The relationship between the actions of the Obama Administration and the actions of the coup government in Honduras is starting to look like those children's games where you follow the order of the leader, but only if he says the special phrase. The Obama Administration says it wants to see President Zelaya restored. When the Administration appears to mean business, the coup regime appears to move towards compromise. When the Administration signals that its words are not to be heeded, the coup regime reasserts its intransigence.
Wednesday afternoon, it was reported that the leader installed by the coup had told Costa Rican mediators he personally accepted a compromise that would allow President Zelaya to return, but needed help in convincing the Honduran business elite to go along. This followed by one day the U.S. announcement that it had suspended the U.S. diplomatic visas of four leaders of the coup government. Initial press reports of the U.S. action indicated it was an escalation of U.S. pressure.
But subsequent statements by U.S. officials downplayed the idea that it was an escalation of U.S. pressure, asserting that it was just a continuation of the existing policy of not recognizing the coup government.
Predictably, then, the reports of movement in the coup government's position were followed by reassertions by the coup government that there was no change: President Zelaya could not return.
The State Department said it wants to restore democracy. But apparently the State Department didn't say "Simon Says."
When the mediation by Costa Rican President Arias was announced, there was much fanfare about what a clever diplomatic stroke it was by the State Department, taking the issue out of the hands of the South Americans.
But unless the goal was to delay the restoration of democracy as long as possible, it can't be judged a success if there is no settlement of the conflict. The South Americans initially deferred to the Obama Administration, on the grounds of 1) give the new guy a chance and 2) Honduras is clearly in the U.S. "sphere of influence" (for example, the only country in Central America that hosts a U.S. military base.)
Soon, that deference to the Obama Administration will likely end, and the region will likely take matters into its own hands, as it did in resolving the crises during the Bush Administration when Colombia invaded Ecuador and when violent separatists tried to destabilize the government of Bolivia. What is to be gained for the U.S. in further delay?
The coup in Honduras is a bellwether event for Latin America and its relationship with the U.S. in the Obama Administration. It will shape perceptions in the region for years to come of what the boundaries are for the Obama Administration for permitted popular political and social reform in the region - just as the successful U.S.-supported coup in Chile and the unsuccessful U.S.-supported coup in Venezuela shaped perceptions in the region of what was permitted and not permitted. Obama promised a new relationship with Latin America. So far, it looks more like continuity than change.
But the Obama Administration still has the means at its disposal to make this right. People tend to remember the last thing that happened. If President Zelaya is restored, and people see that political space for democratic reform in Honduras is being preserved, the overall story in the region will be that the Obama Administration took the side of democracy.
Congress plays a key role here. Rep. Raul Grijalva is urging President Obama to enact real measures to pressure the coup leaders, including suspending their U.S. visas and freezing their U.S. bank accounts. He's been joined by Reps. McGovern, Serrano, Conyers, Fattah, Honda, Barbara Lee., Jesse Jackson, and Oberstar. Ask your Representative to support Rep. Grijalva in urging Obama to say "Simon Says."
" It's regretable [sic] that we seem to be heading towards being a country with two major forms of ignorance. Those who pay attention to nothing at all and those who only pay attention to right wing propaganda."
There has been no evidence presented that Zelaya ever planned to change the presidential term limit. He was seeking to hold a simple NON-BINDING poll. Micheletti, the de facto coup leader,on the other hand is known to have made an attempt to change those very term limits almost 24 years ago. Micheletti was one of 12 members of Congress to sign a motion to legalize the repealing of term limits to the same Constitution with the same inviolate Article 239, which makes it a crime to mention the repeal of the one-term limit. So, what's up with that ??
Zelaya's forced removal from Honduras to Costa Rica was carried out with no legal authority from either the judicial or legislative branch. THAT fits the definition of a coup d'etat.
I'm afraid Zelaya is getting just a little too progressive and too liberal with social programs to suit the real powers in that country.
