home

Zelaya To Be Returned To Honduran Presidency

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 08:37:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Good news:

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. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed on Friday that Mr. Zelaya and Mr. Micheletti had approved what she called “an historic agreement.”

Good. The principle is important and must be upheld. Practically speaking, Zelaya was, in essence, stopped in his campaign to overturn the Honduran Constitution's prohibition on reelection of Presidents. He gets to serve his last 2 months in office. A new President is elected on November 29. And this is all over in January 2010. In a way, this is a perfect ending to this story.

Speaking for me only

< The Public Option: It's Up To The Congress | Friday Afternoon News and Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Zelaya To Be Returned To Honduran Presidency | 30 comments (30 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Zelaya never said (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by wagnert in atlanta on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 06:33:08 PM EST
    what changes he wanted in the Constitution.  According to the report by the Law Library of Congress, he decreed a referendum, to be held well before the election, to determine whether an extra ballot box be set up in every polling station to count votes for the calling of a Constitutional convention.

    The appropriate court (Court of Administrative Litigation) told him he had no such authority.  He repeated his decree, told the military to support the referendum logistically, and appealed the court ruling.  

    When the ruling was affirmed, he refused to acknowledge it.  The Chief Prosecutor filed a criminal complaint with the Supreme Court alleging treason against the State (and other things).  

    The Supreme Court removed Zelaya from office and ordered the military to arrest him.  This was to be followed by trial in a lower court (Zelaya no longer being an officer of the state) but, in what was apparently an excess of zeal, the military bounced him out of the country.

    On review, the National Congress endorsed his removal from office.  

    So, the Honduran courts, the National Congress, the military and (judging from the lack of blood in the streets, though there were a few lackluster demonstrations) most of the Honduran people approved of the removal of Zelaya from the Presidency.  

    Given that the Honduran Constitution does not have an impeachment provision per se, I think the whole thing was legally and neatly done.  

    Question:  What would the US and the OAS prefer be done with a President that defies the law, as interpreted by his Supreme Court?

    According to polls (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Watermark on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 07:37:04 PM EST
    most Hondurans disapproved of the coup.  Zelaya was removed for office for purely political purposes.

    Parent
    Polls? (none / 0) (#32)
    by wagnert in atlanta on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 08:37:50 PM EST
    Link, please

    Parent
    The principle is important and must be upheld. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 09:02:25 AM EST

    Is that the principle that the Honduran Supreme Court should be ignored in stoppong a presidential coup?

    Proposed vote wouldn't have illegally amended (none / 0) (#6)
    by fairleft on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 11:29:01 AM EST
    the Constitution.

    Zelaya is charged with trying to amend the constitution to allow re-election of the president (which would be illegal), yet no one has ever provided evidence to that effect. It is illegal to amend seven particular parts of the constitution, but the wording of the proposed vote did not mention any of them.

    I do not care if you are positive he wanted to, as that does not constitute evidence. He said before the coup that he would leave office in 2010. Maybe he was lying, maybe not. But it deserves more investigation before overthrowing him. Ousting a president requires more than just assumptions about intent.

    http://weeksnotice.blogspot.com/2009/07/honduras-summing-up-some-basic-points.html

    By
    Greg Weeks
    I am an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. I am the editor of the academic journal The Latin Americanist.

    Parent

    It is incorrect (none / 0) (#17)
    by Watermark on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 04:17:59 PM EST
    to think that the Supreme Court of Honduras is anywhere near as respectable as ours.  Zelaya never said that he was going to reform the provision on presidential term limits.

    The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Supreme Court justices, all of whom had been appointed either be right-wing liberal party presidents or right-wing National party presidents, were scared of the way he had started to tilt to the left.  This coup was established for purely political reasons.

    Parent

    Works for me (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 09:13:16 AM EST
    Being on the same side of an issue as Miguel Estrada was getting vexing for me anyway.

    Ha. (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 11:03:04 AM EST


    Parent
    On the other hand it does prove one of my guiding (none / 0) (#11)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 02:12:33 PM EST
    principles- Mark Penn will always lose.