After an explosion of interest in the Catholic blogosphere surrounding the election controversy and subsequent protests in Iran, there has been no peep whatsoever regarding the obvious coup that has taken place in Honduras in which School of the Americas graduates removed president Manuel Zelaya from power.
This silence likely mirrors the relative silence in the u.s. corporate media in general. Latin America simply has not mattered very much to most North Americans, including North American Catholics.
What it certainly shows, though, is that the predominantly right wing Catholic blogosphere, ostensibly interested in independent reporting and commentary on matters from a faith perspective, is simply no different from the rest of america. Interest in “freedom” and “democracy” only goes so far. Cries for democracy are reported and affirmed only when the results would correspond to the Catholic right’s political positions. When the democratically elected leader is a somewhat left-leaning figure, democracy matters little.
For those who are interested in keeping up on the events in Honduras, I recommend the following sites:
UPDATE: Send a message to Obama and Clinton here.
What a strange definition of coup you have. And U.S.-centric to boot – the mirror opposite of “my country right or wrong.”
This was not a coup. You know why this action had such strong cross-party support? Let Ambassador Bermudez explain:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106168317
How about condemning the actions of Hugo Chavez, whose fingers are all over this attempt to defy the constitution?
Would you care to post the text of Article 236 of the Honduran Constitution, which was blatently violated by Zelaya?
Here it is:
Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
Zelaya violated this clearly and was then removed from office as the constitution calls for.
How was the removal from office unlawful or wrong? Please tell us.
When the democratically elected leader is a somewhat left-leaning figure, democracy matters little.
Oh?
Those – including the members of Zelaya’s party and coalitions that appear to be nearly uniformly backing this action – that undertook his removal are the supporters of the democratic process and the constitutional rule of law, and they deserve to be commended. Obama and Clinton have been rather disingenuous in their statements.
The actions of the former president were a blatant violation of democracy. Here is the full constitution for context.
http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/hond82.html
Could you explain how is it that so many “left-leaning” figures of his own government support the “coup” ?
Maybe they don’t want Chavez in their business, and if so, good.
Who knew that the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress all went to the School of the Americas?
The entire world is calling this a coup and denouncing it, M.Z. Zelaya has proposed changing the constitution through a vote. There is nothing unusual about this. Your view, on the contrary, is a “u.s.-centric” view in that it assumes the sacredness and unchangability of constitutions.
You are obviously the kind of american Catholic I am speaking of in the post: the kind whose sense of democracy is straightjacketed by conservative politics.
The actions of the former president were a blatant violation of democracy
According to a truncated definition of “democracy,” perhaps.
Who knew that the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress all went to the School of the Americas?
General Romeo Vasquez and General Luis Javier Prince Suazo, both of whom have been key figures in the coup, went to the School of the Americas. Had you read the piece I linked to, you could have found that information. If your interest, though, is simply cracking jokes as it appears to be, do it somewhere else.
Zelaya has proposed changing the constitution through a vote. There is nothing unusual about this.
michael: you are wrong.
Honduran law does allow for a constitutional rewrite, yet the power to do so does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly must be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.
So: two questions.
As one who claimed in this post to be favorably inclined to the democratic process, why would you not condemn Zelaya, who clearly defied that process? Second, as one who frequently rails against imperialism, why would you not condemn Chavez, who has acted quite imperialistic (many examples of this, but I refer to Honduras just in the last few weeks – for example, shipping in “ballots” from Venezuela?)
The Supreme Court ruled the referendum unconstitutional, and then instructed the military. All who support democracy and constitutions should applaud the removal.
According to a truncated definition of “democracy,” perhaps.
According to the Honduran democratic process. And based on that process, I have asked you four questions in my comments. Can you answer them?
CNA has an article about the response from Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiega: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16442.
His spokesman’s repeated calls for Zelaya to respect the constitution suggest concern that Zelaya has not been doing so. The article also quotes the spokesman as referring to the events as a “coup” multiple times, so he seems to share Michael Iafrate’s definition, but he doesn’t seem to think it driven by a School of the Americas alumni conspiracy:
“The interesting thing about this coup,” the priest stated, “in which the military was just briefly the visible face, because later they turned the power over to civilians, was that it was produced among members of the same Liberal Party.”
