What’s the Deal With Honduras?
I heard about the military coup in Honduras yesterday, and I’m against military coups, but I couldn’t say that I really know anything about Hoduras. This Randy Paul post seems useful.
I’ll also note as a broader analytic point that one major benefit of their not being a cold war on, is that when something like this happens pretty much everyone is against it. Hugo Chavez and his leftist bloc in Latin America are strongly anti-coup, the Obama administration is anti-coup, the European Union is anti-coup, etc. A point that often gets overlooked in the oft-airy “democracy promotion” debate in US politics is that, in practice, the greatest gift to democracy our foreign policy can give is to create a situation in which we don’t have the kind of major great power conflict that helped fuel so many coups and insurgencies in the 1945-89 period.
114 Responses to “What’s the Deal With Honduras?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 29th, 2009 at 10:49 am
The Bush administration, and virtually all of the American right, managed to pro-coup in 2002.
Perhaps the Cold War is only over for half of us.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Not many people in America care because Honduras isn’t an Islamic country. We’re all piddling our panties in fear that Islam is going to Conquer the World (they’re already conquered Eurabia) and haul us off to the ovens, so things that happen in non-Islamic countries are largely ignored.
America: the world’s biggest coward nation, soon to celebrate its eighth anniversary as such.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Once again we’re looking at things through an American-centric prism. Whether or not there were military coups in Latin America was not a function of the Cold War – there were plenty o’coups in Latin America in the years prior to the Cold War. This linkage of Latin American coups and the Cold War is a new thing.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Former coup leader Hugo Chavez opposes coup! Haha.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I’m for coos, however, if uttered by affectionate parents or exotic birds.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:18 am
” I really know anything about Hoduras. ”
I would never have guessed.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:23 am
But the important question is whether John McCain is anti-coup. Also, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. Judging by some of the right-wing blog comments I’m seeing arguing fine points of Honduran constitutional jurisprudence, I’m not confident.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I’ll also note as a broader analytic point that one major benefit of their not being a cold war on, is that when something like this happens pretty much everyone is against it.
No, there’s an op-ed by Mary Anastasia O’Grady in the WSJ that comes out in favor of the coup today.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:33 am
In terms of governments, you may have a point in regards to the anti-coup business.
However, there are a startling number of people in the Blogosphere who never gave Honduras a thought before yesterday who have decided that because Zelaya was pro-Chavez, that the coup saved democracy. Indeed, there is a piece along those lines in today’s WSJ: O’Grady: Honduras Defends Its Democracy – WSJ.com.
And Andy: no, the linkage of coups and the Cold War is not a new thing. A substantial number of coups in the region during the Cold War period were specifically linked to anti-Communism and were covertly and overtly supported by the US (depending on the example). For example, the US funded the Guatemalan coup of 1954. The coups in Brazil, Argentina and Chile were all direct artifacts of the Cold War as well.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Apparently the military was carrying out a court order. That Randy Paul post seems a little short on facts
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/world/americas/29honduras.html?_r=1&ref=world
The arrest of Mr. Zelaya was the culmination of a battle that had been simmering for weeks over a referendum, which was to have taken place Sunday, that he hoped would lead to a revision of the Constitution. Critics said it was part of an illegal attempt by Mr. Zelaya to defy the Constitution’s limit of a single four-year term for the president.
Early this month, the Supreme Court agreed, declaring the referendum unconstitutional, and Congress followed suit last week. In the last few weeks, supporters and opponents of the president have held competing demonstrations. On Thursday, Mr. Zelaya led a group of protesters to an Air Force base and seized the ballots, which the prosecutor’s office and the electoral tribunal had ordered confiscated.
When the army refused to help organize the vote, he fired the armed forces commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez. The Supreme Court ruled the firing illegal and reinstated General Vásquez.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html
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.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Wait, Obama, the EU, and Chavez is “pretty much everyone”? I think you’re overlooking something, but I’m sure the liberal media will be able to find some people who are known for disagreeing with all three of those and will be happy to do so again.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:43 am
the problem with Honduras is you have both sides–the ousted president and those who asked the military to intervene–disrupting the constitutional order. No side in this respects the existing institutions. Zelaya was on his out via normal constitutional means but the Congress and Supreme Court decided–idiotically–to involve the Army. Zelaya was trying to change the constitution to stay in power endlessly and he had been told by Congress, The Court, all political parties, ngos, etc etc that what he was doing was illegal but he did not care. He marched on a military base to ‘free’ the boxes for his illegal referendum. So in the end you have an ousted President that wanted to install himself illegally as president for life ousted illegally by the armed forces. A complete mess. What makes it worse is having Chavez declaring he will send his armed forces to reinstate Zelaya and the crazies who live int he Cold War vis-a-vis Latin America cheering the coup. Both sides are now fully back to their Cold War positions. Depressing.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I had recently been talking with someone about a job that might take me to Honduras. My wife said “but isn’t there lots of violence and coups and stuff?” I said, no, it is actually pretty stable for Central America…then this happens a week later. Just can’t win.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:50 am
This doesn’t actually seem to be a “coup” as commonly understood — the military itself is not seizing power. The President was in defiance of the law, so the Supreme Court had him removed.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Well, when you guys are talking about the “Cold War” in the context of Latin America, that is, of course, just an euphemism for squashing national liberation movements and maintaining the US empire. It has little to do with the Soviet Union; in fact the Monroe Doctrine was introduced in the early 19th century. So, obviously the end of the Cold War doesn’t change anything there.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
What happened to the Monroe Doctrine? Lost in the Asian deserts, the US military can’t even prevent a little coup in Honduras now?
