U.S. calls Honduran coup a coup, cuts aid, might not recognize November election results

GIGObuster · September 7, 2009, 2:38am

One more thing, I do check a forum in El Salvador regarding this subject. Right winger posters (well-to-do as they have broadband connections in the old country) are constantly mentioning to the recently leftist elected president how nice it would be to ship him out like the Honduran army and their congress did. I’m not kidding regarding the risks to other Latin American countries if we let what is happening in Honduras stand.

If the current Honduran rulers are so confident in the law they are not demonstrating this, the reality is that they have shown on several occasions that they fear how a trial of Zelaya will come out or even how it will appear to the Hondurans and the international community. For there is another thing it is peculiar on how the right is defending the indefensible:

Zelaya is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, until his culpability is shown in a court of law any accusations coming from the current criminal regime are suspect. All the accusations so far are coming from the ones that are benefiting from the crime and control the flow of information.

And it is a criminal regime because they have decided to continue to break the law, and to break international rules regarding human rights. And to continuously harass and threaten international and national media that oppose them.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/25/honduras-rights-report-shows-need-increased-international-pressure

Widespread and Continuing Abuses Documented by Inter-American Commission
August 25, 2009

(Washington, DC) - The finding by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of widespread abuses in Honduras should compel the international community to take firm action, such as targeted sanctions, to resolve the country’s ongoing crisis, Human Rights Watch said today.

The commission released a report on August 21, 2009, showing a pattern of serious violations under the de facto government, including excessive use of force, arbitrary detention, sexual violence, and attacks on the media, as well as several confirmed deaths and possible “disappearances.” The commission also documented an absence of effective legal protections from abuse.

“Given the ongoing abuses documented by the commission and the lack of effective legal protection,** it is urgent that the international community exert concerted and effective pressure to restore democratic government in Honduras**,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch.

In the aftermath of the June 28 coup d’état, Human Rights Watch and other local and international advocacy groups urged the Organization of American States (OAS) to address serious human rights abuses being committed in Honduras under the de facto government. Given the scope of alleged abuses, and the region’s history of bloody coups leading to massive violations, human rights advocates believed the situation warranted the direct intervention of the region’s most authoritative human rights investigative body, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The commission conducted an extensive fact-finding mission from August 17 to 21. It met with representatives of the de facto government and representatives of various sectors of civil society, and received complaints, testimony, and information from more than 100 individuals.

“While the OAS has yet to show results in resolving Honduras’s democratic crisis, the commission has demonstrated the crucial role that this regional mechanism can play when a country’s rule of law is badly undermined,” Vivanco said.

BrainGlutton · September 7, 2009, 6:14am

It is. It was drafted for that specific purpose.

Damuri_Ajashi · September 14, 2009, 7:37pm

Wow!!! You really don’t care if it was right or wrong, do you?

BrainGlutton · September 14, 2009, 8:06pm

I get the impression Curtis cares very much if it was right or left, and about very little else.

smiling_bandit · September 14, 2009, 9:27pm

Oops. This page went off for too long without a response, so I never checked back.

Just like they wouldn’t in Iran, or ZImbabwe, or Russia, I’m sure.

First off, I’m not suggesting either side was smart. Second, it’s fact of life that if you piss off too many opeople, they’re gonna take action. Honduras’s demoacracy is still rather feeble, and Zelaya put the fear of God into everyone that it was going the way of Venezuala. They took action. It may have been foolish, but they did and there’s no point in arguing. Add that to the non-trivial chance that he’d be able to fake a referendum, and I stand by my earlier statement that he’s lucky he wasn’t assassinated.

The effective and wise action would be to roll your eyes, ignore Zelaya’s posturing, and proceed as if nothing happened. Let Honduras cool off. Obama’s loudmouthing is not helping the situation any. It’s going to make them defensive and destabilize the poor bastards even more. Instead, act privately and try to let Honduras save face. Insist the next election go smoothly and honorably. Yes, I have no problem with warning the Honduras military. That should also be handled under the table.

A little discretion is the soul of diplomacy, which few American administrations ever learned the art of. Both Clinton and Bush sometimes used it effectively, thankfully, but they were exceptions. Of course, Reagan turned the lack into something of an art form and great success, so there you go.

BrainGlutton · September 14, 2009, 9:49pm

How?

WTF?! What has Obama said in public about this that can be considered “loudmouthing”? He has said hardly anything.

You know perfectly well that is impossible while the current de facto government is in power.

GIGObuster · September 15, 2009, 2:17am

Like **BrainGlutton **said, and:

You also missed post #41 that already explains how foolish is to just “to roll our eyes”.