It seems to me at first glance to have many similarities with the coup against Chavez in 2002. My reaction, hostile to the the idea of a coup but unsympathetic to the ousted individual is similar. The US response is quite different.
As one who claimed in this post to be favorably inclined to the democratic process, why would you not condemn Zelaya, who clearly defied that process?
I am favorably inclined to democracy, not to the particulars of the Honduran democractic process. nonetheless, it’s not clear that he “defied” anything.
Second, as one who frequently rails against imperialism, why would you not condemn Chavez, who has acted quite imperialistic (many examples of this, but I refer to Honduras just in the last few weeks – for example, shipping in “ballots” from Venezuela?)
I’m not sure we’d agree on what “imperialistic” means. I have not heard reports of Chavez shipping ballots to Honduras. Of course that would be undemocratic, if it actually happened, but I would not describe it as “imperialistic.” When it comes to Chavez, I would say of course he acts in undemocractic ways – he is a politician. But many of the things for which you would accuse him of being “imperialistic” are simply not so. Some of them simply have the interests of his people and of Latin America at heart and these will go against the grain from the perspective of the united states.
he seems to share Michael Iafrate’s definition, but he doesn’t seem to think it driven by a School of the Americas alumni conspiracy
When did I mention “conspiracy”? I noted that some of the people involved went to the SOA. That is relevant data. It does not imply an “alumni conspiracy,” but it does demonstrate the continued links between u.s. involvement in Latin American coups.
Does this mean you no longer consider me part of the right-wing blogosphere:
http://forthegreaterglory.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-to-know-exactly-how-pathetic-and.html
Let me add to the resources the source I cite in that post, that of a Honduran missionary who is anything but right-wing and yet very strongly is disagreement with the UN & others who share no concerns for the people of Honduras.
http://witnessinghope.wordpress.com/
As well as the blog of her mission group:
http://missionersofchrist.blogspot.com/2009/07/calling-all-saints-honduras-needs-your.html
nonetheless, it’s not clear that he “defied” anything.
To the members of Zelaya’s political party, including the ambassador he appointed to the U.S. that has been all over U.S. media condemning his actions, as all across the specturm of Honduran politics, he most certainly did defy Article 239 of the constitution. But I suppose you and outside meddlers like Chavez know better? Would his “leftism” have anything to do with it? If so, how ironic you would use these actions to bash the boogymen of the “right.”
I have not heard reports of Chavez shipping ballots to Honduras.
He’s done that and much more, if you listen to members of Zelaya’s political party, to the parties of the right, and to the many reports out of Honduras. Or maybe they are all just stooges for whomever…?
Finally, to repeat the two questions you have yet to answer:
1. Could you explain how is it that so many “left-leaning” figures of his own government support the “coup” ?
2. How was the removal from office unlawful or wrong? Do you honestly believe Zelaya did not defy the rather clear democratic processes, which I explained briefly in my previous comment?
Once again, it’s worth repeating the facts to recognize how strange this post is in its bashing of “right-wingers”, “School of Americas” “North American Catholics” ect ect ect
- Zelaya acted in blatant disregard for the law. A constitutional rewrite is possible, but not by the president. Only a constituent assembly by a national referendum approved by its Congress can do so.
- Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Chávez ship the necessary ballots from Venezuela. Thus the incredible irony of deriding imperialism of the “right” ect ect
- The Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional, which it was, then it instructed the military not to carry out the vote.
- The top military commander, Gen. Velásquez, told the president to comply. Zelaya fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Zelaya refused.
michael,
do you honestly believe you can claim to uphold democracy given your stated positions here and then these indisputable facts?
edit, one other thing:
Where is the opposition to Chavez and Zelaya? Let’s see…..the Congress, the Supreme Court, the electoral tribunals, the attorney general, literally all political parties, including his own, and…..the Catholic Church!!
what messages are coming from the Catholic Church in Honduras? Could you post those?
What happened last night? Zelaya’s own party sponsored a resolution against him.
There is irony and ideological blindness all over this post, a determination to get cheap shots in at those you don’t like.
