Listen & More
Stations
PRI Stream
Podcasts
Discussions
Mobile
RSS
PRI Widgets and Games
Newsletters
Videos
Join PRI Communities
Facebook YouTube Twitter


Home | World | US stance on coup in Honduras

US stance on coup in Honduras

Listen NowListen Now
  • Share
  • Share
  • Share
  • Share
  • Share
  • Share
  • Share
  • Share
  • Text Version
nbsp;
image Honduras military forces. (Image: Flickr user davich0 (cc: by-nc-sa))

The Obama Administration condemns the coup in Honduras, putting the US in the unusual position of siding with traditional foes Venezuela and Cuba.

It's a waiting game in Honduras -- people in the capital Tegucigalpa appear to be waiting for the next step in the leadership crisis that’s rocked the Central American nation. Their President, Manuel Zelaya, was deposed in a military coup and kicked out of the country.

The US has joined much of the world in condemning his ouster -- that's left Washington in an unusual position, siding with Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez, on the issue.

"The World's" Katy Clark filed this story.

It's not often the presidents of the United States and Venezuela agree. Here's Barack Obama: "President Zelaya was democratically elected, he had not yet completed his term. We believe that the coup was not legal, and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras."

Using slightly more colorful language, Hugo Chavez also denounced events in Honduras. The Venezuelan leader called it a Trogdlodyte Coup D'etat, and urged Honduran soldiers to use restraint against unarmed citizens. Never mind that Chavez himself threatened military action of his ambassador in Honduras was harmed.

The Interim Government of Honduras has indicated it would consider early elections there if that would satisfy the international community. But the end of the political standoff remains far from certain.

Michael Shifter is with the Inter American Dialogue, a Washington think-tank. He cautions that the apparent agreement that President Zelaya ought to be restored to power may be more superficial than appears: "The are some differences for the motivation for why the United States came to the position that it did, and why countries like Venezuela and Bolivia, Ecuador, have also condemned what happened. For those countries, they are governments identified of the left. Zelaya became an ally of them, so there is a kind of a political support there, which is different, I think, from the US’s point of view, which is trying to stake out a position in support of the rule of law and democratic principles, which were clearly violated in this case."

Previous US presidents haven't always taken this position. Most recently, when Hugo Chavez was temporarily ousted in a coup in 2002, the Bush Administration kept quiet.

Larry Birns is director of the council on Hemispheric Affairs: "The United States is clearly aiming for a new trajectory in its regional policy. This provides a high visibility opportunity, for the United States to take a leadership position in establishing firmly that no extra constitutional overturn of a government by the country’s military will be tolerated by the Inter-American community. That's a good thing, to take place."

The message being the US might not like the person in power, but the democratic process must prevail.

Jennifer McCoy of the Carter Center calls the political stand off in Honduras the result of democracy's growing pains in parts of Latin America: "That could be the silver lining or part of the explanation for the crisis."

PRI's "The World" is a one-hour, weekday radio news magazine offering a mix of news, features, interviews, and music from around the globe. "The World" is a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston.

More "The World."

Subscribe to comments feed Comments (4 posted):

brainfood on 07 July, 2009 03:27:19
avatar
Interestingly, the Honduran Constitution of 1982 does provide for loss of citizenship for those who “incite, promote or aid in the continuation or re-election of the President” http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond05.html (article 42):
ARTICULO 42.- La calidad de ciudadano se pierde:
5. Por incitar, promover o apoyar el continuismo o la reelección del Presidente de la República; y,
Further, Article 239 indicates that anyone who has held the office of chief executive cannot be president or vice president and anyone who proposes reform to that prohibition can be barred from holding public office for ten years:
ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República.
El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán inhabilitados por diez (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
My educated guess on that provision is that it is aimed move at banning past military dictators from pursuing the office than it is a stricture contra re-election, per se.
Additionally, Article 374 bars any amendments regarding the length of the presidential term (amongst other things:
ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.
As such, it is pretty clear why the Supreme Court of Justice ruled against Zelaya’s plebiscite proposal in the first place. It also means that if the vote had been allowed to happen it would have had no legal standing.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Mike on 08 July, 2009 12:08:00
avatar
Thanks for the information brainfood. Although it seems rather strange from my perspective that their constitution should be so rigid as to disallow even trying to change the article, it also seems pretty clear that what Zelaya was doing was technically unconstitutional. I don't think this can be considered a coup can it? Wouldn't it be more like impeachment?
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
misha70 on 16 July, 2009 04:41:34
avatar
I really do not consider this a coup. The Constitution makes it clear. I am not sure what would happen if a US President asked to military to find out if the public supported him staying in power past two terms.

Whatever it was I am sure it would not be pretty.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
A Majthenyi on 18 August, 2009 09:30:56
avatar
It was not a coup: Zelaya proposed constitutional change in late 2008 and failed. He attempted a non-binding survey with sealed ballot boxes from Venezuela. He was removed on the basis of a Supreme Court order declaring the intended popular survey on June 28 to be illegal. 
Zalaya’s friend Chaves immediately condemned his removal. The OAS, run by Nicaragua was next. Unfortunately, Obama, trying to be friendly with Chaves and Ortega, followed. We don’t know why Calderon got involved,

Americans are becoming more aware of South and Central American politics and will support Micheletti and Honduras.
Investors have also become very interested in stable governments in the area and tend to trust Micheletti .
See: http://www.recursoslatino.com
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
total: 4 | displaying: 1 - 4

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Supported By:
PRI is my network