The leftist president of Honduras was overthrown in what has been called a military coup that is being condemned by Chavez, Castro, and the Obama administration. And yet, according to this account, the military was following a court order to defend the Honduran constitution and the rule of law:
Hugo Chávez’s coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation’s constitution.
It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.
But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya’s abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.
That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.
But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.
The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.
Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court’s order.
The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.
It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya’s next move will be. It’s not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.
{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }
thanks for putting that up. my sister is a missionary in Honduras and she (and many others) are extremely frustrated with how the news is making this sound.
-joe
Does it make anyone else a bit nervous that our president is in agreement with Castro and Chavez in backing the attempt to re-wright the Honduran constitution?
This is the rule of law at work. The president overstepped his constitutional authority and refused to abide by the supreme court’s ruling to that effect. The attorney general had him arrested to prosecute him for breaking the law. This is how a country of laws is supposed to work.
Well… technically, rule of law would mean that he should be impeached and then removed by force.
The precedent of supporting armed coups is a dangerous one and something that hasn’t been a resounding success for the US in the past. Zelaya is not a great guy, don’t get me wrong, but having a marginal president in a stable country is better than having an American friendly president in an unstable country, particularly when it runs the risk of destablizing an entire region.
I disagree, Kirk.
An armed coup is precisely the threat of an armed citizenry, and it is their line of defense against tyranny.
That is why the founders insisted on arming the people.
That is also why the statists want to disarm the people.
I have no interest in a “stable” tyranny.
(I am speaking, of course, of the larger issue of gun rights in the US. This Honduran story serves as a good case study. Chavez has already banned guns in Venezuela. The people there won’t be throwing him out any time soon.)
Here’s the problem:
1. Due process was not followed, meaning that the coup, itself was illegal. If, for whatever reason, the government was failing to uphold its responsibility, then maybe the case could be made. It doesn’t appear that the legislature ever got around to an impeachment, though. They opted to support the easier coup.
2. It was the army, not the general populace that lead the coup. When military coups happen, typically its trading civil dictator for a martial dictator. Ironically, this was how Chavez sought to take power in the early 1990’s.
And don’t get me wrong, I dispise Zelaya and couldn’t be happier to see him out of power. I’m just saying that there’s prudence in Obama’s position to not support the coup. Diplomacy is pragmatism, and the President is being pragmatic in this instance.
I understand your point, Kirk, and I realize that I “hi-jacked” your post to a different topic.
I don’t know enough about the constitution of Honduras to really comment on the legality of the action. We should not assume that “due process” in Honduras is the same as it is in the US. They may not even have an impeachment process. From the quoted news story, the army was not seizing power from the president, but following a legitimate order from the court to intervene with a president who was breaking the law. That would make their action lawful. (Assuming, of course, that we have the correct facts.)
I do agree with your caution about the military, though, whatever the details may be in this case. Arming the military is NOT the same thing as arming the people. Caesar used the loyalty of the citizens for their beloved Roman army to overthrow the republic. (That, and the might of the army itself.)
So . . . thanks for putting up with my tangent.
The disturbing thing isn’t the particular legalities of the matter under Honduran law. That can, it would appear, be argued both ways. The army supported the Honduran Supreme Court rather than the president. It’s hard for us, from the U.S., to know if that was reasonable, though on its face, from the linked article, it would seem that the army acted reasonably.
What is disturbing is that Obama chose to jump into the fray, on the side of Chavez and Castro. As Mary Ann said above, that makes me more than a “bit nervous”. And this is two weeks after he declared that it was entirely improper for us to intervene, even with supportive comments, in the hijacked Iranian election.
Obama is keeping interesting company, considering our history.
Bror, that is right. And, it’s the last thing Obama needs, if he really wants to shake the “Marxist” label. This Michael Ramirez cartoon from today’s Investors Business Daily says it all:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/cartoons.aspx
But then again, maybe he doesn’t mind this image.
As I understand it due process was followed. The constitutional court declared the president’s referendum unconstitutional and illegal and ordered the Army (the normal elections agency) to not hold the vote. The army complied, at which point the president with an extra-governmental militia stormed the army facilities to take the ballets so it could hold the illegal election on its own. The attorney general explained that he would arrest and prosecute anyone involved with holding the illegal referendum. The president balked and the army moved in to arrest him for violating the law. I don’t care how the administration wants to characterize it, this is not a coup.
