Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Let's look at the basic chronology of events as they were supposed to happen, Three steps:
1. A poll, which was to have taken place in June 2009, to determine if people wanted:
2. A referendum on a constitutional assembly, to be decided on Election Day, Nov 2009, which could result in:
3. A Constitutional Assembly. Given that it takes some time to elect delegates, organize a schedule, prepare a meeting place, and settle other logistical necessities, I'd say it's a safe bet the Assembly wouldn't have convened until 2010.
Look at the order of events, and think for a moment: If the current constitution is still in effect in Nov 2009 because the Constitutional Assembly hasn't even been formed yet, much less addressed the question of term limits, how is Zelaya supposed to stay in office? He's constitutionally barred from seeking re-election - the first person who might be able to do so - if the non-binding poll indicated a referendum was desired, and if the referendum is held, and if a Constitutional Assembly is called - is his successor.
Like I said, I've seen nastier power plays coming from my kids over the toys they're playing with.
Zelaya tried to hold a non-binding poll to determine if people thought it was a good idea to have a referendum on Election Day in November on the question of convening a Constitutional Assembly to address the issue of single-term limits for the presidency - and given the chronology, it would have no effect on Zelaya's current term of office. Nor has it been definitely shown (by either side) that the removal of the single-term limit means the removal of all term limits. It's possible that they'd just raise it to a two-term limit. Or maybe that's too dangerous a notion? God knows how any sort of democracy would function within that kind of framework.
The Supreme Court stepped in on Tuesday, June 23 to declare the poll unconstitutional, well after the poll setup process had begun.
Believe it or not, some contards are actually calling Zelaya a Communist, and asserting that as an established fact.. Apparently the thinking (if that is not too strong a word) is that any leader who for whatever reason gets diplomatic ties with Castro and Chavez must be a Communist. Or something like that.
The Nation has an interesting take:
Whatever the reason, Zelaya shifted course, and over the past two years he has adopted a progressive agenda. As a solution to the disastrous "war on drugs," which has turned Central America into a well-traversed trans-shipment corridor for narcotraficantes--profitable for some, deadly for many--he has proposed the legalization of some narcotics. Earlier this year at the Summit of the Americas, he took the lead in pushing Barack Obama to normalize relations with Cuba. And he has steered his country into both the Bolivarian Alternative to the Americas and Petrocaribe, two regional economic alliances backed by Venezuela meant to wean Latin America off its extreme dependence on the US market.
This left turn is less ideological than pragmatic. Honduras is so broke it "can't even build a road without getting a loan from the World Bank," Zelaya once complained. But that money comes in "dribbles, held up years by paperwork" and often accompanied by onerous terms. In contrast, he said, Petrocaribe financing for infrastructure investment came all at once, at extremely low interest, with no conditions, which helped free up other scarce funds for social services. Through Petrocaribe, Venezuela also provides Honduras with 20,000 barrels of crude oil per day, also on very generous terms.
For those who presume to rule behind the scenes, Zelaya took a step too far when he began to push for the convocation of a constituent assembly in order to democratize Honduras's notoriously exclusionary political system. Expectedly, these efforts were opposed by the national Congress and the Supreme Court, both of which are controlled by an inbred clique of career politicians and judges invested in keeping Honduran politics restricted--including members of Zelaya's Liberal Party. For its part, the US media seem intent on reporting on events in Honduras through the prism of its obsession with Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. The New York Times, for instance, ran an op-ed by free-market ideologue Alvaro Vargas Llosa, who claimed that the most unfortunate aspect of the coup is not that it derailed Honduran democracy but--wait for it--that it has allowed Chávez to defend democracy and thus claim the "moral high ground." Vargas Llosa describes Zelaya as a man of privilege, an "heir to the family fortune" who had "devoted decades to his agriculture and forestry enterprises" and who had run for president on a conservative platform that included supporting CAFTA. Misleadingly, Vargas Llosa attributes Zelaya's political turn not to the absolute failure of CAFTA and the fiasco of the "war on drugs" but to Chávez's seductions. The US media have also falsely yet unanimously presented Zelaya's moves as a power grab, an effort to end term limits to allow him to run for re-election. But the referendum Zelaya was pushing--which prompted the coup--asked citizens only if there should be a vote on "whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political Constitution." In other words, Hondurans weren't being asked to vote on term limits or even on revising the Constitution. They were simply being asked to vote on whether or not to have a vote on revising the Constitution, with the terms of that revision being left to an elected assembly.
