A couple of months ago I posted an article here called Honduras - The Real Story, From the Inside (Not the News Media Version). The article was actually written by a couple of friends, both lawyers, one Honduran, who explained the long history of former President Zelaya's attempts to circumvent the laws, the Congress, and the Supreme Court of Honduras. Please take a few minutes to read it if you haven't already.
The video below is new. Greta Van Susteren interviewed an American who has been living in Honduras for the last 7-1/2 years. The video is 12 minutes long, but I believe it is well worth watching the whole thing.
Okay, seems Gather doesn't trust the source of the video, so it isn't showing up. Please click on this link to see the video.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=9708897&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/
I believe some of the key take home messages here include:
1) Former President Zelaya broke the law and violated the Honduran Constitution. He did so multiple times over several years. While elected as a centrist he veered dramatically left in the mode of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez (the two have become buddies).
2) Nothing has changed in the country other than the removal of Zelaya. The Congress remains the same (the interim President Micheletti was the leader of Congress and by law assumes the interim Presidency until the election). The Supreme Court remains the same (they voted 15-0 to remove Zelaya for abuse of power). All of these people were already in those positions when Zelaya was in power. Some on the Supreme Court are actually people Zelaya insisted be installed even though they didn't go through the vetting process required to elect Supreme Court justices. And yet even these judges agreed that Zelaya had broken the law repeatedly and was attempting to change the Constitution a la Chavez. In short, everything is the same as it was before, except for Zelaya.
3) While the US and OAS (Organization of American States) still insist that Zelaya was removed illegally (he wasn't), the European Union has recently agreed to continue trade negotiations with Honduras so as not to isolate them.
4) The election scheduled for November was scheduled a long time ago, while Zelaya was in power. Nothing has changed. The candidates for the election were selected in the Honduran version of primaries last year, again while Zelaya was in power. Nothing has changed.
5) Sweden and other countries have agreed to act as observers to ensure that the scheduled elections continue as planned and remain fair and open. Nothing has changed.
I encourage everyone to make it known to the US State Department and the White House that it is critical that the elections be allowed to proceed as planned and validated as the will of the people. There is no legitimate reason to do otherwise. The US should send its own observers to ensure validation of the results. The US should also refrain from putting further pressure on the interim government for the return of Zelaya. Neither Zelaya or Micheletti are eligible to run for election, so they really aren't relevant. The candidates were selected a long time ago, and the people will vote for whom they want to vote. The US should encourage this democratic process, and should embrace the newly and democratically elected President, whomever that might be.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 48
Great story! ...by the way, the video is not appearing because Fox News is not considered by Gather to be a trustworthy site (so is CNN, ABC, NBC, etc.). Hence, you are not able to embed videos from these sites into a post.
David K. Sep 18, 2009, 2:49pm EDT
Van Susteren also did a long interview with interim Honduran President Micheletti. I think you can see it started at the link (if it let's me link it).
That said, I can't imagine we would want to have it shift to a Chavez-like power grab, which is why the Honduran Supreme Court issued the arrest warrant.
I think in the end it will work out, but it might be a tough few more months (or longer).
But . . . but David . . . I ... there are reasons "we" might not think a shift to a Chavez-like power grab is so bad.
There are so many, even here on Gather who agree with, even endorse Chavez as one of the good guys.
I think ... and I know you may not agree, and many even think it's loonytoons-overboard to agree (except for those who side with the Chavez-type "democratic rule of law") ... I think our President might also quite like to publically agree with that Chavez-like ideology, if we take P. Obama's attitude toward him so far as a guide; although he can't yet and won't. Not until it's too late for us to do anything about it.
Then ... there are all the people in his administration who also seem to agree with that mindset . . . people who hold ideas only the Faux news seems to take seriously.
And while I was shocked at the side our own government took on the issue; I can't say I'm actually surprised that those who support putting Zelaya back in power do so - their leanings are there for those who will see it, and Honduras is just another small step in their support of like minded actions and worldviews.
For others it's just the ravings of a near albino lunatic. +shrug+
I think in the end it will work out, but it might be a tough few more months (or longer).
I hope you are right about it working out - I assume you mean it'll work out so that Zelaya is finally ousted for good - and I look forward to and fervently hope I get to see all the above-described Zelaya supporters in the U.S. government being quoted as saying they knew it would work out for the best all along.
They followed their constitution that the socialist-Marxist, Zelaya tried to avoid.
Obama is, I don't know what to think. This is clear cut, Honduras broke no laws did nothing illegal-even a 5Th grader could figure that out after investigating the situation.Not, Obama or Hillary. Pathetic!
The circumstances here obviously are not what people would normally consider to be a coup, even though it most certainly appeared as such on its face. That was the purpose of the original post I linked to in my first line above.
I suggest you don't sell either Obama or Hillary short.
I've been busy with other stuff ... but have a couple of Honduras articles in the pipeline if I can ever get back to them. It's shameful we'll talk with and even allow Ahmadinnawhatever into the country but not the legal Honduran prez.
+deep breath+ We agree on who the bad guy seems to actually be.
I think I read somewhere that because of the nature of the situation in that part of the world that the Hondurans put some extraordinary laws into place to forstall any of that hanky panky.
What happened to Zelaya seems to have been the result of one or more of those laws (paraphrased very simply of course).
Z seems to be the poster boy for that kind of thing; in fact if you look in the Honduran dictionary his picture is cross referenced under 'hanky-panky' as well as 'chavezwannabe' lol (okay, I thought that was mildly amusing .... and I'm glad I can't hear if there is silence on your end as you read it - I'll just imagine you are chuckling just a little at that old line).
