Terrible Precedents
Posted on June 29th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
After quite a few weeks of defending Obama against his more unreasonable detractors, it is refreshing to be able to criticize the administration for its incredible incompetence in responding to the “coup” in Honduras. What is so impressive about the bungling here is that it contradicts every argument the administration has made in support of restraint and caution when it comes to the Iranian protests. Obama didn’t want to insert the U.S. into an Iranian dispute. Iranians, he said, would decide their own future. Hondurans apparently are not accorded the same respect. Their sovereignty isn’t quite as important. Obama withheld judgment about the legality of what had happened in Iran. In Honduras, he just knows that what the military did was illegal, despite far stronger evidence that it was legal and a result of the proper functioning of their constitutional system. U.S. intervention in Honduras has been no less than it has been in Iran. Indeed, it has been far greater. At least six times in the 20th century beginning in 1907, U.S. forces were deployed in Honduras. For fear that the U.S. might be seen to be replicating the error of 1953, Obama has kept his distance from the Iranian dispute. As ever, Central American nations’ past resentments about frequent U.S. intervention count for little or nothing, and so Obama has dived right in.
The President said that a “terrible precedent” would be set if Zelaya was not allowed to return to office. Yes, there would be a terrible precedent that Presidents cannot break the law and get away with it; there would be a terrible precedent that the rule of law prevailed; there would be a terrible precedent that Hondurans coped with their own political crisis without having to depend on anyone else to fix their problems for them. If I sympathized with left-populists, executive usurpation or interventionist foreign policy, I would be deeply troubled by what the Honduran military has done in ousting a usurping populist without having to rely on outside aid. One can only guess why the administration is getting this one so badly wrong, whether it is currying favor with other OAS member states or not wanting to appear as a supporter of a “coup” or just plain fumbling the issue, but it has dropped the ball on Honduras. We can only hope that it will not lead to any greater mistakes than misguided rhetoric.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
Well, this in some sense vindicates the critics of Obama on Iran. What I found disgusting in his lack of critique on Iran is that I simply was not convinced that the President believed what he was saying about not “interfering” or passing judgment or whatever and sensed a different agenda (preserving “negotiation” with the mullahs, I would say appeasing America’s more radical enemies).
Now, with Honduras, the President has show that he has no concrete commitment to “non-interference,” but that his “non-interference” is invoked as a cover under which to hide other interests. A radical Revolutionary Guard takeover of the Islamic regime in Iran and subsequent crackdown on Iranians? That’s Iran’s business. Someone daring to resist Chavez-style Leftism in Honduras? Terrible precedent.
Yours, &c,
http://rumromeandreason.blogspot.com/
Since when is a military coup “Hondurans deciding their own future.”?
As ever, Central American nations’ past resentments about frequent U.S. intervention count for little or nothing, and so Obama has dived right in.
Please. Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala, Venezuela, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador and Colombia all had the same response as Obama. The Organization of American States will likely refuse to recognize the new government. This isn’t the U.S. playing regional bully, this is universal condemnation of a military power grab.
Well, Honduras is in our traditional sphere of influence. If our security were threatened, we’d have a better case for intervening than in Iran, which is halfway around the world.
However, I doubt any essential U.S. interests are at stake in Honduras. Put “OPEC” and “banana” in the same sentence and you’ll take my point.
Since when is a military coup “Hondurans deciding their own future?”
I think that Dr. Larison and others are making the point that the Honduran constitution allows the military to do what it is now doing. The American and most Western European constitutions disallow coups, but that is not the case in Honduras. Diff’rent stroke, etc.
On the other side of your assertion, since when is executive overreaching “Hondurans deciding their own future?”
As others have already remarked, this isn’t a military power-grab. For it to be a military power-grab, the military would have to grab power. Compared to the Thai coup, this barely counts as a coup, or if it does it is the shortest-lived military regime on record. Arresting an executive who apparently violated their constitution and permitting a civilian government to be formed by the elected representatives is about as far from a power-grab as it gets.
I think that Dr. Larison and others are making the point that the Honduran constitution allows the military to do what it is now doing. The American and most Western European constitutions disallow coups, but that is not the case in Honduras. Diff’rent stroke, etc.
Evidently it doesn’t, which seems to be the source of the problem. I think the best description I’ve heard of the issue is its a constitutional crisis, since there is no apparently clear mechanism through which the legislative body of the country can impeach someone. Which begs the question of who the hell writes a governing document without the means to fire people.