Here's the
OAS unanimous resolution:
RESOLUTION ON THE POLITICAL CRISIS IN HONDURAS
(Adopted at the plenary session, held on July 1, 2009 and
pending to be revised by the Style Committee)
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
GRAVELY CONCERNED about the political crisis in the Republic of Honduras as a result of the coup d?état against the government of President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales,which has produced an unconstitutional alteration of the democratic order;
RECALLING Permanent Council resolutions CP/RES. 952 (1699/09) of June 26, 2009 and CP/RES. 953 (1700/09) of June 28, 2009, regarding the situation in Honduras;
CONVENED urgently by the Permanent Council in accordance with Article 20 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter;
REITERATING the principles and purposes established in the Charter of the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Democratic Charter on the strengthening and preservation of the democratic institutional system in member states, as well as the importance of strict adherence to and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the principle of nonintervention in the internal affairs of other states; and
TAKING NOTE of the declarations by international organizations, sub-regional groups, and governments of the member states,
RESOLVES:
1.To condemn vehemently the coup d?état staged against the constitutionally established Government of Honduras, and the arbitrary detention and expulsion from the country of the constitutional president José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, which has produced an unconstitutional alteration of the democratic order.
2.To reaffirm that President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales is the constitutional President of Honduras and to demand the immediate, safe, and unconditional return of the President to his constitutional functions.
3.To declare that no government arising from this unconstitutional interruption will be recognized, and to reaffirm that the representatives designated by the constitutional and legitimate government of President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales are the representatives of the Honduran State to the Organization of American States.
4.To instruct the Secretary General to undertake, together with representatives of various countries, diplomatic initiatives aimed at restoring democracy and the rule of law and the reinstatement of President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, pursuant to Article 20 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and report to the Special General Assembly on the results of the initiatives. Should these prove unsuccessful within 72 hours, the Special General Assembly shall forthwith invoke Article 21 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter to suspend Honduras? membership.
Many are unaware that today's LA is not the Latin America that was so easily kept under the thumb of by the trifecta formed by the oligarchies, corrupt military (many of them straight out of the nefarious School Of The Americas) and the interests of corporate America. For good or ill lots has changed over the past decade and today they have a number of Treaties (Grupo Rio, ALBA, SICA, MERCOSUR, CARICOM) that were entered into by LA nations with the notion of prioritizing their own interests as opposed to tagging along with the failed policies of old. Interestingly, all these alliances (intertwined in some cases) stood front and center, from the start, against this travesty - laughable in its inept execution - and left little room for maneuver within the once US-dominated OAS.
Obama's response, of course, was the only correct one in the face of both US credibility (which as we all know has taken a pounding over the past decade) and its adherence to democratic values. OTOH while the US doesn't appear on the face of present evidence to have had an active involvement in the coup, it also strains belief that the CIA wasn't aware of the unfolding events. Fact is Honduras had long been little more than a staging ground for any number of American-led operations in the region, what with the wink and a nod (read: very expensive bribe) to the unconstitutional Soto Cano base and the staggering number of Honduran officers that are graduates of the nefarious SOA - including "coincidentally" the very general who lead the coup.
What does it all mean? Well beyond the obvious fact that this is likely to become a major landmark in the future of US/LA relations, it will also set a clear line in the sand as to what democracies in Latin America are and are not allowed to do. Obviously again, if the coup is somehow "allowed" to succeed we are looking straight back into the barrel of history - a very cruel history that I am quite sure the great majority of Latin American people want distance themselves from.
How long will this last? Hard to tell, but I do know that if Obama took the next logical and legal step (he did openly call it a "military coup"), the US would suspend any and all foreign aid to the de facto Honduran regime. Seeing as more than 70% of their income is either generated by trade with and/or aid from the United States, I simply can't see them holding out much longer. As it is, aside the OAS ultimatum, maximum political and economic force is being projected by any number of organisms such as the World Bank and the Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID). On top of that, beyond the large number of ambassadors recalled by LA states, Spain's Foreign Policy Minister, M.A. Moratinos has recently announced that he Spanish-led initiative to recall all EU ambassadors to Honduras has been adopted unanimously. Meanwhile the only response given by the Honduran clumsy usurpers has been to effectively implement a "estado de sitio", literally a "state of siege" but better translated as goverment through marshall law.
But once again this is mostly academic, even if they want to make that a crime, a coup is a bigger crime. They allowed the Army to change an order to remove a president into an order to make a coup. Instead of allowing Zelaya to confront his accusers. And then the congress used a fraudulent resignation document to select the puppet.
Facebook
Twitter