Posted by Jim Lindgren:
Why are We Backing the Former President of Honduras?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_05-2009_07_11.shtml#1247020907
Dan Miller has a seemingly [1]careful account of the situation in
Honduras, claiming that there was no military coup:
As most already know, the Honduran Supreme Court was in the midst
of a ongoing clash with President Manuel Zelaya on June 28 when an
order was issued for President Zelaya�s arrest. The order was
executed by the Honduran military, which, it appears, exceeded its
authority and not only arrested him but took him to Costa Rica. It
did so to prevent internal violence.
The crisis was due to a number of things, including Zelaya�s
efforts to amend the Honduran constitution in ways both
procedurally and substantively prohibited by that document. The
congress then followed the Honduran laws of presidential succession
and appointed the (civilian) president of the Congress, Roberto
Micheletti, to be the interim president until elections could be
held, as scheduled, in November.
While claimed by many to have been a coup by a military junta, it
was not. The civilian government remains in power, and the military
remains subordinate to it. (A more detailed account is provided in
an [2]article I wrote on June 30. A certification by Honduras of
its bases for removing Mr. Zelaya from the presidency is provided
here.)
Since the departure of Mr. Zelaya, Honduras has been a focus of
much unwanted international attention. President Hugo Chávez of
Venezuela has been adamant in demanding that Mr. Zelaya be
reinstated as president; the United States Government, while less
acerbic, has demanded the same. The Organization of American States
(OAS) and the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the
Caribbean (ALBA), largely under the leadership of President
Chávez, have demanded Zelaya�s return, and so has the UN.
Publicly, at least, Honduras stands alone with the sole exception
of the government of Panamá, which, on July 6, asked the various
governments to keep their noses out of Honduras� internal affairs.
President Ricardo Martinelli, who recently won the presidential
election in Panamá by an unprecedented sixty plus percent with
very high voter turnout, stated:
Panamá has to be a leader of freedom and justice, not only here in
our home, but in our region and our continent. As president, I will
do everything within my power to advance the ideals of a free
economy, defying the ideological pendulum in Latin America.
News coverage in Panamá of the Honduran mess has been less biased
than most coverage in the United States and elsewhere, and the
return of Mr. Zelaya is favored by very few here. . . .
On July 6, he departed Nicaragua for Washington, D.C., where he is
to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prior to his
anticipated attempt to return to Honduras on July 8 or 9. Previous
meetings subsequent to Mr. Zelaya�s removal from the presidency had
been with lower ranking officials.
Also on July 6, an unofficial mission representing the interim
Honduran government left for Washington, even though the United
States government has not recognized it. According to the Latin
American Herald Tribune, �a spokesman for the State Department said
Monday that no U.S. officials would meet with representatives of
�the de facto regime� in Tegucigalpa.� . . .
What happens next? Mr. Zelaya has threatened to make a second
attempt to return to Honduras. Through a spokesman, he stated that
�it could be by air, sea or land. �� We are not going to say
where.� The main Honduran airport remains closed, and it seems
unlikely that Mr. Zelaya will be able to land there. Assuming that
he nevertheless tries to return, the options would appear to be by
land or sea � unless, of course, he decides to bring a parachute.
When his aircraft was prevented from landing on July 5, he said
that if he had brought a parachute, he would have used it. . . .
It would not be surprising, however, if Mr. Zelaya attempted to
return via Nicaragua accompanied by Nicaraguan troops.
In these circumstances, it seems unlikely that either side would
back down. This would set the stage for a military confrontation at
the border, during which it is conceivable that Mr. Zelaya and
others would be killed.
That�s what may happen. What I think should happen is rather
different. Panamá has it right, and foreign countries should keep
their noses out of Honduras� internal affairs. The early elections
proposed by the interim Honduran government would very likely
defuse the explosive situation there and, like the vote a few years
ago when Mr. Zelaya was elected, would be fair and transparent.
If Miller is correct, then it appears that the initial reporting of a
military coup was grossly mistaken. Manuel Zelaya was not removed from
office by the military. After he he was legally removed from office by
the Honduran Supreme Court, the military arrested him and removed
Zelaya from their country rather than simply arrest him as they were
ordered to do. According to Miller, the military is not running the
country; the constitution remains in effect and the civilian
constitutional successor is in charge.
Why hasn't the US recognized the constitutional successor to Zelaya?
As yet, I have seen no coherent argument from the US government
regarding why we are backing the former president, Manuel Zelaya.
References
1. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-kerfuffle-in-honduras-continues/?print=1
2. http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/presidents-chvez-obama-et-al-are/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
