What is happening in Honduras?
by tdaxp ~ June 30th, 2009
After reading reactions at Catholicgauze, Coming Anarchy, Half Sigma, and Zenpundit, and following the news in China Daily, I am confused why the United Nations, President Obama and others are condemning the actions in Honduras.
As I understand it, the Supreme Court ordered the arrest of the President. The Congress has acted to administer the country. In other words, this appears to be a the whole point of a tripartite separation of powers: any two divisions can act against a third.
If the Congress and the President of a country acted together to impeach a Supreme Court Justice, would the US be similarly angered?
I realize I am getting only a slice of the news here in China. What am I missing?
[1]...
June 30th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
It seems either Obama et al or the blogger alliance are on crazy pills.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I can’t speak to the UN (nor would I want to)… but I suspect that the President and his advisors realized how weak he looked on Iran… they decided that this time he would be forthright with a stronger stance far earlier this time… not unlike the 2004 presidential debates where Bush lost #1, only to be rather… pouncy in #2.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:48 am
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/07/01/honduras.coup.OAS/index.html
Judging by the article linked above, I would assume that it isn’t the ouster of Zelaya that is being condemned, but rather the method of doing so.
Even though the interim president is of the same party as Zelaya (which somewhat rules out ideological motives for the coup), I would assume there is a legitimate concern for a military junta being put into power.
Sure, as you dig deeper, the possibility of a junta seems unlikely, but the mere headline “military ousters president in insert Latin American nation” naturally provokes such a thought. With that said, I am not going to blame anyone for their initial reactions.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:55 am
“I can’t speak to the UN (nor would I want to)… but I suspect that the President and his advisors realized how weak he looked on Iran… they decided that this time he would be forthright with a stronger stance far earlier this time… not unlike the 2004 presidential debates where Bush lost #1, only to be rather… pouncy in #2.”
However, consider that Obama (in my opinion) needed to contemplate every move carefully concerning Iran. He has to work with whoever “wins,” therefore taking open opposition against whoever comes out in the end could radically influence Iran’s nuclear program.
In terms of Honduras, I suspect that Obama could go along with the knee jerk reactions of established international institutions without too many consequences so you could get on with whatever he was doing at the time.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Apparently Obama and Europe are ok with dictatorial traits in Latin American leadership but should any country act to defend their constitution in a fashion that is unlike our own political machinations, well that country’s on the outs as far as they’re concerned.
Chirol uses Turkey as an example of a country where the military has stepped in in similar fashion. Let’s take that a step further. The Turkish military has stepped in and prevented entire political platforms from participating in the electoral process (caveat:not saying I disagree with their process/decision) and yet not much a peep out of Europe or the US. Why? Because the parties blocked were of the Islamic sort and that’s easily construed to be part of the west’s security fabric given the day and age. Honduras? Well, nows our chance to say “tut, tut, there’ll none of that, it doesn’t meet our pre-fabricated democracy mold.”
I’m baffled at the reaction overall, especially given that it bolsters Hugo Chavez and his hegemonic designs on Latin America. It was, if I’ve read correctly, exactly that (the growing influence of Venezuela over Honduras) which divided Zelaya from his countrymen.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Half Sigma (a lawyer) points to comments by the Honduran Ambassador [1], noting the unanimous vote of the Honduran congress to remove President Zelaya, as well as remarks by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Honduras [2]. Additionally, he has articles mentioning the Honduran Army [3] and the Honduran constitution [4].
I can’t think of an honest reason Obama has for opposing the removal in Honduras. There may be a legitimate, dishonest, reason, though…
[1] http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/former-or-perhaps-still-current-honduran-abassador-to-us-speaks.html
[2] http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/honduran-supreme-court-justice-speaks.html
[3] http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/honduran-army-speaks.html
[4] http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/article-239-of-the-honduran-constitution.html
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
[...] @ Coming Anarchy ZenPundit TDAXP Catholicgauze Jonathan @ Chicago Boyz Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Chavez, [...]
