Honduras (catch all)

[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

[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

[marct]

Video analysis of the situation by Real News Network.

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

"Analysis"? Hmm, I would have said "pre-conceived theological Truthyness" myself . Did anyone else notice that a large amount of the video was provided by Al-Jezeera? I also noticed that the "commentator" (aka talking head) didn't bother to make any reference to the fact that referendums are disallowed within 6 months of an election.

What's bothering me about a lot of this coverage is that nowhere yet have I seen anyone noting that Zelaya was trying to build a Chavez-style dictatorship.

[J Wolfsberger]

What's bothering me about a lot of this coverage is that nowhere yet have I seen anyone noting that Zelaya was trying to build a Chavez-style dictatorship.

Marc, I think you may be confusing "media coverage" with "news." What's important to the media is that a Leftist lost power. The facts are minor details of no particular significance.

What I would like to know is whether there's any confirmation of the assertion in the NY Post that Chavez has agents on the ground. Would he be likely to start/support an insurgency/revolution?

[marct]

Hi JW,

Marc, I think you may be confusing "media coverage" with "news." What's important to the media is that a Leftist lost power. The facts are minor details of no particular significance.

As Stan would say, that's the romantic in me . 'sides that, it would probably be more accurate (if that means anything ) to state that "What's important is that a demagogue using broadly Marxian rhetoric to establish personal rule under the "one Man - One Vote" rule (and he's the one man with the one vote) got turfed by the supreme court, the congress and the military."

What I would like to know is whether there's any confirmation of the assertion in the NY Post that Chavez has agents on the ground. Would he be likely to start/support an insurgency/revolution?

Now that is an interesting question. Honestly, i wouldn't be surprised if he did. You know, if Aristophanes was alive today, he would be having a field day - can we say "Brakakax, koax, koax"?

[J Wolfsberger]

... it would probably be more accurate (if that means anything ) to state that "What's important is that a demagogue using broadly Marxian rhetoric to establish personal rule under the "one Man - One Vote" rule (and he's the one man with the one vote) got turfed by the supreme court, the congress and the military."

Well THERE'S my problem. As a simple minded engineering type I didn't realize THAT'S what was happening!

[Ken White]

...can we say "Brakakax, koax, koax"?

Google those words individually...

[slapout9]

"Analysis"? Hmm, I would have said "pre-conceived theological Truthyness" myself . Did anyone else notice that a large amount of the video was provided by Al-Jezeera? I also noticed that the "commentator" (aka talking head) didn't bother to make any reference to the fact that referendums are disallowed within 6 months of an election.

What's bothering me about a lot of this coverage is that nowhere yet have I seen anyone noting that Zelaya was trying to build a Chavez-style dictatorship.

Happy Canada Day Marct here is some video coverage for you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CykFEFwP2IU

[John T. Fishel]

I think your analysis is spot on. What concerns me is the unwillingness of the external players - non-Bolivarian - to look at the facts on the ground. They have all created a myth that this was a coup, which if the facts are as reported it was not. Indeed, it was a constitutionally sanctioned action carried out somewhat more crudely than was really necessary - but constitutional nonetheless.

Marct and all other Canadians here, I join in wishing y'all a Happy Canada Day.

Cheers

JohnT

[marct]

Happy Canada Day Marct here is some video coverage for you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CykFEFwP2IU

What can I say but Oi Vey?!?!?

Well, 'twas a fun day but doesn't come close to 1979 !!!!

[tequila]

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!

Take it easy, MarcT! I'm not one of those folks on "Talking to Americans", I'm just saying that it's not only leftists Chavistas arguing that this is a coup, but even people like Stephen Harper are as well. Then again, perhaps he is taking too many cheap drugs from your apocalyptic socialist medical scheme that have persuaded him to become a lapdog of Uncle Hugo?

I think your analysis is spot on. What concerns me is the unwillingness of the external players - non-Bolivarian - to look at the facts on the ground. They have all created a myth that this was a coup, which if the facts are as reported it was not. Indeed, it was a constitutionally sanctioned action carried out somewhat more crudely than was really necessary - but constitutional nonetheless.

Certainly the expulsion of Zelaya appears to be un-Constitutional. Article 81 and 102:

ARTICULO 81.- Toda persona tiene derecho a circular libremente, salir, entrar y permanecer en el territorio nacional.

ARTICULO 102.- Ningún hondureño podrá ser expatriado ni entregado por las autoridades a un Estado extranjero.

Also the replacement government has extended the curfew another three days, as well as suspending several Constitutional liberties during those hours.

For English-language speakers, this blog by an American Catholic lay volunteer has been quite informative - Hermano Juancito.

[AnalyticType]

how the video jives with truth on the ground now, several days afterward. Specifically, Prof Salas referred to Zelaya's referrendum as a 'survey', giving it a very different (and far more favorable) connotation. He stated that an unknown number of Legislators had been kidnapped, but I have not seen indications of that elsewhere (yet.) He cited the electricity having been cut off deliberately to create fear among the populace, as well as declaration of 'martial law' for the same purpose. I have not seen evidence of those allegations in La Prensa, though in full disclosure my spanish is rusty (making the translation perhaps less than accurate) and I don't have a handle on the direction of that publication's likely bias.

Having just spent four years living on campus at a very 'liberal' institution of higher education, and having many profs/administrators/students of vocally partisan viewpoints surrounding me, I recognise fervent advocacy coming from the "analyst" Professor Miguel Salas... not balanced analysis. Despite that, the video presented it's 'evidence' from a very finite viewpoint (assuming that all the video bits are actually from Honduras on Sunday), so I'm wondering whether any of the allegations made by Prof Salas from that time frame remain the situation now; or has stability and popular understanding of the full situation occurred? Again, that's the impression I got from my rusty reading of La Prensa.

And, as Marc mentioned, video courtesy of al-Jazeera?? Just a bit odd. I perceive a significant amount of cherry-picking in the information presented in the video.

J Wolfsberger, it's likely that the answer to your question is "yes."

I'm thinkin' a little structured ACH exercise is in order. (This'll be good practice for me!) I'll dig into it and post findings later today.

Video analysis of the situation by Real News Network.

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