Hmmm. I guess the DarwinCatholic blog isn’t conservative or American either, since we posted on the coup last Friday.
For what it’s worth, I’ll probably do an American Catholic post on it during the next few days. I’d been holding off while I read more on the topic, and also out of hesitation on what at first seemed like a rather no-win situations: Zayala in wanna-be president-for-life mode emulating Chavez (and basically being pulled into his orbit as a satelite power) vs. military seizing control via arms.
As one reads more, however, the coup itself sounds like (given the Honduran government structure) it may not have been such a very bad thing.
So fear not, I’ll probably have a post you absolutely hate on the topic in the near future!
Michael,
I suspect some people havn’t commented because they can’t figure out what the hells going on. I certainly fit into that camp. I’ve already learned alot from this exchange.
Oops: “Zayala” should be “Zelaya”
I think Br. Miller has a good point, though I’ll do a slight variation on it: No one can figure out what the hell to do.
Having the military kick him out was not a good thing, but it’s nearly as bad as trying to destroy the constitution for your own ends. The thing they SHOULD have done was to have arrested him and tried him. Now that he’s out and wants to come back in, figuring out how to do that without essentially handing Honduras to Zelaya and Chavez is quite a mental exercise. Arresting him and trying him would seem reasonable, except that the UN & US have their senses and want an unconditional return.
it’s a very difficult situation, one that requires less blogging and more praying. Iran was a little more clear cut in what should be done (annul the vote). Speaking of which, where was Iafrate’s post on that? Should we assume that Iafrate does not care for the rights of those democratically elected who are not leftists?
Jonathan,
Yes, there are shades of gray here, Zelaya does not appear to be a poster boy for democracy. But on what basis could the court order the military to depose Zelaya? A court acting out of its bounds is just as problematic as a president doing the same. Also, I hear alot about Zelaya ambitions to extend term limits to be president for life. What evidence do we have that he planned to do that?
Brian,
The basis, aside from the actions I have listed in the thread, are these:
- Article 239 and then
- Title V, Chapter I, Article 205, paragraph 15
- among other statutes
Reading the Honduran press, even in translation, makes these pretty explicit. And it is again worth repeating that the former president’s political opponents are not the only ones supporting his removal.
Jonathan,
Thanks for the info. A few questions:
Title V, Chapter I, Article 205 paragraph 15 refers to the power of Congress to bring up charges against the president. Its my understanding that they did. I was asking, and I guess I should have more clear, what gave the court the power to order the military to remove Zelaya?
Article 239 says that anyone who seeks to change or propose the term limits on the presidency “will immediately cease in their functions” Is there any evidence that he was seeking to do this?
or, to put it another way, what specifically gave the military the authority to follow that order? I will continue to look…
So all those Honduran people in New Orleans celebrating this and around the nation went to the School of the Americas
I have seen quite a bit of comment on this on several big Catholic blogs by the way.
THe main concern I have is how in the world did the State Dept and our intelligence servies appear to give very bad advice to the President on this.
“This silence likely mirrors the relative silence in the u.s. corporate media in general. Latin America simply has not mattered very much to most North Americans, including North American Catholics”
Actually the medai was all over this hours after it happened. Now not so much because they seemed to bne caught so aware they got some basic facts wrong from the beginning. Who wants to report their own incompetence.
I think the original outrage of many throughout the world is still justified, even if the situation is not as black and white as it was reported by some.
1. Zelaya did not receive due process, something that should be guaranteed by any constitution.
2. Roberto Micheletti didn’t even win his party’s nomination in the last election. Why him?
3. The basic constitutional rights that have been nullified in recent crackdowns reveal how this is not simply a matter of “preserving the constitution”.
4. It appears that Congress voted Zelaya out of office on the very day he was kidnapped!
”Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform…”
“Honduran law does allow for a constitutional rewrite, yet the power to do so does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly must be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.”
Mr. Jonathanjones, isn’t there some kind of a contradiction there?
And what kind of a nutty “constitution” is this, and how, exactly is it “democratic,” when it’s illegal to PROPOSE a reform?
I have seen quite a bit of comment on this on several big Catholic blogs by the way.
Perhaps applauding it, which reveals their hypocrisy.