June 29th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
abb1 Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Well, when you guys are talking about the “Cold War” in the context of Latin America, that is, of course, just an euphemism for squashing national liberation movements and maintaining the US empire. It has little to do with the Soviet Union; in fact the Monroe Doctrine was introduced in the early 19th century. So, obviously the end of the Cold War doesn’t change anything there.
============================================================
Absolutely right. Installing Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962 had nothing to do with it
June 29th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
@16 – to prevent? I assume the US engineered it.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Of course Mr. Yglesias is against military coups. Gotta fit in with the Georgetown cocktail party crowd, don’t you know. Men in uniform are not Stuff White People Like. Guns and uniforms are so passe, after all. In Mr. Yglesias’ world,these problems can better be solved by discussing Foucault after a couple of bong hits.
I deplore this coup, of course- not simply because it involved the military, though, but because it did so for a reactionary and oppressive cause. Military interventions which serve the intent of justice and morality are good, and those which serve the greed and self interest of oligarchic factions are bad.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
@17 – installing Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba does have something to do with it, but not in the way you (apparently) think. Cuba wanted independence and they needed Soviet patronage to break out. Yes, to this extent, to the point of taking Soviet missiles.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Military interventions which serve the intent of justice and morality are good, and those which serve the greed and self interest of oligarchic factions are bad.
OK, so we agree military interventions are always bad.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Why oh why Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
What happened to the Monroe Doctrine? Lost in the Asian deserts, the US military can’t even prevent a little coup in Honduras now?
=============================================================
You guys need to do some reading on the Monroe Doctrine. It didn’t address internal political turmoil in Latin America, but warns European countries away. It was issued in the context of Spain’s New World Empire falling apart in rebellion after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and told Spain and her allies to stop trying to reconquer the new countries.
No European involvement in Honduras that I’ve heard about
Of course in the Monroe Doctrine we also promised not to involve ourselves in European political affairs, something we kind of gave up on in the last century.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
I guess everybody isn’t against military coups, since columnists at the wsj and some commenters here and at the linked post seem to think a coup against President Zelaya was more or less justified to protect the rule of law, which he was subverting.
That’s sort of an eyebrow raiser for me. I guess the Honduran military takes a pro-active view of protecting the rule of law.
There are some questionable assumptions in the rest of the post. I’d say the biggest is that the coups and insurgencies during the Cold War were principally fueled by great power conflict, which seems to imply that is why the U.S. was messing around in Latin America for those 50 years. It bears noting that the United States started the 20th century, long before the Cold War, with the “big stick” and then “dollar diplomacy” practice of encouraging coups and insurgencies in Latin America at times, when they suited our interests, though ususually fighting coups and insurgencies after someone we supported was in power. This happened almost continuously, especially in Central America, notably in Cuba, Panama (we got a canal, they got a country), Colombia (we got a canal, they lost Panama), Haiti, Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and, lo and behold, HONDURAS! I don’t have a handy history of Honduras lying around, but Wikipedia suggests our pre-Cold War troop-landings there were more common than leap years. The aberration in US policy toward Latin America during the 20th century was not the Cold War, but FDR’s Good Neighbor Policy.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Judging by some of the right-wing blog comments I’m seeing arguing fine points of Honduran constitutional jurisprudence, I’m not confident.
The great difficulty with this coup is that no side comes out looking clean. The courts and the military are clearly reacting out of a certain reflex that cannot be fully described as pure-minded, while the ex-president (Zelaya) was on the verge of taking the constitution and civil institutions to the trash bin. It’s a complete mess. My guess is had Zelaya gone ahead and won the referendum, which was constitutionally null and void, he would have just ignored the constitutional constraints and essentially throw rule-of-law under the bus for mob democracy.
What happened to the Monroe Doctrine?
The Monroe Doctrine is not concerned with internal coups as long as they do not imperil the country’s civil order, fiscal balance, and cause anarchy and lawlessness.
In this case, it’s hard to make the case that the ousted government was for lawfulness, because it wasn’t. It led a mob to essentially forcibly take the ballots, contrary to court order.
to prevent? I assume the US engineered it.
No. The US Gov’t was solidly against it, and tried to scare off the coup leaders. A failure in that respect, I seem to understand?
Although the good thing that comes out of this is that this is a huge setback for a certain Hugo Chavez and his chums.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
The arrest of Mr. Zelaya was the culmination of a battle that had been simmering for weeks over a referendum, which was to have taken place Sunday, that he hoped would lead to a revision of the Constitution. Critics said it was part of an illegal attempt by Mr. Zelaya to defy the Constitution’s limit of a single four-year term for the president.
I don’t have a dog in this fight for anything except for my general distrust of the military’s role in Latin America and the role of such important documents as the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which binds the nations of the OAS to observe democratic rules of consitutional succession.
As for arresting Zelaya, this is why nations have police. If you know of an instance in which an elected president was arrested by the military in his pajamas, bundled onto a plane and flown to another country and it didn’t constitute an “unconsitutional interruption of the democratic order,” please let me know.
There is nothing factually wrong with my post.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
You guys need to do some reading on the Monroe Doctrine. It didn’t address internal political turmoil in Latin America, but warns European countries away.
I think the dear fellow meant the Roosevelt Corollary, not the Doctrine itself. Nonetheless, it still does not apply. Zelaya looked like he was on the way to taking external creditors for a ride, and the first principle (and primary motivation) of the Corollary is that Latin American states not get into a such a state as to warrant militarized debt collection, a la Venezuala in 1902.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Military interventions which serve the intent of justice and morality are good, and those which serve the greed and self interest of oligarchic factions are bad.
