Opposing coups
In an unpleasant throwback to the bad old days of Latin American politics, the president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, has been ousted in a military coup.
Soldiers entered the presidential palace in the capital, Tegucigalpa, and disarmed the presidential guard early Sunday, military officials said. Mr. Zelaya’s private secretary, Eduardo Enrique Reina, confirmed the arrest.
Mr. Zelaya flew into exile in Costa Rica, telling a local television station, “They are creating a monster they will not be able to contain.”
Much of the capital was without electricity on Sunday and residents stood on long lines to buy kerosene for home generators. Military tanks patrolled the streets and military planes flew overhead. Soldiers were on guard at all the main government buildings and military trucks dropped off police at strategic crossings throughout the city, residents said.
Political tensions have increased in recent weeks, as Mr. Zelaya pressed ahead with plans for a nonbinding referendum that opponents said would open the way for him to rewrite the constitution to run for re-election despite a one-term limit.
In the weeks leading up to the referendum, supporters and opponents of the president held competing demonstrations.
Last week, the Supreme Court and Congress both declared the referendum unconstitutional. But on Thursday, the president led a group of protesters to an air force installation and seized the ballots, which the prosecutor’s office and the electoral tribunal had ordered confiscated.
Are military coups against democratically-elected leaders ever justified? What about when the leaders themselves are behaving in ways that are clearly undemocratic? My opinion is that the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the elected leader. That’s why I opposed both Colonel Hugo Chavez’s attempted coup against Venezuelan President Carlos Andrés Pérez in 1992 and the attempted coup against President Hugo Chavez ten years later.
And that’s why I think the US should join other Latin American countries in calling for the reinstatement of Zelaya.
Caracas Chronicles notes Chavez’s predictably hypocritical reaction to the ouster of his ally Zelaya compared to his eager support for the Iranian regime and its fraudulent and brutal response to the recent presidential election– what some have called a coup.
Update: The Obama administration supported an OAS resolution denouncing the Honduran coup and calling for the reinstatement of Zelaya.
Comments
| 28 June 2009, 10:34 pm |
http://faustasblog.com/?p=13639
Fausta translates La Prensa:
An official statement of the Supreme Court of Justice explained that the Armed Forces acted under lawful grounds when detaining the President of the Republic, and by decommissioning the materials to be used on the illegal poll which aimed to bring forth Executive Power against a judicial order.
Other sources verified that the president of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti, will assume the presidency of the republic in a few hours.
…
Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was detained this morning by the military in compliance with an order of the courts of law.
| 28 June 2009, 10:35 pm |
Why isn’t he prosecuted? Or Impeached? Or whatever they do in Honduras?
Good question. No matter how wrong he was, a military ouster of him was even more wrong.
| 28 June 2009, 10:40 pm |
I agree, Gene. But this gets murkier. Can Honduran courts direct the military to seize people? (My only experience with this is Panama in the 1970s, when the Guardia National were the de facto and dejure police force, as well as the national army.
At any rate, the Honduran constitution is very explicit about how it is to be amended, and Zelaya was having none of it.
| 28 June 2009, 11:06 pm |
From what I understand (and granted, as a US citizen my opinions on events in Latin America don’t carry much weight) a coup is when a small clique usurps government power, takes it over, and blocks out political opposition to said clique. That’s a coup.
Here the Supreme Court and Congress (including his own party, from what I gather) responds — with the military as its enforcement arm — to a unilateral push by the executive without oversight from the democratic institutions responsible for such. Then again, they swarmed on the executive with soldiers and surrounded government buildings with tanks, cut off the televisions, etc.
It’s certainly odd. I guess we’ll have to wait and see how it shakes out.
BTW: The BBC is using quotes around coup. i.e. “coup”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm
“Congress swiftly appointed its speaker Roberto Micheletti – a member of Mr Zelaya’s Liberal Party, but an opponent of him – as acting head of state.”
Like I said, a bit strange.
| 28 June 2009, 11:12 pm |
It’s a counter coup, not a coup. When the President breaks the law, fires the head of the military and threatens to rip up the constitution, its a coup. The military should be the defenders of the ‘people’. The military are not running the country, they have not taken the raines of state, they are blocking an illegal power grab by a (socialist) president.
| 28 June 2009, 11:31 pm |
Yes, Doc, you might be right. I should add, though, that I’m very ignorant about Honduras and I’d caution people from making concrete affirmations about the so-called coup. (This goes for that crackpot Chavez too, whose bluster is legendary.)
I noticed this from Reuters (and now that I’ve learned I can use blockquotes here):
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE55R24E20090628
A former businessman who sports a cowboy hat and thick mustache, Zelaya fired military chief Gen. Romeo Vasquez last week for refusing to help him run Sunday’s unofficial survey on extending the four-year term limit on Honduran presidents.
