U.S. demand and Micheletti
From Fox News, actually:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called de factor Honduran leader Roberto Micheletto to warn him about the consequences for his country if it does not permit ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to return to power, the State Department said Monday.Clinton called Micheletti on Sunday from New Delhi, where she is meeting with Indian officials on climate change.
That will certainly have an impact, and she specifically mentioned U.S. aid. The U.S. pushed very hard for the Arias talks (and continues to do so), giving the coup government a chance to negotiate something as a way to avoid the inevitable violence of a forced Zelaya return, but it thus far has refused to back off the essential point of Zelaya's return.
26 comments:
The Obama Administration should have started playing hardball three weeks ago, but better late than never.
US aid is not that big, if the Honduras government decides to wait it out.
US aid is not that big, if the Honduras government decides to wait it out.
In reality, the U.S. could bring down this coup government just by threatening to halt trade or remittances. The question is whether the political will exists to do what it takes.
Does the administration have the legal authority to stop either on its own?
The US most definately has given signals to the Honduran military and the oligarchy that the coup would be alright--but they stand to loose in the region more generally as the light begins to sink in.
They understand that a rightwing coup governent would stoke opposition against elites in the region and lead to civil war(s).
Simply, the cynical,antidemocratic 'pragmatists' allied with Obama didn't think their actions through well enough.
It's one thing to manipulate dumbed-down consumers in the US, as they are infinatelu maleable given decades of conditioning...but immiserated people in Honduras are not mere consumers; they are survivors.
Does the administration have the legal authority to stop either on its own?
The Obama Administration might have difficulty turning up the heat, but the coup leaders may now be facing another economic threat: the longshoremen's unions.
Transport workers to boycott Honduran ships
If Obama doesn't have the legal right to do what you propose I think we can trust that he won't simply ignore the law, ignore the courts, ignore Congress, and call his supporters to illegally storm government property like Zelaya did.
Don't you agree? It's nice to live in a country where the president sets the example by following the law.
It's nice to live in a country where the president sets the example by following the law.
It's also nice to live in a country where we don't have an unelected coup government that has armed soldiers all over the place and summarily shuts down television and radio stations. Don't ya think?
Yes, both are nice. But if a president decides to break the law and openly ignore the courts, stuff like this tends to happen.
All of this could have been avoided if Zelaya had done but one simple thing we expect of all presidents in modern democracies. Just obey the law, and accept what the courts say.
Anon, you toad--'the law' has long been a very elastic concept for the US and it's CEOs...I mean presidents.
At least there is some lip service to due process, meaning that the military don't kidnap presidents and exil them..unless you're a Haitian president. Then you getsentinto the heart of Africa by US troops.
Ahh, you are one of those that favor dictatorships, so long as they are left wing. Like Cuba maybe?
Yes, both are nice. But if a president decides to break the law and openly ignore the courts, stuff like this tends to happen.
Ah, yes, I get it. Zelaya made them shut down television and radio stations!
You're a genius.
Ahh, I get it, the military forced Zelaya to break the law and storm government property.
You too are a genius!
;)
the military forced Zelaya to break the law and storm government property.
Whether Zelaya violated Honduran law was a matter to be settled in a court of law, not a matter to be settled by a bunch of coupmongering thugs like Pinocheletti and yourself.
Anon, you obfuscate the dental issue at hand: if Zaleya broke the law, then they soul have initiated legal proceings.
What the ruling elites feared was a popular mobilization to eventually change the constitution. The ruling class simply do t want the people's will to be considered.
And this is why they strategically errored, because now changing the constitution will be a central project of the popular classes--and it will be more difficult for Obama to totally take the side of the military And oligarchy in the necessary repression thatwill be required to stymie and hobble the movement.
They eff'ed up, big time. LOL
Justin,
Have you been reading anything about this topic? It was the courts that said Zelaya broke the law!!
If you believethat it's OK for Zelaya to ignore the courts because of his ideology, just say so. I suspect you are OK as well with today's news about how they got rid of a judge in Venezuela that wouldn't 'rule' the right way.
And I suspect you don't have a problem with decades of dictatorship in Cuba either. Right?
slave,
What the military feared, rightly so, is that if they had simply arrested Zelaya and delivered him for a trial he would have mobilized his supporters to free him and there would have been massive bloodshed.
I must note that Anonymous ignores all the discussions that exist, here and elsewhere, about the actual lack of clarity about what Zelaya did that was illegal (as opposed to what people thought he was going to do). Also, by collapsing into one "courts" the many different legal entities involved, he/she avoids coming to terms with the real issue of what was communicated to Zelaya at what point, and therefore, what was in fact illegal to do. By using terms like "storming government property" Anonymous engages in spin, echoing talking points. Zelaya did go to the Air Force base where the polling materials were being stored, accompanied by a large number of supporters who he called on to assist as labor in loading vehicles, and to protect him from a military action.