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:56 am
Officials who act in the name of States operate from the executive branch. They are the last people who would approve of the idea of removal from office by the courts and/or legislature.
I suspect that if the other two branches of the American government were to act in this way against the (imperial) president, there would be Civil War. Whether the president kept his job would depend on the loyalties of the military.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I’m a bit confused by your comment Dan Mcintosh given that the US constitution gives the legislative branch the sole power to remove a sitting President.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Eddie has a seemingly plausible take. [1]
The common theme (if this is true) in Iran and Honduras is baking away from our friends, out of fear of what an association might imply.
[1] http://hiddenunities.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/thoughts-on-obama-honduras/
July 6th, 2009 at 5:08 am
Substitute Nixon for Zelaya, as in the post above, and you’ll see what I mean. Constitutions are well and good, but in a constitutional crisis other factors become more important, including the political support of the various factions.
The US has a strong tradition of military loyalty to civilian authority, and of staying out of politics. That can change. The military may find that it can’t remain apolitical–as various political factions try to co-opt it, and/or claim its support, and/or restructure the military for political gain. It is more likely to change when officers begin making regular distinctions between the Constitution, the government, and the particular people holding office. For an example of what this might look like, see this recent post by William Lind: “Is the Constitution Dead?” (http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/2009/07/04/is-the-constitution-dead/) What happens when the defense of the Constitution (or the values it honors) is perceived to require the removal of some civilian authorities?
July 6th, 2009 at 6:07 am
Dan,
Thanks for your comment.
I’m not sure the analogy fits, as in Honduras the President was removed by the Supreme Court, while Bill Lind has been calling for a naked military coup for some time now.
That’s the difference between constitutional government (Honduras) and the ravings of a bizarre Kaiserite hack good at getting invited to conferences (Lind).
July 6th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Good point: Lind seems to blame _everyone_.
Much more possible than direct military rule is a factionalized, fractured government with a Praetorian military holding an indirect (and generally unspoken) veto, and that’s still unlikely.
Another interesting perspective is from a retired Col. Daniel Smith, who in 2006 agreed with the “military is broken” thesis, but described it as essentially a moral failure. Citing General Zini, he then contends
“If Zini’s analysis is accurate, the “breaking” of the U.S. military is much more critical than the public realizes or policy-makers admit. Why? Because such self-interested careerism, once let loose in the one institution of a democracy that is the least democratic and the most potentially destructive organization of all, becomes the seedbed of plots, counterplots, cabals, and even coups. It is precisely to dampen unwarranted careerism without stifling initiative and the quest for professional excellence that potential officers are drilled in the doctrine of civilian control of the military and officers, when commissioned, swear their loyalty to the Constitution, not to an individual, an office, or one branch of the government to the exclusion of the other two.”
It’s easy, as outsider, to say “resign in protest.” It’s extremely hard to do. Losing the job not only means a hardship for your family, but to remove yourself from the process seems to remove any hope to make things better. But if your “loyalty to the Constitution” supersedes your loyalty to “an individual, an office, or one branch of the government” that may require, on occasion, telling the president to f*#k off.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:39 am
“That’s the difference between constitutional government (Honduras) and the ravings of a bizarre Kaiserite hack good at getting invited to conferences (Lind).”
Somebody isn’t getting invited to the Lind Family summer BBQ!
“The common theme (if this is true) in Iran and Honduras is baking away from our friends, out of fear of what an association might imply.”
I am not sure President Obama sees Honduras as a friend, at least not a firend to the America he may want.
July 12th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Dan McIntosh,
Well said. I agree.
Purpleslog,
The most coherent explanation for Obama’s actions in Iran and Honduras is an attempt to remove the American brand from good actions, out of a fear of harm that brand may cause. So far events in Iran are continuing to go our way [1], and Honduras remains as it is, which is good for us.
Clinton/Gates have been so generally effective, I am hesitant to criticize Obama for a serious fault here.
[1] http://tehranbureau.com/grand-ayatollah-montazeris-fatwa/