Honduras (catch all)

[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