Calling a Coup a Coup

Events in Honduras took a dramatic turn last week as an agreement was finally reached that could defuse the country's long-running political crisis. But the coup's defenders in the United States will likely maintain the dangerous stance they have adopted since late June. Ambassador Otto Reich's Oct. 27 article on ForeignPolicy.com perfectly captured the ideologically driven revisionism that conservatives have peddled since the coup that replaced Honduran President Manuel Zelaya with de facto president Roberto Micheletti. Reich vigorously defended Micheletti's assumption of power as the victory of the rule of law and a stand against Latin American leftists.

Although only a narrow segment of U.S. policymakers shares this view, it has consistently attacked the regional and international consensus around the events of June 28 as well as the only appropriate solution to the political crisis. Now, with the agreement on Zelaya's return awaiting the Honduran Congress's approval, Micheletti's apologists will likely depict Zelaya's return as a cowardly concession to another would-be Hugo Chávez. Once again, they will miss the mark. The deal struck last week offers a responsible, democratic exit from the four-month political crisis in Honduras.

In recent months, U.S. conservatives have argued that Barack Obama's administration should recognize the Nov. 29 elections in Honduras as a way out of the political crisis. They made the case that in the democratic transitions that swept the hemisphere in the 1980s, the United States recognized elections held by previous authoritarian regimes to facilitate transitions to democracy; doing the same in Honduras, they contended, would offer a way out of a seemingly endless political deadlock.

This comparison is as dangerous as it is wrong. Allowing a government that came to power through unconstitutional means to ride out an interim period to the next election and then transfer power would set a perilous precedent for U.S. foreign policy in Latin America and beyond. Honduras in 2009 is neither emerging from a civil war nor struggling to end years of authoritarian rule. Instead, the country suffered a coup -- an unconstitutional disruption to its democratic order -- that requires a different remedy.

Since the coup, conservatives have called on the Obama administration to respect the rule of law in Honduras, which they say supports Micheletti's assumption of power. It is true that Zelaya abused his position and ran roughshod over democratic institutions in his bid to maintain power. It is also true that his return should be as part of a coalition government, in which his role is constrained. But the legal defense for his ouster does not hold water.

Micheletti's supporters cite a recent Law Library of Congress report* on the events of the coup to defend their claims, but ignore the fierce rebuttals this report has elicited. One of the most thorough was done by Rosemary Joyce of the University of California-Berkeley, following the legal analysis done by the University of Notre Dame's Doug Cassel. Joyce argues that the Honduran congress does not have (nor did it claim to have) the powers to remove the president that the LLC report suggests. She also debunks the idea that the congress can get rid of a president by "disapproving of him" -- the argument made in the LLC report -- even if it followed the right procedures, which it most certainly did not.

12NEXT

Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

GRANT

8:45 PM ET

November 2, 2009

The legality of the entire

The legality of the entire matter, and whether or not Zelaya should have any role in the new government are all matters that will be settled by careful negotiations based more on power than law. However, there is still one point that confuses me. Why exactly would conservatives or anyone else see this as a matter of importance beyond what signals it might send to other nations. I would expect the Republicans with their claim to realpolitik to remember that Honduras simply is not that vital a nation. This is not a matter of Brazil or Columbia, in terms of geopolitical power I can't see any reason to stake so much energy in it.

REPLY

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

12:51 AM ET

November 3, 2009

I agree!

It's interesting how Mr Reich and others continue to ignore the structural inequalities that not only encouraged Zelaya to pursue "Leftist" reforms, but also the effects of those structural inequalities; specifically, most people in Latin America seem to agree with the author of this article, and not Mr Reich. Reagan isn't particularly popular south of the border, and if the Cold War is long over, I see no reason to run around overthrowing anyone who visits Havanna.

TOM G

10:30 AM ET

The point is being missed

Zelaya was removed from power because the Judiciary in Honduras found that he was trying to subvert the constitution of Honduras by trying to do what Hugo Chavez did by basically trying to declare himself president for life in other words dictator and it was members of his own party that brought the legal challenge.Considering that up until recently much of Latin America was ruled by such 'Legitimate Rulers' , so I was and am still surprised to the reaction of the U.S, surely you are not advocating a return to the brutal regimes of the 80's which caused so much hardship and death to Latin America? Granted he should not have been exiled in the first place but I also believe that he should not return to power without holding monitored elections to see if he has the people's support and if he does then and only then should he be supported and legitimized.

