The latest events concerning the political situation in Honduras confirm my analysis that President Obama made a huge foreign policy blunder. Against all common sense, he followed the lead of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and condemned the removal of Mel Zelaya from the Honduran presidency, calling it ‘an illegal military coup.’ At the time, I warned that he was making a premature and 
uninformed decision that could only lead to embarrassment for the United States and encouragement for Chavez.
Other voices in government gave similar warnings, most notably Florida Senator Mel Martinez and, more recently, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami. Notably, Florida’s other Senator, Bill Nelson, has made no comment on the matter and failed to respond to my request for his views on the subject. Now, it is becoming clear that, for all the noise that came out of the Organization of American States and the United Nations General Assembly, no action of any significance will be taken against Honduras.
Since I have reported on the events that led to the removal of Mr. Zelaya and on the legal basis for the actions of the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court, I will not repeat them here. Links to those reports appear at the bottom of this column. What is becoming very clear is that Latin America is not quite as united or insistent in the restoration of Mr. Zelaya to the Honduran presidency, that the new Honduran government is not as isolated as the mainstream U.S. press reports and that, even the Obama administration is having second thoughts on its policy.
These are some of the most recent developments on the Honduran crisis:
- • Guatemala, Honduras’ northern neighbor, has reopened their common border to commercial traffic. Meanwhile, trade and manufacturing groups throughout Central America are asking southern neighbors Nicaragua and El Salvador to follow suit. The closing of the border with the last two countries hurts the latter more than it does Honduras because it blocks the overland exchange of goods between Nicaragua and El Salvador at one end and the U.S. at the other.
- • Yesterday, Colombia’s President Alvaro Uribe spoke in opposition to foreign intervention in Hunduras’ internal affairs. Today, the President of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias said that Mel Zelaya should not attempt to return to Honduras, as the ex-President had planned.
- • Both the nations of the European Union, as well as the United States have decided to keep their ambassadors in Honduras. Meanwhile, the Honduran Ambassador to the United States Roberto Flores Bermudez denied that the removal of Mel Zelaya constituted a coup d’état.
- • Demonstrations in support of the removal of Mel Zelaya continue throughout Honduras, drawing thousands of people.
In view of the latest developments, the Obama administration is beginning to backpedal. The State Department issued a statement late yesterday that flatly contradicts Mr. Obama’s original assessment of the Honduran crisis. The Associated Press gave the following version of remarks by State Department spokesman Ian C. Kelly on the question of whether the U.S. would cut aid to Honduras:
Kelly said the administration was still studying whether the forced removal of Zelaya was a military coup in a legal sense that would trigger a cutoff or suspension of American financial assistance.
"Our legal advisers are actively assessing the facts and the law in question, which we take very seriously," Kelly said.” (emphasis added).
From these remarks, it is clear that when President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Zelaya’s removal an illegal military coup, they did it either without seeking the opinion of the Administration’s experts in the matter, or in blatant disregard thereof. In either case, this episode has turned into a major embarrassment for the President. Given his inclination to apologize to the world for alleged American errors he attributes to other administrations, it is time he manned up and apologized to the people of Honduras for his own rash statements.
Hondurans demonstrate against Zelaya's return in front of their country's Consulate in Miami:
(Above right: Hondurans march in support of Micheletti government in La Ceiba, Honduras)
If you liked this article, please, click on the yellow button below to let others know. Thank you.
Hondurans demonstrate against Zelaya's return
Latest Associated Press report.
Central American commercial group asks for resumption of trade
My report on Monday
My report on Tuesday
My report on Wednesday
Obama Administration backpedaling
Comments
Where do I start? First of all you have misquoted Obama as calling the event "an illegal military coup". His words were: "we believe that the coup was not legal". I mention it not only because it is innapropriate and even unethical to misquote someone, but because having heard Pres.Obama speak many times I know that he usually chooses his words carefully.As a lawyer he understands the distinction between labelling an action "illegal" vs. deeming it "not legal".Very much the same way and for the same reason that in a court verdict the defendant is never deemed "innocent" but is rather deemed "not guilty".I will not get into the difference between the two, but mention it to stress that for those of us who understand the relevance of political statements, misquotations can be very misleading. Now, my comment is in reference to both this post and Mr. Blandino's last post,"Obama fails statesmanship test in Honduras crisis". The latter has a series of misleading statements and innacuracies.
Now the writer states that the removal of Zelaya was justified by the constitution as he was guilty of treason for attempting to change the term limits for the Pres.This however is innacurate; What Zelaya was doing was a referendum to have an option on the ballot to have an assembly to write a new constitution. Now I agree that in that new consitution Zelaya probably wanted diff. term limits, but from a legal perspective that is in fact an assumption, not a fact that justifies legal action taken.Furthermore the referendum was "non-binding", and therefore you cannot as of yet assume that Zelaya would try to enforce its results.His desire to enforce the results overriding congressional authority on the issue, is again an assumtpion.Lastly, the whole argument is nullified because the referendum did not call for a change in the constitution, but rather for writing a new one.The illegality of changing the term limits therefore becomes legally irrelevant since it would be a new constitution.
