DRJ of Patterico’s Pontifications has noted that the Obama Administration has threatened to not recognize the civilian government to be elected in Honduras this November.
The U.S. government on Thursday toughened its stance against Honduras’s coup leaders and supporters, threatening to put them “in a box” by not recognizing the winner of a presidential election set for November.
The de facto government had hoped that the election would provide an end to the crisis that has gripped the Central American country since the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya on June 28. The balloting had been scheduled well before Zelaya was detained and whisked out of the country by the military.
But U.S. officials said for the first time that they would continue to shun the country unless Honduran leaders went back to a negotiated plan that would allow the return of Zelaya with limited powers until the expiration of his term in December.
“Based on conditions as they currently exist, we cannot recognize the results of this election. So for the de facto regime, they’re now in a box,” said State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley. “And they will have to sign on to the San Jose accords to get out of the box.” He was referring to the plan for Zelaya’s return, which was negotiated in the Costa Rican capital.
DRJ concluded:
This goes against everything America stands for in the world: Free elections, democracy, and the rule of law. The Obama Administration was willing to work with Ahmadinejad in Iran despite credible evidence the election had been fixed, but now it’s willing to negate a democratic election before it’s even held? This is wrong.
The November elections were scheduled long before former President Zelaya was deposed and escorted out of the country; this would be Honduras’ normal way of electing a government. Mr Zelaya would not have been eligible to run for re-election in November: he was removed precisely because he was trying to amend the constitution to eliminate the term limits which prevented him from running again.
Even if we were to assume that the left’s characterization of this — which it seems our 44th President swallows — that this was nothing but a blatant military coup, we always accepted as legitimate civilian governments which were elected to end military rule. In this case, we would be doing something entirely different: refusing to recognize a civilian government to end a government set up by military coup.
It seems that we have a foreign policy set by sophomores.
“Skinny Brown Brother” may have an affinity for his fellow Marxists. This should be obvious from the people he is appointing as commissars of this and that.
He does have to walk a tightrope for a while.
You can’t fool all of the people all of the time but the promise of free moon pie in the sky can work with 51% of the electorate.
It’s not a military coup. Zelaya violated the constitution and should have been impeached, but there was no provision for impeachment in the constitution, so the Supreme Court had to have him removed. The government in place now is not a military government but the one that should be in there according to the constitution.
Besides, Zelaya’s approval rating in Honduras is, like, 25%. WTF does Obama think he’s accomplishing by backing him?
Sounds more like a foreign policy designed by 3 year olds. It’s the old tantrum of “If you won’t play by MY rules, I’ll take the ball and bat and go home!”
Mmm-hmm. So, let me see if I have this straight:
If Obama, using the powers you consider to be legitimate, arrested Republican leaders as “enemy combatants” (remember – the President’s say-so was good enough for Bush) and drove others into exile early in 2012, you will consider the elections held later that year legitimate?
Even if we were to assume that the left’s characterization of this — which it seems our 44th President swallows — that this was nothing but a blatant military coup,
Well, you know, the left, the OAS, the UN, the US State Department…
we always accepted as legitimate civilian governments which were elected to end military rule.
Such as post-1992 Cuban elections? One notes that they’re very loud in describingthemselves as a “democracy” too…
Eric:
Sounds more like a foreign policy designed by 3 year olds. It’s the old tantrum of “If you won’t play by MY rules, I’ll take the ball and bat and go home!”
I was going to say designed by 8th graders, but 3 year old tantrum is about right. This guy is worse than the worst days of Clinton and Bush Combined. Amatuer days in the Green House – Fire Van Jones NOW!
Blind in the times of the Sighted sez:
Such as post-1992 Cuban elections? One notes that they’re very loud in describingthemselves as a “democracy” too…
You actually believe there is a democratic government in Cuba??? ROTFLMAO.
Phoe, do some reading up on what’s actually going on in Honduras. The problem arises from the fact that President Zelaya did something blatantly impeachable, but the Honduran Constitution doesn’t have a specific provision for impeachment. Zelaya attempted to call a referendum that would allow him to serve another term in office, which according to the Constitution is an offense that comes with immediate removal from office and a 10-year ban from politics. He also tried to sack the head of the army, which he apparently can’t do either. The Supreme Court called him on it and, lacking a precedent or a constitutional directive to figure out what to do next, asked the army to remove him. The void in office was filled by the next person in line – now-President Micheletti.
The problem here, of course, is that Honduras’ Constitution prevents anyone from being punished by exile, so when the army took him to Costa Rica they, too, ran afoul of the Constitution. Thus the negotiations currently ongoing.
