Elizabeth Dickenson at PASSPORT ("A blog by the editors of Foreign Policy") explains why the field/mid-grades are the most dangerous.
Money quote(s):
"They're paid better than some, but not good enough for most. Like the coup leader in Niger, they've often had foreign training. They control strategic components of the miltiary -- in Guinea's case, the petrol procurement, and in Niger's case, a platoon in the capital. They know enough people to mobilize the ranks, but they are not as politically tainted. They're well connected but not appointees; they've often just risen through the ranks."
Showing posts with label coup d'etat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coup d'etat. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
JO - Handling of Honduras crisis flawed from the start
From my archive of press clippings:
Jamaica Observer
Handling of Honduras crisis flawed from the start
SIR RONALD SANDERS
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Call it Latin American "hot blood" or "Commonwealth cool", but there is definitely a marked difference between how the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the Commonwealth handle conflicts in their member states.
SIR RONALD SANDERS
Both the 53-nation Commonwealth and the 34-nation OAS have had their share of coup d'états, fraudulent elections and abuse of civil and human rights. And both organisations have drawn up Declarations of Principle for their member states - infractions of which lead to penalties of some kind.
Read the whole article here.
Snippet(s):
"(W)hereas in the OAS suspension of a state from membership of the organisation was the first step taken in relation to Honduras where it was claimed a coup d'état had occurred, in the Commonwealth suspension of a member state is an action of last resort, taken only after many initiatives have been exhausted.
Unlike the OAS, the Commonwealth has standing machinery designed to deal with breaches of the fundamental democratic principles to which it adheres."
&
"The OAS secretary general was given 72 hours to find a solution to the Honduran situation. He might just as well have been asked to push a huge boulder up a steep mountain. There was no way it could have been achieved given the high emotion that existed on all sides.
In giving him such a mandate, the OAS General Assembly was clearly pressed into their decision by a group of countries led by Venezuela, Argentina, Nicaragua and Bolivia (the key members of ALBA) who wanted their man, Manuel Zelaya, immediately back in the presidency, whether or not he had been removed in accordance with the Honduran Constitution and law. As an important aside, let me say in this connection that however legally correct the impeachment of Zelaya may have been, the interim regime wrong-footed itself by having the military remove him from the country."
Jamaica Observer
Handling of Honduras crisis flawed from the start
SIR RONALD SANDERS
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Call it Latin American "hot blood" or "Commonwealth cool", but there is definitely a marked difference between how the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the Commonwealth handle conflicts in their member states.
SIR RONALD SANDERS
Both the 53-nation Commonwealth and the 34-nation OAS have had their share of coup d'états, fraudulent elections and abuse of civil and human rights. And both organisations have drawn up Declarations of Principle for their member states - infractions of which lead to penalties of some kind.
Read the whole article here.
Snippet(s):
"(W)hereas in the OAS suspension of a state from membership of the organisation was the first step taken in relation to Honduras where it was claimed a coup d'état had occurred, in the Commonwealth suspension of a member state is an action of last resort, taken only after many initiatives have been exhausted.
Unlike the OAS, the Commonwealth has standing machinery designed to deal with breaches of the fundamental democratic principles to which it adheres."
&
"The OAS secretary general was given 72 hours to find a solution to the Honduran situation. He might just as well have been asked to push a huge boulder up a steep mountain. There was no way it could have been achieved given the high emotion that existed on all sides.
In giving him such a mandate, the OAS General Assembly was clearly pressed into their decision by a group of countries led by Venezuela, Argentina, Nicaragua and Bolivia (the key members of ALBA) who wanted their man, Manuel Zelaya, immediately back in the presidency, whether or not he had been removed in accordance with the Honduran Constitution and law. As an important aside, let me say in this connection that however legally correct the impeachment of Zelaya may have been, the interim regime wrong-footed itself by having the military remove him from the country."
_____
Responses to: ronaldsanders29@hotmail.com
Sir Ronald Sanders is a consultant and former Caribbean diplomat.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
re: "Honduras coup: Nice job, but here's how to do it better next time"
J Michael Waller at PoliticalWarfare.Org ("Words, images and ideas as tools of first resort.") had some suggestions for Honduras.
Money quote(s):
"How different modern Latin American history would be if the US had backed the brave Venezuelan officers and civilians who dared challenge the man who would abuse the democratic system to become an aggressive dictator.
Across Latin America, the Chavez model of political subversion of existing democratic and legal structures is taking root, with extremists taking power through Venezuelan petrodollar-funded covert operations to topple pro-western governments and create a Bolivarian "near abroad."