Now another innacuracy that I must point out is the writer saying "Unlike what happens in a coup-d’état, the Honduran military has not assumed control of the government". I would like to see how the writer came to this conclusion since there have been many removals of governments that are generally accepted to be "coup d'etats" in which the military immediately handed over control. While military control is often a characteristic of what is considered (and I stress the word "consider" since there is really no official, accepted definition of what constitutes a "coup d'etat), it is not a neccesity. The removal of Zelaya in honduras has several other characteristics of what are considered coup d'etat such as the use of military force, the extradition of the Pres., the overtaking of the media, among others. Now, I've spoken of the questionable legality of removing the Pres. but even so, his impeachment would have been more acceptable had the process been handled differently...
I think you should get into the difference between the two because I really don't understand the difference between, illegal and not legal, if you look up the definition of both they say the same thing but opposite which, in the english language, is what the word "not" does. It changes the adjective from positive to the negative opposite.
Also, if you actually looked at the Constitution of Honduras, it is published in a lot of places, you might actually have some basis for your (wrong) opinion. Have a read at this, written by a HONDURAN lawyer...
The following was written by Octavio Sanchez. He is a Honduran lawyer (J.D.
Universidad Nacional Universidad Nacional Autonóma de Honduras; LL.M.
Harvard Law School). He also was a presidential advisor from 2002 – 2005. He
served as the Honduran Minister of Culture from 2005 – 2006.
If you are not familiar with the country’s history and the Honduran
constitution it is almost impossible that you would understand what happened
here this past weekend. In 1982 my country adopted a new Constitution to
allow our ordered return to democracy. After 19 previous constitution -two
Spanish ones, three as part of the Republic of Central America and 14 as an
independent nation- this one, at 28, has been the longest lasting one. It
has lasted for so long because it responds and adapts to our changing
reality, as seen in the fact that out of its original 379 articles, 7 of
them have been completely or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted
and 121 have been reformed.
It also includes 7 articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they
address issues that are critical for us. Those unchangeable articles deal
with the form of government, the extent of our borders,
the number of years
of the presidential term; two prohibitions -one to reelect presidents and
another one to change the article that states who can’t run for president-
and one article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.
In these 28 years Honduras has found legal ways to deal with its own
problems. Each and every successful country around the world lived similar
trial and error processes until they were able to find legal vehicles that
adapt to their reality. France had 13 Constitutions between 1789 and the
adoption of the current one in 1958 which has passed 22 constitutional
revisions. The USA had one before this one which has been amended 27 times
since 1789 and the British –pragmatic as they are- in 900 years have change
it so many times that they have never taken the time to compile their
Constitution into a single body of law.
Having explained that, under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras
this last Sunday? Soldiers arrested and took out of the country a Honduran
citizen that, the day before, through his actions had stripped himself of
the presidency of Honduras.
These are the hard facts. Last Friday Mister Zelaya, with his cabinet,
issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the
“Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly”
(Presidential Decree PCM-020). The decree was published on Saturday on the
official newspaper. With this event, Mister Zelaya triggered a
constitutional protection that automatically removed him from office.
The key legal elements for that constitutional protection to be triggered
are the following ones. Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new
constitutions. In Honduras, you have 365 articles that can be changed by
Congress. When Zelaya published that decree to regulate an “opinion poll”
about the possibility of convening a national assembly he acted against the
unchangeable articles of the constitution that deal with the prohibition of
reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.
How is that kind of intent sanctioned in our Constitution? With the
immediate removal of those involved in the action as stated in article 239
of the Constitution which reads: “No citizen that has already served as head
of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates
this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such
violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions
and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”
Notice that the rule speaks about intent and that it also says immediately
–as in instant, as in no trial required, as in no impeachment needed.
This immediate sanction might sound draconian, but every country knows its
own enemies and it is the black letter of our supreme law. Requiring no
previous trial might be crazy, but in Latin America a President is no
ordinary citizen, it is the most powerful figure of the land and
historically the figure has been above th
Article states that with regards to the process of removing the Pres. in honduras it does not differ much from our own. He then goes on to argue in favor of the legality surrounding the removal of Zelaya. Now this is very interesting. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but, is the writer thus implying that in the U.S. it would be legal to remove a Pres. by going to his house in the middle of the night, putting a gun to his head, flying him to Costa Rica and writing a fake resignation letter? As far as I understand if the same thing happened in the U.S. and Congress determined that the Pres. was violating the constitution, the impeachment and trial go through Congress and if the Pres. loses then he is removed. If he refuses he is removed by force but not flown to another country nor would a fake resignation letter be made.By equating the Honduran process to the U.S. you are validating Pres.Obama's statement that "the coup was not legal", since in the U.S. those actions would not be legal.
