From Die Welt (in English translation): “Why Europe and the UN are mistaken concerning Honduras,” by Christian Lu?th, Project Director, Friedrich Naumann Foundation Tegucigalpa, Honduras
What’s Happening in Honduras: an Objective Viewpoint
8 Responses to “What’s Happening in Honduras: an Objective Viewpoint”
Leave a Reply
Christian Lüth is by no stretch of the English language “objective” (or for that matter nonpartisan). Apart from him, there are very very few European/American politiciancs who support the Hunduras putsch. Interestingly enough Tom takes out the most extreme view of the German political discourse on this issue and presents it as “objective”. Also very interesting that there was little argument against Uribe, when he changed the constitution to enable him to sit for a second term. 😉
By the way, no words of condemnation for the shooting of unarmed protesters by the military of Honduras?
Let’s get the available facts straight first.
1. Zelaya attempted a military coup. Do you deny that? He was not authorized by the constitution to order the military to seize the electoral system, overriding the electoral court, the supreme court, and the congress. Now THAT is a putsch. True or false?
2. He was arrested on the basis of an arrest warrant from the supreme court, supported by the attorney general and the congress. True or false?
3. If a president tries to seize power by issuing illegal orders to the military, did he attempt a coup? Yes or no? And if he is then arrested under an arrest warrant from the supreme court, is that legal or not? When the military refused to obey the president’s illegal order and refused to use force against the courts and the congress, was that proper or not? When the president dismissed the military officers, contrary to the constitution, which puts control of the military in the congress, rather than the president (precisely to avoid a repeat of the region’s history of coup and military government), and that was ruled illegal by the supreme court, was Zelaya attempting a putsch, or not? What do you do with a politician who attempts to use military force to seize power and fails, because the military affirms their responsibilities to the constitution, rather than to a caudillo?
4. Should he have been put on trial, rather than exiled? That certainly seems more reasonable and would have avoided a lot of problems. But note the language in the Honduran constitution requiring that such a president be removed from office “immediately.”
5. Have you read any of the provisions of the Honduran Constitution? If not, read this by Juan Carlos Hidalgo:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/09/zelaya-president-constitution-opinions-contributors-honduras-coup.html
6. Many people (me among them) have criticized Uribe for attempting to extend his tenure in office. It is unacceptable for a rule to be proposed and implemented that would extend the term in office of the person who proposes it. Maybe 2 terms is a better idea, but it is utterly unacceptable for the holder of office to propose a change that would extend his power. Colombians should stop Uribe in his attempt to do that. (That said, it is worth noting that he did not order the military to carry out his illegal plans, as Zelaya did.)
7. The shooting of a young man at the airport requires an investigation. Note that the Zelaya supporters I have seen in the LA Times and elsewhere were not “unarmed,” but were depicted stoning police with very, very large bricks and paving stones. The media (from Britain, not Honduras) reported “violent clashes” at the airport, with Zelaya supporters storming the gates and attempting to break in. Non-lethal force is always preferable, but it requires an investigation to find out what happened.
8. There are Zelaya supporters and Zelaya opponents and the latter do seem to outnumber the former. The media reports we get tend to be of the form “Demonstrations took place throughout the country, including a march by supporters of the exiled president…” No mention of the demonstrations in support of the constitution and against the failed coup leader Zelaya.
9. As to Lüth being objective, he is a German political analyst in Honduras, not on the government payroll, not on the Venezuelan government payroll, and an objective observer. I do not know him personally, but his views hardly seem “extreme,” but mainstream liberal democracy.
Read up on the subject first. Then express an opinion. But you really do need to read the law before going along with the view that the president is the same as “the people.” That is the surest route to the tradition of strong-man rule from which Hondurans have been free since 1981. Some are very eager for it to return. I hope you are not among them.
Tom, thank you for your lengthy response but this was not my point: My argument was that you can not take the most extreme view available in Europe and present it as “objective” or (even non-partisan). That is not particularly honest and misleading. The view of Mr. Lüth, is without a doubt, the most extreme view available outside the extreme right. Even most rightwing governments and parties in Europe condemned the putsch of the military.