[...] Consistently, some the sanest commentary on Iran, at least from my perspective, came from Daniel Larison. With that in mind, here is Larison explaining why President Obama dropped the ball on the Honduras. [...]
Which begs the question of who the hell writes a governing document without the means to fire people.
Yeah, really, when will those brown people learn to govern! Get your moralizing ass out of here.
I haven’t seen anyone who’s criticized Obama on this, including Mr. Larison, cite the particular parts of the Honduran constitution or laws that make what happened legal. I haven’t read Honduras’s constitution myself, but I’d be a little surprised if it lists dragging the president out of his house in the middle of the night and putting him on a plane out of the country in his pajamas as one of the valid options for removing the president from power. Certainly, the president was doing some bad stuff and the court order gives this a patina of legitimacy, but those facts don’t prove that it was legal and the fact that every other OAS country condemned the action suggests perhaps it wasn’t.
Well, when will they learn to govern? A Constitutional History of Honduras would be an interesting book, as their transfers of power have tended to happen at gunpoint.
I will concede that their development may have been impeded by constant U.S. interference on behalf of fruit companies and filibusters. All the more reason for us to turn over a new leaf and stay out of Honduran internal affairs.
Brazilan constituional theory has a “moderating power,” which once was the Emperor and later the military. It was the power to intervene and throw the bums out when the screw up really badly.
I’ve spent a little time in Honduras, but don’t know about their constitutional theory. They have a red party and a blue party, and guys ride around in the back of pickups holding unsheathed machetes–usually using the white line in the middle of the road as a guide.
Yeah, really, when will those brown people learn to govern! Get your moralizing ass out of here.
Funny, considering I AM a brown person. But your witty rejoinder allows you to ignore what are clearly some glaring oversights in the countries constitutional governance, one of which DOES beg the question the methods and process through which the countries current governing documents were drafted. I don’t know Honduras political history; was the Constitution the product of some sort of foreign mediation? Was its ambiguity the product of political or military interference? But hey, we all know, pointing out that developing countries governments lack good governance is a clear cut case of Whitey putting everyone down.
For those who are interested, here is a link to a Cliff’s Notes version of Honduran constitutional lore and history.
http://countrystudies.us/honduras/84.htm
This may or may not be a confidence builder.
I have to admit that you may be right about Obama not handling this prudently. But the issues still seem confusing, in that according to many the Honduran constitution doesn’t allow for the removal of the President. So both sides in this case seem wrong. Even so, it seems like a mistake for Obama to come down so strongly against one side and in favor of the other. However, so far it’s just a condemnation, and not a commitment to any kind of action. And obviously Honduras is not as geopoltiically important. They have no economic or military clout, not nuke program, etc. Which I hate to admit, means we have even less reason to interfere, except out of the habit of viewing the whole of latin america as our backyard, giving us all kinds of imaginary rights to interfere. But so long as Obama doesn’t actually, tangibly interfere, and just condemns this kind of extra-legal solution to an extra-legal problem, it’s not really a big deal. There are no riots in the streets, no violence, no one was hurt, so it’s really just gaming the system. It’s entirely different from Iran in that respect, where people’s lives are being lost, where prison looms over many, where freedom and the will of the people are being trampled on. This is very minor league and insider politics. There will be fair elections soon enough, and condemning what has gone on only ensures that world attention will be on those elections. The Honduran government doesn’t want to look like Iran’s. So in that sense, condemning this is okay in the specifics of this case, even if it’s a bad precedent.
On second thought, I’m beginning to see Obama’s logic in condemning this coup. In the case of Latin America, because we have been involved in so many coups in the past, it’s important that we distance ourselves from this one, even if the details of it are more complex and subtle than the ordinary “coup”. The important thing, politically, is for the US to make it clear that we are not involved in coups like this, and do not support coup-makers regardless of their justifications and rationalizations. So while it may be the case that there was some rationale behind the coup, America can’t be seen as supporting such things. It’s already being alleged that the US was behind the coup, but the way Obama has condemned the coup in no uncertain terms, and made it clear that we were working to prevent the government and miltiary from doing this kind of thing, has greatly blunted that criticism. So on the whole, even though Daniel’s arguments are rational and sound on the underlying merits, what Obama is doing by condemning the coup is actually distancing the US from charges of interferring in another country’s internal affairs. I didn’t see that at first, but now it makes a lot more sense, both logically and politically, especially in that region. And he seems to be scoring some good points all around for his stand. Kudos.