History shifted, did you notice? Brazil is now leading The Coalition.

[JackRiddler]

Brazil is the leader of the Coalition. It's only just dawning on me.

Yesterday saw the launch of an action by a concord of nations determined to intervene, without violence, in the affairs of Honduras. Their goal is not to occupy, but to roll back a military-installed dictatorship aligned with the usual imperialist interests, to restore the elected president and the rule of law, and to do so with the tools of peaceful internationalism and righteous moral pressure. There will be no shock and awe, no foreign regents and - cross your fingers - no hangings.

This coalition came together quietly in the months since the coup of June under the leadership, only now revealed in full, of Brazil. Venezuela and, at least on the surface, the US administration are the informal junior partners, each pretending the other isn't really there.

President Lula of Brazil was the first head of state to speak at the convening of the UN General Assembly today, and he began by putting to the world the demand that Zelaya must be restored!

Brazil suffered along with Argentina, Chile and Bolivia under the CIA-backed "Condor" dictatorships of the 1970s. Never forgetting their brutalization, they unite with the Central American countries formerly ravaged by US-armed death squads, together moving to stamp out the Micheletti junta's attempt to renew "golpista" tyranny. In this of course they support and rely on the central actors in this drama, the people of Honduras who fight and bleed for the hope of freedom, because they know they have nothing to lose.

This is the same Brazil that has become an economic power, removed itself from the deathly reach of the IMF and the World Bank, and now conducts trade with China not in dollars, but in yuan and its own currency, the real. This is the Brazil that acts as the new mediating force for Latin America as a whole.

Now this is history! Weird, and welcome, and to me quite unknown territory. It feels very remote from where I am, and yet, rationally, we should understand its significance. What was it Obama said today in his own UN speech? That the US can't solve all the world's problems? An elegant CYA. The informal US empire over the Americas as originally staked out by the Monroe Doctrine looks to be ending, the long "emerging" nations have finally come out.

Sadly our fellow US Americans are unaware of this moment with its grand hopes and potentials: the demon tent of Gaddafi, teabagger hysterics about ACORN, a new NFL season: apparently that's what registered as the world looked beyond US!

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Congratulations on noticing this

Why I have been saying that this coup will not end the usual way.

And I for once welcome the end of the American Empire.

[bertman]

110. yes, congratulations are due to JackRiddler and to Brazil and her cohorts, but the end

of the American Empire is hardly upon us.

If the Empire cannot make the emerging Central and South American nations knuckle under it will simply shift its focus elsewhere to less-developed nations such as those in Africa and maybe even the former Soviet states. Georgia is already on the list and Azerbaijan has lots of big-oil guys working with its leadership.

I'm sure there are many more who have caught the eye of our Imperial Overlords.

[JackRiddler]

111. Good points - Africa's the new imperial frontier...

but in the big picture amounts to a rearguard action, in the face of the empire's loss of hold over Latin America, the likely peak of influence in the Middle East having now passed, and the Eurasian adventure probably going nowhere against the rising SCO. All of which is provisional, I understand.

There has been a lot of covert and quiet intervention in Africa in the last 15 years, and it's mounting. A growth market for the activities of suspect foundations (the Gates and their pharma/GMO testing ventures), shadowy multis especially in mining and extraction, mercenaries and arms dealers, humanitarian imperialists (Darfur), and Pentagon planners with the foundation of Africom. These actors, not just American but coming from competitors in Europe and China, are already creating chaos and demanding great numbers of victims.

[leftstreet]

2. K&R

[HappyCynic]

3. K & R

[Wilms]

4. Thoughtful post. Rrrd n/t

[Gman2]

5. We need to apologise immediately to Central and South America

and create a sone of economic reciprocity. Let Europe and asia do each other. We NEED a bloc of north, central, south Americ pulling as one. Or we are shit outta luck gringos.

[Selatius]

8. It may be possible if the US would stop electing right wing governments.

Otherwise, Latin America will continue to suspect American interests, and if that is the case, the US seriously faces being locked out of Latin America in terms of doing anything of interest there. Then the US will be alone in the hemisphere.

The US is a proto-fascist state with ever-increasing police powers and a continued incestuous relationship between industrialists and the politicians who are supposed to regulate them. The problem is way bigger than Obama or any single person or the two-party system.

[Gman2]

10. Then ther's that!

[pundaint]

20. As a bad Ed McMann impostor would say:

You are right, sir!

Now what?

[Selatius]

23. My only suggestion is that the US seriously entertain public finance reform...real reform.

Make a system where it is easier and competitive to take public financing vs. private financing where the money can easily come from powerful interests that corrupt. Maybe if that is accomplished, we could wrest control of the federal government away from the corporatists definitively, and maybe it would break the two-party monopoly on power because qualifying for public financing shouldn't be limited to simply somebody who is registered as a Republican or a Democrat.

Sadly, I fear such a reform will not come without a serious movement, something extraordinary big, big like the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, but it's hard to imagine the US population getting mobilized for such a cause. It's far easier to mobilize them if they are made to understand that they are about to lose something precious, like a son or daughter in war, than to mobilize for something that they have not yet obtained, like elections free from influence peddlers.

If such a movement fails to obtain the reforms through all peaceful avenues, well, then we can be satisfied that we petitioned repeatedly for a redress of grievances before the guns come out. We will be satisfied that the corporatists were the ones who denied us peaceful change, leaving us nothing but violent change. We will not be the first ones to fire the first shots. They will be.

[Stevepol]

25. May I suggest that a big reason we "elect" RW nuts also has to do with our election system.

If we want to elect reasonable politicians, we've got to restore democracy in the US.

You can't have democracy when the vote is counted in secret by partisan actors (i.e. ES&S, Sequoia, Hart Intercivic, etc. etc.) w/o verification.

Obama and a good crew of Dems won in 08 because the numbers were so great that the tilt from the fraudulently programmed and hacked and patched machines wasn't large enough to make a lot of difference. The results were askew, just not enough to change the outcome. As things now stand, our election system is an open invitation for anybody with sufficient lack of ethical standards to get any result desired in any particular election w/o regard to the actual vote.

[Selatius]

50. We were having serious problems even before e-voting. (See deaths of JFK, MLK, and RFK)

The two-party system was bad before the current era. It's just worse now, and it's got to be junked. If there were a strong public financing mechanism that any citizen could try to qualify for, and the prerequisites were reasonable, then theoretically you would see more independents running and winning, as opposed to being locked into seeking help from either of the two establishment parties.

We need a strong public option as far as elections in this country go and verified voting, preferably paper ballots only. The current public option is very weak.

[midnight]

97. Restoring democracy takes alot of work, and more than letter writing.

Unfortunately it takes standing outside the G20 summit and protesting. Some here get upset if windows get broken. Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate breaking windows. But how many times have we come to the realization that those who do this action are really not part of the larger organization speaking out?

[Captain Hilts]

44. That's called NAFTA and folks here think we've lost jobs to China because of it. nt

[Withywindle]

6. Parabéns, Brasil!

Brazil is the fifth largest country in the WORLD both by population and land area (cue the Shrub saying, "Wow, Brazil is big!" "You have blacks here too?") It has the oldest major city in the New World (Salvador de Bahia)--and for that matter, currently the largest GLBT Pride parade in the world (São Paulo; slightly over 3 million people participated in 2009).

Why shouldn't Brazil have a ruling role? Lula is well respected by the people, and when he steps down there will be others from the labor movement ready to move up.

[Vidar]

7. K&R

[EFerrari]

9. The coalition put Chavez out as bait and the Pinochettis fell for it.

:)

[flamingdem]

11. playing chess with the village morons nt

[JackRiddler]

31. Heh.

[clear eye]

100. Unfortunately that's not what happened.

Chavez has been a target b/c U.S. headquartered multi-nationals want his country's oil. Despite what you've been suckered into believing, there's nothing about Chavez's politics that makes him a particularly easy fall guy. The vast majority of his people passionately support him. The only people who have been duped are North Americans like yourself who have been reading the U.S. media.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Wow! Great post!

Indeed. Weird and welcome.

[charlie]

13. And that greasy worm Lanny Davis

is Micheletti's hired turd polisher, on the wrong side of the law and the wrong side of history. He's a fucking disgrace and should, at long last, be a pariah in Democratic circles. I know it won't happen, but he should be.

[Wilms]

15. I looked him up on wiki some time ago. Greasy worm fits.

Lanny Davis and the Honduran Coup

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6183627&mesg_id=6183627

[charlie]

17. There you go

Thanks for that. It ain't all of it, but what more does anyone need to know about Lanny? And the DLC faction he exemplifies? Fuck the lot of them, the indecent cold-blooded cretins.

[robinlynne]

14. very important post. Thank-you.

[boppers]

16. When does Zelaya's term end?

If the upcoming elections aren't thought of valid, will he ever be replaced, or is this a "President for life" game, where both the left and right are arguing over who should lead their dictatorship, rather than having elections in a democracy?

