic News article on the above protesters. (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0903019.htm)

John T. Fishel
07-04-2009, 04:29 PM
Read Article 239 of the Honduran constitution! It clearly states that any Honduran (President or otherwise) who takes steps toward changing any article of the Constitution that may note be amended is automatically removed from office and may not hold any public office for 10 years. Now, how this automatic removal is supposed to take place if the President disputes the facts is difficult to determine...

tequila
07-04-2009, 04:37 PM
I don't think Article 239 covers the writing of a new constitution.


Now, how this automatic removal is supposed to take place if the President disputes the facts is difficult to determine.

I think the principle of due process would have to come into play here --- i.e. through a fair and impartial trial.

AnalyticType
07-04-2009, 04:38 PM
Interview with Honduras' top military lawyer. (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/story/1125872.html)

With regards to the idea that Zelaya automatically removed himself from office, one can only say that he proposed a non-binding referendum on whether or not to convene a national constituent assembly to rewrite the Constitution. He did not propose to abolish term limits. Now you could certainly argue that his intent was to eventually do this, certainly his Honduran enemies may have jumped to this conclusion. But thusfar he had not done so. Removing and exiling a president by force for a nonbinding referendum appears to me a bridge too far.


Zelaya ignored the Supreme Court's injunction, broke into the warehouse where the prepared ballots were locked up, removed those ballots from their storage, and had his people distribute them. This indicates significantly more than a mere proposal.

I understand where you're coming from, but by the letter of their laws, his actions show that Zelaya in fact crossed a huge line.

I am curious though, about the article that you linked above. After having read it, particularly this paragraph:

''We know there was a crime there,'' said Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces. ``In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us.'' [Emphasis added by AT]
...my question, without sarcasm, "What crime?" I ask because there is no delineation in the Constitution as to the manner of the removal. Specifically what crime was committed "in the way that he was taken out"?

Ken White
07-04-2009, 04:49 PM
...Removing and exiling a president by force for a nonbinding referendum appears to me a bridge too far.Does to many; that it does to the predominately leftish governments in Central and South America today (not to mention the Social Demeocrats in Europe) -- who are leading the 'international' hue and cry is at least sort of interesting. I'm inclined to believe had Zelaya been a right leaning type with the same proclivities a great many would be saying good riddance instead of what they are saying.

That the Hondurans have seen the result of other Left leaning, semi charismatic figures opting ever so gently (initially...) for extended Presidencies and the resultant economic problems for the nations involved possibly influenced their thinking on their matter...

Ken White
07-04-2009, 04:52 PM
...my question, without sarcasm, "What crime?" I ask because there is no delineation in the Constitution as to the manner of the removal. Specifically what crime was committed "in the way that he was taken out"?As I understand it, the Constitution says immediate removal and no office for 10 years -- exile isn't specified nor is a trial. The phony letter was an added and unnecessary fillip.

AnalyticType
07-04-2009, 05:14 PM
As I understand it, the Constitution says immediate removal and no office for 10 years -- exile isn't specified nor is a trial. The phony letter was an added and unnecessary fillip.

That's why I'm wondering specifically what "crime" Inestroza, the top legal advisor for the Honduran armed forces, seems to be acknowledging. By the way, I used the quotation marks because those are Inestroza's words. I wonder, then, if that worthy individual is hedging his bets? Because absolutely no mention was made of a particular law or laws broken per se, just that laws were 'circumvented,' this is a valid question methinks.

Ken White
07-04-2009, 05:29 PM
or more for all the non-essential clutter to get stripped away and for even reasonably accurate facts to emerge.

I'm pretty well convinced that the American predilection to over react comes from growing up with a short news cycle filled with hyperbole and misstatement if not outright lies.

We'll see what he meant before long, I expect.

Rex Brynen
07-04-2009, 05:34 PM
...my question, without sarcasm, "What crime?" I ask because there is no delineation in the Constitution as to the manner of the removal. Specifically what crime was committed "in the way that he was taken out"?

Nothing in the constitution allows one to short-circuit due process of law by exiling someone, and Article 81 would appear to explicitly prohibit it:


Article 81 .- Everyone has the right to move freely, leave, enter and remain in the country.

Nobody can be forced to change his domicile or residence except in special cases and with the requirements established by law.

Of course, one could argue that the President had forfeited his citizenship by virtue of Article 42.4, and hence this legal protection:


ARTICLE 42 .- The status/quality/condition (calidad) of citizen is lost:

...

5. For inciting, encouraging or supporting the continuance or re-election of President of the Republic,

EXCEPT that this only takes place "by governmental agreement (acuerdo gubernativo), after the sentence handed down by courts." I don't fully understand the constitutional status of such an agreement (which is only mentioned in this article) under Honduran law, but one might argue that it requires executive (presidential) approval.

The argument that Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza seems to be making is that had the military followed due process, and arrested Zelaya so that he could be put on trial, the process would have been dangerously destabilizing—and that therefore exile was an operational necessity (and might legally be defended as such). Then again, the same interview makes clear the military's visceral and potentially anti-democratic dislike of leftist politicians (although I remain to be convinced that Zelaya was genuinely leftist, and not merely an ambitious and slightly nutty quasi-populist with his own anti-democratic leanings).

On a side note, the apparent provisions for loss of citizenship in the Honduran constitution are very problematic—statelessness ought NOT to be used as a form of punishment.

John T. Fishel
07-04-2009, 06:45 PM
while you have articulated clearly and correctly (IMO) the situation, your normative statement on what the Homduran Constitution should or should not include is not appropriate. Although I tend to agree with you, it is somewhat more understandable in the CENTAM context where loss of citizenship tends to be temporary and movement to another CENTAM city state is fairly common. It is appropriate to criticize the HO constitution on instrumental grounds as the self-enforcing provision of Art 239 is unworkable or disallowing the forced exile of a HO citizen (Zelaya in this case) might well have created a situation of unwarranted violence (Inostroza's argument and defense). I would also add that the Herald headline sensationalizes what Inostroa actually said - he appears to acknowledge a technical violation of law...

