Skip to content

Honduras Redux *UPDATE*

June 30, 2009
Secy Clinton and Pres. Zelaya at OAS meeting, Honduras, June 2, 2009

Secy Clinton and Pres. Zelaya at OAS meeting, Honduras, June 2, 2009

My previous post highlighting the official US position, as articulated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on the situation in Honduras generated a bit of a controversy in the comment section. This of course is certainly not a bad thing, particularly given quite a few of the people who commented are currently in Honduras and have a birds-eye view of what is taking place there, and of course I respect their perspective.

Today, over at the website, Foreign Policy, I saw an opinion-piece that struck me as being quite to-the-point and which acknowledged both the a) concern about the methods the Honduran government used in removing President Zelaya; and b) the sketchy, disingenuous actions of President Zelaya as he tried to pull a Hugo Chavez in an effort to make an end-run around the constitution so as to not be barred from another term in office due to the country’s term limits.

The article can be found here.  An excerpt:

“Zelaya’s fatal mistake was in organizing a de facto referendum to test the idea of allowing him a second term. Honduras’s Constitution explicitly forbids holding referendums — let alone an unsanctioned “popular consultation” — to amend it and, more specifically, to modify the presidential term. Unsurprisingly, the president’s idea met with resistance from Congress, nearly all political parties (including his own), the press, the business community, electoral authorities, and, crucially, the Supreme Court, which deemed the whole endeavor illegal.

Last week, when Zelaya ordered the armed forces to distribute the electoral material to carry out what he called an “opinion poll,” the military commander refused to comply and was summarily dismissed (he was later reinstated by the Supreme Court). The president then cited the troubling history of military intervention in Honduran politics, a past that the country — under more prudent governments — had made great strides in leaving behind in the past two decades. He neglected to mention that the order he had issued was illegal.


Now the Honduran military has responded in kind: An illegal referendum has met an illegal military intervention, with the avowed intention of protecting the Constitution. Zelaya’s civilian opponents, meanwhile, are celebrating. For the past week, the Honduran Congress has waxed lyrical about the armed forces as the guarantors of the Constitution, a disturbing notion for Latin Americans. At the very least, we are witnessing in Honduras the return of the unfortunate role of the military as the ultimate referee in political conflicts among civilian leaders, a huge step back in the region’s consolidation of democracy.

That’s why Zelaya, though he bears by far the greater responsibility for this crisis, must be reinstated in his position as the legitimate president of Honduras. The Organization of American States, the neighboring countries, and the U.S. government (which is still enormously influential in Honduras) should demand no less. They should also call upon all political actors in Honduras to take a deep breath and do what mature democracies do: allow the law to deal with those who try to step outside it. If Zelaya must be prosecuted for his harebrained attempt to subvert the Honduran Constitution, then let the courts proceed as rigorously as possible. And the same applies to the coup perpetrators. If Honduras is to have a decent future, its politicians and soldiers, in equal measure, must learn that the road to democracy and development runs through the rule of law.”

UPDATE: Conservative media and pundits in the US try to cast the situation in Honduras as a political left vs. right issue by throwing in Hugo Chavez as a straw man.

UPDATE II: State Dept. spokesman, Ian Kelly, indicated that President Zelaya would be meeting with an unnamed State Dept. official sometime today but gave no specifics. He stated Secretary of State Clinton would not be meeting with Zelaya as she was not in the office. It’s all a bit cloak-and-dagger at this point.


5 Comments leave one →
  1. terri permalink
    June 30, 2009 9:47 pm

    It’s interesting that you point this out about people in the US looking at this through our own conservative vs. liberal viewpoint simply based on whether or not we like Zelaya’s policies or not and whether or not we agree with his alliance with Chavez. Come to think of it, I haven’t seen a single person online criticizing Obama and Clinton, who hasn’t brought up Chavez as the main reason why it was ok to toss Zelaya out on his butt.

  2. stacyx permalink*
    July 1, 2009 6:12 pm

    Terri, I personally find that frustrating because it obscures the larger issue, which is the legality of Zelayas actions prior to removal of office and the legality of the actions taken by those who removed him and whether or not a formal democratic process was followed for removal from office and it seems that it wasn’t.

    Whether one likes Chavez and the leftists in South and Central America doesn’t make any of the above actions more legal or illegal. Also, the media coverage of this issue has been pathetic.

  3. April 8, 2012 1:49 pm

    Dont give them there decision to veto you on a silver platter. If you believe you can do the job, go for it!


  1. Zelaya Vows To Return to Honduras « Secretary Clinton
  2. The Honduras Crisis Simply Won’t Go Quietly Into That Good Night «

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: