After two months, the State Department is poised to formally declare what was obvious to most of the world: on June 28, Honduras experienced a military coup.
State Department staff have recommended to Secretary of State Clinton that the ouster of Honduran President Zelaya be formally declared a "military coup," which could cut off as much as $150 million in U.S. funding, Reuters reports.
The semi-official story has been that State Department lawyers were studying the events in Honduras to see if they met the "technical definition" of a "military coup." But all along the State Department made clear that it was purposely delaying its formal determination to give "diplomacy" -- the talks in Costa Rica between representatives of President Zelaya and representatives of the coup regime -- a chance to work.
It was never explained why making this determination -- which, under U.S. law, requires a cutoff of aid to the coup government -- would have interfered with "diplomacy." On the contrary: it was immediately obvious that the obstacle to a negotiated solution was the intransigence of the coup regime, which refused to accept a compromise proposal that would allow President Zelaya to return. So, as many Latin American governments argued -- including the Costa Rican government -- if the U.S. wanted a negotiated solution, it needed to ramp up pressure on the coup regime.
But the State Department is now, at last, conceding that its previous efforts were insufficient. Better late than never -- much better.
No doubt Republicans in Congress who have supported the coup regime in Honduras will now complain loudly when Secretary Clinton makes her formal determination -- assuming that she follows the recommendation of her staff.
In anticipation of right-wing Republican complaints, it is important to note two key facts.
First, in making this determination, the State Department is simply following the law. The Foreign Assistance Act requires a cutoff of U.S. aid "to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree." That's what happened on June 28 -- about that central fact there has been no serious dispute. Even the top legal advisor of the Honduran military conceded that the Honduran military broke Honduran law when it removed President Zelaya from office -- and from Honduras.
Second, in making this determination -- and cutting off aid -- the State Department is simply following past practice. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research documented in a recent report, when there were coups in Mauritania and Madagascar, Millennium Challenge Corporation money was cut off within days.
So complain away, right-wing coup-lovers. If we want Latin America to take seriously the claim of a new U.S. approach to Latin America in the Obama administration -- or maintain a credible commitment to the rule of law in the region -- this is the minimum.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Abraham Lowenthal: Putting the Honduras Debate in Perspective
The new US authorities understand that the United States no longer has the means to exert quick control in such countries as Honduras, and that trying to do so could undermine more promising multilateral avenues for achieving US objectives.
The leftist in Latin America cry out when the US gets involved. And they cry out, again, when it does not get involved when a leftist governor is thrown out!
Reminds me of a Spanish saying, which, roughly, goes like this "Flora, the cat, cries when it goes in, and cries when it comes out."
You can't have it both ways. You either respect Honduran law, or you don't. If you respect it, Zelaya was in the wrong according to Congress and the Supreme Court.
If you don't respect it, Zelaya was rightfully thrown out by the army. I, personally, don't agree with the army exiling Zelaya. He was to be arrested and put in prison.
And, please, stop with the elite comments. The people elected Zelaya, and these same people elected Congress. So, you can't have it both ways. The people rightfully elected Zelaya, but didn't elect Congress?!
And, about the Constitution. If the people want to change it, they can elect congressmen or women, that are inclined to do that. Just like here in our own US of A!
A few persons do not control 3 million voters. What? You think this is Cuba or Venezuela?
That's the real fundamental issue here -- the vast gap between the elites in these nations and the overwhelming majority who continue to be held down in a colonial servitude historically supported by the US.
We Americans have absolutely no real interest in the fate of the arrogant descendants of those who ruthlessly created an order that locks most people into poverty. These are the crybabies we see whining about the loss of "democracy" in their countries.
We heard all of that over and over during the Cold War, those attempting to wrest control labeled as "communists."
Where was all the concern for "democracy" when the US had the freely elected President of Chile killed and a dictator installed?
Cutting off aid to the coup-installed government, servant to the elites, is a vital and correct step.
Chavez and others working to overthrow the old order are doing the right thing. You don't have to agree with everything he's doing to know that he's moving in the right direction. So is Lula in Brazil. And others.
Read and learn
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/apr/30/ecuador-election-economy
You know, you don't HAVE to write in a blog just because its there. You're actually supposed to know something about the content.
Now, the new assembly would have so manay people from the AFL-CIO and so many from the UAW and so many from the NRA, but what about the common people? Don't their voices count?
What if a group of foreign countries said that the US had to accept those changes, even if the people didn't agree with them? Would you allow them to tell you what to do?
These are the stakes in Honduras: For those who don't understand the people defending the Constitution are against Zelaya and yes, you can change it without having to dissolve it. Only 7 articles of nearly 400 are unchangeable covering Territorial rights, the independence and checks and balances of the 3 branches of government, the principle of the Rule of Law and the non extensability, by any means of a presidential period.
I'm sure that the Honduran constitution has process and means to remove an elected president from office that does not involve the movement of tanks and the army - if those people in Honduras that are so concerned about protecting the constitution had taken the legal route - the international community would not be involved - just because the military had the supreme court and some legislators as political cover does not change the fact that it was a military coup that forced President Zelaya from office.