Except he wasn’t arrested. He was taken from his house early in the morning by the army and was exiled, without a trial. It sounds a whole lot like a coup to me.
I wonder how everyone here would be reacting if it were not a leftist who had been removed. As it is, it mostly seems like political posturing, what with the people suspiciously only mentioning Obama in the company of Chavez, Castro, and Ortega.
Oddly missing from the discussion here is that, thus far, no nation or international group — except for Honduras, of course — has supported the removal of the Honduran President. That includes, in addition to the previously mentioned (seemingly cherry-picked) nations, the following nations and groups that have condemned the action so far, that I can tell:
Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Association of Caribbean States, European Union, The Organization of American States, and the Union of South American Nations.
Gee, what “interesting company” Obama is keeping, indeed. The list doesn’t look so odd when you don’t omit all those groups. Now why would right-wingers only name Chavez and Castro, I wonder?
The exile has been reported (and admittedly disputed by others) as an agreed exile in exchange for not having to stand trial.
Probably we should be looking at this as a sliding scale – on that scale, I say we are still closer to rule of law than to coup.
tODD – I don’t disagree with your comments at all. There has been an almost uniform condemnation of the actions. The bigger question that we have not really focused on is do we care if it was a coup or rule of law? In the spirit of poltical realism, I say it depends …
Here’s the problem, tODD and Kirk. I agree, I don’t think the situation in Honduras is clear at all at this point. Zelaya appears to have been at least contemplating “pulling a Chavez”, and attempting to extend his presidency beyond next January. It appears that the Honduran Supreme Court ruled against the constitutionality of his plan for a referendum, and ordered the military not to effectuate it. But, then, the military simply took Zelaya out. So, that’s not good either.
However, Chavez and his fellow Marxists, including Daniel Ortega, are apparently next door in Nicaragua, leading the protests, as the Washington Post puts it, against this so-called coup. Venezuela’s military is apparently massing to invade Honduras and restore Zelaya to power. These are not the guys we should be allied with. In Iran, the situation is very clear. An election was almost certainly stolen and unarmed protesters are being murdered and violently mistreated by the likely illegitimate government. We make tepid statements that this is wrong, but it is a matter for the Iranian people to address. Obama needs to get out front, RIGHT NOW, and make it clear, in a similar way, that this is a matter only for the Honduran people to address. He needs to condemn Chavez and his belligerent threats to invade Honduras. His statements need to be strong and clear. So far, I have heard NOTHING against Chavez and his Marxist buddies, and their threatened actions against Honduras.
The point, of course, that I am making is that right now Obama and all of the other nations and groups which tODD has listed for us in comment #14, by condemning Honduras but not Chavez, are enabling Chavez in his designs on the region. Putting the Honduran people under the thumb of the brutal Chavez is far worse than their current circumstances, no matter how much you dislike the military’s action in removing Zelaya.
tODD:
You are right about one thing, the politics of the Honduran president should not be the determining factor here. What we should focus on is whether the Honduran Congress, Supreme Court and Army were following the Honduran constitution and law in doing what they did. This might very well be the case.
Remember that, although the Honduran president was elected, the Honduran Congress was elected too, and I assume the Honduran Supreme Court was lawfully appointed in some way. And apparently it is consistent with Honduran law for the military to manage elections. This seems odd to us, because we have civilian agencies to handle that, but in in a small, poor Central American country (pop. 7,000,000) the military is probably the only organized national law enforcement agency they have. If it is consistent with Honduran law for the supreme court to issue arrest warrants to the Army, then this is their system, and I don’t know why we think we have the right to interfere when it works.
I read an article today that suggests that the president was in the process of staging a coup, and these other branches of government simply stopped him. The president was taking over the electoral process (which is not his to operate) in an attempt to illegally extend his term of office. Why shouldn’t somebody who does that be arrested and removed from office?
When Richard Nixon, who was overwealmingly the people’s choice in 1972 abused his power, he was forced out of office. I don’t remember liberals complaining about that. Adolph Hitler was democraticly elected to be chancelor of the German Reichstag, and then he began to systematically, and illegally expand his power. If the German Reichstag and Supreme Court (or whatever their equivalent is) had combined to force Hitler from office as he made his illegal power grab, would we be calling for his reinstatement as the “legally elected chancellor”?