Since such an action happened two days later, that latter function of the crowd of supporters cannot simply be dismissed.
When he arrived at the Air Force base, he gave the officer in charge an order as commander in chief, to step aside and allow him to collect the polling materials. That officer did so, saying that he would not disobey an order from his commander in chief.
This was all reported as it happened, much of it broadcast live. Is it the way we would like democracy to work? probably not. Was it "storming government property"? not, apparently, in the eyes of the Air Force officer.
The key issue of whether taking control of the polling materials was illegal would have required a charge and a trial, neither of which happened. Zelaya's view was that the materials were for a poll, which he argued was not what had been made illegal. This is technically accurate insofar as the words that are used in a law define the things that are the target of the law. Again, opinion in the government went against that: the legal orders tried to enjoin him from any kind of popular consultation. The law, though, actually specifies particular actions by name. And in this case, renaming the thing and conducting it as a popular poll-- without military presence, without OAS observers-- was a piece of dramatic popular theater.
And notice: the poll went on all day Sunday in many communities, even after news of the coup was shared. People registered their opinions. Zelaya is right about that: ordinary Hondurans want their voices heard.
All these insults being thrown about are distractions from that, from what is really at stake. This is not about Cuba or Venezuela or what Daniel Ortega might be doing in Nicaragua. This is about popular representation in Honduras.
So a court rules the ballots are illegal and should be impounded, Zelaya then decides to ignore that and shows up with a mob forcing the military commander in the base to decide whether to disobey his commander-in-chief, but to you that's just unfortunate? Are you kidding?
You are an academic, correct? I'll keep it very simple. It doesn't matter what Zelaya THOUGHT was legal or not, it doesn't matter what his VIEW on the law was.
All that mattered was that the courts spoke and he had to obey.
This is not about Cuba or Venezuela or what Daniel Ortega might be doing in Nicaragua. This is about popular representation in Honduras.
I've made that point repeatedly as well, but the bottom line is that the coupmongers need distractions because they know that their own arguments don't stand up to serious scrutiny.
Of course it's about Ortega and Chavez and the rest. Aren't you guys academics? Surely you understand the importance of context.
You think it's a coincidence that Ortega seeks reelection after stealing elections? Or that Chavez slowly kills democracy in Venezuela? You think Zelaya just happened to associate himself with these people?
This has nothing to do with 'popular representation'. I have a hard time believing anyone can claim that with a straight face. Zelaya could have used legitimate means to reform the constitution, if he didn't just want to seek reelection. He could have created his won party and tried to gain control of Congress, if he really was worried about the will of the people.
It's a fact that he resorted to mob rule and repeatedly and openly ignored judicial rulings. But none of you care about that, do you?
Anonymous,
You better be careful. If you bring up inconvenient facts to Justin, Leftside, and Slave Revolt, they will call you a reactionary troll, a golpista and, surely, will drop an f-bomb on you. All this in the name of academic discourse. Simply put, they have no problem with leftist presidents who abuse power just with the other institutions of constitutional government who try to stop them. Demagogic populism is their trope.
Again, it does no good to point out that you might want a peaceful settlement and/or support democracy. The very fact that you are critical of Mel, or see linkage to the broader trends endangering democracy in Latin America, makes you an accomplice in the imperial plot. They, after all, are the only ones who have spent time with the pueblo, read scholarly books and received divine wisdom. Instead of a marketplace of ideas they want an echo chamber, catholic in its reach, and jesuitical in its approach.
I'll just repeat a point I made in a previous thread.
It's worth noting that, despite all the nice things that anonymous has said about the Obama Administration's approach to this crisis, he now seems to be positioning himself well to the right of the Administration. The Administration has now clearly stated that Micheletti needs to accept Arias' terms. Given anonymous' supposed support for Arias and the Administration, why haven't we heard any statement from anonymous criticizing the coup government's rejection of Arias' terms? I'm oh-so-curious.
Zelaya could have used legitimate means to reform the constitution, if he didn't just want to seek reelection.
One more time, Gabriel, you have no evidence to support your case. The non-binding referendum specifically asked the Honduran people if they wanted to be able to vote in November on whether to convoke a constitutional assembly to reform the constitution. Now, do the math, Gabriel. The proposed vote on whether to convoke a constitutional assembly would be at the same time as the next presidential elections. Thus, a non-binding referendum could not have altered the one-term limit in time for Zelaya to run again because a constitutional assembly couldn't have been convoked until after the November presidential elections.
How many times do we have to go over this?
Justin, how do you know anon is Gabriel?
Justin, how do you know anon is Gabriel?
Because his clumsy style is unmistakable.
(The second-to-the-last anonymous is Gabriel. As for the last anonymous, I think it's Tambopaxi, but I'm not 100% sure).
Post a Comment