Showing posts with label honduras. Show all posts
Showing posts with label honduras. Show all posts
Friday, November 06, 2009
Commentary on the Honduras deal
Jennifer Rubin discusses the deal on their blog. She thinks the State Department realized they were out on a limb with the ridiculous threat not to recognize this month's presidential elections, and this is their way of stepping back from the edge.
A Victory for Honduras?
The other day, I had been disappointed to read that Honduras had been bullied into accepting a US plan to reinstate Zelaya, contrary to their constitution. But now the practical meaning of this deal is getting worked out, and it doesn't seem too bad. Apparently, the US has taken back its threat not to recognize the Nov. 23 presidential elections, even if Zelaya is not back in power. That was the biggest stick in our arsenal, because Honduras might have been able to weather a few months of sanctions, as long as it could expect a return to normal conditions once the new president was inaugurated.
A threat of apparently endless sanctions was a shocking one and ridiculously reasoned. Now the US has apparently backtracked, and while we still say "Zelaya should be returned to power," we're only going to require that Honduras vote on whether to accept him back. Well, didn't their congress & supreme court do that to begin with? No matter. The outcome will be similar this time, and it will allow them to be welcomed back into our good graces.
The only justification for our sanctions I could find anywhere was one analysis that said the Organization of American States has an item in its charter that says no [democratically elected?] leader can be deposed without a trial. Since the Honduran constitution doesn't have a mechanism for impeachment, there was a conflict between their constitution's rules and the OAS'. Since this certainly wasn't an antidemocratic military coup (which the OAS rule is designed to prevent), the rest of us should have looked at this as a mere technical violation and suspended any enforcement of it. Instead, we acted as if the OAS rule was the more fundamental one and tried to make them violate their own constitution.
Well, I say that, but I think the Obama administration's actions can't be laid at the feet of a stubborn commitment to OAS rules and procedures. [giggle! snort!] Zelaya is an emerging leftist, and I'm worried they liked him and his policies enough to see any action against him as a threat.
Anyway, Zelaya has realized the implications of the new deal and understands this won't force Honduras to reinstate him at all. Let's hope not.
A threat of apparently endless sanctions was a shocking one and ridiculously reasoned. Now the US has apparently backtracked, and while we still say "Zelaya should be returned to power," we're only going to require that Honduras vote on whether to accept him back. Well, didn't their congress & supreme court do that to begin with? No matter. The outcome will be similar this time, and it will allow them to be welcomed back into our good graces.
The only justification for our sanctions I could find anywhere was one analysis that said the Organization of American States has an item in its charter that says no [democratically elected?] leader can be deposed without a trial. Since the Honduran constitution doesn't have a mechanism for impeachment, there was a conflict between their constitution's rules and the OAS'. Since this certainly wasn't an antidemocratic military coup (which the OAS rule is designed to prevent), the rest of us should have looked at this as a mere technical violation and suspended any enforcement of it. Instead, we acted as if the OAS rule was the more fundamental one and tried to make them violate their own constitution.
Well, I say that, but I think the Obama administration's actions can't be laid at the feet of a stubborn commitment to OAS rules and procedures. [giggle! snort!] Zelaya is an emerging leftist, and I'm worried they liked him and his policies enough to see any action against him as a threat.
Anyway, Zelaya has realized the implications of the new deal and understands this won't force Honduras to reinstate him at all. Let's hope not.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Obama's arm-twisting on Honduras
O'Grady investigates the lengths to which our administration will go in pressuring Honduras to take back their would-be dictator.
One thing I'm curious about: Honduras has presidential elections coming up this November. Once they elect and inaugurate a new president, will our sanctions and threats against them cease? If any of these measures last a day past the beginning of their new administration, I'll have to believe it is purely punishment for having ousted a favored leftist. I think it is, anyway, but there won't be any pretext for maintaining these sanctions after the next Honduran administration takes office. Let's see how that goes...
One thing I'm curious about: Honduras has presidential elections coming up this November. Once they elect and inaugurate a new president, will our sanctions and threats against them cease? If any of these measures last a day past the beginning of their new administration, I'll have to believe it is purely punishment for having ousted a favored leftist. I think it is, anyway, but there won't be any pretext for maintaining these sanctions after the next Honduran administration takes office. Let's see how that goes...
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The idiots at State
Cowards. Idiots. Weasels. Unwilling to stand up to real tyrants but bullying democratic countries committed to the rule of law. This administration is turning hard Left in its foreign policy. (%*(!!
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
US Revokes visas for Honduran diplomats
Story here.
I don't get this. I mean, I'm eager to hear the reasoning for the other side, but I just don't hear any justification that isn't patently superficial and brief. I really thought we wouldn't go this far against Honduras. This is the option they were left with, given that they don't have the impeachment process in their country (which would be a good thing to add, really). There's not been a military takeover, and the democratically-elected government remains as it was, minus the former president. Honestly--why are we doing this?!