See, this is very weird. Zelaya asks the head of the military to help him run an “unofficial” survey. Does the army really have a hand in the ballot process? I find this either hard to believe or Zelaya was up to something weird. Then again, swooping down on government buildings with soldiers and exiling the president is also, um, not normal. I honestly have no idea what is going on.
Someone help.
| 29 June 2009, 12:34 am |
zelaya was wearing a tshirt at the time of making his statement that made me instantly mistrust him. leaders that put too much effort into wearing bad clothes so that they can appear populist are invariably overcompensating for lack of any substance (cf ahmadinejad, chavez and the bolivian guy)
| 29 June 2009, 1:07 am |
Some 200 soldiers surrounded the president’s residence in the east of the capital Tegucigalpa, disarming 10 members of the president’s personal bodyguard.
“Today’s events originate from a court order by a competent judge. The armed forces, in charge of supporting the constitution, acted to defend the state of law and have been forced to apply legal dispositions against those who have expressed themselves publicly and acted against the dispositions of the basic law,” the country’s highest court said.
| 29 June 2009, 1:38 am |
Gene
I disagree you cannot always hold that the use of military to oppose a tyrant is wrong.
An elected president can become a tyrant when he usurps lawful rule and tears up the constitution and attempts to establish himself as perpetual head of state.
Clearly Zelaya had begun to use a military faction (the airforce) to effect a coup.
Only military power at this point could have stopped him and as the military is a lawful power and seems not to have overstepped the mark indeed it is defending democracy and constitutional legality.
There are other examples of Dictatorships that have been moved towards democracy by the judicious use of military pressure (as in Brazil) or revolutionary coup (Portugal).
I am not sure quite which principle you are supporting Gene?
Shouldn’t tyrants be resisted by a force proportionate to removing them and restoring the mandate of the electorate?
| 29 June 2009, 1:59 am |
mettaculture, I don’t know the legal procedure for removing the president of Honduras. Does it take a vote of Congress? Does the Supreme Court have the power to order the military to arrest the president and take him to another country (I kind of doubt it)? Whatever it is, it should have been followed. If he was acting contrary to law, why wasn’t Zelaya arrested and tried in Honduras instead of being deposited in Costa Rica?
As I’m sure you know, military coups have a long and sordid history in Latin America, and I hate to see history repeating itself.
| 29 June 2009, 2:40 am |
Come, Gene, what we are witness to is a robust debate. Or so Obama would term it if he needed to suck up to the regime.
why wasn’t Zelaya arrested and tried in Honduras
In this case shoving Zelaya into Costa Rica was probably the best thing to do to avoid conflict. Just because he was a would be totalitarian ass doesn’t mean he didn’t have any supporters and wouldn’t call on them. Lefties are like that.
| 29 June 2009, 3:04 am |
I’m thinking Zelaya started a game of constitutional “chicken” with the rest of the government. And lost.
| 29 June 2009, 3:08 am |
“Does the Supreme Court have the power to order the military to arrest the president and take him to another country (I kind of doubt it)?”
That is not the point. Laws are tools of the state and of society. When people draw up a constitution they cannot foresee all eventualities. When the Supreme Court does something, it is about as legal as legal can be. Was the president attempting to illegally use the military to oppose decisions of the Judiciary and Legislature? Yes.
Allende did something similar.
| 29 June 2009, 3:22 am |
Does the despotic Honduran regime possess Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Are British-owned offshore banking institutions in the Caribbean in danger from Honduran aggression?
Is Blair calling for British intervention yet?
| 29 June 2009, 4:59 am |
I do not know all that much about Central America, but elections are elections. Clearly the Congress, military and Supreme Court were scared of a non-binding referendum. That is all you need to know.
“Allende did something similar.”
Yes exactly, and these people are the Pinochets. I doubt they will get support from the US this go around though.
| 29 June 2009, 9:38 am |
mettaculture
and as the military is a lawful power and seems not to have overstepped the mark indeed it is defending democracy and constitutional legality.
Lawful only in obeying is civilian elected masters.
If a democratic vote installed him as life president, you have to accept it. There are advantages to ‘life’ jobs. Senior court judges are no longer afraid of their political masters.
A ‘for life’ president can implement unpopular but necessary policies.
There are serious ‘downs’ too. I am aware of them.
He sacked the Army Chief of Staff just before the coup. Fishy.
I don’t like an incumbent changing the constitution to fit his personal fantasies BUT, all in all, I am against the military coup.
If he had moved to change the constitution for the next President, (not him), that would be more acceptable.