Cheers

JohnT

AnalyticType
07-04-2009, 07:08 PM
Nothing in the constitution allows one to short-circuit due process of law by exiling someone, and Article 81 would appear to explicitly prohibit it:

Of course, one could argue that the President had forfeited his citizenship by virtue of Article 42.4, and hence this legal protection:

[...]

On a side note, the apparent provisions for loss of citizenship in the Honduran constitution are very problematic—statelessness ought NOT to be used as a form of punishment.

I wonder then, in the 27 years that this Constitution has been in effect, whether this perhaps is the first such instance in which a Honduran politician has overstepped this particular line, such that they never codified the follow-through processes?

I did note that Article 239 stipulates loss of the right to hold public office for 10 years. In practice, is it possible that Article 42 is tied to Article 239, such that the loss of citizenship is for the same finite period of time - 10 years? I saw no literal connection between the two in the Constitution, but as they are directly related due to subject matter could they also be in practice?

......................................

On a thoroughly weird side note: Y'all may have read in my intro thread that until recently I was attending college in Erie PA (undergrad)? The guy who runs the International Student Admissions recruiting has an attraction to Honduras (particularly las hondureñas) and that country is represented by the largest group of international students on campus. The last couple years I was there, so was Zelaya's daughter (or one of them)...not under that last name.

slapout9
07-04-2009, 08:15 PM
The argument that Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza seems to be making is that had the military followed due process, and arrested Zelaya so that he could be put on trial, the process would have been dangerously destabilizing—and that therefore exile was an operational necessity (and might legally be defended as such). Then again, the same interview makes clear the military's visceral and potentially anti-democratic dislike of leftist politicians (although I remain to be convinced that Zelaya was genuinely leftist, and not merely an ambitious and slightly nutty quasi-populist with his own anti-democratic leanings).




I say this is a far more accurate portrayal of Zelaya....his real crime was pissing of the RPC (rich peoples club) that is why he was exiled to give him time change his ways or he will forfeit a huge fortune. Just follow the money to see what will happen and that includes the economic impact on the Honduran people who will likely suffer the most of all involved. Time to go celebrate my Independence:)

John T. Fishel
07-04-2009, 11:16 PM
don't cha go makin assumptions. Doesn't appear to be purely the RPC that wanted Zelaya out.

Rex Brynen
07-05-2009, 12:14 AM
while you have articulated clearly and correctly (IMO) the situation, your normative statement on what the Homduran Constitution should or should not include is not appropriate.

John—you're absolutely right that its a normative statement, but having spent virtually all of my professional career working with stateless people, I'll stick by it! :wry:

John T. Fishel
07-05-2009, 12:09 PM
I hear ya but I think you could have counched that argument in instrumental terms so that it would be an appropriate critique of the HO Const. For instance, depriving one of citizenship as punshment creates problems of interstate relations as well as for those orgs that must deal w/the stateless and for the state iteself.:D (Just trying to be helpful here:wry:)

Cheers

JohnT

slapout9
07-05-2009, 12:13 PM
don't cha go makin assumptions. Doesn't appear to be purely the RPC that wanted Zelaya out.

I don't have to worry I got you guys to keep me in line, besides since Tony Stewart won the race last night I will be able to concentrate better today:wry:

John T. Fishel
07-05-2009, 02:55 PM
Tony Stewart?:eek:

AnalyticType
07-05-2009, 03:05 PM
Tony Stewart?:eek:


http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing013.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

slapout9
07-05-2009, 03:53 PM
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing013.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)


John.....Richard Petty was and is the King, but he is retired so here is Mr. Stewart with a short video of the finish last night:eek::eek:


http://www.nascar.com/

AnalyticType
07-06-2009, 03:06 AM
Zelaya's plane was prevented from landing, so off he went to El Salvador while stating to the press that he would try again Monday or Tuesday.

Hmmm... http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/popcorn.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

Watcher In The Middle
07-06-2009, 03:51 AM
POTUS has to be seriously unhappy with all of these goings-on, but in truth, he put himself there.

He's got to deal with the Russians this week, and that's the "big time" by virtually any standards, and he's being tugged at over Honduras, and the whole show is being orchestrated through Zelaya's trying to fly back home. Bad strategy on his part, other side already realizes time is on their side.

Honduras has already figured out all they have to do is go "four corners" and play out the clock, because there's no shot clock on this one, so they make it to January, 2010, and they're golden. Game over.

They hold free and fair elections in 2010 and all's back and well in Honduras.

Watch and wait for it. That will be the story line this next week or so, and that gets POTUS off the hook (takes into 2010, but ok).

Now, folks like Danny Ortega next door could create problems, which would really create an unhappy bunch at the WH as so far he's gotten a pass on Honduras. But that can change on a dime - and realize, it's mostly going to be people in his own party who are going to be throwing the bricks.

Please pass the popcorn....:D

Dayuhan
07-06-2009, 07:06 AM
Given the historical baggage that the US carries in any Latin American situation, I personally think the US made the right move in joining the rhetorical outburst against Zelaya's ouster. Support for the move would have lent Zelaya legitimacy in many quarters and allowed him to portray himself as a martyr: the narrative of "evil CIA engineers military coup against popular left-leaning leader" is so thoroughly entrenched in the Latin American psyche that it will be believed whether or not it is appropriate. The last thing the US wants to do is put Zelaya on a pedestal as the Allende of this century. That does nothing at all for US interests and plays directly into the hands of the Hugo crowd. I am sure that Chavez was desperately hoping the US would support the move against Zelaya.