The man was taking the constitution to the trash bin, and openly leading a mob crashing military depots, against strict court order. Give a fucking grip, you fucking fool. I would preferred having him condemned by court-martial.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
What makes it worse is having Chavez declaring he will send his armed forces to reinstate Zelaya and the crazies who live int he Cold War vis-a-vis Latin America cheering the coup.
That’s pure bluster. There is no chance Chavez would get to land his troops anywhere near Honduras without the USAF smiting Caracas to the smithereens.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
You guys need to do some reading on the Monroe Doctrine. It didn’t address internal political turmoil in Latin America, but warns European countries away.
Ah, true. Apparently, it was the Roosevelt Corollary that did.
And it is fair to say that the US kept it during the Cold War. No more.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
And it is fair to say that the US kept it during the Cold War. No more.
It’s hard to figure exactly which side was engaged in “flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American Nation”; the one trying to trash the constitution, or the one trying to trash civil government?
June 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Re: I don’t have a dog in this fight for anything except for my general distrust of the military’s role in Latin America
Clearly Randy Paul. I’m sure you were distrustful of the great General Velasco in Peru, as well as men like Torrijos in Panama, and Chavez in Venezuela. Got to make the world safe for p*ssified Georgetown hipsters who don’t like men with guns. Honestly, with ‘friends’ like the hipsters Zelaya doesn’t need enemies.
Re: The man was taking the constitution to the trash bin, and openly leading a mob crashing military depots, against strict court order.
That constitution, those military depots, and that supreme court are all products of the oligarchic regime that ruled through the 1980s and exist solely to maintain the oligarchic order. The court order, in a strict moral sense, is not worth its weight in toilet paper. As the late and unlamented Lyndon Baines Johnson said to Papandreou, “F*ck you, and f*ck your Constitution.”
June 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
So what you’re saying, Myles SC, is “Democratic Republic FAIL.”
I can buy that.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Monroe Doctrine was the first time the US declared that it views all of Latin America as (albeit potentially, at that time) its own colonial domain. That was well 100 years before the Cold War. Details are not important. They US wants to control that continent and that’s all there is to it, that’s the point.
June 29th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Re: That’s pure bluster. There is no chance Chavez would get to land his troops anywhere near Honduras without the USAF smiting Caracas to the smithereens.
I doubt Obama would send in the USAF.It’s not as if our military is not already overstretched, and Obama is not going to send American boys to die for the freedom of Tegucigalpa or some such BS. That said, I doubt even more that Chavez will send in the army. It is, indeed, bluster. Chavez is many things but he isn’t a fool- he wouldn’t have survived this long if he had.
If the alliance of Leftist nations in the hemisphere is going to intervene, they will do it through trying to foment an insurgency to restore Zelaya, not by sending troops. EVen that’s highly unlikely. Just out of curiosity, what’s Medvedev’s reacion to the coup?
June 29th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
It’s hard to figure exactly which side was engaged in “flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American Nation”; the one trying to trash the constitution, or the one trying to trash civil government?
To be honest I don’t know anything about Honduras, but even if there is no “good side”, that wouldn’t have prevented the US from interfering in the past. And apparently it took Washington by surprise: what is the CIA doing with all our money?
June 29th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
And apparently it took Washington by surprise
Now, that’s bullshit. No coup d’etat ever takes place in any Latin American country without a go-ahead from the US embassy. That’s a given.
The only thing that can take Washington by surprise there is a revolution.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
So what you’re saying, Myles SC, is “Democratic Republic FAIL.”
I can buy that.
In a word, yes. It does seem like Democratic Republic FAIL. Both sides are pretty atrocious, both Zelaya’s frightening mob and the Congress and the courts, which I am guessing to lean reactionary.
But I think one misunderstand it just as a Honduran situation. The great fear seems not to be of Zelaya, but of Zelaya being a Chavez proxy.
And so in a very long-term, geopolitical sense, this setback for Chavez could be healthy for the region. The advent of Chavez and his group has essentially made Latin American conservatives very jittery, and now everything is viewed through the Chavez lens. It’s like the Western European democracies fighting the Comintern during the 1930’s; Chavez is playing the same role.
That’s why the following is erreneous:
I doubt Obama would send in the USAF.It’s not as if our military is not already overstretched, and Obama is not going to send American boys to die for the freedom of Tegucigalpa or some such BS.
This is not about Honduras, at least for the Hondurans, this is about Honduras being potentially under Chavez sway. This is essentially a Chavez fight. And I would be mighty surprised if Congress doesn’t, by overwhelming majorities, choose to hit Chavez if he dares to intervene militarily. Obama in that case would have no choice but to go along.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
And apparently it took Washington by surprise: what is the CIA doing with all our money?
Correction: Washington knew about it, tried to interfere.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124619401378065339.html
I apologize for tarnishing the good name of the CIA.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I’m sure you were distrustful of the great General Velasco in Peru, as well as men like Torrijos in Panama, and Chavez in Venezuela. Got to make the world safe for p*ssified Georgetown hipsters who don’t like men with guns. Honestly, with ‘friends’ like the hipsters Zelaya doesn’t need enemies.
Velasco and Torrijos were largely before my time. I’m hardly a fan of Chavez as I believe Latin America would be better off with institutions established and respected rather than messianic figures seeking to remain in power indefinitely. Everybody dies some time.
Getting back to Velasco, I would wager that he was sui generis. Nevertheless I’ll see your Velasco and raise you a Pinochet, Videla, Banzer, Rios Montt, Noriega, Medici, Stroessner, Castelo Branco and, well you get the idea. If you don’t, then don’t blame me for your very selective reading of history.