Mostly I just wanted to thank you for following up on this.
The key is the November election. Honduras, the US, and everyone else has to do everything they need to do to make sure it is both legitimate, and seen as legitimate, by everyone.
I'm hoping everyone (including the US) gets behind the upcoming elections.
David, they have sold the Iranian people- Israeli people- eastern Europe people short.
But we have to save Obama-care, that is the crisis we must pay attention too.
Do not want to make this a political post, David, but something is very wrong with Obama decision making.
But we have already pounced. From memory it seems we've put into place at least some surface sanctions irt financial things, put a hold on President Micheletti's visa so he can't enter the U.S. I'm not sure what we've done with Zelaya's.
We have joined the world in voicing our disapproval of their actions in removing clear and present danger to their constitution, culture, and way of life and in doing that we have by default upheld a man who is trying to impose an Hugo Chavez "democratic" typed government in Honduras.
Not that I'm familiar with Honduras per se ... but any friend of Hugo's is an enemy of mine -- and apparently of President Micheletti's and the Honduran Constitution.
Certainly using Arias as a go-between isn't a good solution, since Arias himself has pulled some Chavezesque tricks in Costa Rica in order to extend his term. There's a reason these countries have restricted President's to one term.
Yes, that's what I thought.
with the exception of the people that were hoping to meet with US state department folks to straighten this out.
Good way to shut down communications with a friend.
Certainly using Arias as a go-between isn't a good solution, since Arias himself has pulled some Chavezesque tricks in Costa Rica in order to extend his term.
Agreed.
There's a reason these countries have restricted President's to one term.
Agreed. As noted in a quote from this page:
David K. Sep 18, 2009, 6:13pm EDT
Yes, the visas of the major government leaders and the entire Supreme Court have been suspended for the time being. It's not that critical in actuality since none of them was likely planning to travel to the US soon, with the exception of the people that were hoping to meet with US state department folks to straighten this out.
Certainly using Arias as a go-between isn't a good solution, since Arias himself has pulled some Chavezesque tricks in Costa Rica in order to extend his term. There's a reason these countries have restricted President's to one term.
This policy rebukes a very sensible plan Obama articulated during Iran's election problems. To change that policy for an American ally and a nation that has arguably come a long ways in the last 30 years makes us look even more contradictory than ever.
Which would you support based on those facts?
The reality is much more complex of course, and it is those realities that I'm still trying to figure out. Iran is pretty much out of our hands; we essentially have no standing or influence given our long history with them. Honduras has a democratic system of government (or republic if you prefer) in which nothing has changed other than the one guy at the top. I can see where we can't just pat the new guys on the back, but I think we can be a lot more dimensional in our view of the situation.
That has been one of our past problems in parsing what constitutes a problem we should (or can) interfere with. That's what I liked about Obama's stated non interference policy. I agree that in detail there is a difference but one can say that about anything. That stated simplicity of Obama's policy, it was clear and I think something worth doing.
Clearly we need to either drop our objections or reverse them so that Honduras can just go ahead with its elections and move on.
I still think that parsing (versus my over simplification) remains a reason why we keep getting involved in other nation's affairs.
I know Chiquita, Dole and the clothing industry are furious that Zelaya raised the minimum wage. Pretty good for a country where 62% of the population lives in poverty.
I just don't trust Faux Noise, interview a neocon American? what, couldn't find a Honduran to interview?
I feel exactly the same way. Thanks for both of your articles on this subject, David. I know it's not much, but I've sent emails to both the State Dept. and the White House, and will do my best to send a few follow-ups.
My own thought is that the US is on a very simple scale just supporting democracy. The facts: a democratically elected president was removed from office (actually his house) by military personnel in the early morning hours and whisked out of the country. How could we support that?
Clearly the Hondurans did so because of 1) Zelaya violating the constitution, and 2) a deep historical fear of the very sort of power grab that has plagued the region, as exemplified by the Chavez and Arias maneuverings.
So you can see the dilemma.
From Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, and more, we should let other countries alone with whom they elect.
We do not need to put our "Stamp of approval" on anything.
Is that poking our nose into others business? Where do we draw the line? Should we not have pushed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, or Hitler out of Europe, or sent naval ships to help deliver supplies to the victims of Aceh after the tsunami hit Indonesia?
The real world doesn't bend well to theoretical constructs, so I try to look beyond theoretical and into practical.
That said, I have expressed my opinions on this matter and am doing what I can. This post is just one attempt to reach out.
As I understand the facts, as reported in both interviews and not contested by the US government or others. The Honduran legislature, the Supreme Court are in place an fucntioning as prescribed by law (the military has not usurped any official powrs). The election process is following the established process (which has been follwed in previous elcetection).
That overweighting of facts causes me to believe that the Adminstration is on the wrong side of the issue and is cause justified grieve for the Honduran people.
My best guess is that the Adinstration wanting to establish itself from its predicessors have been too quick to judge. My concern is that the egos in DC are what is preventing a full review of the situation and trying to undermine the credibility of the Honduran governemnt and the upcoming elections.
I say this because it seems they are more willing to accept established national leaders than concern themsleves with the legitimancy of how they got into power or stay in power.
For me, the real question is why are our President and Secretary of State backing Zelaya and his friend Hugo Chavez. No one has been willing to ask them that question as far as I can tell.
You must not be watching the news, Randy. A lot of people are asking that question. And they have answered it.