To me the logical US position is:

1. Offer rhetorical support to Zelaya, but no more than rhetorical support.

2. Stress the need for a diplomatic resolution, rather than a confrontation that could build into violence.

3. Let the diplomatic solution drag on until the electoral process renders the issue moot.

The electoral solution is not that far off: once the campaign gets under way, as long as it is visibly free and inclusive, Zelaya will quickly be reduced to an anachronism. Ideally Micheletti will choose not to run, but I suppose that's too much to hope for...

John T. Fishel
07-06-2009, 11:59 AM
be correct. :cool: Elections are, ideed, shceduled for theis Fall. And, wonder of wonders, Micheletti has said he has no interest in running. I personally put the odds on that being true at 70/30 in favor.

Cheers

JohnT

Old Eagle
07-06-2009, 01:26 PM
The streets have to settle down. Can't be accomplished by force (alone). This whole situation should be a wake-up call for the traditional power brokers in HO and elsewhere in the region. It's time for meaningful change in the socio-economic systems in the region.

I had a rev war professor in grad school who liked to point out that in LATAM specifically, rev war was usually waged by one group of the educated elite against another. The "prolitariat" that got swept up in the violence ended up getting screwed just as badly by the new masters as they had been under the old regime. So the Castro family replaced the Batistas, Ortegas the Somozas, etc.

How good or bad the situation is in HO is a question for some of you regional experts. I would simply note as an outsider that Zelaya has been able to put a lot of people in the streets in his support.

John T. Fishel
07-06-2009, 01:46 PM
You raise an interesting question about whose mobs are bigger. Most of what I've seen suggests that the mobs supporting the congress/court etc crowd are/were bigger. Then, starting yesterday it seems, the international press began talking about the size of the mobs supporting Zelaya with less mention of the mobs supporting the other side. Comparative mobology is a measure of popular support in the absence of decent public opinion polls but it is easliy distorted by the agendas of those who report it.:(

Cheers

JohnT

tequila
07-06-2009, 04:50 PM
Zelaya turned back, 1 demonstrator killed by soldiers at Tegulcipa airport.
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=avyEnRWHu.sg)
World Bank 'pauses' aid lending to Honduras (http://www.canada.com/business/fp/World+Bank+pauses+lending+Honduras/1747129/story.html).

J Wolfsberger
07-06-2009, 05:46 PM
You raise an interesting question about whose mobs are bigger. Most of what I've seen suggests that the mobs supporting the congress/court etc crowd are/were bigger. Then, starting yesterday it seems, the international press began talking about the size of the mobs supporting Zelaya with less mention of the mobs supporting the other side. Comparative mobology is a measure of popular support in the absence of decent public opinion polls but it is easliy distorted by the agendas of those who report it.

Let's not forget the helpful types from other Leftist regimes encouraging, and I would guess financing, the "spontaneous" outpourings of support for Zelaya. :rolleyes:

slapout9
07-06-2009, 05:59 PM
More Mobology.


http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3975

tequila
07-06-2009, 06:31 PM
J Wolfsberger,

However, let us also not forget that the Honduran coup government is also sponsoring, protecting, and encouraging the pro-coup protests. If you guess that anti-coup protests are being financed by Leftists, one could just as easily guess that pro-coup protests are being financed by the government, the military, or wealthy right-wing interests that back the coup. Such speculation makes just as much as sense as the other.

Meanwhile anti-coup protests are generally met with tear gas and riot police, while we already have video evidence of one incident where government troops prevented people from attending an anti-coup demonstration in Tegulcipa by shooting out their bus tires.

J Wolfsberger
07-06-2009, 07:28 PM
However, let us also not forget that the Honduran coup government is also sponsoring, protecting, and encouraging the pro-coup protests. If you guess that anti-coup protests are being financed by Leftists, one could just as easily guess that pro-coup protests are being financed by the government, the military, or wealthy right-wing interests that back the coup. Such speculation makes just as much as sense as the other.

I would hope they are. Don't however, completely discount spontaneity. Reports I've read, in the reputable non-Leftist media (such as there is of it) have described support for the ouster of Zelaya as "widespread," "popular," etc., not as "unanimous."


Meanwhile anti-coup protests are generally met with tear gas and riot police, while we already have video evidence of one incident where government troops prevented people from attending an anti-coup demonstration in Tegulcipa by shooting out their bus tires.

Probably true. The Left has such a sterling reputation for peaceful, non-violent protest, especially in Latin America, that the response of Honduran authorities is baffling. :rolleyes:

John T. Fishel
07-06-2009, 08:07 PM
would you have described the military's action in Honduras as a coup if the military had arrested Zelaya, cuffed him, a perp walked him to his arragnment before jailing him, IAW the orders of the Supreme Court?

tequila
07-06-2009, 09:22 PM
The Left has such a sterling reputation for peaceful, non-violent protest, especially in Latin America, that the response of Honduran authorities is baffling.

As sterling as the Right's reputation for peaceful tolerance of dissent? ;)


I would hope they are.

Just so long as you make your rooting interest clear. Given that you hope the pro-coup protesters are being funded adequately, why shouldn't anti-coup demonstrators be equally well paid?


would you have described the military's action in Honduras as a coup if the military had arrested Zelaya, cuffed him, a perp walked him to his arragnment before jailing him, IAW the orders of the Supreme Court?


Yes. A non-binding referendum on the possibility of enacting a Constituent Assembly does not justify the forceful removal of the President IMO. However, the expulsion harms their case even further. The juvenile attempt to fake a resignation letter makes them look even less serious. If it had been a binding referendum, say, on extending the presidential term in office, that would be another story.

A little hard to pose as as a defender of the constitution, however, if you start off by blatantly violating one of its articles.

Ken White
07-06-2009, 10:26 PM
As sterling as the Right's reputation for peaceful tolerance of dissent? ;)Fools and fanatics on both sides stifle dissent, some try more 'legal' ways than other but all things considered, both sides are guilty. Constantly. Neither deserves protection for that.
...Given that you hope the pro-coup protesters are being funded adequately, why shouldn't anti-coup demonstrators be equally well paid?This obviously drove my subject line above. I realize the idea of the nation-state is passé to some but there are far, far more people who sort of like the idea. Regardless, if I give my neighbors young teenagers money for booze, he's likely to get upset; if he does that, it may not be better than had I done so but it will be far more acceptable to him -- and the other neighbors.

