Our non-meddling President, after two weeks of assiduously not meddling in the “vigorous debate” in Iran (wherein one side is allowed to use guns and clubs as debating tools), has decided to meddle in the internal affairs of Honduras.
And, true to form, he picked the wrong side.
Reaction to the apparent coup was swift. U.S. President Barack Obama said he was “deeply concerned” and called on all political actors in Honduras to “respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference,” he said.
The Obama administration worked in recent days to prevent President Zelaya’s ouster, a senior U.S. official said. The State Department, in particular, communicated to Honduran officials on the ground that President Obama wouldn’t support any non-democratic transfer of power in the Central American country.
“We had some indication” that a move against Mr. Zelaya was a foot, said a U.S. official briefed on the diplomacy. “We made it clear it was something we didn’t support.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined Mr. Obama Sunday in criticizing the Honduran coup and calling for the restoration of the democratic process.
“We call on all parties in Honduras to respect the constitutional order and the rule of law, to reaffirm their democratic vocation, and to commit themselves to resolve political disputes peacefully and through dialogue,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement.
The reality is quite different from what’s been happening there. Zelaya was arrested on the direct orders of the Honduran Supreme Court, backed by an overwhelming majority of the legislature as well. Zelaya triggered the crisis by trying to change the Honduran constitution illegally to allow him to effectively become President for life, just like his buddy Hugo Chavez.
We’re lucky, I suppose, that President Obama didn’t threaten to go to war with Honduras like Hugo Chavez did. For all his squawking about “the rule of law”, it’s worth remembering that it was the former President who was violating the law and the Honduran government that acted democratically and with restraint (Zelaya’s didn’t wind up against a wall in front of a firing squad) to preserve its Constitution. It’s also worth remembering that the President has chosen to side with the cowardly UN and the tyrannical Hugo Chavez against the “rule of law” and Honduran democracy.
I can’t help but wonder who he’s trying to suck up to.
UPDATE: Fausta provides a detailed timeline of events that prove Zalaya was entirely in the wrong and that his removal from office was legal and proper. I’m curious, now about what rule of law was broken in Honduras that would cause him to side against the government.
Tags: Diplomacy, Honduras, Iran, President Barack Obama, United Nations
The president has chosen poorly because he is a sucky jackoff I think.
Or because he really does prefer the tinpot dictator. Tyrannies are easy to deal with, diplomatically. You only have to make one guy happy. Democracies are messy and don’t always do what you want them to do. He must hate that.
Obama is a Leftist with all the deficiencies and distortions of history that goes with that viewpoint. Leftists use the Democratic process of voting to gain power – the rest is just lip service and rhetoric. I’m afraid that the Honduran transfer of power – which was absolutely democratic, peaceful, and orderly – must therefore be frightening to his aspirations here.
I don’t see how Obama did anything wrong. He voiced his concerns and is letting Honduras work it out on their own. How is he even remotely meddling? Military coups are bad things for democracy, but so is what Zelaya did. What would be helpful is if the Supreme Court found a way out of this mess. In legal way, not a military one. In the end, it really doesn’t matter. Honduras is not even remotely a country that matters. If Laos had a coup, I’d be more concerned. Only because it would affect Thailand, which is a country that matters.