Not only you “fail history forever” but you also fail at current affairs.

GIGObuster · September 22, 2009, 4:04pm

And, for the current events in Honduras.

Zelaya returned.

Currently inside the Brazilian Embassy.

Thousands of supporters of Zelaya surrounded the embassy.

Micheletti at first denied Zelaya’s return, Channel 36 and Radio Globo (the media that opposes the coup) had their transmissions shut down or interrupted.

Latest reports are that Michelletti is sending troops and removing the crowds around the embassy.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3439/live-blog-president-zelaya-has-returned-honduras

BrainGlutton · September 22, 2009, 7:14pm

Military disperses pro-Zelaya protestors with tear gas, sets up blockade around Brazilian embassy. Stay tuned.

BrainGlutton · September 23, 2009, 6:06pm

Zelaya says the Micheletti government is planning to attack the embassy, kill him and call it a suicide. (But he does not say how he knows this.)

GIGObuster · September 23, 2009, 9:14pm

The previous actions of the coup plotters show that they do not want to show the to the world the evidence that they have against Zelaya.

It is bound to be really dumb, and so exaggerated that many will see that the reasons to remove the president were mostly based on assumed pre-crimes.

Even more Hondurans would realize then that all branches of their government are corrupt.

IMHO the coup plotters do not want to have to deal with such a can of worms, so an execution-suicide Allende style is possible.

astorian · September 24, 2009, 8:33pm

Oh, that’s the LEAST of it. he ALSO say Jewish commandoes are secretly poisoning him with radiation and trying to control his mind.

http://www.miamiherald.com/1506/story/1248828.html
I suppose it’s noble to stand up for democracy around the world, but is THIS freak really the one for whom Obama should draw a line in the sand??

Sam_Stone · September 24, 2009, 9:54pm

The current Honduran government was standing up for democracy when it removed this Hugo Chavez wanna-be from power. There will be elections in two months to elect a new government. In the meantime, the current government took power completely within the bounds of the Honduran constitution.

Obama is WAY on the wrong side of this one. He’s looking the other way while an illegitimate Iranian government crushes protestors after stealing an election, but he’s willing to go to the mat and impoverish the Honduran people to try to reinstate an insane anti-American socialist who violated his country’s constitution in an attempt to set himself up as a Chavez-like strongman.

There’s something wrong with a system that gives murderous thugs like the Iranian and Libyan leaders a podium from which to harangue the free nations and spit out anti-semitic nonsense, while the leaders of the Honduran government have their aid cut off and their American visas revoked so they can’t even come to the U.N. to plead their case.

BrainGlutton · September 24, 2009, 10:27pm

:rolleyes: Sure, just like there were “elections” in Iran this year. You know perfectly well that free and fair elections are impossible while the current de facto government is in power.

You know, I’ve been trying to figure out what is the proper constitutional procedure for removing a Honduran president from office. And, near as I can figure, they somehow forgot to provide one. Here’s the Honduran Constitution in Spanish. Here’s the Honduran Constitution in English – kindasorta; it reads like a product of Babelfish. There are 378 articles.

TITLE V: THE POWERS OF THE STATE:
Chapter I: The Legislature: Articles 189-212. Article 205 sets forth its powers, which include approving the elections of executives, but nothing about removing them from office.

Chapter VI: The Executive Branch: Articles 235-245. Nothing about impeachment or removal procedures.

Chapter XII: Of the Judiciary: Articles 303-320. Powers of the Supreme Court set forth in Article 313; nothing about a power to order removal of executive officials.

Here’s a scholarly commentary, in English, but it sheds little more light:

The Honduran constitution, the sixteenth since independence from Spain, entered into force on January 20, 1982. Just a week before, Honduras had ended ten years of military rule with the inauguration of civilian president Roberto Suazo Córdova. The constitution was completed on January 11, 1982, by a seventy-one-seat Constituent Assembly that had been elected on April 20, 1980, under the military junta of Policarpo Paz García. The Constituent Assembly was dominated by Honduras’s two major political parties, the PLH, which held thirty-five seats, and the PNH, which held thirty-three seats. The small Innovation and Unity Party (Partido de Inovación y Unidad–Pinu) held the remaining three seats.

Honduran constitutions are generally held to have little bearing on Honduran political reality because they are considered aspirations or ideals rather than legal instruments of a working government. The constitution essentially provides for the separation of powers among the three branches of government, but in practice the executive branch generally dominates both the legislative and judicial branches of government. Moreover, according to the United States Department of State’s human rights report for 1992, although basic human rights are protected in the constitution, in practice the government has been unable to assure that many violations are fully investigated, or that most of the perpetrators, either military or civilian, are brought to justice.