[EFerrari]

18. The left is not arguing for dictatorship.

[TxRider]

38. Nor is the right from what I understand

But Zalaya is pushing for removing term limits.

[EFerrari]

40. The right is enforcing a de facto dictatorship. Today.

And do you have a link for your claim about term limits? Thanks.

[TxRider]

47. The interim president leaves in about 60 days from now after the election.

The interim president was interviewed, he stated he was out in 2 months in the normal election, and that he was barred from even running ever again as his interim position meant he was also under the single term limit.

"The coup was the culmination of a battle that had been simmering for weeks over a referendum, which was to have taken place on June 28, that Mr. Zelaya hoped would lead to a revision of the Constitution. Critics said it was part of an illegal attempt by Mr. Zelaya to defy the Constitution's limit of a single four-year term for the president.

Early in June, the Supreme Court agreed, declaring the referendum unconstitutional, and Congress followed suit later in the month. Supporters and opponents of the president held competing demonstrations. Mr. Zelaya led a group of protesters to an Air Force base and seized the ballots, which the prosecutor's office and the electoral tribunal had ordered confiscated.

When the army refused to help organize the vote, he fired the armed forces commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez. The Supreme Court ruled the firing illegal and reinstated General Vásquez.

As the crisis escalated, American officials began to talk with Honduran government and military officials in an effort to head off a possible coup. The military broke off those discussions on June 28."

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/z/jose_manuel_zelaya/index.html

It doesn't exactly strike me as a typical military coup to install a dictator...

[EFerrari]

57. No one, including us, will recognize the results of that election

if they are run by the Pinochettis. That's already a matter of public record.

And yes, what Honduras has or had until Zelaya returned was a dictator imposed by money and the military. The IMF just recognized the Zelaya government, btw.

[clear eye]

101. "Critics said...

it was part of an illegal attempt by Mr. Zelaya to defy the Constitution's limit of a single four-year term for the president."

And you just take that as fact?!! That's like determining Obama's positions during the last Presidential campaign by listening to spokepeople for McCain. And that's all the substantiation of this charge that you've got? Gee, I guess the NYT is more the direct word of God than the Bible, in your eyes.

Please, look a little further and get back to us.

[Chulanowa]

70. Because truthfully, term limits are undemocratic

And their main use has been to destabalize popular reform and press for a right-leaning status quo.

Look at our own term limits.

[TxRider]

80. They aren't undemocratic if the people decide not.

Term limits are also to guarantee a democracy, so that nobody maintains power long enough to consolidate it into a dictatorship.

Power corrupts, look at our own government...

[Chulanowa]

81. That's some logic there, man

You realize "the people," when presented with a chance to vote on term limits (such as in, say, Venezuela) overwhelmingly abolish the things. Our own term limit laws were never presented to the people to vote on. Neither were the term limit laws of most other countries that have them.

No matter how you slice it, they are undemocratic. Term limits restrict who the people are allowed to vote for. If they want someone, let them elect him. If they don't, they won't vote for him.

As for consolidating into a dictatorship... Yeah, term limits don't halt that. 'Cause would-be dictators have a funny habit of simply refusing to leave office regardless of how elections go, whether there are term limits or no.

Interestingly, to jusge from our own government, there's some indications that term limits tend to trend toward a politician defying the people, if not outright dictatorship. After all, a senator or president or whoever who's entered their final term does not give a shit anymore. They do whatever they want because their job will not be coming up for review at the end of this term.

[TxRider]

36. In about 2 months

Which is why he was trying to change the constitution to remove term limits.

The interim president doesn't sound like a Dictator to me, he's out in 2 months and can never run again, and is from Zalaya's party if I heard correctly.

And why I don't really back one side or the other at this point.

Allegations of Zalaya taking millions to Venezuela to print ballots, after the supreme court said it was illegal etc.

I don't like the military removing him, but Zalaya's hands don't look clean either and I do not know Honduran law or procedure. If I read spanish well enough, I would read their constitution and laws and find out, but I don't.

I'll be making my mind up after hearing how the elections go in a couple of months.

[EFerrari]

41. Again, could you provide a link that shows your allegation about term limits is true?

Thanks.

[TxRider]

48. Here's a NYT piece

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/z/jose_manuel_zelaya/index.html

"The coup was the culmination of a battle that had been simmering for weeks over a referendum, which was to have taken place on June 28, that Mr. Zelaya hoped would lead to a revision of the Constitution. Critics said it was part of an illegal attempt by Mr. Zelaya to defy the Constitution's limit of a single four-year term for the president.

Early in June, the Supreme Court agreed, declaring the referendum unconstitutional, and Congress followed suit later in the month. Supporters and opponents of the president held competing demonstrations. Mr. Zelaya led a group of protesters to an Air Force base and seized the ballots, which the prosecutor's office and the electoral tribunal had ordered confiscated.

When the army refused to help organize the vote, he fired the armed forces commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez. The Supreme Court ruled the firing illegal and reinstated General Vásquez.

As the crisis escalated, American officials began to talk with Honduran government and military officials in an effort to head off a possible coup. The military broke off those discussions on June 28."

[EFerrari]

51. So what part of that article verifies your claim that Zelaya was trying to extend term limits?

"Critics said it was part of an illegal attempt by Mr. Zelaya to defy the Constitution's limit of a single four-year term for the president" doesn't. That was the excuse the right wing used to overthrow him.

The poll he wanted taken, and that the people wanted to vote in, didn't even mention term limits.

[TxRider]

52. Got a link for that?

Every story I have ever read about is says the poll was about removing their single term limit.

That the supreme court and the congress declared it illegal seem to lend credence to the argument.

That the military refused to hols an unscheduled poll seems to as well, as does the firing of the general and his reinstatement by their supreme court.

Are all those events and statements under dispute? If so where are they verified?


Personally I see it as a lot of trouble when elections are about 60 days away, and the interim guy is stepping down. The people don't seem to be very up in arms about it overall, like Iranians recently were.

Am I missing something?

[EFerrari]

55. Most of them mention it the way this article did but can't quote the survey

because it didn't say that. Pretty neat trick.

Zelaya wasn't ousted becuse he wanted a poll on a constitutional convention. The process in Honduras is so long, he'd be long out of office before it was played out.

He was ousted because he was doing things like raising the minimum wage, funding education and encouraging participatory democracy which is anathema to the families who believe they own Honduras -- and, they may be right. The "supreme court" is notoriously corrupt and so is their legislative body. The presidency hasn't been much better. They've basically been puppets for monied interests for a long time.

Here is an article from TPM Muckraker that talks about the survey. The poll only asked if the people wanted to convene a constitutional convention. That was it. The rest is right wing embroidery that just got passed around endlessly until people know for a fact that it's "true".

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/lanny_davis_now_lobbying_in_support_of_honduran_co.php?ref=fpblg

[TxRider]

58. But he was calling for a vote to change the constitution.

Is it in the presidents power to hold a referendum at his own will or not? I assume their court says no.

Why did he continue to try to do it after the court said no.

And after the congress said no.

Why not just do it in the election in November?

It doesn't seem that simple, and the election is in 2 months anyway. What difference will it really make if he is reinstated? What real purpose does it serve? What does he intend to do in that 60 days, or between election and inauguration?

Why not arrest and try him? Why exile?

Not enough info for me to know what the law is there, and nobody is examining and quoting Honduran law on either side it seems..

Both sides sound fishy to me.

[EFerrari]

59. He and his admin pushed it because the court had no legal basis

to stop it.

And they didn't arrest and try him because they had no legal basis to do it.

And what you're not understanding is that allowing this coup to stand not only undermines democracy in Honduras but all over the region. That's why he has so much support from democratic leaders all over the region and in fact, all over the world.

[TxRider]

60. That's just it

Nobody has shown the legal basis they used.

Nor how it was not legal.

And has Zelaya himself said exactly what he wanted to change in the constitution? Why did he want this referendum so badly?

From my understanding, albeit weak, there are 4 articles which cannot be changed by any means at all, one of which is a single 4 year term for presidents. Or so said the interim president in an interview I saw.


As for countries, including ours, supporting one side, I learned long ago that doesn't always mean they are on the right side.

I understand what your saying, I'm just not seeing verifiable information for anything. On either side.

Hopefully the people choosing a new president in the election will help the situation.

[EFerrari]

64. Again, you're missing the point. Zelaya did not propose specific changes

to the constitution. He merely wanted to poll support for a constitutional convention, which is perfectly legal and which the people of Honduras are entitled to do. Terms limits have nothing to do with this at all except in the right wing's PR playbook -- as the FAIR article explained.

Kidnapping a sitting president because you don't like his politics is not legal in Honduras and that's what they did. If it was legal, they wouldn't have needed to come up with this fake term limit argument and go back and justify their crime on that basis.

