Hillary Clinton, continuing to show her ignorance of Latin America, has a hard time understanding that using the military to overthrow an elected President is a “coup”… not something that “evolves into a coup” as she is quoted as saying this morning.
While those who supported the action — like foreign blogger “La Gringa” (in La Ceiba, Honduras) — hesitates to use the word (”All this international blustering about the “coup” in Honduras is really bothering me. I really regret using that word because after learning more about what happened, I would not call it that“) hesitated to use the dreaded word, at the same time they feel comfortable praising those (like Mary Anastasia O’Grady in the Wall Street Journal) who openly call the Honduran military strike against their constituionally mandated chief) a “coup.
[As an aside, the Honduran Constitution is somewhat unique in that it spells out the military chain of command. Much of the legal rationale for the coup comes from the bi-furcated command structure. The Commander-in-Chief is appointed by Congress. However, the C-i-C must obey Presidental orders. Zelaya had fired the C-i-C, whose reinstatement was ordered by the Supreme Court. The C-i-C then resigned. I'm no expert, but it would seem this means that the President was the ultimate commander for the armed forces and soldiers were following illegitimate orders.]
La Gringa also echoes Jack Nicholson in “Mars Attacks!” when — as the President of the United States — reacting to the Martians having vaporized the United States House of Representatives, he reassures the nation by saying, “We still have two out of three branches of government, and that ain’t bad.” Writing that this is not a coup because “the government of Honduras (at least two branches of it) have been and continue to be in charge.” is ridiculous. Sending the Army to arrest the legislature, or close down the courts is also a coup.
While I think “La Gringa” is correct in writing:
We don’t want or need international intervention from Venezuela, Nicaragua, the US, or anyone else. I feel a little resentful hearing the meddling comments from other countries. The US can’t and does not need to try to save every country in the world.
What I particularly resent living and writing on Latin American affairs is the way real events (and real deaths) are spun by foreign commentators not for the benefit of anyone “down here”, but as a way of pushing their own domestic agendas. This came clear to me after the 2006 Presidential elections here in Mexico when the U.S. “left” (or rather, the non-right) used it as a way of talking about Al Gore, and “gee, why didn’t we go to the streets (uh… maybe because in the U.S. people are afraid to take a stand that might seriously inconvenience them?) or by the right to talk about the dangers of economic upheaval (and the need to fight gun control laws!).
Latin American nations need to resolve their own problems, based on their own history and political culture. And, as I always do, I point out the wisdom of Benito Juarez in saying “among nations, as among neighbors, respect for the rights of others is the way of peace.” But that does not mean justifying our neighbor’s actions when they act like boneheads, or make excuses for criminality. And, in some ways, this is Mexico’s concern, given the county’s traditional role as an arbitrator in Central American affairs (Honduras was part of Mexico at one time), as a refuge for those fleeing persecution and as a national security concern — when there is violence in Central America, armed groups have crossed into Mexico territory on a number of occasions.
Anyway, there is universal condemnation (and even Hillary Clinton has “evolved” to the point of getting the point) for subverting the political process. Preserving the economic system — that gets more support — but, how deep that support is in Honduras is questionable.
As of this morning, protests (turning violent) had already begun in Tegucigalpa, but — as “La Gringa” and major news organizions are reporing, news within the country is being controlled, or blacked out.
With the news controlled in Honduras, there’s not much choice but to rely on alternative sources. But, there’s also some danger in relying on foreign bloggers (including me) for your news… or bloggers in general. As To The Roots says, vis-a-vis the Honduran and Iranian crisises:
Obviously there is no internet (or power) for the people of Honduras – a major problem for the fickle do-gooders in Western democracies. If one cannot see it, if one is not horrified – then it’s easy to look away. There will be no tweets from Honduras, no upper-class revolt. For Honduras, the upper-class, the oligarchical class, is against social movements and is, in fact, orchestrating and supporting the ideology of this coup. There is a surprising solidarity of classes protesting in Iran – it has way more wealth than Honduras – makes it easier for the West to support.
And, apparently, if the Army isn’t shooting people in front of the gardener from La Ceiba, there is no coup.