Warm regards.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
EVen that’s highly unlikely. Just out of curiosity, what’s Medvedev’s reacion to the coup?
He’s likely for it. He abides by traditional geopolitics, and traditional geopolitics in this case heavily frowns upon a pro-Chavez government on the isthmus.
If the proper order is disturbed in Latin America, it sets a very unsettling example for the Russian sphere of influence.
One would be surprised, really. But it does Medvedev no favours to have anti-American governments in Latin America. It just causes needless friction.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Anyway, that’s good news for the War Lobby. If the Asian War on Terror keeps getting more and more unpopular, it will be time for another round of War for Democracy in Latin America.
I hear Chavez is building WMDs with the help of North Korea.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“We made it clear it was something we didn’t support.”
He probably was winking real hard and with both eyes while saying that.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Even if you sympathize with Zelaya’s political goals, you have to recognize that if the president is acting in direct violation of the constitution, it puts all the high level political actors in a tough spot. At some point arresting the president is an appropriate course of action.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
It’s hard to apprehend how a Chavez axis is a great danger to the interests of all the Great Powers, but it is quite true. China and Russia gains nothing from Chavez putting them in awkward positions having to pretend to support him.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Re: This is not about Honduras, at least for the Hondurans, this is about Honduras being potentially under Chavez sway. This is essentially a Chavez fight. And I would be mighty surprised if Congress doesn’t, by overwhelming majorities, choose to hit Chavez if he dares to intervene militarily. Obama in that case would have no choice but to go along.
I can’t parse that first sentence of yours. “For the Hondurans” this is most definitely a civil conflict, not a plucky struggle againts Venezuelan dominance. (As if Honduras hasn’t functionally been under U.S. military and economic dominance for most of the last 100 years. Just why is it OK for us but not for Venezuela). The news reports seem to suggest that support for Zelaya was running about 50/50, so if the conservatives want to get rid of Zelaya’s regime they have to fight not just against Venezuela but against half of the citizenry.
It doesn’t matter what Congress would prefer to do or not- the American people are not going to stand for American soldiers- our sons and daughters- being sent to risk their lives to keep Chavez from dominating Honduras. Who gives a f*ck about Honduras in Peoria? If Congress votes for war they will be tossed out in the next election.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Re: It’s hard to apprehend how a Chavez axis is a great danger to the interests of all the Great Powers, but it is quite true. China and Russia gains nothing from Chavez putting them in awkward positions having to pretend to support him.
Wrongo, Myles. I don’t know about Medvedev, but Putin for one was a close ally of Nicaragua and Venezuela (and I suspect Bolivia and Ecuador too) and started developing closer ties with Cuba towards the end of his term.
Russia would gain a lot from anything that threatens American hegemony in the region. And it’s also possible Putin might have some ideological sympathies for the Latin American left-wing regimes- for their opposition to political liberalism, if not to capitalism.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
It doesn’t matter what Congress would prefer to do or not- the American people are not going to stand for American soldiers- our sons and daughters- being sent to risk their lives to keep Chavez from dominating Honduras.
Yes it is. The United State is a representative democracy, not a direct or mob democracy. Congress is empowered to decide, by itself, on what protects long-term American interests. What the people want, as it relates to some obscurity as Honduras, is utterly irrelevant. If the Congress judges Chavez to be a legitimate ideological threat, it is empowered to act to correct that situation.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Re: Nevertheless I’ll see your Velasco and raise you a Pinochet,
Oddly enough the first leader to try to carry out socialist revolution in Chile, was a military man, of radical Socialist leanings, named (believe it or not) Colonel Marmaduke Grove.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
While twirling his mustache and stomping kittens, of course.
I heard that Barack Obama’s REAL father was John Foster Dulles. Eye roll.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
I don’t know about Medvedev, but Putin for one was a close ally of Nicaragua and Venezuela (and I suspect Bolivia and Ecuador too) and started developing closer ties with Cuba towards the end of his term.
Nicaragua was a pet irritation, and Venezuela too. But with the Honduran incident, where the coup-leaders cited Chavez as motivation, now Chavez is taken on a mantle that could potentially destabilize Great Power relations seriously.
And there is a very good argument to be made that if Chavez is allowed to grow any stronger, the threat he poses would not just to be the United States, but to Great Powers and current distribution-of-power generally (US, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom). Most people, unlike you, have learned from the harrowing experiences of stupid foreign-policy jingoism, a la Russian support for Balkans against the Austro-Hungarians.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Russia would gain a lot from anything that threatens American hegemony in the region.
You still live in the Cold War, it seems. Russia can barely control her outer regions, let alone worry a lot about Latin America politics.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Matt, the military action seems to have been prompted by the Venezuelan threat to intervene militarily against any attempt to oust or impeach the Honduran president. At that point, it’s hard to see the military action as particularly reprehensible, given that there is no appearance of being prompted by ambition or personal gain by the Army commander.
In fact, they seem to have acted sensibly to protect the constistution in a position where there is no legal and safe method of resolution, and may have forestalled a nightmare of coup, countercoup and bloody violence between the President & his domestic & foreign supporters, and his opponents, military and otherwise.
Whether this is a move by the soi-disant elites to retain control is neither here nor there, for a President who has so blatantly acted in breach of Constitution, Supreme Court, and Congressional law.
Suppose, for instance, that George Bush had in 2006 declared that he had the right to include a vote on a referendum to unilaterally allow him to stand for President a third time, and that this referendum would be conducted and counted by the Republican party due to the ‘conspicuous treason and elitism’ of the Democratic party? If the JCS Chairman then intervened and deposed him when he was rallying the Texas national guard, would you call this a coup? and would you be against it?