It is unnecessary to respond here to your interpretation of the facts or the constitutional basis and judicial decrees that support Mel Zelaya's removal. I have already discussed those extensively in three previous columns. I will point out the following:
I did not misquote President Obama. I previously quoted his exact words and here paraphrased the fair and exact meaning of his statements. As a lawyer, I can tell you that there is no distinction between an act being 'illegal' as opposed to 'not legal.' What is relevant is the fact that Mr. Obama's State Department now contradict the President's initial assertion.
As far as the interpretation of the legality of the removal of Mr. Zelaya under the Honduras Constitution, that power lies in the Honduran Supreme Court, not the OAS, Hugo Chavez, Obama, you or I. They ruled his 'referendum' illegal and he insisted on breaking the law.
The Honduran and U.S. constitutions are similar in that amendments must start with Congress.
Thank you.
I'll simplify the misquote issue by saying that even if there is no difference in meaning, you don't use quotations marks or a single quotation mark when you paraphrase (irrelevant if you used the actual quote on some other article). The fact is Obama never used the phrase "illegal military coup". I see at the very minimum a connotative difference between saying it was "an illegal military coup" and saying "we believe that the coup was not legal". You might not see it, but I do and perhaps somebody else who reads the article does as well, either way it is inappropriate and unethical for you to use quotation marks when paraphrasing, particularly when dealing with a political statement.I'll let you have the last word on that since it is not as relevant as the last part of your comment. I'll comment on it and then I'll stop flooding your site. As far as the legality and interpretation of what was done I found your responses insufficient by I thank you letting me post my comments. Now.....
You correctly stated the legality of the interpretation of the removal lies in the Honduran Supreme Court, not Obama, Chavez, OAS, you or I. And I happen to be aware of the court's decision. When speaking of the validity of the interpretation I do so from the standpoint of the international community (IC) and whether they should accept that decision as being justly made. It is each country's right whether to recognize the Honduran pres., whether to do business with them, provide aid etc. So given the IC reaction I analyze the court's decision to determine whether their reaction to the decision is fair. Now I find your comment amusing and I'll show you why with a comparison. In Nicaragua there were municipal elections in November of last year. Pres. Ortega's party (sandinistas) blatantly stole those elections in favor of the sandinista candidates (I hope nobody here refutes that). Now in Nicaragua both authorities on this issue (the Supreme Electoral Council and the Nicaraguan Supreme
Court) both ruled the elections were just, valid and consitutional. The international community generally denounced the elections and the U.S. has cutoff some of its aid programs to Nicaragua. Now I think there is a good chance Mr. Ortega will try to steal the presidential elections. And again I think that if he does the Supreme Court will again deem the election as valid. The IC and myself will denounce it and perhaps countries will not recognize him as president. But I wonder if your reaction will again be to denounce the response saying it is not up to Obama, Chavez, OAS, you or I to make the decision but to the Nicaraguan Supreme Court. And we all know those courts are NEVER politicized or corrupt.
You are entitled to your stylistic preferences, as I am to mine. Single quotes do not denote a verbatim repetition of a statement, as double quotes do. There is nothing unethical about their use here. It is no different than the AP's use of single quotes when they use the term 'president' to refer to Roberto Micheletti. My condensed version of the sense of Obama's statement is also accurate, since after he referred to Zelaya's removal as 'not legal' he went on to decry the history of military intervention in Latin American politics, thus connecting this event with previous military coups.
I appreciate your comments and thank you for taking the time to read my interpretation of the facts.
Wow!!!, thank you very much, for showing the world, what really happen in Honduras, and Mr. Obama's misconception of the facts and Honduran's laws.
I see your point on what SEEMS to be a flat contradiction between what Obama said and the State Dept. But I think you're wrong on this. By law the U.S. cannot provide aid to govts that come to power through military coups. Now Kelly DID NOT say that this was not a military coup, she said they were studying whether it was a "military coup in a legal sense that would trigger a cutoff". This is a special case since Zelaya's removal had a military coup component, and a legal constitutional process. Therefore you can still call this a military coup (bc of the military break in, fly to CR in pijamas, fake resignation letter, media takeover etc.) but it makes sense that legally it might not trigger the law because of the overall process behind it and the fact that Michelleti assumed in congress through a legal process.So its not really a flat contradiction. In fact I would argue Obama had one of the more moderate responses since he did call for the issue to be resolved w/o outside interferenc
interference. He said that Zelaya was still the president at the time, but he did not go so far as to push for his reinstatement. While what he said is supportive of Zelaya, there is actually a big difference there. Politically this allows him to maneuver and say that Zelaya is the president as of now pending resolution of the issue. The U.S. was in a tough spot bc of the two sides to the removal and politically it would have been difficult to support the procedure taken against Zelaya. Almost every other govt. from moderates in lat. america to the EU have been far more condemming and have been adamant about reinstating Zelaya. At this point the U.S. is good standing back asking for the issue to be resolved democratically w/o interference which might mean earlier elections. They can then support the elected candidate w/o having seen their call neglected since Obama never demanded Zelaya be reinstated.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!