Posted on 10/12/2009 9:36:44 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
As this is being written, Manuel Zelaya, the ousted and exiled ex-president of Honduras, is holed up in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital, having been smuggled there on Sept. 21. His followers acted like the anti-capitalist protesters who haunt G-20 meetings, smashing windows, spraying graffiti, attacking police cars, and suchlike.
Here is how we got to this point: Zelaya was elected president of Honduras in 2005. His administration has been plagued by charges of corruption, with the impartial group, Transparency International, ranking Honduras under Zelaya as corrupt as Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Libya.
In 2008, Zelaya joined the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas, the anti-American political and economic bloc of Latin American countries led by Venezuelas Hugo Chavez, who has succeeded Fidel Castro in becoming the leading leftist autocrat in Latin America. Zelaya has received financial aid from Chavez, and has been alleged to be involved in the illicit drug trade.
On March 28 of this year, Zelaya initiated steps to alter the Honduran constitution. He wanted to change the provision stipulating that presidents are limited to one term. Article 239 of that constitution explicitly states that a president who takes any steps to tamper with that provision forfeits the office. This may seem jarring to North Americans, but if one is familiar with Latin American history, which has been plagued by the caudillo syndrome (a strong man installing himself as leader for life), one can see why a freedom-loving people would institute such a safeguard.
Venezuelas Chavez publicly endorsed Zelayas bid to revise the Honduran constitution. Chavez has a long record of intervening in the domestic affairs of Latin American neighbors, granting millions of petrodollars and sending community organizers to perform on-the-ground legwork. He has helped install leftist allies into the presidencies of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, and clearly had Honduras in his sights.
Zelaya was warned by Honduras supreme court to cease stirring up mobs in support of his bid to prolong his presidency. He refused. On June 28, the courtbacked by both political parties (including Zelayas), the congress, the Catholic Church, and the business sectorremoved Zelaya from office. In a desire to avoid violent clashes with Zelayas allies (anti-Zelaya crowds of Hondurans had already begun public protests), the court asked the military to fly Zelaya to Costa Rica. The military complied. Then the constitutional successor, Roberto Micheletti, was sworn in as president. From day one, Micheletti has promised to yield to his constitutional successor, who will be elected in November.
Also from day one, Chavez has worked to return Zelaya to power. On the day of Zelayas expulsion, Chavez immediately called on the Honduran military to mutiny, contacted Zelaya allies in Honduras to fight, and vowed to depose Micheletti. In short, Chavez showed himself to be an enemy of the Honduran constitution, the rule of law, and the aspirations of the Honduran people to live in freedom instead of under a strong man.
And where does the Obama administration stand on this?
On the day Zelaya was deposed, the White House and State Department demanded Zelayas return, declaring him to be the legal president. An August report by the Congressional Research Service concluded that Zelayas removal was entirely legal; nevertheless, in September, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton terminated U.S. aid to Honduras. She declared all those Hondurans who participated in the constitutional process to depose Zelaya to be persona non grata in the United States. Furthermore, the Obama administration vows not to recognize the winner of Honduras November presidential election.
Whats wrong with this picture?
Is it honorable for the Obama administration to break its promise not to interfere with sovereign matters?
Is it consistent with American values to support a law violator, repudiate constitutional government, and subvert a countrys institutional safeguards against would-be despots?
Is it in our countrys interest to ally ourselves with Hugo Chavez, and indeed, to increase his pernicious influence by actively supporting one of his antidemocratic campaigns?
Just as jihadist terrorists accelerated their aggressions against American interests before 9/11, when they concluded that we didnt have the backbone to resist them, do we want to send a message to Latin America that Chavez is its future and we no longer care if our Latin American friends lose their liberty?
We ought to be worried by the fact that Zelaya has chosen the Brazilian embassy as his base of operations, because it signals that Brazils president, Lula da Silva, has abandoned his prudent, pragmatic policy of not wanting to offend either Chavez to his left or the United States to his right. Lula must now feel constrained to appease Chavez antidemocratic ambitions, because clearly, if the United States is not willing to stand up against him, how may Brazil risk getting on the wrong side of Chavez?
Does President Obama really want to drive Brazil, the largest and wealthiest South American country, closer to Venezuela?
Do the American people want their government to take the side of antidemocratic bullies against the freedom-loving people of Honduras?
Everything is wrong with this picture. Our Honduras policy is unconscionable.
Before I comment on your post, I must do some homework.
This is to indicate I have not ignored your opinion.
Great Article
TNX
Whatever
Have thought about your attempt at refuting Mr. Hendrickson’s article.
Your whole argument hinges on a Google machine translation of a portion of their constitution and ridicule of some of the statements that Mr. Hendrickson made as being unsubstantiated. I am not fluent in Spanish and it appears that you are not either, since you mentioned the google translator.
I use machine translations daily and find Google’s translator very good. But the structure of the English language and Spanish are very different. Anyone who has used machine translators understands that context is often distorted by this structural difference.
Some Constitutional scholars here in the U.S. have stated that his removal was lawful.
Rather than look at a sentence in the Constitution of Honduras, I am looking at the events as they unfold in Honduras.
There is evidence that Zelaya used whether a patient at a hospital supported the constitutional changes or not to deny medical treatment. (Why do you think Obozo is so committed to his Healthcare legislation and to having the FDA control U.S. food production- answer - they are hammers to subject a people) This is about a planned decent into totalitarianism.
I am not questioning your motives, but find it odd here to defend the puppet of Chavez and Lula (also Obozo) on this forum.
The pattern of Zelaya’s actions will eventually be exposed as will Obozo’s lies, treachery, deceit and treason. Both will ultimately be exposed and discredited.
Respectfully,
TF
Here is an interesting tweet that I ran across this evening on the #Honduras hash code. It relates to the cell phone use by Zelaya at the Brazilian Embassy.
“Arrest warrant against former manager of CONATEL # Honduras (now staying in c # Zelaya Brazilian Embassy)”
Sounds like an X-manager of the cell phone company is in deep doo.
I don’t do tweet.
Was he arrested for helping Zelaya, or something like that?
“Was he arrested for helping Zelaya, or something like that?”
As I understand it he is actually in the Embassy with Zelaya. And they have a warrant for him, but he has not been arrested yet.
No hard news about this yet.
I agree with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.