Honduras (catch all)

[jmm99]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Steve Blair]

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.

[Ken White]

...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]

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]

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 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.

[AnalyticType]

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