I don't get this. I mean, I'm eager to hear the reasoning for the other side, but I just don't hear any justification that isn't patently superficial and brief. I really thought we wouldn't go this far against Honduras. This is the option they were left with, given that they don't have the impeachment process in their country (which would be a good thing to add, really). There's not been a military takeover, and the democratically-elected government remains as it was, minus the former president. Honestly--why are we doing this?!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Honduras: Zelaya's hints of force against the congress
Mary Anastasia O'Grady reports in the Wall Street Journal. He'd used thuggish tactics earlier this year in fights with the congress for things outside presidential powers. Not surprising, and perfectly in keeping with his being a Chavista.
Conrad Black has an article on Honduras in National Review. One thing that surprised me in this, if I understand correctly, is that Honduras doesn't have provision for impeachment of its president. Huh.
Conrad Black has an article on Honduras in National Review. One thing that surprised me in this, if I understand correctly, is that Honduras doesn't have provision for impeachment of its president. Huh.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Honduras: Republicans vs. Democrats
Story here. I'd feel better if there were some Democrats on our side on this. So far, I haven't seen any substantive defense of Zelaya, and I'd really like to read one.
A relative sort of sympathized with my opinion but said the rest of the Honduran government had made bad PR moves. Well, I agree, but that doesn't justify our government's response.
Of all people, our State Department's job ought to involve digging beneath the superficial appearances (="looks like a military coup") and find out what was actually going on (say, read those sections of the Honduran constitution their government cited).
Hmph.
A relative sort of sympathized with my opinion but said the rest of the Honduran government had made bad PR moves. Well, I agree, but that doesn't justify our government's response.
Of all people, our State Department's job ought to involve digging beneath the superficial appearances (="looks like a military coup") and find out what was actually going on (say, read those sections of the Honduran constitution their government cited).
Hmph.
Honduras: Chavez calls up the State Department
Story here. Best line, delivered with (I believe) a totally straight face: "I believe at various times the Venezuelan government has been supportive of a process that would lead to President Zelaya's return."
Ya think?!
Ya think?!
Friday, July 10, 2009
Thursday, July 09, 2009
A little more on Honduras
From Reuters, which kind of takes the pro-Zelaya line as a given. But it's clear in reporting how Chavez has been acting in this situation, both in public and behind the scenes. Maybe we should be more worried that he's taking a less-public role all of a sudden. It might mean he's got devious plans going on.
In related news, Hillary Clinton has given an interview with the last free television station in Venezuela. She doesn't come out and condemn Chavez but has some subtle criticisms. I wonder if that will accomplish anything or hearten anybody in that country. At least Globovision is happy she talked to them.
In related news, Hillary Clinton has given an interview with the last free television station in Venezuela. She doesn't come out and condemn Chavez but has some subtle criticisms. I wonder if that will accomplish anything or hearten anybody in that country. At least Globovision is happy she talked to them.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Roundup on Honduras
Some of these are a few days old, but I want to archive the links here so I don't have to keep the browser tabs open:
The DC Examiner
Open Market
Donald Sensing
Donald Sensing, again
The DC Examiner
Open Market
Donald Sensing
Donald Sensing, again
Monday, July 06, 2009
Update on Honduras
Good summary of the events so far in Honduras. It seems that two pro-Zelaya protestors were killed in clashes at the airport yesterday. Those police have got to restrain themselves: they're on a thread as far as foreign opinion goes, and maintaining a light hand on the population is necessary to hold on to any chance of legitimacy in the eyes of other governments.
Of course, I can't understand why the rest of the world, America first and foremost, has sided with Zelaya, who was trying to make himself into a strongman. It seems so clear that the Honduran government is in the right on this--that they followed the law and preserved their constitution--that I'm eager to find any reason we have for taking Zelaya's side. If I could try to see it from the State Department's point of view, I could at least analyze what their reasoning is. But no matter how much I read, the only thing I can come up with is that it was the army that carried out the orders to depose Zelaya. That's it. And so, in the State Department's phrase book, this has become a "military coup," despite the fact that the entire rest of the government (except the executive branch) acted together, and the army simply carried out a warrant from the supreme court.
The army is not in command of the government. Zelaya was the president, not "the government," in the odd wording of our administration (saying Zelaya "is" the government we recognize), and the entire rest of the government remains intact. I really, really, really don't get this. As Mary Anastasia O'Grady (who has the coolest name, by the way) writes in the Wall Street Journal, "Reason has gone AWOL in places like Turtle Bay and Foggy Bottom."
Of course, I can't understand why the rest of the world, America first and foremost, has sided with Zelaya, who was trying to make himself into a strongman. It seems so clear that the Honduran government is in the right on this--that they followed the law and preserved their constitution--that I'm eager to find any reason we have for taking Zelaya's side. If I could try to see it from the State Department's point of view, I could at least analyze what their reasoning is. But no matter how much I read, the only thing I can come up with is that it was the army that carried out the orders to depose Zelaya. That's it. And so, in the State Department's phrase book, this has become a "military coup," despite the fact that the entire rest of the government (except the executive branch) acted together, and the army simply carried out a warrant from the supreme court.