Put another way, if it is not alright for the Yanqui to piddle around in Central America, it is also not right for Venezuela to do so...
A little hard to pose as as a defender of the constitution, however, if you start off by blatantly violating one of its articles.Yes, that's true. Er, were you referring to Zelaya, who erred first in that vain, or to the Supreme Court and the Army? :D

tequila
07-06-2009, 11:03 PM
Yes, that's true. Er, were you referring to Zelaya, who erred first in that vain, or to the Supreme Court and the Army?


I'd argue that Zelaya's nonbinding referendum does not contradict any of the articles of the Constitution, at least not the way the forced exile of a Honduran citizen does. Note that the referendum was both non-binding and specified only whether or not a constituent assembly should be called.

Rex Brynen
07-06-2009, 11:29 PM
I'd argue that Zelaya's nonbinding referendum does not contradict any of the articles of the Constitution, at least not the way the forced exile of a Honduran citizen does. Note that the referendum was both non-binding and specified only whether or not a constituent assembly should be called.

While I agree that forced exile at gunpoint was inappropriate, the constitutionality of Zelaya's referendum is rather murky, given that there is no constitutional provision for a constituent assembly. Rather, only Congress can modify the constitution:


ARTICULO 373.- La reforma de esta Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional, en sesiones ordinarias, con dos tercios de votos de la totalidad de sus miembros. El decreto señalará al efecto el artículo o artículos que hayan de reformarse, debiendo ratificarse por la subsiguiente legislatura ordinaria, por igual número de votos, para que entre en vigencia.

Moreover, even Congress can't change the provisions regarding presidential term limits:


ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.

In other words, Zelaya seems to have been clearly headed in an anti-constitutional direction, and one that might have hard to stop after his "nonbinding" (and, according to the courts, illegal) referendum.

Did the Honduran courts, Congress, and military handle this as well as they might? Probably not.

Ken White
07-06-2009, 11:36 PM
beyond rusty, but doesn't Article 42, section 5 of their Constitution provide some evidence that Zelaya's attempt to have his non-binding resolution was a case of a Honduran citizen attempting to modify Presidential terms and succession criteria...

Also, note that the Referendum was initially supposed to be binding and when it was pointed out to Zelaya that was illegal, he verbally made it 'non-binding.' What he would've contend after the fact, we don't know.

All that's not nearly as important as this comment of mine: ""Put another way, if it is not alright for the Yanqui to piddle around in Central America, it is also not right for Venezuela to do so...""

We have two wrongs; as my Kindergarten Teacher told me, that doesn't make a right. Throw in Hugo meddling and passing out tractors and you have three wrongs. You can't make that right... :wry:

Fair, as the Bishop said to the Actress, is fair.

John T. Fishel
07-06-2009, 11:45 PM
- supposedly self-enforcing - prohibit actions that directly or indirectly lead to extending a presidential term.

Let me pose one more question, Tequila:

Would you still call it a coup if the arrest on the order of the Supreme Court had been carried out by the National Police who had then cuffed Zelaya and perp walked him to jail and thence to court for his arraignment?

AnalyticType
07-06-2009, 11:57 PM
I'd argue that Zelaya's nonbinding referendum does not contradict any of the articles of the Constitution, at least not the way the forced exile of a Honduran citizen does. Note that the referendum was both non-binding and specified only whether or not a constituent assembly should be called.

???

Zelaya did not say "Hey! Let's vote on having a big town hall meeting of our constituents and see what they have to say." There is only one purpose for convening a National Constitutional Assembly, as is quoted and bolded below, and that is to propose changing the Constitution. Zelaya had been inching toward this for most of his presidency, and while the Congress and the Supreme Court had been letting a lot of it slide, the proposal to convene a National Constitutional Assembly triggered the extreme actions taken by the government. This was not done on a whim, but because of the entire chain of events leading up to it.

Going back to the CS Monitor article which Ken linked in his post at the bottom of page 3:

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

That provision appears to be Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years." Note the bolded and italicized sections, for those are the operating conditions in this situation


[...] When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Under Article 239, intent to change the Constitution's immutable articles (the seven previously mentioned), which Zelaya actually enforced by issuing a presidential decree that made mandatory the involvement of all government employees, required that Zelaya immediately cease to act as President of Honduras.

The Supreme Court said that the referendum Zelaya was fixin' to hold was unconstitutional, and whether it was non-binding or not is absolutely irrelevant to the situation. The Supreme Court prohibitted the referendum explicitly because the Constitution states that NO referendi may be held within six months of a presidential election.. Zelaya broke into the warehouse where the ballots had been secured by order of the Supreme Court, due to the illegality of the proposed action, and ordered the supporters with him to distribute the ballots....which they did! But this was after Zelaya had ordered the army's Commander to do the distribution...and when the Commander refused because the Supreme Court had already declared the activity unconstitutional, Zelaya fired the General...which Zelaya does not have the authority to do!

This is not a simple "but it was just a proposed opinion poll!" situation, but rather is significantly more complex and condemnatory. Don't know how to make that any clearer.

Dayuhan
07-07-2009, 02:07 AM
All that's not nearly as important as this comment of mine: ""Put another way, if it is not alright for the Yanqui to piddle around in Central America, it is also not right for Venezuela to do so...""

We have two wrongs; as my Kindergarten Teacher told me, that doesn't make a right. Throw in Hugo meddling and passing out tractors and you have three wrongs.

True, but that point is difficult for Americans to make without someone pointing out that the pot is calling the kettle black. Best for us to sit back and let others make the point.

