Honduras president: ‘The United States has changed a great deal’
From today’s New York Times story on Honduras:
Mr. Zelaya also dispelled suspicions that Western nations like the United States may have instigated or tacitly approved of his ouster, an allegation that has been repeatedly put forward by his close ally, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela.
“The United States has changed a great deal,” he said at the news conference, noting that President Obama had not only denounced his removal as an illegal coup, but then went further, calling for his return to power.
Obama critics are apoplectic that the U.S. is condemning the coup, and their reasoning seems to be that we can never possibly be on the same side as Hugo Chavez on any issue. My personal favorite is this:
What will he do if Chavez decides to use the military he has purchased from Russia and China with his oil money to invade Honduras and re-install his stooge Zelaya? How could we possibly intervene when the president has gone on recrord agreeing with Chavez that what happened was “illegal?”
Wow, indeed, what a shame it would be if we wouldn’t be able to invade Honduras!
I have to confess to knowing next to nothing about Honduras political situation, despite it being the site of one of my very few visits to Latin America, on a vacation I took there a few years ago. But a. that, as usual, doesn’t stop anyone else from pretending they’re an instant expert, and b. I have been trying to follow the general geopolitical trends in Latin America, in particular the growing numbers of countries that have elected pro-Chavez governments in recent years. The list of these countries is pretty standard: Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, El Salvador. Sometimes Paraguay. But almost never Honduras. It’s possible Honduras was drifting toward the Chavez camp, but it would be a bit player at most. So the notion that Zelaya is somehow a “stooge” of Chavez is fairly recent and pretty shallow. And the glee with which these Cold War nostalgiasts want to invade to protest U.S. interests is troubling. Or maybe pathetic, since they’re no longer in charge.
Which brings me to my point, Zelaya’s contention that “the United States has changed a great deal.” One of the first notices I heard about the coup was a post that popped up in my RSS reader Sunday morning from Venezuela Analysis, an English-language pro-Chavez site. It was titled “Obama’s First Coup d’Etat,” and explained that claim thusly:
The modus operandi of the coup makes clear that Washington is involved. Neither the Honduran military, which is majority trained by U.S. forces, nor the political and economic elite, would act to oust a democratically elected president without the backing and support of the U.S. government.
Now, of course, we know differently. The U.S. did come out and condemn the coup, and is part of the effort to reinstate Zelaya.
I’m still skeptical of Obama’s ability or desire to change some of the most fundamentally wrong things about the U.S.’s foreign policy. But in these snap decisions he has had to make on foreign policy crises — in particular Iran and now Honduras — he is displaying a gratifying tendency to do the right thing.
via U.N. Backs Ousted Honduran Leader – NYTimes.com.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Venezuela’s military couldn’t invade Colombia next door, Chavez’s posturing as an ex-paratrooper notwithstanding. Can’t you just see him proclaiming Honduras is “the mother of all battles”?
In the end, Latin America will go with whichever camp can offer them the most, especially in a global recession with commodity prices down. That’s the U.S., not Venezuela. Like Ahmadinejad, Chavez is a creature of $130/barrel oil, not $60/barrel.
A quick search the other day didn’t turn up an English version of the Honduras constitution, but here’s a quote in Spanish:
El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República. 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 inhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
I think it’s pretty clear that attempting to gain reelection, as Zelaya was doing, immediately disqualifies him from continuing to be President. That is, the Constitution was followed, and I find it sad, but not bizarre, that the Left in the US is willing to interfere in the constitutionally correct activities of the Honduran government. Looked at from a certain angle, there’s always *some* excuse for the US to go poke its nose in, whether it’s deposing dictators or restoring would-be dictators to power.
It’s cute that you think you know more about whether or not the military kidnapping and forced exile of the president of Honduras was coup or not than the entire regional and international community. But we were talking about the Obama administration’s response to the crises in Iran and Honduras, so what does “the Left” have to do with anything?
In response to another comment. See in context »So _you_ are a Honduran constitutional scholar I take it? I certainly am not, but from what I’ve seen this basically boils down to the right thing done wrong. That is, the man’s own party is not terribly keen on seeing him back, and his attempt to force a referendum on his staying in office has, like a binary switch, forced his removal.
