Honduras (catch all)

[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.

[J Wolfsberger]

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.

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]

UN Charter, Article 2.7:

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:

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.

[John T. Fishel]

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

[tequila]

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.

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?

[Ken White]

Headline writers and media editors are hilarious.

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.

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).

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...

[John T. Fishel]

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]

A rather interesting Op-Ed article in the Latin American Herald Tribune 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)' parting shot.