Agreement Reached in Honduras to Restore Status Quo Ante
Oct 30th, 2009 | 27 responses
The ongoing negotiations between Honduras’s coup leaders and president-in-exile Manuel Zelaya have borne fruit:
A lingering political crisis in Honduras seemed to be nearing an end on Friday after the de facto government agreed to a deal, pending legislative approval, that would allow Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president, to return to office.
The government of Roberto Micheletti, which had refused to let Mr. Zelaya return, signed an agreement with Mr. Zelaya’s negotiators late Thursday that would pave the way for the Honduran Congress to restore the ousted president and allow him to serve out the remaining three months of his term. If Congress agrees, control of the army would shift to the electoral court, and the presidential election set for Nov. 29 would be recognized by both sides. Neither Mr. Zelaya nor Mr. Micheletti will be candidates.
On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the deal “an historic agreement.”
“I cannot think of another example of a country in Latin America that, having suffered a rupture of its democratic and constitutional order, overcame such a crisis through negotiation and dialogue,” Mrs. Clinton said in Islamabad, where she has been meeting with Pakistani officials.
The accord came after a team of senior American diplomats flew to the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, from Washington on Wednesday to press for an agreement. On Thursday, the assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, Thomas A. Shannon Jr., warned that time was running out for an agreement.
Mr. Micheletti’s government had argued that the Nov. 29 election would put an end to the crisis. But the United States, the Organization of American States and the United Nations suggested they would not recognize the results of the elections without a pre-existing agreement on Mr. Zelaya’s status.
“We were very clearly on the side of the restoration of the constitutional order, and that includes the elections,” Mrs. Clinton said in Islamabad.
According to Mr. Micheletti, the accord reached late Thursday would establish a unity government and a verification commission to ensure that its conditions are carried out. It would also create a truth commission to investigate the events of the past few months.
A testimonial to the Obama administration’s “incompetence,” as well as proof that “[t]his administration is on the wrong side of just about everything”? That depends. If you look yourself in the mirror every morning and snarl, “Go on. Just try it. Make my day,” then, yeah. If not, then you may be more likely to conclude, as Tim Fernholz does, that this is a first step toward a return to democracy for Honduras:
It’s a symbolic gesture, but it’s an important one. If the election in Honduras goes smoothly — doesn’t every foreign-policy article these days include the sentence, “If the election in ________ goes smoothly”? — then Honduras’ democratic system will have been reinforced without harsh sanctions, which would mainly affect the people of the state, or military conflict. Affirming democracy in Latin America is a positive step, especially coming from the United States, which does not have a particularly good history in that department. While the White House’s domestic opposition will no doubt call this deal a sham or attack the president for helping restore a controversial leader to power, this outcome will likely improve inter-American relations, and that is a win for a relatively green foreign-policy team.
Matthew Yglesias observes that, up until now, democracy had to come out of the barrel of a gun to be noticed:
The US has an unfortunate history of backing coups in Latin America and an unfortunate history of heavy-handed involvement in Latin American domestic politics, so threading the needle between heavy-handed involvement and coup-backing was difficult. But they got the job done, and as Tim Fernholz says the results are likely to be appreciated throughout the region.
For William Jacobson at the aptly named Legal Insurrection, overthrowing and exiling a democratically elected president is constitutional democracy, and restoring a democratically elected president to office, pending constitutionally mandated elections, is corrupt Chicago -style politics.
Kevin Drum dispenses his customary dose of mild-mannered common sense (and yes, that’s a compliment):
The truth is that I still don’t know all the ins and outs of what happened in Honduras and whose side I’m supposed to take. But what I do know is that conservatives came out of the chute almost instantly with demands that the Obama administration adopt the hardest line possible in favor of the coup leaders. This appeared to be for no special reason except that Zelaya was friendly with Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, and to call this idiotic would be an insult to idiots everywhere. Tim is right: the Obama administration’s calmer approach was the right one, and messy or not, it helped get the job done in a region where the U.S. is not exactly known for subtlety and respect for local customs. Not bad.
Put another way, the Obama administration chose the traditionally conservative approach, and the so-called conservatives were the wild-eyed radicals.