Two observations:
1.) Nixon’s removal from power would not have been at the hands of the military. He would have been tried by the Senate. Instead, he chose to resign
2.) The Zelaya/Hitler comparison, as with nearly all Hilter comparisons, is completely falacious. The two or nothing alike and the situations bear very little semblence.
The fact that Venezulans are massing for an invasion (something they seem to do ever 3 monthes or so) gives credance to Obama’s decision. If, God forbid, a war does happen, the US will have no moral obligation to step in on behalf of the Hondurans. Similarly, it gives him a leg up on condemning Chavez. He can say “look, I’m not a huge fan of this situation, but invasion is not an option.” Chavez won’t be able to accuse him of backing Honduras or on having imperialistic designs on Central America. It’s a win-win, so far as I can tell
Kirk:
We try impeachments in the senate because our constitution provides for that. The Honduran constitution is probably not the same as ours. The Honduran military got an order from the Honduran Supreme COurt to Arrest Zelaya. What were they supposed to do, ignore it? What if the Supreme Court is empowered to make those determinations in Honduras instead of the Honduran senate?
Not all comparisons to Hitler are falacious. Fascist dictators (Hitler, Mussollini, Juan Peron) are generally elected to a constitutional office in their countries, and then they find some way to transform their office into Dictator for Life. (I think Hugo CHavez may have followed this career path as well). This is what Zelaya was probably doing. It’s certainly what the Honduran Congress, Supreme Court and military all thought he was doing. So they (all legally in power themselves) stopped him. So what?
And how interesting that we have a President who is willing to meddle in Honduras and Israel; but not, say, Iran. Or, Venezuela. Wonder why?
If, say, Nixon had defied the Supreme Court and Congress to held power, then it would have been perfectly appropriate for the military to step in and restore order. Note that in Honduras the military itself did not take power. Should the military not step in with a president who defied both the Supreme Court and congress, America would be in deep political manure
Curious that Obama saw fit, until he got clobbered politically, to not meddle in Iranian political matters, though he quickly meddled in favor of the leftist president of Honduras. All of this confirms that Obama is a colossal empty suit of little experience and less accomplishment.
Kirk @ 19: So what you seem to be saying is that Obama has covered himself by condemning the action of the Honduras military in removing Zelaya president. Now, if Chavez takes the Honduras, Obama can say “I told you so” to the Honduras people. Is this right? Is it really the case that the oppression of 7 million Hondurans by the dictator Chavez is a “win-win” for you?
Don’t you think it would be better if Obama condemned Chavez’ intentions now, before he invades? And, consistent with his actions with respect to Iran, declares with strength the United States’ intention to respect the Hondurans right to handle this internally? Once Chavez invades, it is too late.
There’s an awful lot of guesswork going on here. Nobody here has demonstrated significant knowledge of the Honduran government system, so I’m puzzled what anyone who thinks this isn’t a coup would offer up as a counterweight to the fact that not a single nation — among whose diplomats there surely exists someone who knows more about this topic than we who merely read news articles do — has supported the Honduran military’s actions, but in fact all have condemned them? Horribly phrased question, but still. All I see here is a bunch of guesses.
For that matter, I’d like to know what evidence there is that the Iranian election was “stolen”. Well-deserved animosity towards Ahmadinejad is not actually evidence, you know.
As for right-wing criticism of Obama, I side with George Will (as I often do): “The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient, rhetorical support for what’s going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is. And they don’t need that reinforced.”
As Obama himself explained: “The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That’s what they do. That’s what we’ve already seen. We shouldn’t be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard.”
Not that I expect anyone seeking to score political points against Obama to believe that, of course, but there seems to be an awful lot of naivete regarding how statements from our President will be perceived outside our country, and what difference they will make.
My, such marvelous irony, Obama and his toadies reduced to justifying Ahmadinejad and Zelaya, two scurrilous tyrants. One can imagine the fury of the liberals had Bush been foolish enough to have done this.
Did you know, tODD, that they counted those 25 million paper ballots in about 2 hours? We should get those Iranian election officials over here. We wouldn’t need to wait up so late for our election results!
Of course, it was a worldwide reaction that the election was rigged. Certain precinct vote totals exceeded 100% of registered voters. But that happens in Chicago as well, so, whatever.
I guess the armed putdown of unarmed protesters if further evidence of the legitimacy of the Iranian government.