Just not for him.
| 29 June 2009, 11:57 am |
1. Gene’s claim not to have supported the 2002 Venezuelan coup is more ludicrous revisionist bullshit from the bullshitter-in-chief. Gene described the coup plotters as “democracy activists”, dismissed the evidence of their signatures on the coup decree, and posted about “how pleased” he was that one of the coup leaders was being entertained by Bush in the White House.
2. The Honduran coup is a blunder by an arrogant but ruthless local oligarchy who overplayed their hand, imagining in their stupidity that Obama was going to back it. They are the direct political descendents of the class that murdered leftists and trade unionists, and allowed Honduras to be used as the base from which the US waged its dirty war on Nicaragua.
3. The Honduran elites were terrified of allowing a referendum on constitutional changes and the setting up of a constituent assembly. They are terrified of the people, terrified of wealth redistribution, and terrified of democracy – just like all the other disgusting Latin American ruling classes that Gene and this “left wing” website support.
4. The response from Obama and Clinton is very encouraging: “The only president the United States recognizes is President Manuel Zelaya.” No chance then of any of Gene’s coup plotting “democracy activists” being invited to tea at the White House any time soon.
| 29 June 2009, 12:39 pm |
Ah, Zin. I’ve noted your silence– here and at 21st Century Socialism– about Iran, and Chavez’s loyal support for the forces of fraud and brutal repression there. You’d almost think someone had mentioned Budapest 1956 or Prague 1968.
| 29 June 2009, 1:15 pm |
Mary Anastasia O’Grady
The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators. This crisis clearly delineates the problem. In failing to come to the aid of checks and balances, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Insulza expose their true colors.
| 29 June 2009, 2:39 pm |
mesquito
“Independent institutions” in the old Latin America = Institutions independent of democratic control which represent the wealthy elite.
Who do you think you’re kidding?
| 29 June 2009, 2:48 pm |
Gene backing for the 2002 coup is exposed, so he tries to talk about what I haven’t said about a different topic. Pathetic.
If Bush was still in power, Gene would be cheering on the Honduran coup as well. This slippery contortionist ‘promotes the left’ in the same way that Count Dracula promotes vegetarianism.
| 29 June 2009, 4:55 pm |
Zin:
Why must you guys simultaneously appeal to the Honduran constitution while dismissing those in Honduras who hold constitutional office as “oligarchs”? I mean, choose one, for heaven’s sake.
| 29 June 2009, 5:22 pm |
Cos they just proved it by organising a military coup, kidnapping the president and illegally seizing and beating three three foreign ambassadors, as well as the foreign minister.
As someone posted elsewhere:
Get the facts straight, people.
Zelaya wasn’t acting outside the Honduran constitution.
First, he wanted a referendum on holding a constitutive assembly to change the constitution. This is the required and democratic procedure. The supreme court denied his request.
So Zelaya called a ‘consultative’ referendum – effectively a state-sponsored opinion poll – to ask the population whether they wanted the issue included on ballots for the upcoming presidential election.
The army refused to distribute the ballot papers, and Zelaya fired the head of the army. So the army staged a coup.
It was a _referendum_ folks, a democratic consultation. You’d never guess it, though, from some of the comments above.
If that makes Zelaya a threat to democracy and the military coup the defence of democracy then black is white.
| 30 June 2009, 1:10 am |
ah Zin of no memory.
Does anyone remember Zin arguing that Chaves was a democrat because he had accepted the No vote on his (2nd) attempt at constitutional amendement (to allow him to be president for life).
This must have been about a month before Chavez’ 3rd and successful ‘referendum’.
I was in Venezuela at that time I thought of Zibn and laughed so hard my underwear still haven’t dried.
I will be in Venezuela again in a couple of weeks or so, I always think of Zin and his hated oligarchs every time i can’t buy coffee or rice or eggs.
What a liar and a charlattan he is.
| 30 June 2009, 1:41 am |
I pity the insane, especially the illiterati.
The referendum on ending term limits – not on a president-for-life was passed by 55% to 45%. Venezuelans now have the outrageous right to decide in a democratic election whether they wish to re-elect Hugo Chavez.
The use of scare quotes around the word ‘referendum’ is particularly bizarre. Although mettaculture is clearly a fantasist, I can assure him that the referendum was not a figment of his imagination.
Stay off the crack pipe, matey.
Last week, the Supreme Court and Congress both declared the referendum unconstitutional. But on Thursday, the president led a group of protesters to an air force installation and seized the ballots, which the prosecutor’s office and the electoral tribunal had ordered confiscated.
Why isn’t he prosecuted? Or Impeached? Or whatever they do in Honduras?