Non-violent conflict resolution is bullying:
Yes, we have successfully bullied the Honduran government into returning to power, albeit temporarily, Hugo Chavez’s stooge Manuel Zelaya to the presidency. … The Obami are delighted with their handiwork.
Negotiations conducted by a regional consortium of nations which exists for precisely that purpose is a “stunt”:
It isn’t quite clear what this stunt was all about. Ingratiating ourselves with Chavez? Living down some American liberals’ guilt about past American policy in the region? Or maybe it was pure stubbornness, an unwillingness on the part of the Obama team to admit that it had staked its reputation on a crackpot.
It’s just so impossible to believe there’s a right-wing military dictatorship the U.S. would not want to support. Any explanation is more credible than that.
Via Memeorandum.
27 Responses to “Agreement Reached in Honduras to Restore Status Quo Ante”
To call the event a “coup” is wrong. It was legal, but booting him out of the country was not. He was trying to pull a Chavez/Bloomberg. Now, the guy over in Nicaragua is trying to pull the same stunt.
As mentioned in the NYT article:
“Some Honduran political and business leaders have argued that the military coup that ousted Mr. Zelaya on June 28 was a legal response to his attempts to rewrite the Constitution and seek re-election. But that constituency was also concerned by his deepening alliance with Venezuela’s leftist president, Hugo Chávez.”
The US has been in error in this instance and strong armed the Hondurans into a corner. However, at least the election may paper the whole thing over.
Seems to me this is a case of the Left feeling the ends justified the means. The Legislative and Judicial branches united in their actions and opinions that Zelaya had violated their Constitution, and that they had the authority to remove him, using legal means. I agree that the exile was not legal, but that is the only portion of all that happened that was not within both the rule and spirit of Honduran law.
So no, I give no credit to negotiating a 'settlement' where none was required.
Seems to me this is a case of the Left feeling the ends justified the means.
That's an odd coincidence. After Zelaya was exiled, that “ends justifies the means” argument was exactly the one that the Right used to argue that the coup was not a coup and that Zelaya should not be allowed to return. “Yes, the exile was overkill [they didn't admit then that it was illegal] but Zelaya is a thug dictator and he had to be overthrown to preserve democracy.” And the end justifies the means.
Come to think of it, you're still using that argument. It doesn't shock me that you oppose this negotiated agreement, but I think you need to find a better way to characterize the people who support it than “the end justifies the means.” Because that doesn't make sense — you know, in terms of what that expression actually means.
I never said the ends justified the means about this; I never said he was 'overthrown'. I have clearly and consistently said that it was an action in accordance with Honduran law and their Constitution, and absolutely legal and proper under their laws, except for the exile.
Please don't put words in my mouth that I never said, nor try to use other people's positions against me as if they were mine.
I never said the ends justified the means about this; I never said he was 'overthrown'. I have clearly and consistently said that it was an action in accordance with Honduran law and their Constitution, and absolutely legal and proper under their laws, except for the exile.
I know you “never said” that the ends justified the means. Nevertheless, that is the argument you are using, despite the fact that you did not say the words, “The end justifies the means.” You told me before, and are telling me again now, that exiling Zelaya from the country was illegal, but everything else the government did was legal. Then you tell me that there was no need for a negotiated agreement to restore Zelaya to the presidency for the final three months of his term, even though exiling him was illegal. So what you're telling me, in essence, is that this illegal act — flying Zelaya out of the country and forbidding him to come back — does not need to be fixed because it just doesn't matter. It was illegal, but it “was the only illegal thing.” I mean, what kind of an argument is THAT? Aside from any other adjectives I could use to characterize it, it's a pure “ends justify the means” argument. The “end” of stopping Zelaya from violating the Constitution justifies the “means” used to achieve that end, which were illegal.
Please don't tell me that I put words in your mouth when I did no such thing, and please do not accuse me of attributing other people's positions to you when I clearly did not.
kathy – I fail to see how you can be so confused. Let me try one last time, using few words.