But, this thread’s about Honduras. The big issue is whether Obama will also condemn Chavez and insist that Honduras sort this matter out internally, before it’s too late.
Don (@26), I said (@24), “I’d like to know what evidence there is that the Iranian election was ’stolen’.” Can you actually, you know, point me to something? Because what I’ve read not only fails to make a slam-dunk case, but it also has different numbers than you offer, which makes me wonder if you know what you’re talking about.
I’ll quote extensively from the article I read on the matter, so that at least you know what I’m reading:
Please note — I say this for the benefit of any thick people that may be reading — that I’m not saying the election isn’t fishy, or that I don’t wish Ahmadinejad would go away. Of course it is, and of course I do. But disliking Ahmadinejad doesn’t, in itself, constitute evidence that he “stole” the election.
Don (@26), “it was a worldwide reaction that the election was rigged.” Okay, give me an example from someone who knows what they’re talking about. What world leaders called the election “rigged”? I’m honestly asking. But it should be obvious that I’m looking for something other than a reaction from bloggers here. From what I’ve read, the “worldwide reaction” has been against the violence in Iran against the protesters, as politicians have been a bit more circumspect in alleging outright election fraud.
“But, this thread’s about Honduras.” Why do you only say that after I say something about Iran? You keep bringing up Iran over and over yourself (@9, @16, @23).
And Don, you’re clearly referring to something I haven’t read. “We make tepid statements that this is wrong, but it is a matter for the Iranian people to address” (@16). “Consistent with his actions with respect to Iran, declares with strength the United States’ intention to respect the Hondurans right to handle this internally” (@23). What quote are you referring to?
And Peter (@25), man-up and learn to use direct address. Don’t think you can prance around vaguely talking about Obama’s “toadies” and somehow pretend you’re not talking to me.
Against your own supposedly better judgment, Peter, you’re punching the “tar baby”. You’d like to think you’re above the fray, but you can’t keep yourself from responding to me, anyhow, no matter how serious you are. Do “family reasons” keep you from abiding by your stated convictions in this case, as well?
And Peter, reading comprehension is your friend. Asking for “evidence” isn’t actually the same as “justifying”. No, really. Just because I suspect that someone is talking using an extraoral orifice does not mean that I endorse the object of their ire.
“One can imagine the fury of the liberals had Bush been foolish enough to have done this.” Oh, yes, if only Bush “had” cozied up to authoritarian regimes. We’ll never know, of course, because that never happened … in the world that partisan right-wingers inhabit, at least.
My apologies Todd, I understand now that, far from being an Obama toady, you are a dispassionate seeker after and writer of the truth, attempting to do justice to those fair statesman, Zelaya and Ahmadinejad.
tODD, because of time constraints, I am going to let you believe that the Iranian election was totally clean. I don’t have the time or the energy to try to convince you that the election was rigged, and I don’t care enough to try. It’s tangential to the original point anyway. Here’s the original point, stated again for your benefit. With respect to Iran, Obama stated that the election was an internal affair, to be determined by the Iranian people. However, he has not made that same statement with respect to Honduras. He needs to make that statement, especially with Chavez licking his chops at the border.
Why do you think he hasn’t made that statement, tODD?
Pardon the spelling of statesmen above.
Don (@31) …
“I am going to let you believe that the Iranian election was totally clean.” Another strawman from DonS (cf @27, if you actually bother to read the whole thing).
“I don’t have the time or the energy to try to convince you that the election was rigged, and I don’t care enough to try.” It occurs to me you also don’t have the evidence.
“It’s tangential to the original point anyway.” Yes, you keep saying that when I reply to when you bring it up. I wish you’d just stop bringing it up if you don’t want a response.
“With respect to Iran, Obama stated that the election was an internal affair, to be determined by the Iranian people.” Don, I’ve already asked (@28) you what you’re referring to. I assume you know how to quote, if not make a link to an actual article.
And I’ll just point out that this is yet again an example from conservatives of “Waah, the President did not jump exactly when I said to, nor ask, ‘How high?’”
tODD — focus. We discussed Iran last week. Again, and I’ll say this slowly so that you get it — the only relevance of Iran on this Honduras thread was to point out the inconsistencies of Obama foreign policy. When there were internal political problems in Iran, the position of the Obama administration was that it was a problem for the Iranian people to handle. He did not condemn the Iranian government. On the other hand, in the case of Honduras, he immediately condemned the Honduran military for removing the president from office, even though it is far from clear that the military did anything wrong under Honduran law. MOREOVER, even though Chavez is ready to invade a sovereign country, HE HAS NOT CONDEMNED THIS THREAT OR MADE IT CLEAR THAT THIS MATTER IS AN INTERNAL HONDURAN MATTER !!!