We can argue forever over whether what was done was justifiable or not, but the argument is of limited relevance. What was done is done, the question is what to do about it. I would personally prefer to see the US on the sidelines as much as possible: some tepid rhetorical support for Zelaya, or for the OAS as mediator, would be appropriate, as would an offer to host a diplomatic conference. Certainly we should take a strong stand against external involvement outside diplomatic channels, while avoiding such involvement ourselves. Not much more.

The risks of direct involvement seem greater to me than the risks of letting the OAS manage the situation. We have nothing to gain by reinforcing the image of the Yanqui stepping into every situation and trying to sort it out in a way that suits us.

Valin
07-07-2009, 03:00 AM
WSJ: Honduras at the Tipping Point (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683595220397927.html#mod=djemEditorialPage)
Why is the U.S. not supporting the rule of law?
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
7/6/09

Hundreds of emails from Hondurans flooded my in-box last week after I reported on the military's arrest of President Manuel Zelaya, as ordered by the Supreme Court, and his subsequent banishment from the country.

Mr. Zelaya's violations of the rule of law in recent months were numerous. But the tipping point came 10 days ago, when he led a violent mob that stormed a military base to seize and distribute Venezuelan-printed ballots for an illegal referendum.

All but a handful of my letters pleaded for international understanding of the threat to the constitutional democracy that Mr. Zelaya presented. One phrase occurred again and again: "Please pray for us."

(snip)

AnalyticType
07-07-2009, 03:26 AM
[...] Certainly we should take a strong stand against external involvement outside diplomatic channels, while avoiding such involvement ourselves. Not much more.

The risks of direct involvement seem greater to me than the risks of letting the OAS manage the situation. We have nothing to gain by reinforcing the image of the Yanqui stepping into every situation and trying to sort it out in a way that suits us.

Regardless of how we or American society at large, or Chavez or anyone else thinks, it is not anyone's place to determine for Honduras how it should be handled. They are a sovereign state, whether we like how they handled their business or not.

tequila
07-07-2009, 03:28 AM
Would you still call it a coup if the arrest on the order of the Supreme Court had been carried out by the National Police who had then cuffed Zelaya and perp walked him to jail and thence to court for his arraignment?


No, I wouldn't. At least there would be the provision for legal due process to determine if the President was in violation of the law, rather than simply the presumption combined with use of force.


Under Article 239, intent to change the Constitution's immutable articles (the seven previously mentioned), which Zelaya actually enforced by issuing a presidential decree that made mandatory the involvement of all government employees, required that Zelaya immediately cease to act as President of Honduras.

The text of the referendum is as follows:


¿Está de acuerdo que en las elecciones generales de 2009 se instale una cuarta urna en la cual el pueblo decida la convocatoria a una asamblea nacional constituyente? = Sí…….ó………..No.

Where is the language there violating any of the supposed immutable articles? There is nothing suggesting a second term for the presidency. You might have a case if the referendum mentioned the issue, but it clearly doesn't.


The Supreme Court prohibitted the referendum explicitly because the Constitution states that NO referendi may be held within six months of a presidential election.

Where in the Constitution does it state this? It doesn't.

The Honduran legislature passed a law on June 23, 2009 forbidding plebiscites and referenda within 180 days of a presidential election. Zelaya argued that this was a non-binding survey rather than either a plebiscite or referendum, and also that the law didn't apply as the survey had already been scheduled by the time it passed. Can't find the actual language of the bill to see if it applied retroactively. However, this ban certainly isn't in the Constitution, unlike the ban on forcibly ejecting Honduran citizens from the country.


This is not a simple "but it was just a proposed opinion poll!" situation, but rather is significantly more complex and condemnatory. Don't know how to make that any clearer.


Clearly, but as a legal and constitutional issue Zelaya is not even close to being the only one at fault. The only clear violation of the Constitution in this entire affair is the military's removal of Zelaya from the country.

Ken White
07-07-2009, 03:31 AM
True, but that point is difficult for Americans to make without someone pointing out that the pot is calling the kettle black. Best for us to sit back and let others make the point. ""What we should have done is express concern about the way it was done while in the same speech roundly and solidly and very publicly criticizing Chavez and Ortega for interfering in Honduras and encouraging Zelaya to attempt to subvert his own constitution. LINK. (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=75605&postcount=20)
We can argue forever over whether what was done was justifiable or not, but the argument is of limited relevance.Totally agree. However arguments that state Zelaya was ill handled and that ignore the Chavez and Ortega meddling are both disingenuous and misleading; whether intentional or not. I'm not a pedant nor am I an overly fair person -- but I see no sense in allowing factual errors to flow without comment. ;)
...some tepid rhetorical support for Zelaya, or for the OAS as mediator, would be appropriate, as would an offer to host a diplomatic conference. Certainly we should take a strong stand against external involvement outside diplomatic channels, while avoiding such involvement ourselves. Not much more.Disagree. Bad technique when dealing with the "ask for a millimeter, take an inch and try for a foot" crowd. You need to call them on it, publicly but calmly and with evidence (which I do not doubt we have aside from things in the media), so they can bluster an make themselves and their ploy obvious to all. To do what you suggest lets them slide. As many times over the past forty plus years we've let errant criminality slide and paid a price, we never seem to learn that is not a good idea.
The risks of direct involvement seem greater to me than the risks of letting the OAS manage the situation. We have nothing to gain by reinforcing the image of the Yanqui stepping into every situation and trying to sort it out in a way that suits us.On that we can totally agree -- but we need to be extremely even handed in our public comments. To not do so when most in South and Central America know what is really happening makes us look like we're in the go along and get along mode; not a good position for us. :cool:

slapout9
07-07-2009, 03:43 AM
Some more Mobology. This was posted 4 hours ago.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSvgNbLIEsI

Main group is called: National Coordinator of Popular Resistance

Ron Humphrey
07-07-2009, 04:38 AM
In relation to the whole issue wasn't one of the reasons for such organizations as US AID , USIA, etc specifically to have been able to address issues exactly like this involving our allies or others before they get to such a stage that it becomes more difficult to define or determine where we need to stand and in what ways.?