HAVOC29

3:25 PM ET

Honduran "coup"

Leftist "scholars" defending a South American leftist thug . . . shocking.

GTENTORI

5:35 PM ET

The view from Tegucigalpa

Mr Sabatini:

Today it is clear that Zelaya will not be re-installed as president ever again. You can do all the legal twists and turns, but the fact is that Zelaya was just an employee of Hugo Chavez. He was going to become a dictator for the next 20 years.

As the tee-shirts that are sold in the street here say: Honduras, The little country that could.

There is no doubt that as time goes by, the heroic stance of us Hondurans will be seen as a turning point in the expansion of communism in LatinoAmerica.

At this point, we have no friends, USA left us, Clinton sent her dogs just because she needed to save face. She had already given Honduras to Chavez. Here we believe that Obama/Clinton had negotieded honduras with Chavez/Alba.

Nobody counted on our firm stand!!!!

¡¡¡¡Larga Vida la Republica!!!!
¡¡¡¡Viva Honduras!!!!

ROBERT ELETTO

1:50 PM ET

November 4, 2009

It's amazing how little people actually know

A selection of some of the more laughably propagandist comments:

"You can do all the legal twists and turns, but the fact is that Zelaya was just an employee of Hugo Chavez. He was going to become a dictator for the next 20 years."

"Leftist "scholars" defending a South American leftist thug . . . shocking."

"he was trying to subvert the constitution of Honduras by trying to do what Hugo Chavez did by basically trying to declare himself president for life in other words dictator"

Every single one of these statements reflects the sensationalist fears of the Micheletti cadre and their conservative cheerleaders. These are nowhere close to facts. Read the poll below; you'll find that Zelaya is more popular than Micheletti; also, it's noteworthy that most of Zelaya's supporters have an unfavorable view of Chavez. Another poll done by COIMER & OP in August had similar results.

http://www.gqrr.com/index.php?ID=2399

Zelaya's story has been consistent, and I have not seen a single article actually back up the claim that he was interested in running for president again. Not a single quote or document, let alone a fully contextualized one. It's sad that the tabloids that pass for news in Honduras have made such headwater in the US media.

But to illustrate a broader point, let's assume that he did want to eliminate term limits through a constitutional referendum...

Why is it that when a leftist leader in Latin America tries to eliminate term limits with a referendum, he's a "dictator", but when Alvaro Uribe does the same thing in Colombia, no one cries foul?

An even better question: Why are some Americans so virulent about Zelaya's supposed "power grab" - which would have required the consent of Honduras' population of about 7.5 million - but so accepting of Mike Bloomberg's bid for a third term in NYC, which was voted down in two separate referendums before Bloomberg killed the limits by strong-handing the city council. Mayor of NYC is a more powerful position than President of Honduras...shouldn't we be more concerned about Bloomberg than Zelaya?

Also, for the record, I support term limits, but oppose those limits if it's a single term. Essentially, I support the US system of a two-term maximum.

JANINE DADDARIO

4:39 PM ET

Reference to the Congressional Research Service

This article references and links to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on Honduras. The CRS report "Honduran-U.S. Relations," is not the subject of discussion by Rosemary Joyce or others. The report discussed by Ms. Joyce and in this article is "Honduras: Constitutional Law Issues," which the Law Library, a separate department of the Library of Congress, prepared.

3:03 PM ET

November 10, 2009

To Robert Eletto.

Mr Eletto...

You are forgetting something: I live in Tegucigalpa. I even know the SOB. The decree for the "Asamblea Constituyente" had already been published with a September 30th date. In it, hes presidential term was extended 2 years. I had a copy of the publication on my hands. Is that good enough for you??????

Do you understand what the Consituyente was for??????

U.S. conservatives' Honduras revisionism is misguided and dangerous.

BY CHRISTOPHER SABATINI, DANIEL ALTSCHULER | NOVEMBER 2, 2009

(8)