To trivialize this issue as “Waah” is phenomenally naive. I am an American, and I want my government to stand up against the Marxist dictator Chavez and his clear designs on Latin America.
Look, Don (@34), I get that you don’t want to discuss Iran. Except, of course, when it serves your argument. Iran references are for thee to make, not me to reply to. But let’s do ignore Iran (except where you see fit) and move on to the crux of your argument: Obama’s position on Iran.
“The position of the Obama administration was that it was a problem for the Iranian people to handle.” Yeah, have you noticed that I’ve repeatedly ask you what you’re talking about? When did he say this? What, exactly, did he say? And I’m almost to the point that I have to conclude you have no idea what you’re talking about, so frequently have you asserted this point without once quoting or citing or anything that approaches actual evidence. But hey, why not try asserting it one more time without an actual quote? Maybe I’ll believe you next time.
“He did not condemn the Iranian government.” Not so. “We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people.” I’m sure it’s not enough for you (nor do I think it could be), but he has condemned that which is clearly wrong in that situation.
“On the other hand, in the case of Honduras, he immediately condemned the Honduran military for removing the president from office, even though it is far from clear that the military did anything wrong under Honduran law.” Yes, well, he and dozens of other world leaders. Is that significant to you? Think there’s something they know that you don’t? Of course not: you read the Internet, after all. What would all those diplomats know about Honduras that you and all your copious evidence don’t?
I suppose it would be too much to ask you what evidence you have that Chavez is actually “ready to invade a sovereign country”, as opposed to, say, making the kind of bluster he often does.
And then there is this statement from the White House Web site:
(emphasis mine)
But I doubt that’s enough for you. After all, with all the evidence you’ve gathered up, you surely already noted that quote.
Todd: In #29, you should have adopted the Kennedy approach, when LBJ obliquely commented that some senators were shirking their duties. The reply was that since LBJ did not name names, he must be referring to someone else. It would have been the Christian thing to do, you know, to keep the political conversation here civil. Did you know someone here complained about the uncivil tone a few months ago? I am sure that commentator would not appreciate you using commands like “Man up and learn to use direct language.”
To graciously assist you in understanding Don’s comments, I am going to assume you know how to use the internet and do some fact checking yourself. In the June 16 online edition of the Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124510480449716609.html
the linked article states:
“It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be. We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran,” Mr. Obama said.”
We are, of course, still waiting for the parallel comment concerning Honduras. Speaking of which, you missed an excellent teaching moment. In #24, you fretted about the guesswork and lack of knowledge concerning the Honduras constitution. A wasted opportunity. You know, something “for the benefit of any thick people that may be reading…”(#27). (That commentator from last fall must be cringing, assuming he is still reading this blog.) Oh, wait…..
As far as the Iranian election, Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/id/203143 has an easy-to-read breakdown.(I am sure there are other sources, but you get the idea.) I am surprised someone as well-informed as you did not already know that.
While it is true that I don’t know what you post on other blogs, I do know what you have written on your own blog, as does anyone who followed your links to your webpage. (Careful, I am switching my commentary to comments you made in another thread. Don’t want you to get lost.) But it is funny how in that later one, you tell others to get a thicker skin, in light of your earlier “toadies” complaint. Good to know that you are still good for a laugh or two.
tODD: What is enough for me is that Chavez know, in no uncertain terms, that the United States will not support or tolerate outside interference in any sovereign country in Latin America, including, especially, the explicitly threatened military intervention. Whether or not it is bluster on Chavez’ part is conjecture, but it is rather risky to rely on that notion, since, if it turns out not to be bluster, it will be too late. If you believe said statement on the White House website is adequate to convey these thoughts to Mr. Chavez then I guess the president has done his job.
Don (@36), your numerous complaints on this topic all hinged on the fact that, to your knowledge, Obama hadn’t said anything that would let Chavez know we opposed outside interference. Your position has never been merely that Obama communicate this to Chavez in some manner, but rather that he do so in a manner such that you were aware of it.