<snip>

Title V outlines the branches and offices of the government and their responsibilities, and spells out the procedure for the enactment, sanction, and promulgation of laws. It covers the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government; the Office of the Comptroller General and the Directorate of Administrative Probity, both of which are auxiliary but independent agencies of the legislative branch; the Office of the Attorney General, the legal representative of the Honduran state; the offices of the ministers of the cabinet, with no fewer than twelve ministries; the civil service; the departmental and municipal system of local government; and guidelines for the establishment of decentralized institutions of the Honduran state. Different from the 1965 constitution, the terms of legislators and the president are four years, instead of six years. Another new feature focuses on the development of local government throughout the country. Article 299 states that “economic and social development of the municipalities must form part of the national development program,” whereas Article 302, in order to ensure the improvement and development of the municipalities, encourages citizens to form civic associations, federations, or confederations.

The chapter on the judiciary also contains several changes from the 1965 constitution. The changes, according to one analysis, appear to bring the administration of justice closer to the people. Article 303 declares that “the power to dispense justice emanates from the people and is administered free of charge on behalf of the state by independent justices and judges.” The Supreme Court of Justice has nine principal justices and seven alternates, increased from the seven principals and five alternates provided in the 1965 document.

And (other sources having been exhausted) here’s a relevant Wikipedia discussion:

Debate about the constitutionality of the 2009 presidential ouster

Articles of the 1982 Constitution

Several articles of the 1982 Constitution that were referred to during the crisis include the following.

Article 3 of the Constitution states that nobody has an obligation to obey a government that has taken power through armed force, that acts by such a government are [legally] null, and that people have the right to insurrection in order to defend constitutional government.[12] The Constitution forbids handing over or expatriating Hondurans to foreign countries.[13][14][15] A Honduran citizen who has held the title of Executive can not be President or Vice President of the Republic, and the person that breaks this regulation or proposes its amendment, as well as those who assist him directly or indirectly, will cease immediately to hold their respective offices, and will be disqualified for ten years from holding any public office.[16] Article 373 states, “The reform of the Constitution can be decreed by the National Congress, in ordinary session, by a vote of two thirds the totality of its members, and must specify the article or articles that are to be reformed, and must be ratified by an equal number of votes in the subsequent ordinary legislature.”[12] Article 374 states, “It is not possible to reform, in any case, the preceding article, the present article, the constitutional articles referring to the form of government, to the national territory, to the presidential period, the prohibition to serve again as President of the Republic, the citizen who has performed under any title in consequence of which she/he cannot be President of the Republic in the subsequent period.”[12]
References to the 1982 Constitution

In the crisis, President Manuel Zelaya was removed from the country by military force on the 28th of June after the Supreme Court of Honduras had issued an order (apparently) on June 26 for his detention. The Supreme Court membership had been renewed in January 2009. Afterwards the court published a Special Communication explaining its actions. The Court determined that the president had violated Article 239 of the Constitution, which forbids a president from seeking to serve more than to one term in office and provides that any president seeking to amend or alter this constitutional limitation is to be removed from office. The validity of the court’s ruling has been challenged.[17] Some have complained that the court is partisan. Larry Birns, director off the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs, has described the Honduran Supreme Court as “one of the most corrupt institutions in Latin America.”[18] The national Congress claims to have affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling by a vote of 125 to 3, in a show of hands on the day Zelaya was removed, 28 June 2009.[19] The Unión Democrática members, however, say they were not there, and some Liberal Party members have since said they did not vote for the motion.[citation needed]

President Zelaya disputes[20] that he was seeking to extend his term in office, arguing that he wanted to conduct a public opinion poll on whether a constitutional convention should be convened to consider various constitutional changes including allowing successive terms in office for the president.

On the annual Central American Independence Day, 15 September 2009, the Frente Nacional contra el Golpe de Estado en Honduras (FNGE) declared that it constitutes the organised expression of Hondurans’ right under Article 3 of the 1982 Constitution to resist against a government imposed by armed force.[21]

:dubious: How does it happen, do you think, that the governments of the U.S. and every other country on Earth, other than the Honduras coup regime itself, are WAY on the wrong side of this one?

Of course he is looking the other way, because there is nothing he can do that would not make things worse. Art of the possible, you know? Ahmadinejad was at any rate elected fairly-by-contemporary-Iranian-standards the first time around; since then he has been the internationally recognized president of Iran; and this latest dirty-even-by-contemporary-Iranian-standards election did nothing more than preserve the status quo. And, in the context of Iranian politics, open U.S. support would do the opposition about as much good as a Soviet endorsement would have done Adlai Stevenson’s presidential campaign in 1952.