If you're so invested in reading Honduran constitution, it is on line. And there is plenty of verifiable information on line as well. This is not a toss up a la Fox. The sitting president of Honduras was removed in a military coup by business interests who wanted to stop his policies and to control the upcoming election. Too bad for them, no one is buying it.

http://www.honduras.com/honduras-constitution-english.html

[TxRider]

66. You don't propose to change the constitution without something in mind

There had to an issue of some type involved.. Some change was desired by him, or why even bother, much less push a confrontation with the courts and congress?

I read that translated link months ago, a couple of days after the coup looking for the truth of things. The translation is simply not very clear.. It has bugged me since then.

Such as..

In order to strengthen and operate the participatory democracy are instituted as mechanisms of consultation of citizens the referendum and plebiscite for matters of vital importance in national life.

A special law approved by two thirds of the totality of the members of the National Congress, determine the procedures, requirements and other aspects needed for the exercise of the popular consultations. The referendum will convene on an ordinary law or a constitutional rule or its reform adopted for its ratification or disapproval by the citizenship.

The exercise of the vote in the consultations citizens is mandatory. It will not be subject to referendum or plebiscite projects aimed at reforming the article 374 of the Constitution.

Which seems to say it requires a 2/3 vote of congress to have a vote or change election laws.

Article 51.- For everything related to the acts and electoral procedures will be a Supreme Electoral Tribunal, autonomous and independent, with legal personality, with jurisdiction and competition throughout the Republic, whose organization and operation shall be established by the Constitution and the Law, which set equally as regards the other electoral agencies.

The Law regulating the electoral matters, can only be amended or repealed by the qualified majority of the two-thirds of the votes of the totality of the members of the National Congress, which must request the prior opinion of Supreme Electoral Tribunal, where the initiative does not come of it.

Which seems to say only the Supreme electoral Tribunal is the proper body to hold any and all referendums or elections.


ARTICLE 205.- Corresponds to the National Congress , the powers following:

1. Create, decree, interpret, reform and repeal the laws ;
..........
10. Interpret the Constitution of the Republic in regular meetings, in a single legislature, with two-thirds of votes of all of its members. By this procedure may not be interpreted Articles 373 and 374 constitutional requirements.
........
20. Approve or reject the administrative behavior of the Executive Branch , the Judiciary, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Superior Court of Auditors, Attorney General of the Republic, Attorney of the Environment, Public Prosecutor's Office, National Commissioner of Human Rights, National Registry of People, Decentralized Institutions and other subsidiary organs of the State;

Which seems to say the congress has power over the administrative behavior of the president, as well as the election tribunal. They voted over 2/3 to remove him.


Article 316.- The Supreme Court of Justice will be organized in chambers, one of which is the Constitutional.

When the judgments of the chambers will pronounce by unanimous vote, staff on behalf of the Supreme Court of Justice and will have the character of final. When the sentences were handed by a majority of votes, shall be subject to the full of the Supreme Court of Justice.

The Constitutional Chamber following terms of reference:

1) To Know, in accordance with this Constitution and the Law, of the Habeas Corpus, Amparo, unconstitutional and Revision; and,

2) To settle disputes between the State powers, including the National Elections Tribunal (TNE), as well as, among other entities or bodies to indicate the Law.

The sentences in declaring the unconstitutionality of a standard should be implemented immediately and will have overall effects, and therefore abrogated the rule unconstitutional, and should communicate to the National Congress, who shall publish in the Official Gazette.

Which seems to say the supreme court has jurisdiction on conflicts between executive and legislative, and is the ultimate decision making body on constitutional law. They found his referendum unconstitutional and barred it.



Article 373.- The reform of this Constitution may be ordered by the National Congress, in regular sessions, with two-thirds of votes of all of its members. The decree brought to the effect on the article or articles to be reformed, must be ratified by the subsequent regular parliamentary session of an equal number of votes, to enter into force.
* Article interpreted by Decree 169/1986

This one looks more clear, that it requires a 2/3 vote of congress to change the constitution, twice. No other way to change it.

ARTICLE 374.- may not be reformed, in any case, the previous article, this article , the constitutional articles that relate to the form of government , the national territory, the presidential term, to the ban to be again President of the Republic, the citizen who has played under any title and the relating to those who cannot be Presidents of the Republic by the subsequent period.
* Article interpreted by Decree 169/1986

And here's the single term limit, which cannot be changed by any legal means, nor the method of changing the constitution.

Nowhere can I see where it gives the president a right to hold a referendum. It pretty clearly states he doesn't.

So what was his purpose in doing so, and what did he hope to accomplish?

It is not clear that he wasn't simply making a power play, hoping to be backed by enough popular support to pull off a coup of his own and force something on the government, and the supreme court called his repeated attempts at a referendum unconstitutional, as the constitution seems to show. He seems to have needed a 2/3 vote of congress, and the Elections tribunal to do so, which he did not have.

Ordering the army to hold the election as I read he did bypasses the election tribunal, which they refused to do, so he fired the top general who the court reinstated.

And it would seem the court might have the authority to call his actions unconstitutional, and the congress has authority to reject his actions. But can they reject him.

I see no procedure to impeach or remove a president, which is where the real meat of the issue is at, unless the courts authority to settle disputes reaches that far. Or unless it lies in some other law outside the constitution.

Seems he likely did break the law, probably several laws, and maybe they were afraid a trial would bring violent revolt? Maybe they sent him out of country because any absence outside the country without approval of congress is the only clear way that is spelled out to remove him, or rather a president outside the country for over 15 days defaults his office.

[TxRider]

77. Congressional Review seems to agee with my conclusions

I kept looking around and found this report.

By the Congressional Review service at the Library of Congress from a senior foriegn law specialist.

It states that full legal proceedings were in accordance with Honduran law.

The the president was charged 3 days before his removal by the nations prosecutor with charges of

"acting against the established form of government, treason against the country, abuse of authority, and
usurpation of functions."

But that after arrest he was by law supposed to go through the justice system, and it was illegal for the army to send him out of the country.

http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf

The summary of document containing the chief prosecutors charges that the supreme court found grounds for arrest, and the chain of events leading to his arrest are presented....

On March 23, 2009, President Zelaya issued Executive Decree PCM-05 2009 ordering a
public consultation (Consulta Popular, or referendum) throughout the national territory so that
the Honduran people could express their opinion as to whether, during the 2009 general
elections, a fourth ballot box should be installed at the polling stations to decide whether to
convene a National Constituent Assembly for the purpose of drafting a new political
Constitution. The same Decree gave a mandate to the National Institute of Statistics (INE) to
take charge of the survey.11

On May 8, 2009, the Chief Prosecutor, acting as guarantor of the Constitution, filed a law
suit before the Court of Administrative Litigation requesting that the Court declare the illegality
and nullity of the administrative act carried out by the Executive Branch under the Executive
Decree.12

On May 26, President Zelaya issued another Executive Decree PCM-19-2009, rescinding
the previous Decree and ordering a national poll (under the new title of Encuesta de Opinión
Pública) on the same issue to be conducted on June 28, 2009.13 The next day, the Court of
Administrative Litigation issued a ruling ordering the President to suspend the Public
Consultation and all acts in its support.14

On May 29, the Court of Administrative Litigation clarified its ruling, stating that:
suspension of the consultation ordered on March 23, 2009, includes any other
administrative act, whether general or particular, which has been issued or might be
issued, whether explicitly or implicitly, by publication or lack thereof in the Official
Gazette, which might be conducive to the same administrative act which has been
suspended, as any other procedural consultation or question which may be designed to
avoid obeying this ruling .15

The same day, May 29, President Zelaya informed the Honduran people through the
Secretary of Defense, that he had issued Executive Accord No. 027-2009, by which he ordered
that a national public opinion poll be carried out by the National Institute of Statistics. The
President also ordered the armed forces to lend logistical and all other necessary support to the
National Institute of Statistics.16

On June 3, the Court of Administrative Litigation issued the first judicial communication,
through the State Secretary for the Presidency, asking the President to abide by the Court’s
ruling.17

On June 16, the Court of Appeals for Administrative Disputes unanimously ruled
inadmissible the appeal filed by President Zelaya, who was represented by a private attorney,
against the May 27 ruling of the Court of Administrative Litigation and the May 29
clarification.18

On June 19, the Court of Administrative Litigation issued a second judicial notification,
through the State Secretary for the Presidency, to the President, requesting that he abstain from
conducting any kind of public consultation that might violate the Court’s rulings of May 27 and
May 29.19 On the same day, the Administrative Court issued a third judicial notification to the
President, through the State Secretary for the Presidency, giving him five days to inform the
court what measures he had taken in order to abide by the court ruling. No answer was received
by the Court.20

On June 26, the Chief Prosecutor filed a Criminal Complaint before the Supreme Court
of Justice, requesting that Zelaya be arrested under an accusation of the crimes of acting against
the established form of government, treason against the country, abuse of authority, and
usurpation of functions.21 On the same day, the Supreme Court of Justice unanimously voted to
appoint one of its Justices to hear the process in its preparatory and intermediate phases; that
Justice carried out the request, issuing an arrest and raid warrant.22 Two days later, on June 28,
2009, Zelaya was arrested.23

After his arrest, on June 28, the military, acting apparently beyond the terms of the arrest
warrant,24 took Zelaya out of the country.25 Under the Honduran Constitution, “o Honduran
may be expatriated nor handed over to the authorities of a foreign State.