In January, during the proceedings to select the 15 jurors that make up the Supreme Court, Zelaya attempted to interfere illegally naming another judge to be included. This was rejected by Congress (and his own party). Zelaya called on the Armed forces to surround Congress and menaced with a coup. This was diffused when then President of Congress talked to the armed forces. An impeachment process was begun.
In March, another event was added to the impeachment process when Zelaya refused to send the National Budget to Congress.
His third strike came on June 25th when he published a decree calling for a National Referendum, which only Congress can do.
With the same token, he violated a judicial order that declared said attempt inconstitutional. He defied the judiciary by challenging any policeman to come and try to arrest him and promised that they would be met with "manly" resistance. He acted on his threats by using a mob to forcibly take the ballot boxes that had been confiscated as evidence from an Air Force Base in Tegucigalpa.
These acts by Mr. Zelaya are left out of International media coverage that is busier with a political agenda based on paradigms of the 70s.
The concession by the military's legal adviser was that it was illegal to exile Zelaya. He conceded no such thing in relation to removing him.
The military in many Latin American countries perform what might be considered police duties in this country. Power passed in Honduras from a civilian to another civilian. The civilian who became president is the one that the Honduran constitution indicates should become president in the case the position is left open. Over 95% of the legally elected "diputados" voted for Micheletti. What gives the right to non-Hondurans to interfere in the constitutional processes in Honduras?
OK, fair enough. I'm not for interfering in the affairs of sovereign states. But let me ask you this,do you believe that the School of the Americas should be shut down? If not then you are a total hypocrite!
PLEASE SUPPORT THE BOYCOTT ON CHIQUITA PRODUCTS. CHIQUITA'S OLD NAME? UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, WHICH SINCE early 20th Century has aided coups d'etat in Honduras and Guatemala behind the scenes.Back then it did with the full unconditional aid of John Foster Dulles.
Why the name? you fancy yourself a Green Beret trained by SOA or CIA to aid United Fruit Company -now Chiquita- help the coup leaders behind the scenes? We're sick and tired in all L.A. to be the targets of USers' savage capital's interests.
PLEASE FOLKS, I CALL UPON YOU FROM HERE TO SUPPORT THE BOYCOTT ON CHIQUITA PRODUCTS. Please get into Chiquita's web site (the parent company in Cincinnati) and post : I DON'T BUY CHIQUITA BECAUSE CHIQUITA SUPPORTS COUP D'ETAT IN HONDURAS.
One generation may not create laws that enslave all future generations, unless they are demagogues establishing a dictatorship, which is exactly what they have in Honduras.
And the fact that both the Congress and Supreme Court did not oppose the military, actually called them a Constitutional military, establishes for an absolute how totally corrupt is such a coup dictatorship
It also includes seven articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address issues that are critical to Honduras. Those unchangeable articles include the form of government; the extent of our borders; the number of years of the presidential term; two prohibitions – one with respect to reelection of presidents, the other concerning eligibility for the presidency; and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.
The supreme court all voted unanimously and the congress including all but four of Zeleya's party in congress agreed that by his own actions he had deposed himself by breaking the law of the land. They, the congress and the supreme court empowered the military to effect his arrest as is constitutional.
Basically the only one who wants him back is Chavez who is spending millions with his militias already in the country bent on creating civil unrest to destabilize the constitutional government (NB not the military government as in a coup de etat) who is running the country now and is still still made up of the same supreme court and congress of all parties.
FYI I agreed with many of the things that Zelaya did for the country, but not the way he was taking it
you oppose aid to Iraq...? the country that Bush invaded, in flagrant violation of international law?
you oppose Gaddafi coming to the UN? you do realize that we have a treaty obligation as the host of the UN to allow heads of states to attend the UN? do you not care about that?
Semper fi
Semper fi
I am surprised you would consider over half the population of a country to be "thugs". If so, is it because they don't fit your narrow minded pre-conceived idea of what a democrat is? Do you not believe in the Honduran people's right to self determination? I guess you don't. Are you just scared that a long time ally of the US is holding its stance against the international community? because they, better than anybody else, know what is right for their country.
Have you, by any chance, noticed how "peaceful" this so called revolution in Honduras has been? If Honduras was in fact being ruled by thugs don't you think that repression on Mr. Zelaya's followers would violent even brutal, as we have recently seen in Iran (just to give you an example)
- the Organization of American States, which unanimously declared it so.
- the UN General Assembly, which unanimously declared it so.
1) the President of the UN Assembly that moved to condemn the events in Honduras as a coup was Foreign Minister of Nicaragua from 1979 to 1990 (during the Sandinista Government), going farther left than the Sandinistas is treading into iron curtain territory. So yes, that's one 'left'. He is currently also Foreign Affairs adviser for Nicaraguan 'strongman' and Chavez puppet Daniel Ortega (who also announced plans to repeal the constitutionally mandated term limits).
2) OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza:
"Since I became a member of the Socialist Party of Chile 23 years ago..." Thus begins a letter from Insulza to the Chilean Socialist Party Summit.
Insulza's actions towards Honduras were also marked by a conflict of interest, namely his bid for re-election as OAS Secretary General and the support he needs fro the Latin American leftist countries to achieve that re-election.