June 29th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
All the Great Powers understand Latin America as the American sphere of influence, and so have very little incentive for the existence serious threats to American power within that theatre, America’s very stupid infatuation with the Georgians notwithstanding.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Re: You still live in the Cold War, it seems. Russia can barely control her outer regions, let alone worry a lot about Latin America politics.
Why oh Why,
Extending Russian influence into the Andes (unlike, say, the Caucasus or the Pamirs) takes the sacrifice of money, but not the sacrifice of soldiers or military materiel. So I can certainly see why it would be attractive for Putin.
I would say you’re not living _enough_ in light of the Cold War, in the sense you don’t seem to realise (nor Myles either) that this is an ideological conflict as much as a national one. People will kill and die for an ideology at least as readily as for a bit of swampland in the middle of the Mosquito Coast.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
And yet, they do! The Russians have been making all kinds of overtures to people like Chavez, including military aid. The refusal of the Russian nationalists to accept that their country is now a regional power, rather than a global superpower, must not be underestimated. It’s wholly irrational, but there it is.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Re: All the Great Powers understand Latin America as the American sphere of influence,
If France could conveniently forget about this during the Second Napoleonic Empire, and Russia during the Cold War, then I fail to see why this principle must apply today. the US would LIKE Latin AMerica to be its sphere of influence, but there’s no reason other countries should respect that. On the contrary, America is in a (relatively) weak position now both economically and (due to overstretch) militarily. It’s a great moment for Russia to make a bid to carve out her sphere of influence south of the Lacandon.
Anyway, what about the Latin Americans? Did you convenienty forget to ask whether they would LIKE to be under US hegemony? Your point of view is as immoral as saying that the murder of Nagy was OK because Hungary is in Russia’s sphere of influence.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Suppose, for instance, that George Bush had in 2006 declared that he had the right to include a vote on a referendum to unilaterally allow him to stand for President a third time, and that this referendum would be conducted and counted by the Republican party due to the ‘conspicuous treason and elitism’ of the Democratic party? If the JCS Chairman then intervened and deposed him when he was rallying the Texas national guard, would you call this a coup? and would you be against it?
Now imagine that the president of Honduras had been chosen by a Supreme Court appointed by his father, after one of his brother’s cronies stopped an electoral recount in one of the regions. Should the Honduras military then intervene?
June 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Re: It’s wholly irrational, but there it is.
Joe from Lowell,
Politics _itself_ is an irrational business. And rightly so, because it involves questions of morality and meaning, which cannot be solved by pure reason. It’s a good thing that we are not utility-maxmizing robots.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I would say you’re not living _enough_ in light of the Cold War, in the sense you don’t seem to realise (nor Myles either) that this is an ideological conflict as much as a national one. People will kill and die for an ideology at least as readily as for a bit of swampland in the middle of the Mosquito Coast.
There is an ideological conflict in many Latin America countries (see also, Bolivia, Peru…), but it doesn’t interest the Great Powers anymore, and I think that’s what Matt was getting at. The US knew and opposed this coup, but didn’t do much about it. It is unlikely that Russia really cares either.
It seems the Cold War is indeed over in South America, except when oil is involved as in Venezuela.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
There’s a school of thought, Why oh Why, that argues that even (most of) the “Cold War” interventions we conducted in Latin American were actually about resources and economic interests, with anti-Russian arguments slapped on them for branding purposes.
After all, the United Fruit coup wasn’t terribly different from what we were doing for a century before WW2.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Anyway, what about the Latin Americans? Did you convenienty forget to ask whether they would LIKE to be under US hegemony?
I don’t think anyone cares about them; I certainly don’t.
There is an ideological conflict in many Latin America countries (see also, Bolivia, Peru…), but it doesn’t interest the Great Powers anymore, and I think that’s what Matt was getting at.
Precisely. The ideological discord, as it exists, is essentially Latin American populism against a globalized economic system. I doubt either Putin-Medvedev or the Chinese Communist Party have any interest whatsoever in encouraging anti-free market regional populism. The Chinese, for their part, vehemently opposed the Nepalese Maoists.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Re: I don’t think anyone cares about them; I certainly don’t.
I’m sure some Leftists said that about the murder of Nagy in 1956 for ‘reasons of state’. It was wrong from them, and it’s wrong from you.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
That is to say, Myles: politics is in essence applied morality, and to remove the dimension of morality is to strip politics of all meaning.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I’m sure some Leftists said that about the murder of Nagy in 1956 for ‘reasons of state’.
Do you want to risk nuclear war over tiny country called Hungary? I certainly don’t.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
politics is in essence applied morality, and to remove the dimension of morality is to strip politics of all meaning.
If we didn’t have so much grandiloquent, preposterous moralizing we likely would have had the two world wars. I much prefer to strip politics of meaning than strip the world of peace.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Likely would not have had*
June 29th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
@49 Eye roll.
Yeah, joe, roll whatever you want. Had the US ambassador told them not to do it, nothing would’ve been done – and that’s all there is to it. If you don’t understand this, clearly you don’t understand anything at all.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
That is to say, Myles: politics is in essence applied morality, and to remove the dimension of morality is to strip politics of all meaning.
Sure, inside the borders. I’m not sure why you keep trying to apply morality to diplomacy and meddling in foreign countries’ affairs. Except for a few humanitarian interventions in Africa, I’m not sure this ever happened, whatever the rhetoric.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Yeah, and BTW, if Obama doesn’t like the coup, all he has to do is make a phone call – and Zelaya will be brought back in 10 minutes.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I’ve been reading your juvenile Marxist nonsense for some time now, abb1, and I haven’t the foggiest idea where you get the notion that your are knowledgeable, informed, or sophisticated.