So it would seem he was likely treated fairly under law, and removed legally under law right up until the part where they sent him out of the country, which is illegal and he should have faced jail and a trial.

I ask again, why did Zelaya want a new constitution, I cannot even with all the interviews he has given, see an answer from him as to what his purpose was?

[JackRiddler]

107. Error: That report is NOT from the well-known Congressional Research Service!

It's from the Law Library of Congress. Significantly different animal.

However, the avowedly partisan Republican Aaron Shock falsely stated that it was from the CRS, which is probably the original source of your own mistake, txrider.

Here's the story:

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/09/grade-d-flawed-research-from-law.html

Grade D-: Flawed Research from the Law Library of the Library of Congress

Janine D'Addario, Coordinator of the Office of Communications of the Congressional Research Service, was kind enough to confirm what many people now have noted: the attribution of bad research to that office was wrong. I am delighted, as I told her, to hear that the report was not the product of the "nonpartisan Congressional Research Service".

Those quotation marks, by the way, refer to comments by neither Ms. D'Addario nor me. They enclose the quoted "speech" of US Representative (R-Ill) Aaron Schock, still posted as of 12:30 PDT on his official congressional website, that wrongly characterize the source of the analysis purporting to give the Honduran Congress a leg to stand on in the question of the constitutionality of their actions on June 28. Visit it and you can also see the box with the link to "Schock Honduras CRS Report".

Rep. Schock's press release makes clear that there remains a problem with Bad Research from a Federal agency, even if the source is not the highly-respected CRS. Either we have to conclude that the research of the Law Library of the Library of Congress is generally unreliable, or that this specific report should never have been approved for release.

As a scholar, I would much prefer not to have to throw into question all research emanating from an office of the Library of Congress. But until someone there issues a statement retracting the report, based on the amply documented and easily substantiated sources showing the basic facts of law are mistaken, the full faith of the Library of Congress is behind a piece of research I would not accept for a term paper by an undergraduate.

To recap: the report, again in the words of Rep. Schock's office "concludes that the removal of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was legal and Constitutional". The Law Library report does so by proposing a novel legal theory, not actually articulated by the Honduran Congress itself on June 28 or since. The researcher virtually had to do this, because the stated bases of the June 28 actions would not meet legal or constitutional scrutiny.

(MORE AT LINK)

[JackRiddler]

61. Micheletti supported amendment to lift term limits in 1985

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/07/hypocrisy-michelettis-attempt-to-change.html

Hypocrisy: Micheletti's attempt to change the constitution in 1985

Mimalapalabra today posts a scanned page from La Tribuna of Honduras, dated October 25, 1985. Headlined Pugilism in the Congress: Congressmen ask to convert Congress into a Constitutional Assembly, the story reports on violence that broke out when Carlos Echenique attempted to read a motion, signed by a number of congressmembers, to convert Congress immediately into a Constitutional Assembly. Another member, Carlos Montoya, interrupted asking that he be declared out of order, saying


We cannot permit a congressmember to make an attempt against the Constitutional order and try to generate a "golpe técnico" (technical coup d'etat) to finish the democratic system in which we live


Another member opposed to the motion, Nicholas Cruz Torres, labeled those who signed the motion "traitors". These deputies called for the immediate suspension of those suporting the motion. A fistfight broke out, and another congressmember drew a pistol.

Who were the perpetrators of this travesty? twelve congressmembers were listed as supporters. Among them: Roberto Micheletti, today the leader of the authoritarian regime that seized power after a military coup. The motion he signed to support in 1985 explicitly called for the suspension of the so-called "stone articles" of the constitution, including Article 374 prohibiting changes to presidential terms. Micheletti, along with the other signatories, was questioned by the head of Congress, Efrain Bu Girón, who invited them to retract their signature, advising them that

you are incurring a penal responsibility for an attempt against the democratic system


Only five of the original signatories maintained their support for the motion, Micheletti among them. Informed that Bu Girón had spoken with the head of the Armed Forces, the ringleader "snuck out of the meeting room". As Alfredo Xalli notes in his commentary on mimalapalabra, these congress members had no intention to consult the Honduran people about constitutional change. At the same time, they argued that the constitution derived its power from the people-- which is in fact an accurate constitutional claim.

In addition to the obvious difference that in 2009, President Zelaya did not propose extending the term of the president, one great difference between the 1985 attempt to convene a constitutional assembly and the proposal to begin to poll the people-- the source of constitutional authority-- in 2009 is that in 1985 the Congress identified itself as the legitimate representative of the people. In 2009, the Zelaya government argued for a move from such representative democracry to more participatory democracy, in which the people would be polled.

[TxRider]

67. But reading their constitution, it would require a 2/3 vote of congress

To change to that more participatory vote, and Zelaya like those before him was violating the constitution.

And it would seem he broke several laws, and was at best playing a game of civil disobedience.

The power to hold a vote also seems to require a 2/3 vote of congress, and is held through the election tribunal, both of which Zelayas seems to have been trying to bypass.

See my other long post quoting the badly translated constitution.

I have been looking into the legality of the situation since day one, without any concrete conclusion besides Zelayas likely broke several laws, and there seems to be no clear impeachment process in their constitution. The only clear way to remove a president seems to be if he leaves the country for 15 days without consent of congress, is this why they sent him out of country instead of to jail?

[arcos]

71. There is no impeachment process whatsoever in the Honduran constitution...

They just decided that the Supreme Court would remove Zelaya, without any trial or due process. Congress agreed.

That is, obviously, a coup. It doesn't matter what Zelaya did or what laws he broke, he would have deserved a clear list of charges, a trial, an attorney, his right to defense. None of that happened.

[TxRider]

73. Not that I see

There is law that could be relevant though.

Article 239 seems to say that a president can only serve once, and any president breaks that or proposes to reform it must leave office and is barred from holding any public office for ten years.

Of course that english translation is so bad that it could mean something different than it seems.

They need a constitutional impeachment or removal process.. How would they have gotten rid of say, Nixon?

[arcos]

78. Well, if there's no process, they either create it or they just can't impeach...

Even if article 239 says that a President who proposes to reform it would be removed from office, there would have to be some sort of procedure to actually declare him guilty of this... again, with due process, the right to defense, an attorney, etc. They just can't make up things on the fly, that's not the way things work in a democracy.

[TxRider]

79. Apparently everything was within the law except

Apparently the court did hear formal charges from the head prosecutor, issued an arrest warrant, and the only illegal thing was the army sending him out of country, instead of to jail to face the court.

Here is the best legal analysis I have found yet...

http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf

[clear eye]

102. The NYT stinks when it comes to reporting on Latin America

and have always skewed their reportage to support corporatist exploitation there. Back in the 1980's for years they censored stories on contra atrocities in Nicaragua and their secret U.S. financial support until the omission became too glaring for them to continue. They keep calling Pres. Hugo Chavez a "dictator" w/ absolutely no evidence of that characterization.

It's best to get your Latin American news elsewhere if you don't want to sound like a dupe.

[EFerrari]

56. And here is a new F.A.I.R. statement on the rhetoric of the bad reporting:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3909

[TxRider]

82. And here is a quote from Zelaya

"Yes, I'm going to end my government on January 27, 2010. That's what I am going to do. But I'm going to leave behind a process to open democracy, open the possibility for a president to be re-elected in the future. Although I don't know if by then I'm going to be available."

Translated from an interview with El Pais, Sunday June 28, 2009

I did make a mistake, if reinstated he would serve as president until January, 4 months not 2.

But all appearance says he should be arrested and stand trial, for attempting to force a vote to rewriet the constitution.

Here is another interesting take... where I got the translation from.

http://www.miller-mccune.com/media/honduras-and-the-us-press-1484

[EFerrari]

84. The survey said nothing about term limits.

The process takes years -- between three and six. And the first step in the process is to ask the people if they want to rewrite the constitution.

So if he was kidnapped for attempting to hold a legal non-binding poll, IT'S STILL ILLEGAL. So it doesnt matter what Zelaya said or didnt say in that interview. The POLL simply asked the question that begins a multi-year process.

[TxRider]

85. The poll was illegal.

That was the part that was against the law.

It is illegal for the president to force a poll by executive order.

It is also illegal to propose a poll that promotes rewriting the entire constitution.

That's what he was charged with, after the court declared it unconstitutional, and he tried it for second time anyway.