The army is not in command of the government. Zelaya was the president, not "the government," in the odd wording of our administration (saying Zelaya "is" the government we recognize), and the entire rest of the government remains intact. I really, really, really don't get this. As Mary Anastasia O'Grady (who has the coolest name, by the way) writes in the Wall Street Journal, "Reason has gone AWOL in places like Turtle Bay and Foggy Bottom."
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Octavio Sanchez on why it wasn't a "coup" in Honduras
Octavio Sanchez, a lawyer and former Honduran government official, explains the Honduran constitution to the rest of us and points out why the congress didn't just impeach Zelaya:
The actions taken in Honduras last week make sense in the light of this explanation. I wondered at first (just to play devil's advocate) whether his statement "of the 128 members of Congress present that day" left any room for force used to keep some pro-Zelaya legislators away, but no: The Honduran congress has 128 members. So 123 congressmen voted on this.
The provision of several unchangeable parts of the constitution is interesting. I think ours only has one--that no amendment could reduce the number of senators a state has. But what's more interesting is the enforcement for this is just about self-acting. It did require the Supreme Court to issue a writ to enforce it, but the result is one with no provision for a trial: if a president suggests amending the constitution to allow himself to stay in office, he's out immediately!
The reasoning for the exile makes sense, although I don't know if it was necessary. But then, I'm not a Honduran. I imagine they can run their government on their own terms.
According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."
Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."
[...]
He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.
The actions taken in Honduras last week make sense in the light of this explanation. I wondered at first (just to play devil's advocate) whether his statement "of the 128 members of Congress present that day" left any room for force used to keep some pro-Zelaya legislators away, but no: The Honduran congress has 128 members. So 123 congressmen voted on this.
The provision of several unchangeable parts of the constitution is interesting. I think ours only has one--that no amendment could reduce the number of senators a state has. But what's more interesting is the enforcement for this is just about self-acting. It did require the Supreme Court to issue a writ to enforce it, but the result is one with no provision for a trial: if a president suggests amending the constitution to allow himself to stay in office, he's out immediately!
The reasoning for the exile makes sense, although I don't know if it was necessary. But then, I'm not a Honduran. I imagine they can run their government on their own terms.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The Obama Doctrine
Joshua Muravchik has a masterful article at the Wall Street Journal analyzing the Obama Doctrine in foreign policy, such that there is. It's an eye-opener. Obama and his administration are apparently downplaying the promotion of democracy and, to some extent, human rights. These are at the expense of laudable (but, in my mind, secondary) issues that promote a livable, civil society, once you've actually got liberty and democracy.
What was surprising was to see the quotations in which Obama or Sec. State Clinton actually denigrate or minimize democracy. It's long, but check out the whole thing.
What was surprising was to see the quotations in which Obama or Sec. State Clinton actually denigrate or minimize democracy. It's long, but check out the whole thing.
More on Honduras vs. Iran
Hillary Clinton, speaking about the Iranian elections:
(Emphasis mine)
Compare with her statements on Honduras' kicking out of its president--a process done through constitutional channels, and intended to stop him from becoming a strong-man:
(Emphasis mine)
Notice a difference in tone between how our administration treats an oppressive, anti-American, terrorist-supporting, vote-rigging (we believe) theocracy on the one hand, and a democracy that's going through legal means to preserve its democracy, on the other? Hmph.
Obviously, they have a huge credibility gap with their own people as to the election process...And I don't think that's going to disappear by any finding of a limited review of a relatively-small number of ballots. But clearly, these internal matters are for Iranians themselves to address. And we hope that they will be given the opportunity to do so in a peaceful way that respects the right of expression. And it has been my position and that of our administration that we support the fundamental values of peoples' voices being heard, their votes being counted. And we'll have to see how this unfolds.
(Emphasis mine)
Compare with her statements on Honduras' kicking out of its president--a process done through constitutional channels, and intended to stop him from becoming a strong-man:
The action taken against Honduran President Mel Zelaya violates the precepts of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and thus should be condemned by all. We call on all parties in Honduras to respect the constitutional order and the rule of law, to reaffirm their democratic vocation, and to commit themselves to resolve political disputes peacefully and through dialogue. Honduras must embrace the very principles of democracy we reaffirmed at the OAS meeting it hosted less than one month ago.
(Emphasis mine)
Notice a difference in tone between how our administration treats an oppressive, anti-American, terrorist-supporting, vote-rigging (we believe) theocracy on the one hand, and a democracy that's going through legal means to preserve its democracy, on the other? Hmph.
Comparing Iran and Honduras
How does Obama treat these two situations? Legal Insurrection says, "We speak softly to our enemies, but use a big stick against our friends."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