Removing him from the Presidency was legal; exiling him was not. A negotiation to allow him to return to the Honduras therefore would make sense, and I would have no issue with that. Returning him to the Presidency, when his removal was NOT illegal, makes no sense, and is the 'ends justify the means' I see from the Left.
That clear enough?
You did not in any way say or imply that meaning in your first comment.
You tell me how, from this statement:
you were conveying this meaning:
You should just can that condescending “how can you be so confused” garbage.
It's you who is confusING, not me who is confusED.
Just out of curiosity, Kat….
Can they charge Zelaya with a crime? I was following the exchange between you and Austin Roth, and that came to me. Is his removal from the presidency the only punishment for breaking the law, or can he also be charged with something under Honduran law?
Sorry kathy, it was you. There is nothing ambiguous about The Legislative and Judicial branches united in their actions and opinions that Zelaya had violated their Constitution, and that they had the authority to remove him, using legal means.
There is nothing in that statement that anyone could somehow read to mean 'they did not have the authority to remove him from office', or that a 'settlement' that puts him back in office was needed.
The confusion is yours, or rather the desire to read into what I said your point of view rather than mine, which I had clearly stated, and my condescending tone towards your bias and inability to successfully parse clear-meaning words was and is justified.
I can't blame her, since the NYT keeps referring to it as a “coup”. Perhaps they and others set her opinion on this event and she ignores, as they did, the only official U.S report on the matter.
More leftie exposure of its dark nature. Congrats.
“Seems to me this is a case of the Left feeling the ends justified the means.”
Morality- as well as intelligence-free is standard. I'm surprised and disappointed that the Left didn't just say that Chavez should be in charge of all of Latin America and supervise binding arbitration of “events” and “controversies” such as this in the region.
After, Obama's stand on this issue, anyone in Oslo want to rethink the award?
Viva Honduras.
Sorry kathy, it was you.
Perhaps you are right. It may very well be the case that your meaning is clear and I simply cannot parse that clear meaning. In which case, I think it would make sense for me to stop trying to do so. I apologize for letting the argument drag on so long.
dduck12 –
Correct. This is otherwise known as 'The Big Lie'. Say it loud enough, often enough, and with enough conviction, and it becomes accepted as fact by most in the face all contrary evidence.
Shame on the NYT. They are a newspaper of record, and 50 years from now people will think it was a coup.
“Can they charge Zelaya with a crime? I was following the exchange between you and Austin Roth, and that came to me. Is his removal from the presidency the only punishment for breaking the law, or can he also be charged with something under Honduran law?”
In any other govt office they could remove citizenship and bar him from any position for 10 years. That's from memory only so I may be off a little. Manny of the things he has done may be criminal also, but the violation of the constitution by attempting to retain power doesn't come with a criminal charge.
50 years from now? Try today.
Wouldn't you guess that already cut a deal for some kind of immunity to get the U.S's . nose out of this mess?
In other words, we drop sanctions, you drop the matter.
I am trying to be moderate (grimace).
We both do tend to talk past each other, and misread each other at times. I admit to being guilty of that.
Let's keep up the good fight for our respective perspectives though. (wow, “respective perspectives” – what a GREAT band name!)
Why would Oslo want to rethink the award? Is negotiated conflict resolution war?
The entire world has referred to it as a coup, dduck.
dduck coup, with crackers!
And for the serious reply, no, it is not the entire world that refers to it as a coup. The only official report by a U.S. government agency does not for instance, and actually takes the same position I have advocated from the beginning, and reiterated on this thread.
To quote from the conclusions of that report:
Only the Left and Left-sympathizers refer to it as a coup. Of course, that is all that exists to the Left, their opinions, especially when the facts turn out to be 'an inconvenient truth'.
Funny thing, in the NYT article yesterday, they did NOT say coup. However the little squib on the front page did say coup referring to the following article. So, maybe the “entire world” (the NYT, included) may start dropping this erroneous characterization.
Sorry for going off topic, but the better question is why doesn't Obama follow Teddy's example and collect the award when he leaves office. This would take the pressure ( and some critics, like me) off his back, give him breathing room and give him that time to get some real accomplishments done. And, I hope he really does, he is still my president.