Doesn’t matter what the West wants, it’s what the people of Honduras want. And that’s not as clear-cut as Zelaya’s opponents would like to make it.
I dunno, please define “the west”.
If “the west” is defined as" the inventors and defenders of democracy from the Greeks on" (I know, i know…) then definitively yes.
If “the west” is defined as “the defenders of christian and moral values, tradition, family, property” then… may be no.
How fun is to see that the previous post shows evidence on how “fine” that was.
The USA has put all economic aid on hold, and if there is no change or moves to negotiate the aid will be cut, this also follows moves from the European Union and OAS.
I also heard that all monetary transactions from the coup plotters are being restricted.
Once again, ignoring history is silly. The Ecuadorians, that for all I have seen where in favor of the coup in 2000, were compelled to negotiate after they noticed that even the military aid was going to disappear.
Pay attention. It is far from a fait accomplis.
Yet another poster who skips reading the thread and spouts opinions without any base in reality. For if you’d read the thread you’d know that, amongst many other measures, both the World Bank and BID have suspended operations with Honduras. Meanwhile, all EU ambassadors have been recalled and trade stopped. Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala have closed their Honduran borders. As we speak the SG of the OAS is in a meeting with their SC giving them formal waring of the 72 hour ultimatum – they’ll be expelled from same by Sunday should they not comply. And finally, Obama has stopped all joint military operations with Honduras while also hinting that aid will be shut down by Monday should conditions remain as are. They are world pariahs and don’t have the means to remain isolated for much longer.
Irrelevant. It’s respect for the democratic process in Honduras – and LA by proxy – that is at stake. And in that sense, not just the West but the WHOLE fuckin’ world has shown they are united in that goal. In fact the Taiwanese President, visiting Nicaragua ATM, has not just canceled his programmed visit to Honduras but has just harshly criticized the coup.
But as I said from the start, you are more than welcome to keep making your own reality.
Why not? Even in getting cozy with Chavez, he was never much of a thorn in any country’s side. His only enemies are Honduras.
What does Chiquita Banana want? Snark intended, but where do American business interests in Honduras come down? Got my suspicions, of course, but await confirmation…
Well, as a person coming from the area, I can tell you that they expected this to go just like the old times.
With a better deal from the government that includes more repression to any unions or to limit worker rights even more. You see, those things that affect the bottom line…
This is why I do think the economical pressure will be effective in Honduras, Chiquita and others just found out that this is not like the old days and that it is the coup leaders who are the main obstacle now on doing business in Honduras.
I have generally mixed opinions on the coup.
On one hand I have a general distaste for strongmen who ensconce themselves in power. I genuinely believe that is what Zelaya was and what he was attempting to become. On the alternative hand any military coup is a major blow to democracy. On yet another hand, I don’t necessarily believe democracy is ideal for every state nor do I believe that Honduras had a constitution or a society that could effectively prevent itself from overthrow from within.
Because of the structure of the U.S. Constitution and our society it’d virtually be impossible for one man who happened to be very popular to convert himself into a perpetual leader (whether we want to call that type of leadership a dictatorship or just a perpetual popularity); not to say that citizens of the United States are not in danger of losing their freedoms. We most always guard against that but in the United States freedoms and liberties tend to be lost gradually over time, as institutions (like the Federal government) become ever more power and increasing power and prestige is vested in the Presidency, it isn’t really the case of “one man” here but rather a perpetual danger of the institutions of government itself becoming too powerful.
In Honduras one single popular man could definitely establish himself as a perpetual leader in a manner that would be injurious to the country at large.
So I guess on some levels (as a right winger) I agree with the condemnation of the military but also don’t necessarily object to the coup.
Left/Right wing means very little to me outside of the United States, the Cold War is long over and I don’t care if the whole of South America is ruled by Socialists or Fascists. Ideally they’d be ruled by forward thinking types looking to help South America modernize and become more first world, and that is the model we see in the more prosperous South American countries. The fact that the model of popular grass roots peasant appeasers redistributing wealth has historically lead to poorer, not wealthier, countries is my main problem with the ideologies of guys like Morales.