As far as Zalaya being too progressive, you're probably right. The trouble with that kind of progressiveness is it puts another bananna in your pocket and takes away any freedom you might have left. Oh, almost forgot. Zalaya's probably made far more money off those "cheap" banannas than any of the people he claims to be trying to help.
Have you ever been in Honduras? There are more internet cafes in Honduras, than in New York City, which has 3 times the population!
You probably don't even know about the 30,000 that demostrated for the new government in San Pedro Sula one week ago! The few thousands pro-Zelaya demonstrators will never compare with the vast majority that supports the new government. And the anti-Zelaya demonstrators don't have to be bused-in. They come on their own, they pay for their taxi, walk, ride a bike, or pay the bus fare.
Zelaya demonstrators are paid and provided "free" transportation!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073003329.html
They still haven-t connected the dots between whats happening in Honduras and the whole Latin American scene. In the FARC computers, which INTERPOL has just declared that the data recovered was not tampered, there are references to finance operations with two groups in Honduras. These are the groups that are conducting the Zelaya "insurrection" against the people of Honduras. These are the guys that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton want to reinstate by returning Zelaya to power.
My question to US Citizens is: Why won't the Obama/Clinton govt even listen to the legal arguments that the Honduran people have that Zelaya's removal was legal?
I think that the US citizens have to seriously question whether the US is really doing the correct thing when the US have cancelled the US visas of the judge that signed Mr. Zelaya's arrest order (for no other reason than that) and that of the Human Rights Commissioner (Ombudsman) who warned and opposed Mr. Zelaya's project because it denied the Honduran people the right to representation.
Doesn't it make you wonder that the US Govt won't even listen to the legal arguments that led to Mr. Zelaya's removal?
Instead, Mr. Naimann says let's play Simon Says, screw 80% of the Honduran people and call it Democracy.
Take your time.
But the Honduran people were willing to let him ride out the final 6 months of his constitutional term, when he attempted to perpetuate himself in power (a-la-Chavez).
For all ye legal pundits, by calling a "National CONSTITUENT Assembly" he is effectively creating an organization ABOVE the Constitution. This is the Chavez formula for becoming a dictator in the 21st century.
I will not continue the legal argument which is being amply covered, even citing article numbers, or the comparative Honduras/Venezuela historical events, which can be briefly condensed into the question, Why is the Venezuelan Foreign minister travelling up and down the Nicaraguan border with Zelaya?
Honduras's population has stood at 80% approval of Zelaya's removal since early on and is now tending towards a 90% approval after the new Govt is giving signs of doing what a decent govt should've been doing all along. Zelaya's govt was not attending the H1N1 epidemic, nor a recent earthquake, nor an onguing crisis in the public schools because every penny was going to his political aspirations.
According to Mr. Naimann, Mr. Obama (Simon) says: "Restore Zelaya" and 80% of the population has to bow and say "Yes, Bama" and that is Democracy?
It wasn't about term limits, it was about the proposal to dissolve the constitution. This violated Article 373 of the constitution saying that the ONLY legal process to change the constitution is by a 2/3 vote of congress, ratified by a second 2/3 vote in the next session. Article 374 that states article 373 is one of seven articles that can not be changed by any means (along with term limits and republican form of government).
And Article 375 is a big one - any entity that tries to usurp the constitution by replacing it is invalid and Hondurans have a responsibility to remove the entity and restore the constitution. Additionally, any usurpers are subject to land forfeiture to repay the state for cost of restoring the constitution. This is one heck of a poison pill.
Also, the court never ruled on this ... they imposed a temporary injunction (ignored by Zelaya - placing him in contempt) based on a determination the plaintiff would not have remedy and the state would be unable to recover balloting costs if the referendum were found illegal (at trial) but had already occurred.
This is right there in the documents released shortly after the "coup". I guess the media can't be bothered to translate a few documents and present the correct facts.
Exile was fully illegal. But it doesn't erase that the criminal case against Zelaya seems valid.
Please take a closer look at the fact that the Honduran Supreme Court made PCM-005-2009, null and void. And unconstitutional.