The US has done nothing to try to stem the trend. Nothing. Democrat or Republican - American leaders have handed the playing field over to Chavez and his Cuban and Iranian allies. It's been a pathetic show.
How refreshing it was to see that humble Honduras is the only country in the region not to lose its political cojones and that, to keep its Chavez-backed president from violating the constitution, its other institutions acted.
"It's all about process. As Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush proved in Venezuela, it's not really democracy that the US wants. It's legalistic process that matters. Just like the bureaucrat who doesn't care if you've really complied with a regulation, all that matters is the piece of paper that certifies that you did comply. Whether or not you really did. So Chavez can build his dictatorship simply by working through the democratic system and subverting it, and his model has been replicated again and again in the Americas. All to the cheer of do-gooders and demokracy-uber-alles fanatics alike.
And when the Good Guys step in to stop the nonsense, they are condemned because they are working outside The Process."
&
"Zelaya is a nut and illegal political agent of a foreign power who has alienated practically everyone in Honduras. He can hardly get TV time. His own party unanimously abandoned him, voting to agree to his resignation and the alleged "coup." The rest of the democratically elected congress called on the military to take action against him, too. So did the Supreme Court."
Money quote(s):
"How different modern Latin American history would be if the US had backed the brave Venezuelan officers and civilians who dared challenge the man who would abuse the democratic system to become an aggressive dictator.
Across Latin America, the Chavez model of political subversion of existing democratic and legal structures is taking root, with extremists taking power through Venezuelan petrodollar-funded covert operations to topple pro-western governments and create a Bolivarian "near abroad."
The US has done nothing to try to stem the trend. Nothing. Democrat or Republican - American leaders have handed the playing field over to Chavez and his Cuban and Iranian allies. It's been a pathetic show.
How refreshing it was to see that humble Honduras is the only country in the region not to lose its political cojones and that, to keep its Chavez-backed president from violating the constitution, its other institutions acted.
"It's all about process. As Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush proved in Venezuela, it's not really democracy that the US wants. It's legalistic process that matters. Just like the bureaucrat who doesn't care if you've really complied with a regulation, all that matters is the piece of paper that certifies that you did comply. Whether or not you really did. So Chavez can build his dictatorship simply by working through the democratic system and subverting it, and his model has been replicated again and again in the Americas. All to the cheer of do-gooders and demokracy-uber-alles fanatics alike.
And when the Good Guys step in to stop the nonsense, they are condemned because they are working outside The Process."
&
"Zelaya is a nut and illegal political agent of a foreign power who has alienated practically everyone in Honduras. He can hardly get TV time. His own party unanimously abandoned him, voting to agree to his resignation and the alleged "coup." The rest of the democratically elected congress called on the military to take action against him, too. So did the Supreme Court."
Monday, August 24, 2009
re: "Why Honduras matters"
Neo-Neocon ("to tell the tale of my political change and provide a forum for others") explained the significance of Hondura's "coup".
Money quote(s):
"The summary version: the UN, which is now mostly a vehicle to promote tyranny, wants Zeleya back, whereas patriots in Honduras are working feverishly to prevent their country from becoming another Venezuela. Obama, of course, is on the side of the UN."
"I happen to be in favor of not only democracy, but constitutional checks on the possible tyranny of the majority in a democracy. And I would like to preserve such things even for little countries like Honduras, whose government is trying mightily and heroically to maintain its sovereignty, and to stop those who would usurp its ability to protect itself from that tyranny.
Unfortunately, our very own President Obama is among those people."
"(T)o recognize what’s been occurring there and what it signifies, one must know something about history, most particularly about how such power grabs occur. Then the patterns become clear. "
&
"(T)yrants very often use “democracy” as an excuse to get the people to override a constitution and grant them what turns out to be dictatorial, or near-dictatorial, powers, as well as the ability to extend or abolish term limits and stay in power longer than the constitution says (and in many cases indefinitely). Once the rules are changed about term limits, and power is consolidated and the voting apparatus compromised, staying in power is a relatively easy matter, really a trifle.
Most dictators of recent history have gone this route; the path is well worn and the methods tried and true. Zeleya was attempting to follow in the footsteps of compadre Chavez, and the government and people of Honduras knew it."
Money quote(s):
"The summary version: the UN, which is now mostly a vehicle to promote tyranny, wants Zeleya back, whereas patriots in Honduras are working feverishly to prevent their country from becoming another Venezuela. Obama, of course, is on the side of the UN."
"I happen to be in favor of not only democracy, but constitutional checks on the possible tyranny of the majority in a democracy. And I would like to preserve such things even for little countries like Honduras, whose government is trying mightily and heroically to maintain its sovereignty, and to stop those who would usurp its ability to protect itself from that tyranny.