It was not illegal for him to be arrested, jailed, and held for trial, but it was illegal for the army to send him out of the country.

Here is a good non partisan examination...

http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf

[JackRiddler]

87. But that is not a "non-partisan" examination of the Honduran constitutional question.

Commissioned by a Republican congressman, your cited US report for Congress by an American lawyer is based on the views of a Honduran justice who supported the June coup. Other Honduran legal experts, including critics of Zelaya, completely disagree:

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/09/giving-constitutional-research-bad-name.html

Giving Constitutional Research a Bad Name

US congressman Aaron Schock (Republican from Illinois) commissioned a research report that has excited immense interest in the pro-coup Honduran media. So far, in English mainstream media, it appears to have been given the cold shoulder it deserves. But make no mistake, bad research is consequential, and the right-wing blogs are alive with the story as well.

Written by someone identified only as a "Senior Foreign Law Specialist" at the Library of Congress, Norma C. Gutierrez, the report makes an argument that the removal of President Zelaya was constitutional. In this, her report would contradict numerous constitutional law professors in Honduras, Spain, and the United States. The references cited in the report consist almost entirely of citations of the Honduran constitution, or of documents posted online by the Honduran Supreme Court.

A notable exception, and key to understanding the basis of her unique conclusions, are references to phone calls with Guillermo Pérez-Cadalso, described as "a Honduran attorney who formerly served as Supreme Court Justice and Secretary of Foreign Relations." Sounds impressive, right? But wait, who is this, anyway?

Well, he was part of the pro-coup delegation that came to testify before Congress in early July. This was the lobbying group put together by Lanny Davis. His service in the executive branch came during the administration of Ricardo Maduro, one of the former Honduran presidents implicated in the carrying out of the coup. Mr. Pérez-Cadalso is #34 on the widely circulated list These are the coup leaders: They will be judged.

So, hardly a disinterested source.

So let me match Ms. Gutierrez expert-for-expert. Mr. Pérez-Cadalso's testimony is countered by the opinions of Angel Edmundo Orellana Mercado, who was until June 24 a cabinet Secretary in the Zelaya government, resigning over his disagreement with President Zelaya's attempt to remove General Vasquez Velasquez from his position as head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Formally a member of Congress since he resigned from the Zelaya government, he formally refused to attend sessions of Congress following the June 28 coup, offering a powerful critique of precisely the same "constitutional" arguments and processes she, relying on a known golpista, accepts. Orellana's editorials specifically rebut the constitutional analysis offered by Gutierrez.

FOLLOW THE LINK FOR MORE. THANKS.

[TxRider]

93. I see no contradiction that he didn't violate the constitution, and the law

Angel Edmundo Orellananly only proposes that the means of arresting and removing him was illegal, which is arguable it seems, though removing him from the country is clearly illegal.

As I said, and as the congress report says, he should face the charges for violating the constitution that were levied against him.

There is no authority given him under the constitution to conduct the referendum he ordered. Especially since it had been specifically barred by the supreme court the first time he tried.

In fact Angel Edmundo Orellananly seems to agree pretty much point for point with the congressional review with exception of national police arresting Zelaya instead of the army and congresses actions to replace him.

Now reading your link makes it even more unclear. It cites as part of it's evidence and the "legal Doug Cassel of ASIL, who states..

"For example, if President Zelaya violated Article 239, when did
he cease to be president? Months ago, when he openly began to advocate a
constitutional reform to allow his re-election?"

http://www.asil.org/files/insight090729pdf.pdf


There is no contradiction in Zelayas repeated violtions of the constitution, only in details of justification for how he was arrested and deported.

So as I said before, it appears he was attempting to change the law for term limits, by his own quotes and now this report, and was acting illegally. He was charged in the supreme court, and an arrest warrant issued. The arrest was carried out by the army which is questionable, and deported which was illegal, but he still seems to have broken the law pretty severely usurping power against the constitution as well as the supreme court.

Meaning exactly what the current government says is correct, if he returns he should be arrested and tried for treason under the constitution yes?

I have yet to see a credible source, or any source, that doesn't agree he repeatedly voilated the law, the constitution, and is likely guilty of treason.

If you have one please share it.

[JackRiddler]

94. Treason?!

That last bit is rhetorically over the top, don't you think?

Treason is the selling-out of your country to foreign enemies. At worst, Zelaya challenged the constitution for favoring the oligarchs who wrote it back under the Reagan-backed junta, and therefore sought to initiate a revision of it, by way of an elected constitutional assembly. That would be "We the People."

This may have been unconstitutional, but there are precedents for challenging existing constitutions on the basis that they are injust, or to allow for a popular will. Probably the most famous example would be 1776.

Tell me now, seriously: What was the danger of the poll? In what way would it have been wrong to ask the people what they thought of an idea? Even if it prompted a movement to a constitutional assembly, Zelaya would have been out of power by the time any such body was convened. Why did the oligarchs act in a way that was guaranteed to affect the Nov. 29 election and ruin the legitimacy of any winner? Seems to me their real fear was not of a return of Zelaya in the election - a near-impossibility - but of the prospect that the people would express their will to see the constitution changed, and that the Zelaya-backed candidate would win on Nov. 29th.

You can call his actions class war, if you wish - I'd call it defense against a long-running class war. But treason? How so?

[TxRider]

95. I'm just stating what the supreme court ordered him arrested for

I'm sure they are struggling with a rich ruling class, and I don't doubt there is a lot of injustice and class war. But he should work within the law as we have since the civil war.

I'm just trying to learn the details of the law, and what he intended to do, and what he actually did. I have found a quite from him saying he might seek reelection, and another saying he openly proposed removing term limits months before all this happened.

It looks like he was making a power play, illegally, and was met with rather panicked force as there was no means to legally remove him, only to arrest and detain him and try him.

The law says he should have been arrested and held for trial, but I think fear of losing control or riots or something drove them to arrest him and illegally send him out of the country. From what I can understand the supreme court did not order him to be sent out of the country, only arrested.

The prosecutor charged him with treason among other things, I assume he was going under this article of the constitution for grounds...

"ARTICLE 4.- The form of government is republican, democratic and representative . Is exercised by three powers: legislative, executive and judiciary, complementary and independent and without reporting relationships.

The alternation in the exercise of the Presidency of the Republic is mandatory.

The infringement of this standard constitutes the crime of treason "

Seems like that would be a stretch to me.

Among other crimes related to attempting to execute his executive orders that had been declared unconstitutional by the supreme court.


After learning all this I cannot see how he would expect to be reinstated, without being arrested and being tried first and facing the charges of treason, crime against the form of government, abuse of authority, and usurpation of powers the court issued the warrant for his arrest for.

There is actually a very good discussion of each of the charges, and defense or validity thereof at the site that you linked over to. It's quite a good read.

I've learned quite a bit from the discussion.

[JackRiddler]

98. Except that he wasn't trying to extend the presidency.

So the article equating legal attempts to extend the presidency with treason, besides being a questionable definition of that crime, cannot be invoked in this case. It is a fabrication that Zelaya was out to extend his term, a whole-cloth invention of the golpistas to justify their coup. Again, the referendum that was to be held just before the coup was about a constitutional assembly. It would have had no effect on the Nov. 29 presidential election. Zelaya would not have been a candidate.

The existence of clauses that cannot be amended and happen to advantage the oligarchy is a strong indication of why Hondurans may have indeed voted to change their constitution. A constitution must derive its authority from an inherent logic and justice; a "you can't amend this ever!" clause, especially insofar as it applies to a process rather than natural rights, is inherently abolutist.

And again, Zelaya wasn't trying to extend the presidency. The presence of this charge - as the basis for "treason" - shows that the Supreme Court is trumping up the case on behalf of the golpistas.

Here's a good article about that:

http://www.miller-mccune.com/media/honduras-and-the-us-press-1484

Canard d'Etat: Honduras and the U.S. Press

By: Kirk Nielsen

A canard infiltrated the pages of the finest U.S. newspapers in late June and continues to undermine the first draft of 2009 Honduran coup history and the sovereignty of good journalism in the United States. Logicians might call it a bare assertion fallacy or a false dilemma. As all fallacies, this one thrives from an error in reasoning — and from errors in reporting and editing.

The canard goes something like this:

Efforts by President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras to remove term limits were the cause of a military coup in the Central American nation in June.

That sentence, which appeared in the Aug. 26 edition of The New York Times, was from an Agence France Presse brief about Colombian president Alvaro Uribe's push to stay in power for a third term. It implies that Zelaya, too, was trying to extend his presidency by removing term limits and presents this as fact. But it's not one.

Indeed, sometimes this stay-in-power-by-ending-term-limits canard is attributed to "critics" or "opponents" of Zelaya (including interim president Roberto Micheletti, who lost to Zelaya in the Liberal Party's presidential primary in 2005), and followed by a denial, as in this excerpt of an Aug. 28 article by Associated Press writer Juan Carlos Llorca.