PCM-005-2009 is an Executive Decree issued by ex-President Mel Zelaya to call a Constituent National Assemby for a new Constitutuion, that allowed the elimination of Articles 239 and 374.
Please read El Heraldo, May 15, 2009, http://www.elheraldo.hn/layout/set/print/content/view/print/128849.
La Prensa, May 19, 2009, http://eng.laprensa.hn/Pa%C3%ADs/Ediciones/2009/05/19/Noticias/Honduras-Decreto-sobre-consulta-es-ilegal.
HRN Radio, May 20, 2009, http://radiohrn.hn/website/content/procurador%C3%AD-dictamina-contra-consulta-popular
He then issued PCM-020-2009 that did exactly the same thing as PCM-005-2009 using different words. The May 27, 2009 temporary injunction, clarified by the court on May 29, 2009, expressly stated that any act of a "general or specific nature" of a public consultation was prohibited.
It seems that his decision to publish PCM-020-2009 was both in violation of the May 27 injunction and also considered a predicate act in the furtherance of Violating articles 373, 374 and 375 of the constitution.
I'm still plugging away through the 16(ish) page prosecutor's filing to the Supreme Court asking for charges to be brought, but I can't find ANYTHING mentioning article 239.
But it should be noted, that dissolving the constitution would technically be in violation of any articles protected by Article 374. But an article 239 violation seems to be a byproduct of dissolving the constitution, not necessarily the predicate act.
Who is your source? the same one that told you that General Vasquez was going to Miami. If I were you I will kick your sources to the corner and try a little harder to find information. No wonder your blogs get such a small number of comments.
Your blogs are not helping your cause trust me they are hurting it, anyone with access to a computer can check the facts and know that what you are saying is not true.
Nations like Chile losing Augusto Pinochet, and Peru losing Alberto Fujimori, must be a dire shock to the system. Even Columbia although enjoying a bumper crop of drugs, has put several old Pentagon "School of the Assassins" graduates on trial for torture, murder, and disappearances.
There is no honor among theives, and Honduran elite seem ready to make a deal, makes you wonder what the world is coming to.
Have you read up on the subject?
The Honduran Supreme Court ruled Zelaya's referendums/polls unconstitutional, and issued an arrest warrant. That is why the military arrested him. In Honduras, only the Army can arrest a President, with prior orders from the Supreme Court.
Now, the military exiled him. Everyone was agains the exile. Zelaya should have been put in jail, as the Supreme Court had ordered.
But, the exile and the breaking of the Constitution are two separate issues. Zelaya broke the law, and according to the Honduran Constitution, Art. 239, must cease in his duties forthwith!
Now, back to making deals. In the past, now, and in the future...small countries must abide the biddings of larger countries. Even, when one small country is in the right, and everyone else is wrong!
Hope you are enjoying my (Honduras) country as much as I do. It is not perfect but right now is so brave and big. Have a sopa de caracol on our honor.
Thus, now everyone is saying it's a coup because the Honduran Army exiled Zelaya to Costa Rica. Not so, the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya arrested for breaking the Honduran Constitution.
Now, since when, is the Executive power in a country, the only power that matters?!
Honduras is a Republic. It is based on the US Constitution, with three distinct and separate powers. The Executive (president), the Legislative (National Congress) and the Judicial (Supreme Court).
When one of those powers break the law, it is for the other two to do something about it. This is what was done in Honduras. Zelaya broke the law for calling a referendum for reelection, which later he changed to just a "poll" to change Articles 239 and 374. Either way, both are unconstitutional!
Coup d'etat : The sudden, forcible overthrow of a government
I'd say, just off hand, that a pre-dawn raid on the home of the Honduran president, his abduction at gunpoint in his PJs, his illegal ( without any judicial authorization ) placement in a military aircraft, and his exile to a foreign country without due process ( not even a hearing fercrissakes ) pretty much fits the definition of a coup d'etat. You remove the head of state; you end that head of state's governance.