Micheletti, OTOH, has been de facto president of Honduras for only three months and has been recognized by nobody, and it is practically possible to apply foreign pressure to destablize his rule.

:rolleyes: Zelaya, whatever else you might say about him, is not an “anti-American” nor a “socialist” and never was. He’s a businessman, for Rand’s sake! What, do you think those characterizations automatically apply to any leader, who, for whatever political or strategic reasons, makes nice with Hugo Chavez?! :dubious:

If the proposed nonbinding referendum, on several proposed constitutional changes, had gone forward, and if the provision to end the presidential term limit had been approved, it still would have had to go through the normal amendment-ratification process and, in any case, Zelaya would be out of office by then; so, he would not have personally benefited by it.

If you want to see a Latin American leader who really is trying to set himself up as a strongman, take a look at Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe.

I’m sure I’m not the only Doper who is deeply disappointed in you right now, Sam. You are usually much more rational than this.

GIGObuster · September 24, 2009, 11:18pm

What **BranGlutton **said X2

I have lost any respect I had for Sam Stone.
astorian I’m on record already saying that I would be glad also to see Zelaya out, but he was elected. A coup is still a bigger crime than being a freak.

What it is clear is that now it is not only OAS that will not accept the next elections as valid but now the UN is pulling back:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-09/24/content_12103986.htm

Issues like this come to demonstrate how the mainstream media is not liberal or has a blind spot when issues regarding social justice are on the line:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3450/what-some-us-reporters-dont-get-about-brazil-and-honduras-crisis

When Brazilian President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva addressed this morning’s UN General Assembly in New York, he said:
***"Without political will, we will see more coups such as the one that toppled Manuel Zelaya in Honduras."***
I don’t know what is so hard for some observers to understand about that statement, which comes from the elected president of a country that itself was victimized by a military coup d’etat in 1964. Brazil, like every other democracy on the planet, has a legitimate self interest in making sure that no military coup succeeds, especially in its own hemisphere.

Like the 2009 coup in Honduras, the 1964 putsch had a “civilian” gloss when Brazil’s vice president ascended to the presidency but under terms dictated by the military. (Much like the top Honduran military lawyer told the Miami Herald in July that “It would be difficult for us, with our training, to have a relationship with a leftist government. That’s impossible.” That was a smoking gun that demonstrated how the Honduras coup regime’s claims to be a “democracy” led by civilians are utter rubbish: When the Armed Forces dictate that the people can’t elect a government of the left, or it will always risk a violent coup - which is exactly what that military official said - they are dictating the terms. That’s where the word dictatorship comes from.)

Fair and free elections are impossible under such a regime. In recent days, the Honduran coup of “president” Roberto Micheletti has demonstrated, again, that it is incapable democratic governance. Peaceful Hondurans came to the Brazilian Embassy to greet their only elected President, Manuel Zelaya, and they were violently driven away with water cannon tanks, tear gas, billy clubs, and rubber bullets. National Police then followed the dispersed crowd into the popular barrios to wound and maim them, and invaded homes that provided them refuge. That led to scenes like this one in the neighborhood of Hato de Enmedio, and in more than 20 heavily populated slums in and around Tegucigalpa yesterday:

Clueless desk editors like those at the New York Times titled these conflicts “Riots in Honduras.” But you don’t need to be able to understand Spanish to see and hear, in this video, that, distinct from rioters, the young people of the neighborhood that came out and violated the military curfew to defend their neighborhood from this police invasion know and have memorized complicated political slogans and rhymes which they chanted in unison. “Riots” are disorganized explosions. This neighborhood, and others like it, however, have been forced by the realities of the coup to organize themselves to a greater extent than ever before.

In neighborhoods like Hato de Enmedio, where a majority of Honduras’ citizens live, you can also see in the video see that not even the main street in the barrio is paved. Many of the homes have dirt floors as well. And if a citizen is harmed by a robber or predator, you can call the police, but they won’t come. People who live in neighborhoods like this only see the police when they invade, like they did yesterday, to enforce an unenforceable curfew on people who, if they obeyed the curfew, would starve of hunger. A curfew is unsustainable on a people that live hand to mouth, day to day.

We can also see in that video the revelation that the tear gas canisters shot by the National Police yesterday were stamped as property of the government of Perú, suggesting strongly that Peruvian President Alan García is a participant in smuggling arms to the Honduran coup regime. Something he will now have to answer for to the Organization of American States in general, and his neighbor Brazil in particular.