And what kind of a nutty “constitution” is this, and how, exactly is it “democratic,” when it’s illegal to PROPOSE a reform?
Exactly.
Michael where is the Hypocrisy
I found that many people(whether left or right) had different views after they learned all the facts. That is this was not some military typical coup but had the support of the Civilian Govt because the President went beyond his powers.
For all the talk of how “Latin America simply has not mattered very much to most North Americans, including North American Catholics” as you put it I have not noted one post from you talking about the situation in that Country or the ciris was developing. So please leave your Holier than thou attitude at the door. I think many of us were trying to figure out the situation. A situation that appeared a heck of a lot more complex than when the story first broke
I am seeing a ton of those people celebrating this and that gives me pause that perhaps you are wrong.
I came across this article/blog seeking some clear and honest journalism on this subject of what is going on in Honduras. Our organization has Catholic missionaries on the ground in Honduras (which I see one blogger here even cited a few of our missionary’s blogs) and though our people rarely have time to blog — the needs of the poor are so great and complex in Honduras — the current situation has manifested a clear need to get the truth out.
I am grateful for those who have chosen to bring the Honduran Constitution and the interim governments actions within that Constitution into the light here. While I will acknowledge the sequencing of the Congress and Supreme Court’s legal actions and their “modo de proceder” was not the best when one considers how ideologues would like to present the situation, this new government is both Constitutional and has overwhelming popular support of the people. Our people on the ground, who are anything but political, affirm this fact.
With all due respect, I would suggest the writer of this article avoid writing on topics which he clearly knows little about. His prejudices seem to lead to automatic assumptions (i.e. because a few individuals involved went to the School of the Americas, therefore they are inherently bad) which are unfair and even inaccurate. Even more so, describing the Honduras Constitution as “nutty” shows a condescension and lack of respect for an entire people. There is nothing in Honduras’ Constitution which goes against Church Teaching… so what right the writer, or anyone for that matter, has to pass judgment on it is beyond me, and in this case, these statements fall outside of proper charity and respect of cultures.
If our US Government, the UN, and the OAS continue on the course they are on, which is forcing a socialist-dictator-to-be to be reinstated against the will of all Honduran branches of Government, Zelaya’s own party, as well as the people, there will not only be bloodshed in the immediate, but it will essentially seal the fate of Central and South America in their digression towards socialist dictatorships which are not only hostile to the Catholic Church, but to the very nature of the human person — regardless of how they choose to use their manipulation and supposed championing of the poor to advance their agendas.
I would ask all people to pray and fast, seeking God’s will and not our own in this situation. Honduras is the location of the very first Catholic Mass on the American mainland, and as such, I feel holds a very special place in our hemisphere for our Catholic Faith.
And what kind of a nutty “constitution” is this, and how, exactly is it “democratic,” when it’s illegal to PROPOSE a reform?
It is not illegal to propose a reform. To do so, the initiative must be taken by Congress. Zelaya defied this clear rule for the purposes, with the help of Chavez, to remain in power.
I’m glad the people and the democratic institutions of Honduras – once again, from all across the political spectrum, including the former president’s political allies – decided this was unacceptable. Who are you to call it “nutty”? Who is Chavez to meddle in their affairs?
What a laughable irony to be railing against “imperialism” !
Tom – There is nothing “democratic” about the new government.
“Zelaya defied this clear rule for the purposes, with the help of Chavez, to remain in power.”
You keep saying that was his purpose, and many of his opponents say that was his purpose, but where is the evidence?
It is clear now why this is such a muddled affair with such conflicting claims – there was never a legitimate trial to uncover exactly what was being violated!
A coup this most definitely was.
Michael J. Iafrate Says July 2, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“The entire world is calling this a coup and denouncing it”.
The entire world? A trifle exaggerated, no?
What is interesting is that so many Americans feel a right to comment on and be taken seriously about affairs in other countries.
Hablan espanol, ustedes?
It is absolutely clear that ALL of the regional countries are determined that no violent military coup shall EVER be allowed to stand in their part of the world, ever again:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/07/2009748853243871.html
And it’s a good thing, too!
This article in slate seems to be an even-handed and informative take on the situation:
http://www.slate.com/id/2222241/