CNN has now uploaded the video that I wrote about while watching the TeleSur livestream. Cite:
What you don’t seem to recognize is unrestrained democracy can and has lead to as many horrors as any other sort of unrestrained form of government. The conflict that America’s founding fathers faced was that they wanted popular consent of the governed without allowing for mob rule. What this means is for a modern democracy to work there must be undemocratic institutions. Meaning a wave of mass appeal to a certain ideal cannot and should not ever override the underlying institutions of government.
If 80% of Americans wanted to elect George Bush President for life then it’s actually a very very good thing that it takes so long and is so difficult for our constitution to change–any attempts to make that happen would require a long period of time. Forcing lengthy change insures that waves of popular support for something must be genuine and enduring or they will fall apart long before they can effect real systemic change.
Giving the people more choices, not less, is not always a good thing. The U.S. State of California is crippled right now because it has come to rely on popular referendum to make important decisions as the State Legislature has backed off of implementing difficult laws. What this has lead to is a system where the people have too much day-to-day say. You need representatives that essentially make the decisions for the people, and you need institutions in line to make sure that no matter “how stupid” the decisions of the people or the legislature there is only so much damage they can do. That’s one of the strongest things about the United States constitution, it essentially recognizes that most people can and often are stupid. So it concentrates actual decision making power for the whole country in a very limited number of hands, and then it puts all kinds of limits on those people. It has staggered term limits so that no popular faction can quickly or easily seize control of government, and it gives the respective branches of government a great deal of ability to engage in “foot dragging” and obstructionism even when they are in the minority. Even as a majority party in the United States you don’t get to brute force anything because the minority still has a lot of obstructing power.
No properly functioning democracy should have the state support what amounts to a private poll for the President, especially when the process of said polling would amount to grandstanding and support-building for the President himself. If the President of a properly functioning democracy wants to drum up support, or use some sort of non-binding poll as political capital he should have to invest his own time and resources not that of the full government.
The fact? Well, then, might you list off the top ten or so examples? Since the facts are at your fingertips, shouldn’t be much of a problem.
If one douibles the wealth of a country but 95% of that remains in the hands of the ruling classes, progress has not been made, only the jailers are more comfortable.
And does not “appease” the people, one serves them, or one does not.
Sorry, won’t play that game. If you want serious facts ask for them in a more serious way and dial back the baiting and grandstanding.
As I’ve said before to another poster, you are more than welcome to “believe” anything you want, but, as has been proven by the facts in this thread time and again your belief vis-a-vis Zelaya’s intentions is simply a product of your political bias and imagination. So, in as much as I also believe that you are indeed sincere in your thoughts, it doesn’t mean that I can’t tell you that they differ greatly from reality. Because they do.
Another thing that must be kept in mind is if you’re serious about democracy it can’t be about “one man.”
Maybe Chavez is the best leader for Venezuela right now. Maybe Putin is the best leader for Russia. However, as long as the power of these mean is being used to keep them in perpetual power it undermines what democracy is really about.
People in a functioning, healthy democracy have to be open to consistent and predictable changes in leadership. It is always the case that the longer a leader is in power the greater chance they start taking more and more liberties with the people’s freedoms and starts to enshrine more and more power unto themselves.
American democracy was far better off that none of the Founding Fathers attempted to rule for decades. George Washington’s decision to peacefully step down and make room for a new generation of leadership after two terms made this country far stronger than a Washington third or fourth term would have (obviously he would not have lived long enough to serve out a full third term–but given the nature of his death if he had stayed in the Presidency maybe he would have.) As Thomas Jefferson (who helped enshrine the two-term tradition) said: “if some termination to the services of the chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally four years, will in fact become for life.”
And why are those things relevant to the situation in Honduras?, I concur with many of the things you say, but nothing in there justifies a coup.
There are no such things as absolute facts when we speak about the intentions of someone, surely you must recognize that. However I think we can say that your assertions that you know precisely what reality is and your claims of divine soothsaying abilities in your knowledge of exactly what “must have happened” if this coup had never occurred bear little authoritative weight.
I’ve simply said I believe Zelaya sought to become a perpetual leader, a “strongman” of Honduras. If you do not believe this, that is well, there is no way to say for sure who is correct and pointing to Honduran law and election procedure really proves nothing other than what is written on a meaningless piece of paper in a third world country that is barely committed to the idea of rule of law let alone the idea of democracy itself.