Had it been done “properly”, with a court sanction and official impeachment proceedings, the end result would likely have been the same (though it would be difficult to know given Chavista meddling and populism) but it wouldn’t have looked as bad.
Maybe if there’s a massive groundswell of support for him across all parties and classes (instead of just a bunch of paid leechistas who have nothing better to do than wave red flags and chant slogans 2 decades past their sell-by date) and _his own party_ started pressing for “justice” my mind would change.
And yes, the general rule for me is, if Hugo Chavez is for it, I’m agin’ it. Hell, if the man loved Boxer dogs I’d probably have to reexamine my affection for the breed…
In response to another comment. See in context »Think I know more…? Oh, I see the problem. Google translate is here: http://translate.google.com/translate_t . You can find your own copy of the Honduras constitution, if you’d like.
I don’t know a whole lot about Honduras (other than what’s been said all over in the last few days), but I am pretty sure that for countries that have constitutions, following them is often better than pure democracy.
Lastly, Obama and friends did not stop being Democrats merely because they’re now in power, just as Bush and friends didn’t stop being Republicans while they were in power, and Democrats are what passes for Left in the US right now, just as Republicans are what passes for Right.
In response to another comment. See in context »Michael – I’m not sure. That oil price spike (when it was $130 a barrel) was pretty short lived, and Chavez’s oil diplomacy started well before then. Take this story, for example, from August 2005: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0825/p01s04-woam.html. Oil then was about $60 a barrel.
Anyway, I think there is also at least some genuine ideological affinity that the people of Latin America have for what Chavez is offering.
That said, I think you’re probably right that they’d have a hard time mounting a serious invasion of Colombia, let alone Honduras.
Still, oil prices are double the $30/barrel in 1999 before Chavez took office. With the global downturn, I think we’ll find out how how attached people are to Chavez and Ahmadinejad, or whether they bought their popularity with the oil spike. Venezuela, for example, has to import food because Chavez’s policies have bollixed domestic production (http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1357397)
You’re right that Chavez strikes a chord in Latin America, but they still have to feed their people. I think they’ll end up paying lip service to Chavez’s populism, but they won’t have the oil revenues to move too far to the left (or at least not succesfully). It will be interesting to see whether Morales succeeds in Bolivia.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m not convinced Obama’s reaction on this one is any more a reflection of change in the US than it is of how drastically the balance of power in Latin America has changed over the last decade. If Obama is sincere about supporting Zelaya, why are the 600 US troops in Honduras loungin’ right now? Why hasn’t he pushed for a cessation of trade relations?
Of course, it’s possible that Obama is sincere but is facing considerable opposition within the US government on the issue. Which brings me to another important point – that the US government isn’t a monolithic force. Obama may be coming out on Zelaya’s side, but that’s not to say that the full force of the States is with him on this. I doubt anyone would directly undermine POTUS on this, but seems premature to unequivocally state that no factions in the US were involved in the coup.
Mish – Do you really want the US military to get involved? I frankly like that the US is letting other countries and organizations take the lead on this.
Not at all! What I’m trying to do is look at what options Obama has on the table and ask why he’s taking the particular course of action that he has and not one of the available alternatives.
In response to another comment. See in context »Obama doesn’t have a lot of options, Mish. If U.S. troops were to restore Zelaya, we would be accused of imperialism. A trade embargo would raise cries that we were starving Honduran children, like the Iraq sanctions. But if he doesn’t do anything, it’s taken as a sign of U.S. complicity. But you’re right that U.S. business interests would probably oppose sanctions. Can’t dry up the banana supply, can we?
However, as I’ve said before, the other problem is identifying the good guys. Zelaya ignoring his nation’s supreme court and Congress doesn’t make him a sympathetic figure. The international community will endorse him as a warning against coups, but I’ll be curious to see how far they’ll go in supporting him.
In response to another comment. See in context »Just came across an article from CEPR that I thought you might find interesting: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/latin-america-drags-a-reluctant-washington-into-supporting-democracy-in-honduras/