Ken White
07-07-2009, 05:39 AM
In relation to the whole issue wasn't one of the reasons for such organizations as US AID , USIA, etc specifically to have been able to address issues exactly like this involving our allies or others before they get to such a stage that it becomes more difficult to define or determine where we need to stand and in what ways.?ran Voice of America and other radio stations, ran libraries away from the US Embassy in other nations and such like.

Info on what was going on in the country came from four sources (theoretically), The Embassy, whose Political, and Economic counsellors and their various minions from Agriculture, Commerce etc. fed stuff into the Country Desk back at State Hindquarters in DC and into State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, their intel folks (who have a really good reputation -- or did); the Defense Attaches for overt (mostly) military and mil-related intel and info through DIA; the CIA Station in country and other sources ranging from NSA to US military mobile training teams, other nations and drop in news bringers. That deliberately omits the FBI in some countries, DEA in some countries and a few others that aren't everywhere. Nominally, the President and NSC would get info from the CIA, perhaps different info from State and yet again from DIA.

Problem is none of those guys like to share (in DC, information is power), none of them like to see anyone else get credit for anything so there's constant jockeying over who can tell what to who. Add to that, sometimes one would say the Moon is made of green cheese, another the it was Bleu Fromage and yet another that it was all rock. Who to believe? Got to be an easier way.

To fix this, we created the Director of National Intelligence -- who now gets all the input, consolidates it, eliminates any thing that might come back to haunt the Intelligence Community and presents it to the NSC and Pres. :rolleyes:

Then the NSC and the Pres huddle and come up with an idea of what to say. Sometimes they take the line recommended by the State Department, sometimes not. Sometimes they bring in the Vice President, sometimes not. sometimes, as with Iran yesterday, State Says one thing, the vice President another. So today, the WH can come out and says "What the Vice President really meant was..."

Well, you get the idea, sounds bureaucratic, doesn't it...:eek:

As you may have noticed, the one bug in the system is that we seem to frequently not be informed of forthcoming events in other nations that are picked up weeks earlier by casual travelers. Honduras is an example. Then when you'd think we'd have our talking points down weeks after the election, something like the conflicting messages on Iran yesterday occurs.

All part of a well oiled machine designed to confuse the world... :D

Dayuhan
07-07-2009, 10:26 AM
Disagree. Bad technique when dealing with the "ask for a millimeter, take an inch and try for a foot" crowd. You need to call them on it, publicly but calmly and with evidence (which I do not doubt we have aside from things in the media), so they can bluster an make themselves and their ploy obvious to all. To do what you suggest lets them slide. As many times over the past forty plus years we've let errant criminality slide and paid a price, we never seem to learn that is not a good idea.On that we can totally agree -- but we need to be extremely even handed in our public comments. To not do so when most in South and Central America know what is really happening makes us look like we're in the go along and get along mode; not a good position for us. :cool:

I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be called on it, I'm suggesting that the US not be the one to do the calling.

This to me is time to sit down with others in the OAS who are tired of Hugo and his friends, and arrange to have them be the ones to make the public statements. If we have intel, we pass it on and let others present it.

Seems to me that Chavez et al desperately want to get into a confrontation with the US and cast this as Hugo vs America. Nothing could please them more than to have us blustering and drawing lines in the sand for him to step over. That just presents him with credibility and stature. Far better to let other Latin Americans stand up to him. He wants to provoke, it's what he does. Playing that game with him is not going to help us.

I don't want to see the US do or say anything that presents Chavez as a threat. Again, that's what he wants: to be portrayed as a regional counterbalance to America. Comments that help to establish him in that role just play to his ego.

Old Eagle
07-07-2009, 12:25 PM
has a decent article that captures some of the complex issues regarding the state of play in HO and greater Central America. The author gives eloquent voice to the raw points I was trying to make in an earlier post.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/06/central_americas_coming_crisis?ab

John T. Fishel
07-07-2009, 01:15 PM
to my 2 questions tell us that what you believe makes a coup is who carries the action out. If the military arrests the President on the legal orders of the appropriate institutions it's still a coup; if the police do it, it is not. Thsi tells me that you really do not understand the nature of force structure in the region. The Honduran police are not the Aurora Colorado civil cops; they aren't even the LAPD on its worst days in 1965. The Honduran police force was a part of the Army until the late 80s or early 90s. It was and is structured along military lines. (Even the relatively successful El Salvador National Civil Police has not entirely shed its paramilitary structure and the very professional Chilean Carabineros is proudly a paramilitary organization as well as being Chile's police force). Zelaya took this paramilitary force and doubled its strength making it larger than the military as well as beholden to him personally. I wonder where the police would have come down had they been ordered to arrest the President.:rolleyes:

Old Eagle, you are right about the article putting some context on the complex events in Central America. However, the author got at least one critical fact wrong - the Congress didn't order the arrest of Zelaya; the Supreme Court did. There is some question as to whether the Attorney General (Min. Publico) concurred before or after the fact but not that he concurred. Moreover, the author has not gotten into the details of the Honduran mess to the extent that our discussion has. We are debating the meaning of specific articles of the HO Constitution; he seems to accept that all the actions taken by the 4 institutions that acted against Zelaya were unconstititonal. Not even Tequila takes that position!:cool:

Cheers

JohnT

Ken White
07-11-2009, 02:39 AM
Here you go: LINK (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090711/D99BUP580.html).