I don’t believe Zelaya to be any sort of fiend, but I also don’t believe anything you have said is proof of any sort that the man had no intentions of making himself leader perpetually. Even if things went exactly as you had said and he didn’t keep the Presidency but someone else was elected in November, that doesn’t bar Zelaya from having continued as the true ruler of Honduras and then later on, with a changed constitution, moving back into the role of President.
Look at how Vladimir Putin has changed titles in Russia but has not actually ceded any power, and Putin has even discussed a possibility of his returning to the Presidency.
Appreciate the harangue but don’t mind me if I don’t stand and applaud.
Perhaps you meant to post that in a different thread? Because it has zilch to do with this one.
I was simply responding to BrainGlutton’s question as to what Right Wingers thought about the international condemnation of a coup. My response was that essentially I don’t really support it but neither do I oppose it, and thus I can understand the international condemnation while not necessarily backing it.
Edit to add: RedFury and Frodo need to learn to read more carefully, posts aren’t made in a vacuum and mine was a line of responses to what I felt was a direct question that opened them up as quite valid lines of discussion.
I’ll address this directly since it seems to be very much part of your “factual case.”
Firstly, I will note that your lengthy quote is from a website whose headline at the moment reads:
And which goes on to link to such fabulously titled articles like “Israeli Doctors Collude in Torture” and “Obama’s Classroom Spies.” Have you ever hard of actually using a source at least somewhat neutral? I find it laughable you have spoken about my political biases in these threads.
Do rest assured I couldn’t care less what Zelaya’s political persuasion, he is no American leader and I honestly feel Honduras is a mound of dirt and ignorant poor people who could all be stricken from the earth in a natural calamity tomorrow and I wouldn’t lose a moment’s sleep over it. I care very little about a country as inconsequential as Honduras.
I’m not a “we are the world, we are the people” kind of guy. I’m just someone who in this case is really enjoying the intellectual hypocrisy of the left, who for years bashed the right for supporting various semi-fascist coups in Latin America during the Cold War and have jumped on the band wagon of any populist/leftist politician who sticks their head up to attempt and wrest control of any of the many third world shit holes in the Western Hemisphere.
For the record my opinion on the various fascists leaders in Latin American history we helped prop up is that they were irrelevant to us and we shouldn’t have propped them up. Primarily because we mistakenly felt Latin America was strategically relevant when it truly wasn’t, the whole continent should and could have been left to its own ignorant and essentially meaningless devices during the Cold War.
All that being said, and to directly address this ludicrous quote you scrounged up from some radical leftist screed-writing website:
I’ll reply to that in short by saying that Zelaya leaving the Presidency next January means nothing and says nothing to counter my point that I believed he was looking to establish himself as perpetual leader of the country. So what if he stepped down? In a country like Honduras, which is primarily populated by ignorant, uneducated folk who probably stretch their mental capacities trying to till the earth a man can easily lead the country by proxy for a term or so while he reworks the constitution through popular machinations and sets himself up for some sort of permanent “title.”
Further, even given everything you’ve said in this thread there is no “proof” about what would really have happened come January 2010. This isn’t some first world democracy we’re talking about, laws and constitutions in Latin America are barely worth the paper they are printed on–for that reason it really doesn’t matter what would have happened “legally.” It doesn’t matter what Zelaya was publicly “seeking” nor does it matter when or where any sort of constitutional revision or committee would have met. Just because the timeline says none of these changes could have happened until after Zelaya left office doesn’t really mean anything. If Zelaya really intended on going away I doubt he’d have even attempted the referendum and if the laws and such that you spoke about which would have mandated his removal in January of 2010 meant anything to him he would not have forced his way into a military base in an attempt to distribute Venezuelan imported ballots.
All that being said, it is entirely possible you’re right and Zelaya did genuinely plan to obey the rule of law and was going to step down in January. Even if that is true, and it very well could be, I think you have to concede that does not mean he could not still be seeking a position of perpetual power for himself. Do you really think a politician, any politician, would be advocating a new constitution that coincidentally would allow him to run for office again if they themselves didn’t envision being moved into said office at some point?
It’s entirely possible Zelaya actually was looking forward to his term ending so he could devote himself to further demagoguery and played a more hands on role in crafting the new constitution. From there it’s just a short step back into a perpetual role of leadership which would have had all the legal backing required to keep him in the good graces of the international community.