Fact : Zelaya broke no law. Zelaya violated no constitutional provision. I invite anyone to research the authority given Zelaya under Article 5 of the Honduran Civil Participation Act of 2006 to hold a non-binding poll (encuesta).
Your're way too deep in it. Here's a reply to your comment.
First, take a look at http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hUkxbrtgW409JtHcquCLLtIpyoeA
As for Article 5 of the Honduran Constitution, a plebiscite, which is what is called when the President along with a resolution from the Secretaries of State (Consejo de Secretarios de Estado), was not done properly. Zelaya never had a resolution from the Secretaries of State. It was his own Executive order PCM-019-2009.
This is why it was considered illegal and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court!
The Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for the Army to arrest Zelaya. End of story!
I'll put an additional comment with the Spanish text of Article 5...
Articulo 5.-El Gobierno debe sustentarse en el principio de la democracia participativa del cual se deriva la integración nacional, que implica participación de todos los sectores políticos en la administración publica, a fin de asegurar y fortalecer el progreso de Honduras basado en la estabilidad política y en la conciliación nacional.-a efecto de fortalecer y hacer funcionar la democracia participativa se instituyen como mecanismos de consulta a los ciudadanos el Referéndum y el Plebiscito para asuntos de importancia fundamental en la vida nacional.-Una ley especial aprobada por dos terceras partes de la totalidad de los diputados del Congreso Nacional, determinara los procedimientos requisitos y demás aspectos necesarios para el ejercicio de las consultas populares.-El Referéndum se convocará sobre una Ley Ordinaria o una norma constitucional o su reforma aprobadas para su ratificación o desaprobación por la ciudadanía.-El Plebiscito se convocara solicitando a los ciudadanos un pronunciamiento sobre aspectos constitucionales, legislativos o administrativos, sobre los cuales los poderes constituidos no han tomado ninguna decisión previa.-Por iniciativa de por lo menos diez (10) Diputados del Congreso Nacional, del Presidente de la República en resolución del Consejo de Secretarios de Estado o del seis porciento (6%) de los ciudadanos, inscritos en el Censo Nacional Electoral, habilitados para ejercer el sufragio, mediante sus firma y huellas dactilares debidamente comprobadas por el Tribunal Supremo Electoral, el congreso nacional conocerá y discutirá dichas peticiones, y si las aprobara con el
The second crock is that Zelaya (had) altered or changed the Constitution. That he was certainly working toward this is likely, yet unless Honduras has though-police concerning what the poll-ballots and citizens would have made known, is still mote as this was terminated by the ruling-elite out of fear it would succeed.
What appears certain today, is the Zelaya if allowed to persue investigation into the probable amendment's of the Constitution, everyone (majority) but the ruling elite would have made known their desire for these amendment changes.
The Honduran Constitution, just like ours(USA), can only be ammended or changed by a two-thirds vote of the National Congress. The President has no official role in this.
Also, any call to ammend or institute a new Constitution has to be approved (2/3 votes) by the National Congress. Just like here.
Thus, your point is moot!
Read more from our Constitution........
Pursuant to Article V, amendments may be proposed in two ways. The first, and only method that has been used to date, is for two-thirds of each House of Congress to pass an Amendment resolution and send it to the States for ratification. The President, whose position is defined in Article II, has no official role in the amendment process.
Read more: http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/amending_the_united_states_constitution#ixzz0Mt69zJPq
Just in case you want to refer to Article 5, where the President can call for a plebiscite, with approval from the Secretaries of State, read the reply to sticknstones above.
By the way, the Honduran Constitution forbids the changes to the presidential term-limits in article 374. Article 5, also, states that any plebiscite can not call upon article 374 to be changed!
Articles 239 and 374 of the Honduran Constitution state:
(SPANISH)
Honduran Constitution, 1982
ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Designado.
El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos, y quedarán nhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.
ENGLISH
Article 239 specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection "shall cease forthwith" in his duties.
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(borders) and to the presidential term period limit.