My point being, you have no idea what diplomatic communication is occurring between Obama’s administration and Chavez’s. Apparently, there were several days of communications between the U.S. and the actors in Honduras, in an attempt to forestall what has now happened. You didn’t know about it, of course — none of us here did, I’d imagine. Wise diplomatic action of that sort rarely takes place in the public eye.
No, you were complaining over and over about how Obama hadn’t made a “statement”. All you had to do was go to the White House Web site and search for “Honduras” to find such a statement, but you didn’t bother, preferring instead to claim he hadn’t made one.
And now that I’ve presented you with the statement you wanted, you hand me this weak response: “If you believe said statement on the White House website is adequate to convey these thoughts to Mr. Chavez then I guess the president has done his job.”
Again, if that were the sum total of U.S. diplomatic action on the matter, then you’d have reason to complain. But is it, Don? Do you know? Or is it merely the part that’s made it to the public?
Meanwhile, I want to know why conservatives are only concerned about dictators in Latin America, and not, say, the ones we cozy up to and consider our allies. Seems like you’re more concerned that Chavez is a Marxist than that he’s a dictator.
tODD, you’re right. Neither of us can know what is occurring through back channels of diplomacy. That was also true when you were complaining about Bush foreign policy. We comment on what is made public.
When we comment, we are communicating, as is our right and obligation as U.S. citizens, our view of what U.S. foreign policy should be. You appear to be saying that, since we can’t know everything that is going on behind the scenes, we should just sit quietly and trust that the president is doing the right thing. Quite a different view than I remember you holding during the last administration.
If Obama is, in fact, forcefully advising Chavez, behind the scenes, to keep his mitts off of Honduras, then bully for him. But otherwise, that cheesy little statement on the White House website, where you had to italicize the portion that vaguely referenced “outside” interference, because it was so vague, isn’t going to cut it. That statement should be emphasized in press briefings and it should appear in press accounts, at least side-by-side with the pronouncements that the Honduran military action is condemned. That is my view. You are free to disagree.
What dictators are we “cozying” up to? Let’s recall that the purpose of foreign diplomacy is to develop relations between the U.S. and other countries that advance our interests. Not every government is going to be perfect, or be our ideal choice, but if it is friendly to U.S. interests than we will be friendly to it. Chavez is not at all friendly to U.S. interests, and so it is in our interests to ensure that his influence in Latin America is not further expanded, particularly through the use of military force.
Don (@38), I didn’t think you’d actually accept it once I showed you that Obama had made the type of statement you were demanding. The goalposts have now been moved to include “press briefings” and “press accounts” — something that Obama has no control over, of course. And which leads me to believe that you think, oddly, that U.S. diplomacy is most effectively carried out in the American press. Perhaps this reflects your obsession with the media more than it displays your understanding of diplomacy?
As to the question of what dictators “we cozy up to”, I hope you’re only playing ignorant. Top on my list, at least in recent years, is Islam Karimov. Human rights violations, torture (reports of boiling people alive; how nice), repressive government, Communist, highly suspicious elections … and of course, a strategic ally in the War on Terror. In spite of the terror it visited on its own citizens. Hey, as long as you only boil your own (foreign) people, there’s no reason you can’t be considered friendly to U.S. interests, right?
Then, of course, there was Nursultan Nazarbayev. Pervez “military coup” Musharraf. Askar Akayev. Saparmurat Niyazov (a truly classy guy — you really should read up on him). And that’s just the ones that pop to mind under Bush’s War on Terror. To say nothing of the autocratic governments of our dear friends Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
But hey, you’ve suddenly decided it’s all about realpolitik now. Forget the complaints about fair elections and what-not — now, you seem to say, it’s simply a matter of “U.S interests”. Well, as long as you can admit that neither you nor the United States actually care about democracy in other nations, that it’s all just a farce for us to get our way, then at least there’s no hypocrisy involved, I guess.
Ahh, tODD. This from the guy who thinks that Iraq would have been better off continuing under the thumb of Saddam than it is now under its democratic form of government. So, the dictator cozying goes in both directions, it would seem.