Unfortunately, our very own President Obama is among those people."
"(T)o recognize what’s been occurring there and what it signifies, one must know something about history, most particularly about how such power grabs occur. Then the patterns become clear. "
&
"(T)yrants very often use “democracy” as an excuse to get the people to override a constitution and grant them what turns out to be dictatorial, or near-dictatorial, powers, as well as the ability to extend or abolish term limits and stay in power longer than the constitution says (and in many cases indefinitely). Once the rules are changed about term limits, and power is consolidated and the voting apparatus compromised, staying in power is a relatively easy matter, really a trifle.
Most dictators of recent history have gone this route; the path is well worn and the methods tried and true. Zeleya was attempting to follow in the footsteps of compadre Chavez, and the government and people of Honduras knew it."
Monday, August 10, 2009
re: "Estrada On Hunduran Treason"
Jude at Hugh Hewitt ("A blog of Townhall.Com") had a recommendation:
"Estrada grew up in Honduras before coming to America, and his take on what's going on in Honduras right now should be the one piece you read and remember on Zelaya: Honduras' Non-Coup."
"Estrada grew up in Honduras before coming to America, and his take on what's going on in Honduras right now should be the one piece you read and remember on Zelaya: Honduras' Non-Coup."
Thursday, August 6, 2009
re: "Honduras and Democracy"
Jerry Pournelle at Chaos Manor ("The Original Blog") captured the essential issues.
Money quote(s):
"The most important news is from Honduras, where the army, the courts, and the legislature are united in opposing a change in the Constitution that would allow the country to have a president for life as they have had in Cuba and Venezuela.
Much of the world seems to see the expulsion of the president -- Constitutional and done with a supreme court warrant so far as I can tell -- as an attack on "democracy." That raises the question of what is democracy?"
&
"(O)ne needs to think hard about what means by democracy. In Honduras there is an attempt to make it mean "one person, one vote, for one man for life." The Honduras Supreme Court, its army, and its legislature have said that it must not mean that. Given the location of Honduras it's probably inevitable that the US take a stand on this. Which side should we be on? And should we choose that by national interest or by some kind of political principle? And if the latter, what is that principle? Is it that a majority may choose whatever it likes? If there are to be limits on what the majority may choose, what shall those limits be?"
Money quote(s):
"The most important news is from Honduras, where the army, the courts, and the legislature are united in opposing a change in the Constitution that would allow the country to have a president for life as they have had in Cuba and Venezuela.
Much of the world seems to see the expulsion of the president -- Constitutional and done with a supreme court warrant so far as I can tell -- as an attack on "democracy." That raises the question of what is democracy?"
&
"(O)ne needs to think hard about what means by democracy. In Honduras there is an attempt to make it mean "one person, one vote, for one man for life." The Honduras Supreme Court, its army, and its legislature have said that it must not mean that. Given the location of Honduras it's probably inevitable that the US take a stand on this. Which side should we be on? And should we choose that by national interest or by some kind of political principle? And if the latter, what is that principle? Is it that a majority may choose whatever it likes? If there are to be limits on what the majority may choose, what shall those limits be?"
Saturday, May 9, 2009
JO - Coup d'état
From my archive of press clippings:
Jamaica Observer
Coup d'état
PATRICK WILMOT
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The English have no equivalent for coup d'état, the violent seizure of state power by armed groups. The tradition of the coup was begun in Europe and became the favoured means of changing governments in Latin America for almost two centuries.
PATRICK WILMOT
But for most of the latter half of the 20th century the coup became associated with the instability and bad government of Africa. Coups were generally of two types. In the first Western intelligence agencies used covert methods to remove governments they disliked.
Read the whole article here.
_____
Patrick Wilmot, who is based in London, is a writer and commentator on African affairs for the BBC, Sky News, Al-Jazeera and CNN. He's a visiting professor at Ahmadu Bello and Jos universities in Nigeria.
Jamaica Observer
Coup d'état
PATRICK WILMOT
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The English have no equivalent for coup d'état, the violent seizure of state power by armed groups. The tradition of the coup was begun in Europe and became the favoured means of changing governments in Latin America for almost two centuries.
PATRICK WILMOT
But for most of the latter half of the 20th century the coup became associated with the instability and bad government of Africa. Coups were generally of two types. In the first Western intelligence agencies used covert methods to remove governments they disliked.
Read the whole article here.
_____
Patrick Wilmot, who is based in London, is a writer and commentator on African affairs for the BBC, Sky News, Al-Jazeera and CNN. He's a visiting professor at Ahmadu Bello and Jos universities in Nigeria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