I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be called on it, I'm suggesting that the US not be the one to do the calling...Nothing could please them more than to have us blustering and drawing lines in the sand for him to step over.I said nothing of drawing lines -- just said to point out that his fingers are dirty. We could've done that and then affected disdain -- that would annoy him more than anything and annoyed people do dumb things.
...Playing that game with him is not going to help us.Totally agree and that is why I didn't suggest doing so. ;)

So we did what you suggested and, right on cue, there's our boy. He was going to rant no matter what we did, thus my point to call him on it and thus increase his bluster quotient while then ignoring him. He'd do something really stupid to get attention. :cool:

Not to worry, he'll present other opportunities to excel; perhaps we can do better next time. Catering to or apologizing to people who do not wish you well merely invites more abuse. Frequently a sharp word -- or action -- will stop that foolishness. Pity Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton didn't realize that; life could be different today had they done so. Hopefully, the current Administration will learn that.

Dayuhan
07-14-2009, 12:16 AM
Of course Hugo will rant; it's what he does. I just don't see how it hurts us. If we "call him on it" we just initiate a dialogue that goes nowhere.

Normally I would say there's no reason to even respond, especially since Arias already did so... but this one is almost too rich to ignore. Certainly a response shouldn't come from Obama, but perhaps an Undersecretary could be trotted out to comment that while we appreciate Mr. Chavez's desire for unilateral US intervention in Latin American affairs, the Obama administration is committed to multilateralism and we would suggest that appeals for action be directed to and considered by the OAS. It mioght also be worth pointing out that Obama repeatedly stated during his campaign that negotiation would be his administration's preferred approach to international crises, even if that means negotiating with governments we disapprove of or whose legitimacy we question.

That would give dear Hugo the option to respond, but he would have to accept dialogue with an underling; it would also address his comments and could easily be phrased in a manner that would convey thinly veiled contempt.

I sense a bit of desperation from the Hugo camp; the issue is fading from the headlines and they know all too well that time is not on their side here.

Ken White
07-14-2009, 01:14 AM
That's not idle pettiness on my part -- he's volatile and impetuous if very shrewd, the more irked he is, the more likely he will overstep and insure his own demise and thus a little more freedom for most Venazuelans. The absence of his frothing is no real plus because he'll be replaced by another somewhere.
If we "call him on it" we just initiate a dialogue that goes nowhere.You shouldn't enter in to dialogues with folks like Hugo, pointless. Just slyly point out their flaws to the world and refuse to engage them. Drives them up a wall. Bush understood that, Obama apparently does not. Which is surprising.
Normally I would say there's no reason to even respond...It mioght also be worth pointing out that Obama repeatedly stated during his campaign that negotiation would be his administration's preferred approach to international crises, even if that means negotiating with governments we disapprove of or whose legitimacy we question.Agree with all that.
I sense a bit of desperation from the Hugo camp; the issue is fading from the headlines and they know all too well that time is not on their side here.I agree. He's overdone a lot of things and is in process of making enemies in South and Central America. They will continue to express Latin solidarity and be polite but he's being slowly and gently excluded. Also looks as though his fellow Socialist Insulza might not get another term at OAS.

Everything goes in cycles... :wry:

John T. Fishel
07-14-2009, 01:40 AM
suggestion that Tom Shannon (Undersecretary foe WHA) reply. :cool:

Last thing I saw was that Arias had suggested that both Zelaya and Micheletti resign. That would meet the requirements of the several institutions and Micheletti has said he doesn't want to be Pres.

Ken White
07-14-2009, 01:59 AM
thinks not LINK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8149037.stm).

Gotta love it. Gamemanship for the big kids... :rolleyes:

Dayuhan
07-15-2009, 09:24 AM
That's not idle pettiness on my part -- he's volatile and impetuous if very shrewd, the more irked he is, the more likely he will overstep and insure his own demise and thus a little more freedom for most Venazuelans.

All very true. Venezuela's oil production is also steadily decreasing, owing to years of insufficient investment; the populace has gotten used to a diet of golden eggs and Hugo's been starving the goose, which puts him in an awkward position. Not nice being the candyman when the candy bag runs out. I also suspect that Hugo misses Bush badly, and needs a foreign policy crisis to rally support and distract from domestic issues. Whatever one thinks of the Bush-the-demon construct, it was very real to many people and was ready-made for exploitation by both Islamic fundamentalists and Chavez-style leftists.



You shouldn't enter in to dialogues with folks like Hugo, pointless. Just slyly point out their flaws to the world and refuse to engage them. Drives them up a wall. Bush understood that, Obama apparently does not.

The problem I have with this is that by pointing out their flaws, you enter into a dialogue. You point out their flaws, they fire back with a list of yours, real or imagined. If you have to ignore them sooner or later it is sometimes advantageous to ignore them from the start. For many observers the substance of what is said is irrelevant: what they see is Hugo talking and America responding, leading to the conclusion that America takes Hugo seriously. That's why I feel that if anything is going to be said it needs to come from well below the Presidential level.

Now we see Zelaya issuing ultimatums and calling for insurrection, which it seems to me puts him on pretty shaky ground: if violence ensues he is sending poor Hondurans out to die for him, if (more likely, I suspect) the response is tepid he seems impotent. Other nations may denounce the "coup", but is anyone going to start a war to restore Zelaya? I think not.

Ideally at some point Micheletti and his inner circle would offer to resign and allow the legislature and Supreme Court to supervise an internationally monitored election... we shall see!

Dayuhan
08-11-2009, 05:00 AM
Interesting how this greatest crisis in the hemisphere dropped out of the headlines. Pres. Obama did make some comments recently, I think good ones:


“The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say that we're always intervening and the Yankees need to get out of Latin America. You can't have it both ways... If these critics think that it's appropriate for us to suddenly act in ways that in every other context they consider inappropriate, then I think what that indicates is that maybe there's some hypocrisy involved in their -- their approach to U.S.-Latin American relations that -- that certainly is not going to guide my administration's policies.”

I would guess that negotiations will shift toward the question of an acceptable transition body to supervise the election, at which point Zelaya's fade will likely become terminal. Not much attention being paid any more.

