Honduras (catch all)

[John T. Fishel]

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]

Link to a BBC article on the situation. Looks like Obama's already made a statement of sorts.

[John T. Fishel]

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]

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.

[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