But back to Lula of Brazil. At the UN today, he said:

“The international community demands that Mr Zelaya immediately return to the presidency of his country and must be alert to ensure the inviolability of Brazil’s diplomatic mission in the capital of Honduras.”*

The United Nations isn’t likely to ignore Lula’s plea. As a body, it owes Brazil heavily for its leadership of UN Peacekeeping forces in Haiti, and also for its unique role as a respected organizer and spokes-country of “developing world” states as a force for global social and economic justice. Wealthier nations, meanwhile, from the US to China to Europe, are greatly dependent (or would like to be more so) on the gigantic consumer market that is Brazil. In eight short years, Lula has greatly risen Brazil’s status and respect across the globe by playing these factors upon each other very shrewdly.

So when Reuters publishes, as it has, what it calls an “analysis” titled “Brazil’s risky role in Honduras may backfire,” its author, one Raymond Colitt, doesn’t know his ass from his elbow. It’s a pure propaganda piece, based on the faulty presumption that Brazil’s goal is to mediate some kind of negotiated solution in Honduras. “Analysts” like that can only be called such, with a straight face, by adding quotation marks. Any fool can see that the Honduran crisis has moved to a level of dysfunction that is beyond a negotiated solution. It is a raw power struggle now between a coup regime trying desperately to hold on to power and an increasingly organized people that is peeling away the layers of its support.

BrainGlutton · September 28, 2009, 1:34pm

Update: Coup regime declares state of emergency, suspends civil liberties, including public gatherings. Zelaya’s supporters plan to march in the streets anyway.

Sam_Stone · September 29, 2009, 1:19am

A better update:

Congressional Law Library Report to Congress: Removal of Zelaya was legal.

This is the official report to Congress from the Congressional Law library. The conclusion: Removing Zelaya from office was legal, but removing him from the country was not.

This of course is exactly what I said from day one. Zelaya deserves restitution for being expelled from the country, and there should be an investigation into his exile by the military, with charges laid if necessary. However, since he was removed from power legally, restitution does not mean giving him his office back. Any fault lies with the military officials who decided to have him exiled.

The report mentions the ‘resignation letter’, but it’s just a sideshow because it was never used by the Honduran government as justification for his removal, nor was any legal determination based on the existence of the letter. With or without it, his removal was legal.

I guess you’ll have to add the Congressional Law Library to your list of liars and cads who are not to be listened to.

Qin_Shi_Huangdi · September 29, 2009, 2:18am

That’s happening because the Obama administration actually unbelievably supported Zelaya. If we had been quiet about it Zelaya wouldn’t have the ammo to do any of this and the current Honduran government wouldn’t have to suspend civil liberties. I wonder what historians in 2100 will think of this.

GIGObuster · September 29, 2009, 3:03am

Sam_Stone:

A better update:

Congressional Law Library Report to Congress: Removal of Zelaya was legal.

This is the official report to Congress from the Congressional Law library. The conclusion: Removing Zelaya from office was legal, but removing him from the country was not.

This of course is exactly what I said from day one. Zelaya deserves restitution for being expelled from the country, and there should be an investigation into his exile by the military, with charges laid if necessary. However, since he was removed from power legally, restitution does not mean giving him his office back. Any fault lies with the military officials who decided to have him exiled.

The report mentions the ‘resignation letter’, but it’s just a sideshow because it was never used by the Honduran government as justification for his removal, nor was any legal determination based on the existence of the letter. With or without it, his removal was legal.

I guess you’ll have to add the Congressional Law Library to your list of liars and cads who are not to be listened to.

And what are the authorities in Honduras?

I don’t consider the Congressional Law library liars, I consider that even they see that as soon Zelaya was removed it was the army that took control of the situation, and still has it, and as the situation worsens it is really stupid to think the current golpist government is a valid one. As they once again closed, threaten and arrest the opposition and cancels constitutional rights, the de facto regime has no right now to continue claiming they are protecting the constitution.

As Al Giordano reported:

That is the current situation, it can not be allowed to stand.

GIGObuster · September 29, 2009, 3:12am

:rolleyes:

As a historian I would give you a preview:

They will see this as the moment the USA decided to not fall for the trap of following the will of the reactionaries in Latin America (a path that even took American troops to fight an die for dictators and American companies in Latin America). And stood on the side of democracy.

All nations of America (like Brazil) can not be told to ignore that what is happening in Honduras as there are many undemocratic right wingers that are just waiting to see if the coup plotters succeed in Honduras to apply the same maneuver in other Latin American nations.