MikeF
08-11-2009, 05:12 AM
Laissez-faire... Let them sort it out. Our past interdictions in Central America created enough concern amongst the local populace. Furthermore, every action we take at this point will be followed by a secondary retaliation by Hugo Chavez..

We should not stir the pot, but when others ask for help, we should be prepared to respond.

v/r

Mike

John T. Fishel
08-11-2009, 11:29 AM
Watch the outcome of the OAS visit to Honduras.

Cheers

JohnT

Gringo Malandro
10-06-2009, 11:53 PM
CRS report on legality:

http://schock.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Schock_CRS_Report_Honduras_FINAL.pdf

JarodParker
02-24-2010, 03:41 AM
Some closure... if there's such a thing.

Honduras swears in Porfirio Lobo as President (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8482707.stm)

J Wolfsberger
02-24-2010, 12:33 PM
Some closure... if there's such a thing.

Honduras swears in Porfirio Lobo as President (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8482707.stm)

Actually, I doubt it. The protests over the ouster of Zelaya were never rooted in any sort of unconstitutionality or illegality under Honduran law. Leftists were angry that a leftist lost power. He's still out, so they'll still be angry:

(From the BBC) "Several nations refused to recognize the legitimacy of November's election.
...
Several Latin American countries, including Brazil and Venezuela, said recognizing the election would amount to condoning a coup."

John T. Fishel
02-24-2010, 05:07 PM
agree but he is likely to be one of only two Latin American leaders (the other being Raul Castro) to not eventually welcome Honduras back into the fold. Brazil needs a little time to get its embassy back to normal but Lula will come around. Meanwhile, Zelaya accepted exile while the Honduran supreme Court dropped the trason charges against him and all charges against the military and former govt. Pres Lobo signed an amnesty for the military and former govt and helped engineer the deal for Zelaya to fly to the DR. On another Latin American front the OAS just issued a report highly critical of Chavez' repression of democratic opposition and freedom in Venezuela - its principal author was a Brazilian diplomat.

Cheers

JohnT

J Wolfsberger
02-24-2010, 05:21 PM
... On another Latin American front the OAS just issued a report highly critical of Chavez' repression of democratic opposition and freedom in Venezuela - its principal author was a Brazilian diplomat.

Now, that is nice to hear!

Dayuhan
02-24-2010, 11:18 PM
The left will still be upset, but the left is congenitally upset, it's their nature. Probably Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia will hold out and refuse to recognize, but the impact of that will be insignificant. This round seems pretty much done.

What happens next depends largely on what Lobo and crowd decide to do. If they lapse back into the status quo, the extreme left will reorganize and there will be another round, whether electoral or otherwise. If Lobo can develop a functional economic policy, implement some effective reforms, and get some results, the radical position will be undercut and they will end up with little more than an ideological core.

It would not be at all a bad thing if a moderate left movement willing to respect the electoral process emerged, as has happened in many other Latin American countries.

bourbon
06-26-2012, 01:19 PM
DEA Honduras drug killing part of new, aggressive strategy against illicit flights (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/dea-agent-kills-suspected-drug-trafficker-during-cocaine-raid-in-honduras/2012/06/24/gJQAZ17X0V_story.html). The Washington Post, 24 June 2012.

With the new operation, Honduran and U.S. drug agents follow every flight they detect of unknown origin and work with non-U.S. contract pilots who don’t have the restrictive rules of engagement that the U.S. military do.

The area of Brus Laguna, where the DEA says an agent shot a drug suspect as he was reaching for his gun Saturday, is part of the remote Mosquitia region that is dotted with clandestine airstrips and a vast network of rivers for carrying drugs to the coast.

Saturday’s incident marked the first time that a DEA agent has killed someone in Central America since the agency began deploying specially trained agents several years ago to accompany local law enforcement personnel on all types of drug raids throughout the region, said DEA spokeswoman Dawn Dearden.

Man Is Killed by U.S. Agent in Drug Raid in Honduras (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/world/americas/dea-agents-kills-suspected-smuggler-in-honduran-drug-raid.html), by Charlie Savage. The New York Times, 24 June 2012.

WASHINGTON — A United States Drug Enforcement Administration agent shot a man to death in Honduras during a raid on a smuggling operation early Saturday, a spokesman for the American Embassy in Honduras said Sunday. The man who was killed had been reaching for his weapon, the official said, and the agent fired in self-defense.

The shooting brought further attention to the growing American involvement in counternarcotics operations in Central America. Commando-style squads of D.E.A. agents have been working with local security forces in several countries and have been present at several firefights in Honduras in which people have died in the last 15 months.

davidbfpo
06-27-2012, 10:57 AM
Within a wider, IMO partisan sketch of Honduras I found:
The region from which the ‘Contra’ war was launched against nearby Nicaragua is now a transfer zone for drug traffickers: the State Department asserts (with suspicious accuracy) that 79% of cocaine smuggling flights from South America land in Honduras, mostly in this region.

The biggest of the land disputes is in the Aguan valley, where several communities are struggling to hold on to land in the face of violent repression by the police and private security forces, ranging from the destruction of whole villages to the assassination of community leaders. There have been more than fifty politically related deaths in this area alone. The main landowner implicated in the violence, Miguel Facussé, was described by the New York Times as ‘the octogenarian patriarch of one of the handful of families controlling much of Honduras’ economy’. He was also a strong supporter of the coup. In October 2011, Wikileaks released cables from the US embassy which revealed that he had been known to them as a cocaine importer since 2004.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/john-perry/honduras-three-years-after-coup

davidbfpo
07-16-2012, 10:07 PM
Now a BBC reporter has been in Honduras:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9737563.stm

This just sounds like an issue that one day will be rather more high profile:
An elite band of US DEA agents have been embedded with the Honduran security forces in an operation supported by six State Department helicopters, piloted by non-US security contractors, who are not bound by the strict rules of engagement imposed on the DEA.