Conspiracy theorists are people who can’t encompass the complexity and moral ambivalence of how the world actually works, and respond by convincing themselves that buying into simplistic narratives about shadowy forces operating in cahoots is the mark of a sophisticate.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Marxist? Conspiracy theorists? You’ve gotta be kidding, man. This is merely common sense and common knowledge open to everyone but the faithful Outer Party members like yourself.
June 29th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
It took Matt all of 5 seconds to decide that, even though he really knew nothing About Iran, something terrible had happened because of vote totals.
yet he is incapable lf understanding that the overthrow of a Democratically elected leader is a bad thing regardless of the surrounding circumstances.
Why, it’s almost as if Matt Only favored dictatorships run by right-wing oligarchs!
June 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Joe, Given the history of the region it is impossible to label the belief that we could have stopped this a ‘conspiracy’. We’ve been involved in over throwing many South-American countries, including this one. At this point, the burden of proof is on us to prove we didn’t do this.
I see a several of ’school of the Americas’ names in these news reports. Just Because Obama and the Us Government make some claims doesn’t mean they actually made any attempt to stop this.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
@43 Even if you sympathize with Zelaya’s political goals, you have to recognize that if the president is acting in direct violation of the constitution, it puts all the high level political actors in a tough spot. At some point arresting the president is an appropriate course of action.
Here:
Yeah, a non-binding referendum that would determine whether Congress should or could convene – that definitely sounds like a crime against humanity. Arrest the bastard now!
June 29th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Had the US ambassador told them not to do it, nothing would’ve been done – and that’s all there is to it. If you don’t understand this, clearly you don’t understand anything at all.
Look, I read as much Chomsky as the next guy, but this strikes me as incredibly specious reasoning. I eat a lot of burritos, but every time a burrito gets eaten it doesn’t mean I was the one who ate it.
Or to put it another way, A–>B != B–>A
You’re vastly overestimating American power here. Given the other manifestations of Obama’s foreign policy, I’d like to see a shred of evidence before making claims like this.
I see a several of ’school of the Americas’ names in these news reports. Just Because Obama and the Us Government make some claims doesn’t mean they actually made any attempt to stop this.
That’s a fair point. It’s doubtful the US made a maximal effort to stop this coup. But that’s a far cry from saying they tacitly supported it.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Frankly, the last thing the United States need is another ham-handed intervention in the region. The last time America tried to do the “right” thing by the developing countries, the Suez crisis, it turned out to be a complete fucking disaster for Western interests. The American government organized a run on the pound sterling, and then subsequently gave the Soviets an opening in all those ex-colonial areas France and Britain were so tenuously holding on to.
So, lesson for the day: when there is a pro-Western coup, ignore it and don’t do anything about it. And especially don’t try to restore the anti-Western guy who was turfed out.
June 29th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
You guys are idiots. Things work in a certain way down there in Latin America. It is what it is. Once in a while presidents are elected who refuse to follow orders from Washington, but the generals always do – and presidents get assassinated or exiled. Sometimes there is a revolution and generals fail, then mercenaries and paramilitaries are recruited and sent there to terrorize the population and stop it. That’s it, that’s the M.O. You eat burritos, and now you ate another burrito.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
…the way that harmonizes the best with my political ideology, of course.
And also, it doesn’t ever work any other way. No, I don’t need evidence. How naive!
June 29th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
soullite,
I’m old enough to have lived through much of that “history of the region.” I remember how it works.
There has been no demonization of Zelaya in the American press. There have no been no horror stories about the government’s depredations on the Honduran people.
C’mon, you remember the overheated nonsense in the mainstream and wingnut press about Hugo Chavez just before the Bush-backed coup. Tell the truth: you didn’t know who the President of Honduras was before you read about this story, did you? I sure didn’t.
This does not smell like the old American-sponsored coups. Going back long before the Cold War, there were plenty of military coups and strongmen regimes kicking each other out that had nothing to do with us.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
OK, “much” is a bit much. Some of it, anyway.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Apparently abb1 has somehow concluded that he knows “how things work” in Latin America, and that things will always work that way. Thus, he’s able to opine on any situation that might occur there without the necessity for any factual knowledge about the country or the events in question.
Pretty convenient, that.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
What ideology? I don’t need no friggin ideology to see simple mechanics obvious to everybody.
But you… You seriously do believe that those generals went to the US embassy, shared their plans with the US ambassador, were told not to do it, and then went ahead and did it anyway, huh?
You seriously truly sincerely believe this story and you don’t even get a slightest headache, is that right? That’s your story?
June 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
So obvious that almost nobody on a liberal web site agree with you.
Show us some evidence for your claims. C’mon, anything.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
You keep vacillating between “knew about” and “approved.”
Plainly, they knew about it. The State Department spokesman said that.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Myles SG Says:
June 29th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Frankly, the last thing the United States need is another ham-handed intervention in the region.
Too late:
President Barack Obama says the weekend ouster of Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya was a “not legal” coup and that he remains the country’s president.
Obama spoke to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday after meetings with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. Obama said he wanted to be very clear that President Zelaya is the democratically elected president.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D994I12O2&show_article=1
June 29th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“We made it clear it was something we didn’t support,” quotes the WSJ. Do you believe this to be true?
June 29th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
abb1, you think Obama engineered this coup that he openly opposes? So it is all his secret plan to make himself look weak or uninterested?
June 29th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Certainly.