Critics of Zelaya say he was planning to extend his time in office by removing a ban on presidential re-election. Zelaya denies he was seeking to extend his term.

I stumbled upon the canard while simply trying to understand articles published in the run-up to June 28, when Honduran soldiers arrested Zelaya in the early morning hours and summarily flew him to Costa Rica in his pajamas. Like most Americans, the news caught me unawares. Several weeks earlier, while scanning headlines on the Internet, I'd been surprised to learn that Honduras had joined the list of Latin American countries with an elected leftist president. But that was about all I knew.

((SNIP - MORE EXAMPLES GIVEN))

Now hold on. Zelaya is staging a vote with no legal effect, and yet a military coup is in the works? That doesn't add up. Next sentence:

The Supreme Court, Congress and the attorney general have all said the referendum he is sponsoring is illegal because the constitution says some of its clauses cannot be changed.


In other words, the plebiscite would have no legal force, yet the judicial and legislative branches deemed it illegal. And what was Zelaya's opinion of those rulings? How does he explain what he's up to? Again, the article doesn't say.

n fact, I couldn't find any quotes of Zelaya answering his critics about the legality or purpose of his referendum plans in the best U.S. newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, The Wall Street Journal and The Miami Herald. Was he not speaking to the press?

Oh, except that he did.

MORE AT LINK

Translation of Zelaya interview in El Pais at
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/jefe/Ejercito/desobedecio/comandante/soy/elpepiint/20090628elpepiint_3/Tes

El Pais, Sunday June 28, 2009 (Coup Day)
Excerpts from a 1,300-word Q&A of President Zelaya by special correspondent Pablo Ordaz, conducted in Spanish on June 27, one day after Zelaya fired the top general in the armed forces:

Ordaz: The opposition says that what is really behind the vote on Sunday is your intention to remain in power.
Zelaya: Look...Honestly. I don't have any option for staying in power. The only way would be to break the constitutional order, and I'm not going to do that.
Ordaz: Is that your word?
Zelaya: Yes, I'm going to end my government on January 27, 2010. That's what I am going to do. But I'm going to leave behind a process to open democracy, open the possibility for a president to be re-elected in the future. Although I don't know if by then I'm going to be available.
....
Ordaz: What's your model?
Zelaya: Look. I've positioned myself in the center-left as a government because I practice liberal ideas, but with a socialist, social, tendency, very closely tied to integrating the citizen with his rights.
Ordaz: But you aren't a man who came from the left...
Zelaya: That is so. In fact, I come from very conservative sectors.
Ordaz: And at what point did you fall off the horse?
Zelaya: Ha, ha. No, rather, at what point did I get on the horse...Look, I had planned to make changes from within the neo-liberal framework. But the rich won't cede a penny. They won't cede any of their money. They want it all for themselves. So, logically, to make changes one has to incorporate the people.
....
Ordaz: Why have you been left so isolated, president?
Zelaya: It's because we're talking about the bourgeois State. The economic elites comprise the bourgeois State. They are at the top of the armies, parties, judges, and that bourgeois State feels vulnerable when I start to propose that the people have a voice and a vote.
Ordaz: How are the moments of crisis that you've lived through in these latest hours going to change you politically, but also personally?
Zelaya: What am I going to change? If I emerge strengthened this Sunday. ...Perhaps I'll have to create closer ties with the groups with power. I'll have to create closer ties with them and convince them. Tell them that I'm not against them, that this is a historic process, that they have to cooperate. ...They have to understand that poverty won't be eliminated until the poor people make the laws.

As the Miller-McCune article continues: "Back in the U.S. press, though, we weren't getting so much as a peep from Zelaya or anyone else in his administration. As a result, across the United States, newspapers are presenting a canard — that Zelaya's stated intent was to break the constitutional order and stay in power — as a fact...."

[TxRider]

104. From the same interview you quoted in El Pais

Zelaya said...

"Yes, I'm going to end my government on January 27, 2010. That's what I am going to do. But I'm going to leave behind a process to open democracy, open the possibility for a president to be re-elected in the future. Although I don't know if by then I'm going to be available."

Sounds like he was trying to change term limits to me. Which would fall directly under that article of the constitution.

As well as reading that he spoke of eliminating term limits publicly months before.

He had no authority to call an election, he was called on it and barred from doing it, he tried to do the exact same thing again, calling it something else, only announcing it days before in a supposed attempt to not allow the court enough time to act before it was a done deal.

[JackRiddler]

106. "Open the possibility" is not the same as proposing.

You're reaching, as the Honduran Supreme Court did. Zelaya was starting a movement for a constitutional convention, one predicated however on the will of the people. He was for giving the people a choice. They could have voted down the proposal. If rejection had appeared likely, however, there would have been no need for a coup. The golpistas did not fear the supposed violation of holding a vote, as much as they feared the likely outcome.

No matter how many times you will continue to insist he may have had other motives, these would have been in his head. The plain reality of the proposal was that it had nothing do with extending presidential terms. As he correctly and honestly points out, it might have led to a change in term limits. Or not: How should he have answered that question? Should he have said that a constitutional convention could not make that change?! In that case, he would have been attacked as suspicious for obscuring the obvious fact that a constitutional assembly can make any change.

Why not let the people vote? What did the established powers of Honduras fear in this, that they would stage a military coup and commit the assuredly illegal kidnapping and expulsion of Zelaya?

Don't you find it strange when a constitution declares a given governmental process (not a natural right of individuals) to be un-amendable?

To take a good example, the US Constitution does not declare itself as the final law for all time. That's one reason that, unlike earlier forms of government, it was written down: because it was amendable! What you write can later be re-written.

And that's one reason why this same Constitution still survives: because it is amendable.

I can think of another parallel from US history. The plantation oligarchs in the South feared an amendment that might abolish slavery. Lincoln might have one day wanted to propose one. But that's not what he was doing in 1861. Nevertheless, a number of the slave states pretended that abolition was an imminent danger. They therefore seceded. In the process, they started a war with the Union that put control over Washington DC, the border states and the territories into dispute, and forced Lincoln to respond in kind.

I think what happened in June is not so far off. What the modern-day plantation oligarchs feared in June was not a Zelaya second term, which Zelaya had not proposed. But they needed the myth of Zelaya's ambition as their pretext for the coup.

What they feared was the threat of any further movement toward economic and social justice in their country. Zelaya's sin was in measures like raising the minimum wage and now, horrors, proposing that the people be allowed to write their own Constitution, rather than the one so generously bestowed upon them as unamendable by the oligarchs in the 1980s.

[TxRider]

108. That would make sense if

The constitution wasn't amendable, but it is, with a process laid out to do so.

Why not follow the legal process and amend it? It's certainly been done time and time again, just read that translation posted earlier, it's full of dates of amendments of many articles.

The only logical reason to try to rewrite the whole thing is to go after the very few articles that cannot be changed by the legal amendment process, namely term limits. Which he apparently specifically put forward that he wanted changed, certainly he did in that El Pais interview.

I don't doubt the situation and the motives of the rich class and even Zelaya that you describe, but it does appear he broke the law, and he stands charged, and if he is to reinstated by legal means, he should answer to the charges by legal means.

[JackRiddler]

109. It contains clauses that allow no amendment...

The idea of unamendable clauses even given a popularly elected constitutional convention belongs to Wonderland. It smacks of scripture or divine-right doctrine.

But even allowing "unamendability," your argument here is eluding me.

You cannot derive the "crime" of trying to amend the "unamendable" clauses from an inference that an intent to commit that "crime" seems to be "the only logical reason to try to rewrite the whole thing." Mere inference (or in this case: attribution by one's political opponents!) as to the presence of unspoken intent for an act that has not yet even been initiated cannot be actionable in any rational system of law. Nor can it be rational that Zelaya's statement that a constitutional convention might take up the "unamendable" clauses amounts to a proof of his trying to amend the "unamendable" clause.

Politically there may be many logical (and legal!) reasons for Zelaya to have started a process by which the whole constitution could be rewritten at once (something that the US Constitution also allows), rather than to proceed piecemeal with a risk that the effort stalls. In fact, I think the events have demonstrated that the oligarchy doesn't want to yield an inch, and would come up with any hairsplitting reason to block and roll back a reform program. In such an environment gradualism will fail (shit, this is also true of the United States as we are seeing right now) and a large-scale reform campaign with popular mobilization is the only way.

In this case, the attempt prompted a military coup, mass repression, curfews, and killings. What's the legality of all that, by the way?!

Simple question: Do you support a side in this struggle? What's your interest?

[clear eye]

103. You keep assuming that his motivation was to extend his term? Why?

He had been instituting multiple reforms in his country to try to get the gov't to work for the benefit of the majority of Hondurans. Perhaps his hope was to get public financing of elections or to legalize land reform or some other democratizing change. PLEASE, I'd really like to know if you have more evidence of what was in Zelaya's mind when he conducted the "survey" than baseless accusations reported secondhand in the NYT.

