re: "Honduran president: America is our No. 1 ally"

Josh Rogin at The Cable ("Reporting Inside the Foreign Policy Machine") brings us up to date on Honduras.

Money quote(s):

"Back in 2009, the State Department sided strongly with former President Manuel Zelaya, who was seized by the military and taken out of Honduras in what some called a coup. Zelaya snuck back into Honduras in September 2009 and holed up in the Brazilian embassy while the Obama administration worked to restore him to power.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even met with Zelaya in Washington, suspended aid to Honduras, and revoked the visas of Honduran officials. Later, Honduras was cut off from Millennium Challenge Corporation assistance.

Eventually, it became apparent that the de facto regime in Tegucigalpa, led by Roberto Micheletti, was winning the internal struggle and that new elections would take place. The administration began shifting its position in October 2009 and finally threw Zelaya under the bus when Lobo won the election and Zelaya rejected a deal that would have returned him temporarily to power."

Thus demonstrating that even U.S. foreign policy has a learning curve and can, eventually, recognize a mistake.

"Most U.S. trade and assistance to Honduras has been restored, although they are still not able to receive grants from the MCC."

10/5

re: "The betrayal of Honduras"

José R. Cárdenas at Shadow Government ("Notes From The Loyal Opposition") has an update about further attacks on the Honduran constitution.

Money quote(s):

"Only the willfully deluded or the dangerously naïve would believe that the return of the disgraced former president means anything more than increased civic disturbances, more violence, and more chaos in one of Latin America's poorest countries.

Why? Because that is the way Hugo Chavez wants it.

The Venezuelan autocrat has bankrolled the two-year exile of his puppet Zelaya, as well the international campaign to force the oligarch-turned-populist's return to Honduras. Chavez has never gotten over the fact that Zelaya's attempt to replicate the Chavez model in Honduras was cut short by his impeachment by the Honduran Congress and his removal from office by order of the country's Supreme Court for violating the country's Constitution and other illegal acts. (Zelaya's apologists insist on characterizing what transpired as a "military coup.") "

Previously, I'd had a reasonable feeling of respect for the OAS. After all, most of its members were/are (finally!) democracies. But the Zelaya-instigated constitutional crisis in Honduras made me re-think that, when the OAS and its membership made it clear that it was much more interested in protecting the rights and privileges of presidents than in the democratic liberties of its member nation's citizens.

"What is noteworthy is the complicity of Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, whose government teamed with Chavez to engineer Zelaya's return. It is now apparent that President Santos cannot run away fast enough from the legacy of his wildly successful and pro-U.S. predecessor Alvaro Uribe. And peace and stability in the region will be the poorer for it.

Santos's foreign minister, María Ángela Holguín, is in Washington this week for a bit of diplomatic back-slapping with Organization of American States (OAS) Secretary General José Miguel Insulza, another co-conspirator in forcing Zelaya's return who can always be counted on to do the wrong thing. (The OAS is scheduled to vote this week to reinstate Honduras, after they were suspended in the wake of Zelaya's ouster.)

So what we have here is that instead of allowing the Honduran people to move on with their lives following the turbulent and polarizing Zelaya years, they are now forced to accept the anti-democratic fox back into the henhouse just so a few Latin American politicians can preen before the cameras celebrating their diplomatic "victory."

And just what message is this "victory" sending to the hemisphere? That it is perfectly acceptable that an elected president can run roughshod over democratic institutions, undermine separation of powers, and rewrite the constitution to seek indefinite re-election? That co-equal branches of government must remain supine before any president bent on aggressively aggrandizing power? That the Chavez model is a paragon of democratic legitimacy and rule of law and any attempts to legally thwart it are ipso facto illegitimate? "

re: "Remember Honduras? Obama does, and he hasn’t given up trying to destabilize the country"

Neo-Neocon ("to tell the tale of my political change and provide a forum for others") doesn't seem inclined to discount malice as the motive.*

Money quote(s):

"Obama supported Zelaya not just because he is a fellow-leftist, but in order to stand for the principle that, once a person is elected, he’s allowed to do anything he wants. "

"All the newspapers in the United States should be covering this on their front pages. But they are not; and when they did cover the Honduras story they got it exactly (and purposely, I believe) wrong."

&

"Let’s hope the people of Honduras are the ultimate victors. And I’ll say the same for the people of the United States."

___
* "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor.

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."

_____

Responses to: ronaldsanders29@hotmail.com

Sir Ronald Sanders is a consultant and former Caribbean diplomat.

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."

re: "On The Wrong Side Of The Right Man"

Jude at Hugh Hewett ("A blog of Townhall.Com") provided some illumination about the new Honduran president.

Money quote(s):

"Roberto Micheletti is the legally elected president of Honduras who counts among his allies the Honduran constitution, the rule of law, the Honduran Congress, the Honduran Supreme Court and Catholic Bishops, plus a majority of the Honduran people, including the business and political classes. Meanwhile, perched in Nicaragua and seeking to overturn the constitutional government of Honduras is ousted president Manuel Zalaya. Among his allies are Marxists, despots and cocaine cartels, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Castro, and ...President Obama."

&

"How is it possible for our President to get this one so wrong without having ill will toward Honduras and the desires of a democratic people?

Whether the military over-stepped or not by taking Zelaya out of the country, the transfer of power was legally performed."

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."

re: "Backtracking on Zelaya"

DRJ guest-posted at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense"):

Money quote(s):

"(T)welve days have passed since a State Department spokesman acknowledged that U.S. legal advisers were “actively assessing the facts and the law in question.” These advisers have clearly had enough time to conclude their research regarding the legality of Zelaya’s actions and the Honduran response, as well as communicate their conclusions to the State Department and the White House.

The continued silence by the Obama Administration on this topic speaks volumes. My guess is the word went out to Hugo Chávez and Manuel Zelaya that the Obama Administration is throwing Zelaya under the bus."

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."

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?"