Obama’s statements since then demonstrate that pretty convincingly.
You’re so smart and knowledgeable about how American intervention in Latin America works, abb1. Please rattle off the examples of American-backed coups that were greeted by denunciations and the unambiguous backing of the deposed leader by the President of the United States.
And which were NOT proceeded by a propaganda campaign against the deposed leader in the American press.
Try not to crash the server with your examples, o worldly one.
June 29th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I answered your question, now answer Why oh Why’s”
Do you think Obama engineering this coup, the way the Bushies engineering the 2002 coup against Chavez, or the CIA engineering the coup against Mossedegh?
June 29th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Dammit. First we have the liberal hipsters (Mr. Yglesias), and the conservative hipsters (Myles SG) and now we have the Marxist hipsters (Mr. Abb1). WTF is wrong with the commentariat on this blog?
Mr. Abb1, I’m pretty much as far left as they come, at least on issues of economics, and I think it’s pretty clear that this coup was not “Made in the USA”. Obama represents the soft, liberal, p*ssified wing of bourgeois late-capitalism, and that sort of people don’t much like men with guns. I would count on Obama to do his best to undermine any attempts at actual _revolution_ (much as his predecessor Billy Blow-Job did back in 2000 with the attempted revolution in Ecuador) but I doubt he would actually be into fostering a coup. Particularly when the US has easier ways of bringing down Zelaya’s regime, like cutting off trade. Coups were a tool that the CIA used in the past, but they’ve fallen out of fashion with the boys at Langley these days (for whom I have exactly the same respect as I do for Yglesian hipsters, that is to say very little).
To believe that every right wing coup in the region is made in Washington, is frankly beyond stupid. It’s not even Marxist- serious Marxists like Hobsbawm were much smarter than that. Strange as it may seem, Latin Americans are capable of doing good and evil things without the prompting of the CIA or the Russians.
June 29th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Dammit. First we have the liberal hipsters (Mr. Yglesias), and the conservative hipsters (Myles SG) and now we have the Marxist hipsters (Mr. Abb1).
It’s quite novel to learn that I am to be deemed a hipster. Never knew that wearing Vineyard Vines makes your hipster-y.
June 29th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
You guys are idiots. Things work in a certain way down there in Latin America. It is what it is.
QED, muthafuckas. Boom!
No, but seriously….the more I read about this crisis the more I’m siding with the overthrowers. Listen to this from the Wikipedia article (which is being heavily moderated right now):
ZOMGCIA!!!
June 29th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Things work in a certain way down there in Latin America. It is what it is. Once in a while presidents are elected who refuse to follow orders from Washington, but the generals always do – and presidents get assassinated or exiled.
As someone married to a Latina, with Latino relatives and Latino friends from at least fifteen countries your patronizing comments are in a word, contemptible.
In the 1980’s Oscar Arias Sanchez successfully resisted pressure from the Reagan administration to reëstablish the Costa Rican military and worked out the settlement of the civil wars in Central America, winning the Nobel Peace Prize in the process. You should read his acceptance speech; it’s one of the best eviscerations of Reagan’s CA policy.
In recent years, Lula’s government in Brazil has been able to get judgments in the WTO against cotton subsidies in the US. Sugar is probably next. Rather than look towards the north much of Latin America has been looking towards the east. Trade with India and China will probably soon outpace trade with the US.
As for the military, it has been severely weakened in countries such as Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. In Brazil, I have a couple of cousins who have graduated from Agulhas Negras, the primary military academy roughly equivalent to West Point. The general sentiment is that the older commissioned officers grumble a lot about civilian rule, but the younger ones are fully accepting of it.
Your view is very 20th century. The world has changed.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:10 am
Do you think Obama engineering this coup, the way the Bushies engineering the 2002 coup against Chavez, or the CIA engineering the coup against Mossedegh?
What difference does it make which way it’s been engineered? The US government is a bureaucracy, someone in the CIA is responsible for Latin America, they know the details, they know how to help “our” guys and how to get rid of “bad” guys, who to assassinate, who to bribe – that’s their job. They do the engineering and report upstairs.
Why are you asking me this?
June 30th, 2009 at 4:38 am
Mr. Abb1, I’m pretty much as far left as they come, at least on issues of economics, and I think it’s pretty clear that this coup was not “Made in the USA”.
Note that this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with left and right; it’s about the way things work. See, for example: arguing that Earth is not flat doesn’t make one a left-winger. Remember that “reality-based community”; what happened to that thing when a Democrat got elected? Is it that whatever this new guy says is the reality now?
June 30th, 2009 at 4:51 am
Note that this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with left and right; it’s about the way things work. See, for example: arguing that Earth is not flat doesn’t make one a left-winger. Remember that “reality-based community”; what happened to that thing when a Democrat got elected?
Well, bro, between myself and Randy Paul @ 93, we’ve given you about nine paragraphs of “reality.” Care to address any of these points? Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion? Or do you just want to spout out more baseless assumptions and pretend that they’re facts?
June 30th, 2009 at 5:02 am
Could you summarize your paragraphs please. I couldn’t find either reality or “reality” in your comments other than Randy having a wife and friends, which is nice (I suppose), but irrelevant.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:07 am
Ah, BTW, I have to ask: the word “nonbinding” in your quote ( to hold a “nonbinding” public referendum) being in scare quotes there – does it mean that the referendum would be, in fact, binding or something? Please advise.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:13 am
Can we end this inane discussion of the fine points of Chomsky, and get back to discussing the pros and cons of civiliam control of the military and of spheres of influence? That was so much more interesting.