[TxRider]

105. Not his term, the presidential term

Because he is quoted as saying just that.

[JackRiddler]

112. Once again: No.

He supported a constitutional assembly and is quoted as saying he that such an assembly could change the constitution, including the term limits clause. The latter is self-evident. A court that declares saying that into a crime of treason is, in effect, bringing back divine-right doctrine by establishing eternal principles and declaring the mere abstract questioning of them into a heresy.

And I have to question anyone who finds the justification in that for the oligarch's coup d'etat with its martial law, killings, and roll back of the people's rights.

[MemeSmith]

19. History shifted in 2003

History shifted in 2003, when Brazil, Russia, China and India held a high level conference on the future of the world, to which the United States was pointedly not invited, on account of the United States being the main topic of conversation.

It's been over since then.

All that is left is process.

Exciting times. Trust me, the outcome will be cool.

[pundaint]

21. I wonder if Obama sounded as arrogant to them at the UN yesterday, as he did to me

[MemeSmith]

22. They all have to play the same game

Everyone at the UN is in the same boat - half talking for the benefit of the forum and half talking for the benefit of domestic consumption.

Obi Wan couldn't afford to allow himself to be depicted as weak on foreign policy, so he had to strike a balance.

[JackRiddler]

26. BRIC - Brazil Russia India China - was coined as a term in 2003...

by a Goldman Sachs analyst, of all things. Depending on analysis, and how the world develops as a whole, they are together expected to exceed the G7 economically by 2050.

I'm aware that they've met regularly since 2006:
http://www.bric-competition.com/page.php?id=8

The term “BRIC” was firstly used in Goldman Sachs Report of 2003 to define four economies with the most rapidly growing GDP and capitalization of stock market – Brazil, Russia, India and China.

BRIC includes the leading states with steadily growing role in the international politics, economy and finance.

Under the conditions of emerging multi-polar international order it is impossible to effectively solve problems of global security and steady development without the BRIC countries. It is fundamentally important that interaction between BRIC countries is based on the common understanding of the fact that there is no alternative to the supremacy of the law in international relations.

The political dialog within BRIC started in September 2006 at the initiative of Vladimir Putin, then President of the Russian Federation. The first Meeting of the BRIC Ministers of Foreign Affairs was held on the margins of the UN General Assembly in New-York. Starting from 2006 there were held 4 meetings of BRIC Ministers of Foreign Affairs, one meeting of BRIC Ministers of Finance, mini-summit of the Leaders of the BRIC countries and Governments (Japan, July 9, 2008). Presently the full-scale summit in Russia is being prepared. There is also interaction among municipal authorities, and currently the process of establishing the dialog between the BRIC Security Councils and between the BRIC Competition Authorities is becoming more active.

I don't know about an earlier conference in 2003. Can you please inform with a link? Thank you!

When you said 2003, I figured you meant: the year when the US government demonstrated to the majority of the world that it was an active, unreformable danger, bent on destructively imposing a criminal, extremist will on the weak, even against an international consensus, and even when its plans were obviously insane and doomed to fail.

That would tend to make countries start planning for an era in which the US is no longer top dog!

[Mixopterus]

34. I don't find this particularly positive

With the exception of Brazil taking a leadership position in South America, more involvement from China, Russia, and India is not what the world needs. Those nations have a long and extensive history of brutality and slavery and really haven't changed all that much in attitude or practice. China, for instance, has committed crimes against their own people that would make Adolf Hitler blush in their scope (especially given a medieval era of technology) in which they have depopulated provinces containing millions of people. Why? For an uprising. They also still have one of the most brutal class structures in existence, which is something they have been more than willing to export to other subject states and annexed territories.

Russia also has a brutal history of authoritarian control and state violence going back to the kingdom of Muscovy in the post-mongol period. Muscovy only survived by being the toughest and most brutal kid on the block, and made a point to let everyone know that before and after the Mongols left. The monarchs of Muscovy and later Russia exercised power the most power hungry Western European kings could only fantasize about, their nobles had control over their people that Western European nobles would find inconceivable. And, of course, more or less everyone is familiar with the adventures of the Russian Empire, which does not need explaining.

Even India is much of the same, still possessing a peculiar attitude towards their people. India was always more guilty of a certain kind of apathy towards all but the ruling classes than the violence of Russia and China. They had and still have a rather oppressive class (or in the past, caste) structure in which all but the highest tiers are cut loose and ignored. Their democratic socialist parties have done much to try and reverse this, but the developments seem to be limited (primarily) to some of the northern provinces. Even then, from what I have read the democratic socialist positions are becoming weaker and weaker as India grows economically. From the looks of it they are falling back into the old pattern of things: Fantastically wealthy upper class with a version of the middle class that can do what it wants (mostly) so long as they don't interfere with the order, and everyone else is simply on their own.

[Captain Hilts]

45. India is really a valuable ally to us on many levels. nt

[Mixopterus]

49. When did valuable ally

translate into a good society?

[Captain Hilts]

62. They keep that Democracy runnin' despite the assassinations. Folks still turn up

to vote and believe in the system.

[JackRiddler]

53. But is this really the point? BRIC is hardly a threat to the world!

Though I don't see why you resort to the irrelevant matter of Muscovy (which suggests you may be falling for some kind of essentialist or "eternal other" idea), your comments no doubt carry some validity with regard to the more recent history or the current domestic politics of these three nations.

But none of the three is currently urging all the other world's countries to adopt their system or be rendered obsolete, like the United States has done for most of its history. None of the three has the kind of power that could entertain messianic fallacy, or is likely to ever achieve it. Also, it's beyond unlikely that they will ever merge into an Axis that tries it. They're currently collaborating because each sees an interest in it, that is all.

Their rise in relative power provides a counterweight to a US that may be more democratic and look back on a more palatable history (sort of doubtful, but yes if you omit the matter of genocide and slavery), but has posed a threat to the world through the awesome imbalance of power that obtained until recently.

In short, the domestic systems may remain horrible, but they're not trying to export them, or to take over the rest of the world. The emergent multipolar international order is likely to be more balanced, rational and just, simply because the partners are more evenly matched and no one can dictate to the rest through the use of sheer military or even economic force.

[TxRider]

54. It's not like we could expect this short run of 18 years

As the single superpower around to last forever...

The EU, China rising etc. I see as a good thing. Competition in the world of ideas a good thing for us.

And maybe all that is wrong with the world won't be aimed at us if we are no longer firmly in charge.. ;)

[Mixopterus]

65. Muscovy is hardly irrelevant

Societal rules and tendencies build upon one another and are (usually) only removed with intense environmental pressure, human or otherwise, or the eradication of the civilization. The tendencies of the Soviet Union are built upon the tendencies of Czarist Russia which are built upon the early Russian expansion and THOSE ideas directly stem from the autocratic Kingdom of Muscovy in their fight to control the region. Russians didn't just get up and decide to rule the region with an iron fist at the expense of all else sometime in the 17th century, it was part of a process that was fueled by necessity. The same goes for most civilizations that still exist.

Do you really think that these players will not seek to export their systems and ways of life beyond their borders in a new world with multiple, regional powers competing for the same global resources? If human nature and the historical record to be believed, it is an inevitability that they do so, like all human societies have done so. An axis, is, of course, absurd as they are operating within (roughly) the same sphere of power, save Brazil. I guess on the bright side instead of Americans telling Eastern Europeans, Southeast Asians, and Central Asians what to do, the regional powers that be can subjugate and exploit them as they have done since before the brief hiccup in European and American power.

I also feel your stance that an era with multiple powers acting in a rational, peaceful manner is just as absurd as the Globalization crowd claims that increased trade leads to a more peaceful society. If anything both situations actually lead to -more- warfare, not less. Multiple regional powers competing for the same resources leads to a rational and peaceful coexistence? Really? Point to any number of wars and you will find that almost always they are economic affairs gone sour. Having them be evenly matched in the short term does not translate into long term peace as each actor's power is not stable through history, and even so this belief is entirely dependent on the myth of the rational actor. People, and by extension, nations do not always act in a manner that is consistent or rational, with the essence of rational thought only remaining intact with knowledge of every variable in an objective sense. Since the objective is always going to be limited, especially in time critical and volatile affairs in which other parties may be obfuscating your access to the whole picture, you are forced to act in what you perceive your rational action should be, not what actually is rational. Due to this, your perception of what is rational does not always translate into what is actually rational, and you may unknowingly act in a way that is directly counter to your self interest. If this is true, then conflict from mismatches of interest and -perceived- mismatches of self interest is an inevitability and the larger the net of actors the more likely conflict will erupt as a result of these inequities and errors in judgment, never mind human opportunism.