However, this is not an undemocratic military coup, and should not be treated as such, for several reasons. For one, Honduras’ democratic institutions remain in place, and have undergone little change since Zelaya was removed. Second, the military did not act on its own but at the behest of the Supreme Court, who took their justification from Honduras’ democratic constitution. Third, the military did not install their own selected leader but allowed the successor to be chosen by the process presumably laid out in the Constitution. So when the US government, the OAS, the UN, and whoever discuss this as a military coup they’re being misleading at best.
The Slide Rule in a time of Computers wrote:
Yeah, that’s actually a pretty good list of the left. The OAS, with wonderful people like Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama running OAS countries, the UN, a nest of Neville Chamberlains punctuated with the occasional dictator or three, and the US State Department, controlled by President Obama.
Good post, Jeff. Nice to have some actual facts and clear headed analysis of the situation.
You actually believe there is a democratic government in Cuba??? ROTFLMAO.
You really are unable to read, aren’t you?
So when the US government, the OAS, the UN, and whoever discuss this as a military coup they’re being misleading at best.
I have done the reading – you are wrong. Feel free to tell us where article 374 forbids non-binding referendums.
The simple fact that every dimplomatic grouping disagrees with you should show you clearly that you’re the lunatic fringe here. When Dana describes the entire world as “the left”, you should know you have a problem.
Consider for a moment who thinks the coup is legitimate – the junta itself, American wingnuts, and, um, nope – that’s it. No nation recognises the junta. None. You’re the lunatic fringe.
Seriously – do you lot not get that yet?
In a typical coup, a group of military officers ousts the elected leader (or one who simply grabbed power) and puts one of its own (or a junta) in control.
Was this the case in Honduras?
It appears that the attempted illegal power grab was that of the ousted presidente.
What motivated Obama on this one? Is he stupid or sinister?
Was this the case in Honduras?
Art, it was a coup d’etat – they took over the government by force. Read the definition some time.
They put this guy in charge.
You’re parrotting the line given by the regime itself. I bet you think North Korea is a democratic people’s republic, too…
The Stand up Comedian in the time of Morose sez:
You’re parrotting the line given by the regime itself. I bet you think North Korea is a democratic people’s republic, too…
Ok, I’m convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, you really do write stand-up comedy routines.
Ok, I’m convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, you really do write stand-up comedy routines. Yorkshire
But her clients are all mimes.
Well, Phoe, it seems as though Honduras will have a free and democratic election in two months, yet President Obama, the victor in a free and democratic election of his own, doesn’t seem to like it. instead, he seems to prefer fine gentlemen like Hugo Chavez, who amended his country’s constitution so that he could run for president until he dies — wonder how long it’ll take before he just formalizes the title of “president for life?” — pulled the licenses from media outlets which opposed him, but makes himself popular to the peasants by
stealingnationalizing foreign industries. He may yet accomplish the astounding feat of wrecking the economy of a country blessed with major oil reserves.Our government recognizes all sorts of governments that don’t exactly qualify as democracies: think every Arab nation other than Iraq. But, heaven forfend, the people of Honduras defend themselves from a president trying to Chavezize himself, and our friends on the left go nuts.
Art Downs:
Ok, I’m convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, you really do write stand-up comedy routines. Yorkshire
But her clients are all mimes.
But always remember, a Mime is a terrible thing to waste.
As for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who so strongly supported ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, we have this story:
Dana himself said: “But, heaven forfend, the people of Honduras defend themselves from a president trying to Chavezize himself, and our friends on the left go nuts.”
I thought we were a proponent of democracy, of free elections, aren’t we?
Oh, I see, it is only when we like the outcome! Thanks for the clarification.
Perry:
Dana himself said: “But, heaven forfend, the people of Honduras defend themselves from a president trying to Chavezize himself, and our friends on the left go nuts.”
I thought we were a proponent of democracy, of free elections, aren’t we?
Oh, I see, it is only when we like the outcome! Thanks for the clarification.
So Perry, You want a Chavez Socialist Communist type regime for Honduras? That’s the only conclusion I can reach from your comment.
Perry:
Dana himself said: “But, heaven forfend, the people of Honduras defend themselves from a president trying to Chavezize himself, and our friends on the left go nuts.”
I thought we were a proponent of democracy, of free elections, aren’t we?
I suppose by a “Free Election” you meant the one that was planned by Chavez for Honduras, and Chavez printed the ballots, and Zelaya had the results of the illegal vote to extend his term limit already recorded before the vote was taken.
Perry, are these the type of elections you are referring to? The ones where an outcome is known before the vote is taken.
Perry wrote:
We are — which is why it is inappropriate of the Obama Administration to decide not to recognize the results of Honduras’ upcoming free elections.