The United States Government evidently viewed expressions of support for the Iranian protesters as meddling in internal Iranian affairs, yet it saw fit to express extraordinary support for Mr. Zelaya by demanding that Honduras depose an interim president unanimously selected as provided for in the Honduran Constitution, and return to power a president who had sought to violate the Honduran Constitution and whose arrest had been ordered by the Supreme Court. Although President Obama called on Honduras to respect "democratic norms and the rule of law," he evidently did not mean the norms, Honduran laws and Honduran Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Honduras.
If it is the policy of the United States Government not to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries, there are stark differences in its treatment of the Iranian theocracy and the Government of Honduras. There are no significant differences in the treatment of the Iranian theocracy and the Government of Honduras by President Chávez of Venezuela, and I would expect none; he desires permanent and total power over Venezuela for himself, and evidently views any attempts at diminishing the power of governments sympathetic toward him as counterrevolutionary and therefore very bad. I do not think that President Obama shares such views, and certainly hope that he does not. Nevertheless, I consider the current Washington approach to the crisis in Honduras to be grossly confused. Whatever may be President Obama's motives, I think that the United States Government made a very bad mistake in trying to upset the orderly transfer of power in Honduras.
The situations in Iran and Honduras warrant comparison.
---------------------------------------
*Article VII states, in Spanish:
CAPITULO I
DE LA REFORMA DE LA CONSTITUCIÓNARTICULO 373.- La reforma de esta Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional, en sesiones ordinarias, con dos tercios de votos de la totalidad de sus miembros. El decreto señalará al efecto el artículo o artículos que hayan de reformarse, debiendo ratificarse por la subsiguiente legislatura ordinaria, por igual número de votos, para que entre en vigencia.
ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.
CAPITULO II
DE LA INVIOLABILIDAD DE LA CONSTITUCIÓNARTICULO 375.- Esta Constitución no pierde su vigencia ni deja de cumplirse por acto de fuerza o cuando fuere supuestamente derogada o modificada por cualquier otro medio y procedimiento distintos del que ella mismo dispone. En estos casos, todo ciudadano investido o no de autoridad, tiene el deber de colaborar en el mantenimiento o restablecimiento de su afectiva vigencia.
Serán juzgados, según esta misma constitución y las leyes expedidas en conformidad con ella, los responsables de los hechos señalados en la primera parte del párrafo anterior, lo mismo que los principales funcionarios de los gobiernos que se organicen subsecuentemente, si no han contribuido a restablecer inmediatamente el imperio de esta Constitución y a las autoridades constituidas conforme a ella. El Congreso puede decretar con el voto de la mayoría absoluta de sus miembros, la incautación de todo o parte de los bienes de esas mismas personas y de quienes se hayan enriquecido al amparo de la suplantación.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
Troubling article, Dan.
2 - Earl
One wonders if Obama can win with you, Dan - he's not interfering ENOUGH in Iran, he's interfering TOO MUCH in Honduras! Not exactly unbiased, are you?
3 - zingzing
mhmm. so obama releases a statement saying "Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference," which, of course, is a tad bit like "outside interference," even if it's saying that this is an internal matter--and you jump all over him?
he's essentially agreeing with you. and the amount of "meddling" by the u.s. gov't which you describe is... minimal, to say the least.
and, as you are want to forget, obama and others did send messages of support for the protesters in iran. why would you say he didn't?
i'm pretty confused by your reasoning here. our tensions with iran make extra-special care necessary in our diplomatic efforts towards them. that much is true. and the amount of "meddling" that i can see in honduras is next to nothing, other than a few words here or there expressing the need for level-headed thinking rather than a military coup.
so what gives?
4 - Glenn Contrarian
Um, Dan -
Can you name ANY Republican presidents from 1900 on that haven't been involved in regime change of other countries?
I remember the Guatemalan (or was it Honduras?) general who came on board the USS Ranger back in '83. We held a memorable air show for him (I was watching from the boiler stacks). He flew off and after a week or two we steamed west towards Hawaii...where we arrived 38 days later than originally planned before our sudden detour to do circles off the coast of Central America.
In those days we used to get a one(!)-page news summary per month, and that's all we got. But I noticed something a couple months later - the general we'd just had on board had taken over his country in a coup the very day after the air show.
Gee, WHY were we there?
Just thought you'd enjoy the sea story.
5 - roger nowosielski
A well-written and fairly informative article about a complex situation. Except for the conclusion(s).
First, perhaps, just perhaps, the US interference in the Honduras situation is simply because we CAN - without risking much (goes without saying); not exactly the same as the case with Iran, where relationships are already strained and in need of repairing.
Second, Obama statement wasn't biting enough to be regarded as "meddling." It was on the order of prompting, that's all.
Perhaps the real beef is that the perception lingers that the aministration is guilty of double standard - namely, of supporting socialistic governments (like in Venezuela), which would account for the difference in treatment and different application of foreign policy. But if that's the perception and apparently great cause for concern, why not say it outright?
Third, I find the following problematic:
"I do not understand that it is the proper business of the United States Government to dictate to a foreign government on such matters; the decision as to whether another country should ignore its Constitution in order to maintain tranquility and thereby please the United States Government is not for the United States Government to make."
