Posted on 09/17/2009 5:21:11 AM PDT by don-o
Two weeks ago, the U.S. State Department announced its decision to cut off non-humanitarian aid to Honduras in order to protest the arrest and expulsion of former president Manuel Zelaya, the country’s democratically elected leader. Expressing his approval for this measure, Zelaya issued a press release stating, “It is gratifying that the United States has taken a strong position against the coup.”
This quote highlights the nature of the decision. By reducing funding to the interim government, the State Department has openly backed Zelaya in a political confrontation that has gripped Honduras since late June. But perhaps the U.S. government should reconsider its position. Is the United States truly defending democracy in Honduras by using its economic and political influence on behalf of Zelaya?
The answer to this question hinges on who is the rightful president of the Honduran people. Until the elections that are currently slated for November are held or some unforeseen event alters the status quo, there are two candidates for this role: Zelaya himself and Roberto Micheletti, head of the interim government that currently holds power in Honduras.
According to the Organization of American States, an international association composed of nearly every country in the Americas, Zelaya is a democratically elected president unlawfully removed by a military coup. The organization strongly condemned his ouster and has suspended Honduras from its membership until Zelaya is reinstated. Certainly if viewed as a military coup, Zelaya’s removal from power is nothing less than the triumph of military despotism over democracy, a tragic outcome in any region, but especially so in Latin America where the infamous juntas were common in past decades.
In reality, however, the history behind Zelaya’s ouster makes it difficult to classify the event as a military coup. Prior to his enforced departure, Zelaya provoked intense controversy by trying to pass a referendum that would allow him to serve as president beyond the single term prescribed by the Honduran constitution.
Under most circumstances, amending the constitution is not a crime, but because the country has suffered under dictators in the past, Article 239 of the constitution strictly prohibits any attempt to tamper with the term limit placed on the chief executive. This measure prevents would-be dictators from entrenching their power, first under the guise of democratic respectability and later through brute force.
Since the article’s purpose is plain, it appears that Zelaya deliberately violated his country’s constitution. Although his intentions were not necessarily malicious, he showed an unhealthy disrespect for his country’s laws and constitutional norms.
More to the point, his removal from office was not only defensible, but also constitutionally required. Article 239 is very clear on this point: A chief executive guilty of seeking to extend his time in office must immediately cease his duties and refrain from holding public office for a period of 10 years.
Viewed in this context, Zelaya’s ouster was no military coup, but rather the result of the nation’s constitutional protections at work. Although democratically elected, Zelaya intentionally violated the Honduran constitution in his quest to extend his time in office.
Even after the country’s Supreme Court ruled that the proposed referendum (and a similar one) was unconstitutional, he attempted to distribute the ballots for voting. In the end, Zelaya was removed from office by the military after defying both the judicial and legislative branches in his efforts to hold a highly unconstitutional referendum.
But the removal was a policing action rather than a military uprising. Since the military forces that arrested Zelaya acted on instructions issued by the Supreme Court, it would be a mischaracterization to describe the situation as a coup. It should be noted that the current president, Micheletti, is not a military leader. As the President of the National Congress at the time of Zelaya’s arrest, he was constitutionally designated to succeed to the presidency. Given Zelaya’s obvious contempt for the laws of a constitutional democracy and the legal justification for his removal, the United States should reconsider its policy toward Honduras. It should not support a president who provoked an unwarranted political crisis through his personal ambition, nor should it attempt to undo the constitutional safeguards of another democracy.
Jaramillo is a member of the class of 2011.
ping
Freepmail me to be added to / removed from Honduras ping list. Please ping me to threads of interest.
but our country is doing nothing to support freedom...
The Obama administration’s support of Zelaya’s power grab call into question its commitment to constitutional government both at home and abroad.
As you probably know if you've been following this story, Honduras will be holding national elections on schedule in November and will elect a new President. The constitution of Honduras does not allow Zelaya to run for office a second time. As a result there will be a new democratically elected President of Honduras following that election.
Will that election be recognized by Obama? Apparently not. So much for The One's support for real democracy. He wants another Chavez in Honduras but it is not going to happen by any means short of a successful invasion by Venezuela. And I don't think that is in the cards.
So why is it being characterized as a coup?
It was enforcement of their constitution which states that there is to be no more than two consecutive or two non consective elections that a president can be elected for?
So let the Hondurans proclaim they will no longer assist with drug interdiction efforts because they no longer have the funds to do so....there are ways they can retaliate!
Because Zelaya was an extra-constitutional Chavez wannabe that tried to convert his country from a constitutional republic to a Marxist hellhole and his ouster (at the request of his own party) prevented that. The left can't stand it and will do anything to get him back in power so as to be able to enslave another country.
0bama is anti-freedom. Hillary Clinton is anti-freedom. The State Department is anti-freedom. The SRM is anti-freedom.
http://www.collinsreport.net/2009/08/29/oas-us-un-pile-on-honduras-another-important-story-being-smothered-by-the-media/
From the Collins Report.
People seem to neglect the fact that Zelaya was a drug dealer and importer. This is where he made most his money and became a landowner. He wanted Honduras to be the “bridge” between the drug barons in Colombia to the United States.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.