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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[tequila]

Prof Fishel - Is there a better source for the Honduran Constitution out there than the Google translation of the Georgetown link here?

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, 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:

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]

...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...

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

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]

not mentioned in post #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]

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]

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]

This document 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.

[Ken White]

Check the LINK. 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...

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]

= six year presidential term w/o any reelection in Mexico

Cheers

JohnT

[J Wolfsberger]

= six year presidential term w/o any reelection in Mexico

Cheers

JohnT

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

[Steve Blair]

If Honduras had nukes (or might have them), would we (as in the leadership segment) have been so quick to jump in?

Just sayin'....

[marct]

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]

Video analysis of the situation by Real News Network.

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?o...0+17%3A03%3A19