It has been a longstanding foreign policy of the US government to create foment and civil unrest whenever doing so serves American interests. To suddenly take a position which runs contrary not only to the spirit but also the very tradition American foreign policy and to insist that we should be neutral with respect to all countries, come what may and regardless of how they figure in our game plan, is again either naive or disingenuous.
4) And the worst part, all these sins are inextricably connected with the Obama watch.
In light of the above, I can't help but agree with Earl (remark #2):
"One wonders if Obama can win with you, Dan - he's not interfering ENOUGH in Iran, he's interfering TOO MUCH in Honduras!"
6 - zingzing
it's been funny to watch dan as he's been writing for this website. at first, his politics were rather nebulous, but as time goes on, he has become more and more right wing. it's much like clavos' transformation.
i wonder if it's got something to do with the lefties on this site. maybe we are creating right wing monsters.
7 - Clavos
Not exactly unbiased, are you?
Did he ever claim to be? Is there a mandate somewhere that says he must be?
It's an opinion piece.
Sheesh...
8 - roger nowosielski
We need Silas Kain, zing, to restore order in the conservative ranks. It's the one Republican you can really like.
9 - zingzing
so you still back him up 100% of the time, eh, groupie?
10 - roger nowosielski
Don't shit disturb, zing. I'm still on parole.
11 - Clavos
Incredible.
one administration official said that while the United States thought the referendum was a bad idea, it did not justify a coup.
Coup? What coup?? The guy (Zelaya) broke the law of the country he was supposed to be leading, was admonished by their Supreme Court and then thumbed his nose at them, so they removed him. Where's the "coup??"
I never thought I'd live to see the day when the American President would side with that clown in Caracas.
What a travesty.
Stupid gringos.
12 - zingzing
hrm. #9 was for clavos, not roger. sneaky, sneaky roger, sneaking in between comments.
13 - zingzing
see, this is why i never fuck with the html. forgetful people forget to remember to close them things.
14 - Earl
A mandate to be unbiased? Not at all, Clavos. Just that Dan's obvious bias hurts his credibility.
Obama does A, Dan says he should have done B.
Obama then does B; Dan says he should have done A.
It's becoming clear that Dan doesn't much care what Obama does. Whatever it is, Dan will criticize him for not doing the opposite.
So why should I or anyone else take those criticisms seriously?
15 - zingzing
siding with chavez? hrm. i think it's more like having similar thoughts, although not necessarily actively agreeing with the man. if obama is like "i like steak," and chavez says "i like steak," it doesn't mean they are of the same mind on everything, clavos. it just means they happen to agree on something. could be anything.
i am of the opinion that breathing helps me get through the day. i'm sure you could say the same, but you're still going to disagree with me on a number of other subjects.
16 - roger nowosielski
#12: I'm well aware, zing. It's just that I've done enough damage already.
Time to be conciliatory.
17 - zingzing
never!
18 - roger nowosielski
Well, let's put it this way, zing. Most of the Latin American countries are being run by rich oligopolies, oppressing the people. Those that are not tend towards socialism. So you take your pick.
The question is - what's a poor gringo to do?
19 - roger nowosielski
So you'd rather I be ostracized forever?
20 - Clavos
Just that Dan's obvious bias hurts his credibility.
Once more, it's an opinion piece, Earl.
According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:
opinion
• noun 1 a view or judgment not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
21 - Clavos
@#15,
Your analogies about steak and breathing aren't relevant in this case, zing. The mess in Honduras is in keeping with what the US professes to be: a country of laws, Zelaya was removed entirely in keeping with the laws of his country, so it's more than incongruous that the Obama Administration would call it a "coup," and seemingly stand against the lawful actors in the incident. All the more so when such a stance puts the US in the same camp with all the anti-US regimes in LatAm, and in opposition to those who back us.
Stupid, stupid gringos.
Especially the gringo-in-chief.
22 - zingzing
roger: "The question is - what's a poor gringo to do?"
call it as he sees it. socialism>oligarchy. but latin american socialism hasn't been the model of socialism i'd pick up.
roger: "So you'd rather I be ostracized forever?"
no... are you talking to me? i was saying that one should never be "conciliatory" in this sort of situation. attack! it's only words.
clavos: "a view or judgment not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
well, it's an excuse.
23 - Silas Kain
Zelaya broke his country's laws. He tried to grab power for another term in violation of his nation's Constitution. It is up to the people of Honduras to decide. If the military feels that the President should be deposed, then it is incumbent upon the military regime to submit its case to the United Nations. This is not a matter which requires U.S. intervention; however, I do feel that a U.N. Resolution with a solid plan of action be adopted.
If I were Obama, I would restore full and complete diplomatic relations with Cuba in the interim. That act alone will send the Honduran establishment reeling not to mention disarm Venezuela and any other South American dictator.
24 - Earl
@21
No shit it's an opinion piece, Clavos. But a person generally writes an opinion piece with the goal in mind of swaying readers toward sharing that opinion. My point is that Dan's not likely to do that by making clear that his worldview is "Whatever Obama does is wrong, regardless of what it is."
But I'm glad to note that you're not expending any energy on thinking about these things, when stating and re-stating the obvious will apparently do just fine.
25 - Earl
oops looks like what was #21 is now #20