It’s not a farce to conduct your diplomacy for the purpose of advancing American interests. All countries do that, for goodness sake. If our government were not doing that, it would not be serving its citizens’ interests. I haven’t “suddenly” decided this, and wonder where you got such an idea. This is not to say that there should not be ground rules. Things we won’t do even if they would advance our interests. We should promote democracy when and where reasonably possible. An unfriendly democracy (though I can’t imagine a truly democratic government being truly unfriendly to U.S. interests) is better than a friendly dictatorship. But, a friendly dictatorship is better than an unfriendly dictatorship.
We needed Pakistan to further our interests in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Pakistan is a mess. The goal would be to get a democratic form of government in place there, but the prospects are slim, especially after Bhutto was assassinated. As for Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are you seriously asserting they were just Bush allies? I recall Obama bowing to the Saudi king a few months ago, and giving a major address in Egypt a month ago. So what was that about?
I haven’t “moved goalposts”. I have always said Obama needs to make a strong statement. To make a strong statement means it needs to be heard. Putting it on a website, but not emphasizing it in your briefings is not making a strong statement. Like I said, maybe Obama is working behind the scenes. But I am going to continue to work for a policy that leans on Chavez, whom I consider a criminal and one who is extremely adverse to American interests, until I know it is in place.
So, you never answered my question. What do you think about Chavez, and what do you think Obama should do? At least I put an opinion out there.
tODD @ 33: By the way, yet more evidence of the status of the Iranian election: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1196783/Rigged-Suspicious-Iranian-ballot-papers-Ahmadinejad-scrawled-handwriting.html?ITO=1490
Of course, it’s not airtight yet, so I am sure that you will still be upset about my “slander” of that upright citizen President Ahmadinejad.
Don (@40), “This from the guy who thinks that Iraq would have been better off continuing under the thumb of Saddam than it is now under its democratic form of government.” I’m sorry, did I say that? Are you referring to something I said? Or is this one of your “opinions” that you are free to state without reference to actual facts? If so, there’s hardly any point in my asking you what you’re talking about.
“So, you never answered my question.” Um, where did you ask it? The only place I see that question is in the comment where you complain I haven’t answered it. Regardless, I do not support Chavez. As to what Obama should do, he should work through diplomatic channels to support the legitimate government and condemn any wrongdoing. And try not to get the U.S. drawn into the matter beyond that, or made the subject of the matter.
“At least I put an opinion out there.” Yes, well, along with several statements you could have easily determined were false if you’d bothered to look (cf. “HE HAS NOT CONDEMNED THIS THREAT OR MADE IT CLEAR THAT THIS MATTER IS AN INTERNAL HONDURAN MATTER!!!” @34; “[Obama] has not made that same statement with respect to Honduras. He needs to make that statement, especially with Chavez licking his chops at the border. Why do you think he hasn’t made that statement, tODD?” @31; “The big issue is whether Obama will also condemn Chavez and insist that Honduras sort this matter out internally” @26; “Don’t you think it would be better if Obama condemned Chavez’ intentions now” @23; and so on).
As to your comment @41, your assumption about me is wrong. Because, see, what you’re doing is citing “evidence”! Good job, Don! Did you not get the part where I kept asking for a quote, a link, anything? No, but let’s focus on the positive here. You’ve made a basis for your argument outside your own claims. Good.
Thank you for stating your opinion. This whole discussion thing works better when everyone participates in a positive way.
I must have misinterpreted what I thought were comments from you opposing the Iraq war. So, may I assume, based on your comment above, that even if you did not support the war, you acknowledge the Iraq people are better off now than they were under Saddam? If so, I guess some good came out of the Bush administration, in your view?
My statements weren’t false. I’m not sure where you are getting that idea, but if it is based on that tepid single statement on the White House website, I would hardly call that statement a “condemnation” of Chavez designs on Honduras. Would you? I mean, you are certainly free to disagree with my view, or even my characterization of the activities of our president, but please be careful about the casual tossing of labels like “false” and “slander”. Those are serious charges, and should be carefully considered before assertion.
here in brasil I have heard from several constitutional experts who are fluent in spanish..there IS a reason all latin amercan countries have condemned this as a coup.
the news?…
split the difference.
the honduran president moved to act illegally. the way he was removed from office was in fact a coup. it was done in a way that was unconstitutional. by definition I am told, this is a coup.
note please that chile and uruguai and paraguai are NOT radical liberal bastions by any definition . and brasil is firmly opposed to chavez and his methods. those in power here have a very thinly veiled loathing, but in typical brasilian fashion try to get along as best as they can.