Tens of Thousands in Honduras demonstrate in favor of military

Rick Moran
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

This is a picture from a demonstration in support of Honduran democracy and the government of President Michelleti who has defied the OAS and has said there is no chance that the Chavez stooge, former President Zelaya will return. (Picture courtesy of Gateway Pundit )

James Kirchick of the New York Daily News shows how Obama and the US government is on the wrong side in this matter:

On Tuesday, Zelaya was given a hero's welcome by the United Nations General Assembly. More worrying has been American complicity in the campaign to restore an authoritarian to power, beginning with U.S. co-sponsorship of a resolution stating that the removal of Zelaya "interrupted the democratic and constitutional order and the legitimate exercise of power in Honduras."

This is exactly backwards. It was Zelaya, who in his avowal to ignore a supreme court decision and proceed with an illegal power grab, subverted his country's democracy. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has cut off all cooperation with the Honduran military and Obama administration officials told The New York Times of their intention to give the poverty-stricken Central American nation "a taste of isolation" (would they threaten such consequences for the mullahs in Iran?).

Secretary of State Clinton said that Honduras' actions "should be condemned by all" and President Obama said that his administration would "stand with democracy" by supporting Zelaya's reinstatement. Propping up an authoritarian undermining his country's constitution (which he claimed needs fixing to reflect a new "national reality," apparently one in which he rules forever) is a strange way to demonstrate that solidarity.

It
is unfair to the people of Honduras and their institutions to characterize the removal of Zelaya as the rogue work of the country's military, and the most noxious aspect of the coverage this past week has been repeated use of the term "coup" to describe what transpired.

Indeed, the correct diplomatic term for when a military overthrows a civilian government and replaces it with another civlian government is a "pronunciamento." Even that term is not entirely accurate since there was never a loss of civilian government as the military was acting under the direct orders of the Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress.

I have a very bad feeling that the situation in Honduras and Obama's lethargic and tepid response to the Iranian crackdown are indicative of a foreign policy where we will constantly be on the wrong side of history. Obama's Muslim speech also had elements of this myopia about who the good guys are and what the bad guys look like. Sometimes, you have to choose. And Obama has so far demonstrated a spectacular ability to choose the wrong side.






Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

This is a picture from a demonstration in support of Honduran democracy and the government of President Michelleti who has defied the OAS and has said there is no chance that the Chavez stooge, former President Zelaya will return. (Picture courtesy of Gateway Pundit )

James Kirchick of the New York Daily News shows how Obama and the US government is on the wrong side in this matter:

On Tuesday, Zelaya was given a hero's welcome by the United Nations General Assembly. More worrying has been American complicity in the campaign to restore an authoritarian to power, beginning with U.S. co-sponsorship of a resolution stating that the removal of Zelaya "interrupted the democratic and constitutional order and the legitimate exercise of power in Honduras."

This is exactly backwards. It was Zelaya, who in his avowal to ignore a supreme court decision and proceed with an illegal power grab, subverted his country's democracy. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has cut off all cooperation with the Honduran military and Obama administration officials told The New York Times of their intention to give the poverty-stricken Central American nation "a taste of isolation" (would they threaten such consequences for the mullahs in Iran?).

Secretary of State Clinton said that Honduras' actions "should be condemned by all" and President Obama said that his administration would "stand with democracy" by supporting Zelaya's reinstatement. Propping up an authoritarian undermining his country's constitution (which he claimed needs fixing to reflect a new "national reality," apparently one in which he rules forever) is a strange way to demonstrate that solidarity.

It
is unfair to the people of Honduras and their institutions to characterize the removal of Zelaya as the rogue work of the country's military, and the most noxious aspect of the coverage this past week has been repeated use of the term "coup" to describe what transpired.

Indeed, the correct diplomatic term for when a military overthrows a civilian government and replaces it with another civlian government is a "pronunciamento." Even that term is not entirely accurate since there was never a loss of civilian government as the military was acting under the direct orders of the Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress.

I have a very bad feeling that the situation in Honduras and Obama's lethargic and tepid response to the Iranian crackdown are indicative of a foreign policy where we will constantly be on the wrong side of history. Obama's Muslim speech also had elements of this myopia about who the good guys are and what the bad guys look like. Sometimes, you have to choose. And Obama has so far demonstrated a spectacular ability to choose the wrong side.