Scythia, it’s certainly true that both Zelaya and the overthrowers have some claim to _legality_ here, and that the military was following a long tradition of militaries who claim obedience to the good of the nation as a whole rather than to a particular elected official. That said, partly because legality is dubious in this case we need to address the question of morality: were Zelaya’s actions in fact putting the good of Honduras in so much jeopardy that it was worth resorting to violence to overthrow him. ANd to that, my answer is decidedly “No,” at least not unless by the “common good” you really mean “the economic and political comfort of the oligarchy.” Ultimately the question is whether you prefer the constitution to be stretched for the benefit of the rich, or of the poor.
Again, Honduras’ constitution was written during a period of tight oligarchical control of the country, and as such it has about as much moral weight for me as Stalin’s constitution of 1936.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Overthrowers have a claim to legality, Hector? That doesn’t seem to be the case at all. Typical banana-republic coup d’etat by a military junta. Perhaps you could point to some international entity that has accepted its legality.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:20 am
abb1 –
It’s obvious that you’re grossly ignorant about recent history and politics in Latin America.
You may think that you sound sophisticated by saying things like “typical banana republic coup,” but no one with more than the shallowest understanding of the region will ever take you seriously, nor should they.
June 30th, 2009 at 9:41 am
What is it exactly that I’m ignorant about, my friend? Enlighten me, I beg you. Which part of “typical banana-republic coup d’etat” sounds controversial to you and why?
June 30th, 2009 at 10:11 am
I couldn’t find either reality or “reality” in your comments other than Randy having a wife and friends, which is nice (I suppose), but irrelevant.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
I provided several examples of just how Latin America is different than the 1970’s and 1980’s. You merely choose to ignore them and issue patronizing commetns like Banana Republic.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Randy, I don’t see how your examples contradict anything I said.
Yes, of course it’s not so openly predatory as it was 70 years ago, or even 40 years ago – that’s plainly obvious. But so what, who said it was exactly like 40 years ago? I certainly didn’t.
In one form or another, one degree or another, the US control remains; you’d be silly to deny it, and I am sure you won’t. And there’s nothing patronizing about it, it’s reality.
And it’s also obvious to everyone that a military coup like this one does not commence without some sort of US approval or participation; for one thing all those generals are US-trained and probably on CIA payroll; for another, the US has a friggin military base right there in Honduras.
How can you deny the obvious? C’mon man.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Because you’ve provided no proof of anything, that’s how.
Because the president’s public statements contradict your presumptions.
There is also this:
Let’s take this a step further: Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction in the past. He had been pursuing them as well. By using a mix of presumption and wishful thinking the Bush administration attempted to justify a war without proof.
You’ve provided about as much substance for your arguments.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
You’re wrong, Randy; in fact, I did provide convincing, albeit circumstantial proof. Yes, certainly not enough to start a war or convict in a court of law, but that isn’t my intention.
You, on the other hand, have nothing but official statements, that don’t ever – ever – pass a laughing test. In fact, when you quote an official statement, it makes more sense to assume the opposite than take it at a face value.
And with that in mind, I don’t see how your bringing the US government lies about the reason for the Iraq war should support your case. Please try to explain it to me. The previous administration lied, therefore the current administration doesn’t – is that it? You need to work on this one, I’m afraid.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
You’re wrong, Randy; in fact, I did provide convincing, albeit circumstantial proof.
Suppositions don’t even rise to the level of circumstnantial proof.
The previous administration lied, therefore the current administration doesn’t – is that it? You need to work on this one, I’m afraid.
You have provided no proof of any lies. None.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
150-year history of the region is not a supposition. The patterns of behavior based on 150-year history are not suppositions.
The US military base in Honduras is a fact.
Their military leadership being trained in the school of the americas is a fact, here: http://www.soaw.org/:
The pattern of the US government (any government, really) lying every chance they get is not a supposition, it’s the established fact.
Common sense, logic – that’s not a supposition, your stubborn refusal to follow notwithstanding.
All in all, I think I have a decent case here, and what do you have? Official statements?
June 30th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
You have provided no proof of lying in this instance. You’re assuming facts not in evidence.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Governments lie, they do all the time. Everyone knows that, that is not controversial.
Are you still with me?
Do you see what just happened? I just destroyed your proof. Your evidence has no value. Do you understand? I don’t need to prove that they are lying in this particular case, I only need to demonstrate that they are not trustworthy. And they are not.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Do you see what just happened? I just destroyed your proof.
You’ve done nothing of the kind. Absent actual evidence, you’re merely speculating.
That’s my last word on this to you.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Right. I’m speculating based on good, solid circumstantial evidence.
And you are speculating based on nothing whatsoever, except perhaps some sort of a gut feeling, truthiness. You’re not different from any wingnut circa 2003.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Zelaya was representing the people that elected him, and he was attempting to poll his constituents regarding the vitality or lack thereof of the current Honduran constitution. this clearly threatened the oligarchy, and that is why he was overthrown. constitutions are not sacred.
as i am a progressive, this Honduran coup is not a legal issue for me; i am on the side of the exploited workers and their leaders. the rich don’t need laws to maintain their dominance, and what laws they rely on to justify their exploitation are just a fig leaf. after all, if they control the military “they don’t need no stinking badges”.
all the comments that i have read on this thread i believe are sincere and thoughtful.
as a usa citizen that was born in latin america, i recommend that all progressives pay careful attention to what is transpiring south of the border; the alba countries are creating a blueprint for how nations can collaborate in recognition, and for our shared humanity. maybe i am naive, but i think that we have no other choice, if we adhere to change we can believe in.
July 4th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
[...] Matt Y, Randy [...]