Calling a Coup a Coup

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

BY CHRISTOPHER SABATINI, DANIEL ALTSCHULER | NOVEMBER 2, 2009

Furthermore, even the LLC report concedes that the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress lacked the authority to remove Zelaya from the country. Micheletti supporters have conveniently overlooked this point, preferring to cite the report's conclusions selectively. Even if Zelaya could have been constitutionally removed from power, just cause does not justify unconstitutional expulsion.

Refusing to concede this elementary point, many conservatives argued that the only solution would be to recognize the upcoming elections without Zelaya's restitution. But allowing the coup to stand would have signaled to would-be coup plotters in the region that election years offer opportune moments to overthrow democratically-elected presidents. U.S. acceptance of the elections results would have revealed a troubling willingness to allow elected leaders to be removed as long as reasonably fair elections follow.

This posture would have mirrored the United States' foreign-policy blunders in Central America in the 1970s and 1980s. During this period, the United States supported façade democracies -- deadly authoritarian regimes that held civilian elections to legitimize their rule -- to pursue questionable geopolitical aims. This position cheapened elections and weakened nascent democracies.

Fortunately, the Obama administration has not repeated the errors of the past. Last week's high-level delegation of U.S. diplomats proved instrumental for getting Micheletti and Zelaya to agree on a deal. The agreement sets the stage for Zelaya's potential return, with constraints, before the upcoming elections. Although the Honduran Congress has yet to approve Zelaya's return -- notably, this body approved his removal in June -- Zelaya and international negotiators are banking on lawmakers' desperation to secure international legitimacy for the upcoming elections. And turning the issue over to the Congress -- as opposed to the more ideological and intransigent Supreme Court -- offers the opportunity to unwind the spurious claim that the June coup was constitutional.

But most importantly, the prospective settlement sets the stage for internationally recognized elections that will transfer power to a new president and help the country move forward. Zelaya and Micheletti both represent the past. The country needs to move on.

So too must those American pundits who proved so willing to support the sophistry of coup-revisionism. If adopted by policymakers, their views would risk throwing Latin America back to the dark days of military governments and sham elections of the 1970s and 1980s. It is not a road that the region can afford to go back down.

*Corrected: The original version of this piece misattributed a Law Library of Congress Report to the Congressional Research Service. FP regrets the error. 

ORLANDO SIERRA/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Christopher Sabatini is senior director of policy at the Americas Society and Council of the Americas and editor in chief of Americas Quarterly. Daniel Altschuler is a Rhodes scholar and doctoral candidate in politics at the University of Oxford.

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.

 

TOM G

10:30 AM ET

November 3, 2009

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

November 3, 2009

Honduran "coup"

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

 

GTENTORI

5:35 PM ET

November 3, 2009

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

November 4, 2009

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.

 

GTENTORI

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??????