Comments on: What About Honduras?

By: Gordianus

Gordianus — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:43:30 +0000

BarryD, Pinochet held on to power too long. But he did overhaul his country’s economy to good effect, and that shouldn’t be overlooked. Stopping Allende from plunging Chile into a one party Marxist state was worth spilling blood. Pinochet probably went to far in repressing opponents. But he was also Franco-like in that he prepared the way for his own replacement on peaceful terms.

It’s curious how those repressed by the left get so little sympathy in some quarters. Given what happens when the militant left wins in countries like Chile, over reaction is more than understandable.

By: BarryD

BarryD — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:21:25 +0000

“If things are as you say, they remind me of both Allende and Mossadeg. Both were executives acting against the wishes of other branches of the constitutional order. Allende in particular was arming segments of society to expropriate property and impose a one party state. ”

Another Pinochetian.

By: Gordianus

Gordianus — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:52:30 +0000

It’s interesting to note that the military chose the comfy chair method of exiling Zelaya to Costa Rica. A leftist coup would have resorted to an impromptu firing squad.

This coup resulted in power being turned over to the most democratic arm of state, the congress. Somehow this doesn’t seem like the bad old days.

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:22:07 +0000

And I would add: just because the Supreme Court of Justice says that the order was legal doesn’t make it so. Coup perpetrators always claim that they have legal cover.

By: sltaylor

sltaylor — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:18:35 +0000

While I would state that it is more than fair to state that Zelaya deserved legal sanction for proceeding with his proposed plebiscite after the Supreme Court ruled it (correctly) unconstitutional, I am somewhat surprised to see you state that the coup was the right outcome here because there is no constitutional basis that I can find in the Honduran constitution that for summarily arresting, exiling and deposing the president.

Surely there was some middle ground to be had between doing nothing and letting Zelaya do whatever he wanted in regards to his plebiscite (which, while unconstitutional was, as I understand it, a non-binding request to hold another vote in November to call a constitutional convention, not a dirtect call for allowing re-election) and a pre-dawn march on the presidential palace and one-way ticket to Costa Rica.

I have been troubled and surprised by so many who think that one attempt at illegality therefore justifies illegal actions.

I think a lot of people are being distracted by Hugo Chavez’s tangential involvement here and aren’t thinking this through.

By: Gordianus

Gordianus — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:27:23 +0000

Thanks Daniel for your helpful analysis. I hadn’t thought about Honduras in a while and was quite ignorant of recent developments.

If things are as you say, they remind me of both Allende and Mossadeg. Both were executives acting against the wishes of other branches of the constitutional order. Allende in particular was arming segments of society to expropriate property and impose a one party state.

As you say Venezuela has little ability to project force in the region. They would like to purchase some serious weaponry but they are far from a direct threat to us or Honduras. Venezuela does have the power to finance subversion in Honduras. If this happens look to the American Left to side with the Venezuelan backed “Freedom Fighters.”

As to intervention, we have a small base there already, so we will be accused of it what ever we do. Of course we should do nothing at this point.