As such, you are not looking at a new era of peace, but a new era of large scale warfare. I remain unconvinced this is a positive development in the absence of a U.N with real teeth and the ability to enact military and economic actions at will and against any violators of international law and the infrastructure to maintain this mandate.

[westerebus]

74. China.

Which "domestic system" has China not exported? The one used in North Korea? The one used in Viet Nam? The one used in Angola? The one used in Zimbabwe? Congo? Sierra Leone? Myanmar? Cambodia?

As a nation, we have probably maimed and killed as many people as China has. That's not a ringing endorsement by any humane standard.

The policy of the Chinese Communist Party has been to work within the "national liberation movements" of third world countries at least from 1950 onward. Bringing democracy was never part of that plan.

[JackRiddler]

75. You're mixing up a lot of different cases, I fear.

Which "domestic system" has China not exported? The one used in North Korea? The one used in Viet Nam? The one used in Angola? The one used in Zimbabwe? Congo? Sierra Leone? Myanmar? Cambodia?

I'm afraid a simple list doesn't describe the situation in each case. In which of these countries did China install the government? As I remember clearly, China even waged war against one of the countries you list: Vietnam.

Anyway, how did this turn into a defense of China? I abhor the Chinese regime. But they don't (and they won't) have the reach of the Western empires. National wars really are becoming obsolete and unwinnable.

[westerebus]

76. List.

Glad to hear you abhor the Chinese regime. Their political component in wars of national liberation has had a great deal of influence within the governments that came to power. Those governments may not bear a "Made in China" label pre se.

The list simply illustrates the Chinese reach. That reach has grown. To expect a non Western multi national cooperative with a corrupt government(s) countering American influence is a bit speculative. Even a Western cooperative a la the EU isn't much of a counter weight.

War by it's nature should be obsolete. We don't disagree.

My expectations of BRIC are not very high. An expanding market, for sure. China emerging as a super power may put them exactly where they don't want to be. Ask the Russians what they think China is up to. Ask India what they expect from China?

Good for Brazil on all the progress they've made. They have a progressive populist government from what I can see. Do you think they would be willing to give ours some pointers?

[Mixopterus]

35. .

double post

[Zynx]

27. Of those two I would only like to see Brazil and India lead.

China and Russia are not good citizens of the world.

[Mixopterus]

33. India is no peach either

They have the same history of brutality and class oppression that China has, Ghandi was the noted exception, and even he was a flaming racist.

Brazil is OK though.

[JackRiddler]

29. Oh, and if you'd asked me I'd have said 2002...

with the failure of the Venezuelan coup prompted by the Bush regime. That may not have been without any precedent - coups have failed before - but was spectacular, rapid, and highly visible on the international stage. The empire was no longer all-powerful; even as it geared up for an insane aggressive war that smacked of desperation.

Anyway, welcome to DU, MemeSmith!

I hope "the outcome" as you say will be cool. Nothing's ever assured, and this history is still very much in process, although both the material realities and the awareness of them seem to be aligned as you say.

[PufPuf23]

24. Great and insightful post.

We are on the wrong side of history now in Latin America.

The right-wing christian fascist authoritarians put the Nation at risk.

I hope POTUS takes a from control of the rudder of the nation as we are sending extremely mixed messages in the region.

The Latin American front of the Class war tends to less concentration of wealth and power and more community oriented, local societies with national social safety; while we, unfortunately, tend away to political crazy, stupid, and barbarian at home, with questionable actions in Latin America (regards to Honduras, Colombia, and fading neocon/mic/industry dreams of regioanl fossil fuel control).

[dysfunctional press]

28. and it will also earn them the 2016 olympics in rio.

nt

[JackRiddler]

30. Thanks to those who have made positive comments.

[peacetalksforall]

69. Thanks for your posts. I am thrilled that these countries are saying NO to the

U.S., IMF, World Bank domination facilitated by all the former, on-the-take, sell-the-people-down-the-river presidents and dictators. And let's not forget southern So. American's favorite way of relating to people - by dropping them into the sea from an aircraft or the US's way of shooting the airliner out of the sky.

Many of these leaders are gifts to their people and humainity - which is where we are supposed to be. The king-serf/slave mentality has survived through centuries of what is supposed to be a religious era. Other countries are now showing the way. It will take years for us to put down our war toys.

Thanks for a good article.

[Blue_Tires]

32. there is definitely a newfound political and economic evolution in Brazil

and they are taking a bigger role in shaping global policy

[TxRider]

37. They are the most connected society in South America...

I can give a personal stat I have observed...

I have run internet businesses since 1995, Brazil has equaled or exceeded customers for me online vs euro countries from about 1996 onward with exception of norther Europeans countries like Finland and Sweden.

[Captain Hilts]

46. Folks here need to start learning Portuguese rather than Spanish. nt

[DireStrike]

39. Interesting...

I wonder what would happen if the honduran coup doods had agreed to play ball for the US. I bet this momentum would be much reduced.

Still, very interesting development. The rise of a new regional power? The first flexing of its muscles?

[EFerrari]

42. The Honduran coup dudes are using American training and American weapons

to go about their business. They were advised by Negroponte before the coup and they're using Clinton's PR aparatus. It's hard to see how they "didn't play ball".

More likely, it's the TPTB at the State Department underestimated how the rest of Latin America would close ranks around Zelaya and support him. There are some old school, Cold Warrior types dug in pretty deep in our State Department.

[Captain Hilts]

43. Yes, I noticed this also and am VERY glad to see it. nt

[Time for change]

63. This is very good news

I hope it is indicative of the beginning of the end of U.S. imperialism in Latin America. That would be a big step forward for Latin America, the rest of the world, and for us.

[arikara]

68. What a great thread...

interesting, informative and civil. It reminds me of what DU used to be a few years ago.

[Blue_Tires]

72. kick

where has CPD been lately, anyways??

[moondust]

83. "elegant CYA"?

Now there's a nasty twist. They could use you over at Fox.

[JackRiddler]

86. I'm sorry, are you suffering from one-dimensional partisanship?

The United States shredded international law so as to launch a war of aggression on Iraq.

Wall Street perpetrated a global financial fraud that may ruin the entire world economy.

Every day, the world's nations look for ways to get out from under that kind of "leadership," as in the present case, with Brazil organizing a coalition for democracy in Honduras.

And then Obama goes to the United Nations for the first time, and rather than an apology or an offer of reparations, his tag-line is that everyone will just have to figure out how to solve their problems without the US. What is that, a comedy routine? I'd say it's a sophisticated, face-saving way to acknowledge the new realities without antagonizing the domestic yahoos. CYA for short.

But I'm sorry if your own sophistication about Obama doesn't extend past equating my observation with the rantings of Hannity and Beck.

[moondust]

88. Wrong again.

Obama is INVITING/ENCOURAGING/IMPLORING other countries to step in and help solve the world's problems. The U.S. has its hands full (and a lot of Americans do not want to continue doing all the heavy lifting). Lots of countries will gladly sit on their hands and "let Sam do it" rather than expend their own resources, even when they may have more at stake than the U.S. NATO countries are largely unwilling to send more troops to Afghanistan. "Let Sam do it!" European countries stood by and watched as Yugoslavia fell apart and finally Bill Clinton said enough is enough and sent U.S. troops into THEIR back yard to fix it. "Let Sam do it!" Etc.

I have no doubt that Obama welcomes Lula's demands to restore Zelaya and Brazil's involvement. I don't think anybody expects Obama to be an apologist for the disasters of Reagan, Kissinger, two Bushes. and their CIA foot soldiers. He's trying to hit the reset button and most of the world knows that. But then most of the world is not stuck in the 70s.

[JackRiddler]

89. Yeah, right, that's the world slogan: "Let Sam do it"

Poor US has its hands full, running two illegal invasions at once, maintaining 700 bases around the world, floating a dozen carrier groups and several thousand nukes in the air and at sea, and dictating policy to everyone else.

It's about time Europe stepped up to the imperial plate and threw some more of its own people into the Afghan death-pit. After all, there are so many weddings to bomb, the Europeans need to do their share.

Given your apparent utter ignorance about the history of the 10-year conflict in Yugoslavia (the European "back yard"), your justification of the NATO attack is appalling.

But please answer a question, lest we waste our time debating further: What was your stance on the Oct. 2002 Congressional vote known as the "Iraq war resolution" and the March 2003 initiation of hostilities? If you wrote anything about it on the Web at the time, can you point us to a link? Thanks.

[moondust]

91. No time.

You're delusional and immature when it comes to foreign policy. Welcome to ignore.

[JackRiddler]

92. Ignore, eh? Well at least I'll be invisible to your humanitarian cruise missiles.

[Libertas1776]

90. All hail our

new Lusophone masters. O Brasil é o número um.

[midnight]

96. Thanks for this information. Seems that the solvency of this

country was unplugging from our banking system. Who would of thought!

[Poll_Blind]

99. Good post. Wish I'd made the cutoff for reccing it but I give it a kick.

PB