As for “liberal” minded persons who condone the putsch of the military: Well, I also know people who claim to be liberals and who are/were great fans of Pinochet. Never mind that he killed his opponents (after all he brought economic freedom!). Incidentally, I even know some “liberals” at Cambridge University who organized no less than three memorial messes for Mr Pinochet when he died.
As for the court system in most South- and Central American countries: They are very often dominated by a very very thin white upper class who also dominate the military, politics and business. Maybe you should investigate this before you put your (blind) trust into their “independence”.
As for Mr Zelaya: If he has more opponents why is it necessary to use guns to remove him. He would surely have lost the referendum if this is true.
In any event, I prefer that free voting at the ballot box (and not the guns of the military) decide in a democracy. You are, of course, free to think otherwise. That’s the beauty of liberty.
I note that you ignored my points. Where do you call it a military putsch if the arrest warrant came from the supreme court and the congress stripped the president of his powers? Did the military install a military ruler? No. Did the military initiate the change? No. Did they not, in fact, refuse illegal orders by the previous president, who attempted to use military force to resolve a legal and political dispute? Yes. Was the current president chosen by the Congress, in a legal manner? Yes. Is he a general? No. Was he selected by generals? No.
And, please, spare me the red herring about the courts being dominated by “a very very thin white upper class.” You don’t even bother to make the case about this particular court. Are you saying that the court should be ignored because you know that it has members who come from “a very very thin white upper class”? That is a very, very weak response to people who cite specific provisions of the Honduran constitution; it doesn’t matter if you’re purple, brown, or blue when you read the text, which is quite explicit on all of the points I specified. For the same reason, it doesn’t matter that Zelaya is a multimillionaire; what matters is the fact that he ordered the military to subvert the constitution so that he could hold on to power. As he was quoted a while ago, “To hell with institutions!” (I quote from memory.) Those are the words of a dictator, which he demonstrated by ordering the army to get involved in politics. They refused to do so, but insisted on following the law. That’s what they did later, after an arrest warrant was issued by the supreme court, in accordance with the constitution, and they removed him from office “immediately,” as the constitution specifically required.
Go talk to whichever unnamed persons you met who like Pinochet. I’m not among them. That was a case of the military installing a general as president. It is entirely different in Honduras. If instead of the military arresting the president on charges brought because he attempted to stage a military coup, by the way, it had been the Tegucigalpa police force, would you have called it a police putsch? Who should arrest a would-be tyrant on such charges? Somebody or some group has to, and that group has to be prepared to meet the president’s personal bodyguards, which they did, without bloodshed.
Had Richard Nixon refused to abandon the white house when he was impeached and removed from office, someone would have had to go in and remove him — by force. Would that have been a “putsch”? Please do answer the question. Do you deny that Zelaya had attempted a military coup by ordering the army to use force against the courts and the congress? What should be done with presidents who attempt military coups? Should they be arrested? I will grant that the expulsion from the country was quite likely unwise and possibly illegal. Perhaps arrest, detention, and trial would have satisfied the law far better. That seems quite likely to me.
Finally, you are confused about the meaning of the word objective. Look it up. It does not mean “agrees with the majority of politicians.”
Tom, I think we should agree that we disagree (and that most of mainstream opinion is with me on this). If I may give you a small advice for the future: I do not think that it works for you if you talk down on somebody who disagrees with you. Maybe you will realize that this will rarely (if ever) lead to a person being convinced that you are right. I understand that you are very clever and well studied but you may possibly note that not everybody else is stupid or ignorant. In any event, I do not want to fight with you – after all this is your blog – and will abstain from any further posts in the Zelaya thread.
However a point with regards to the judges: Most/All Latin American lawyers I have met at Universities in the UK and the US were from the upper class and (apart from a few of Japanese descent) very white. They do represent a very thin upperclass of which most of the military leadership and big business also originates. They know each other and usually support each other – after all they went to the same schools, live in the same neighbourhoods, are members of the same social clubs and are quite often related through blood or marriage. You may, therefore, excuse my impertinence in not trusting them without more evidence than from the cheerleader in chief of the junta, Mr Lüth.
As for the new “civilian clothed” leader: The military will, of course, not put an officer in charge. A stooge also does the job.
Austrian,
I’m sorry if you are offended that I asked you questions, which you have not addressed. Much uninformed opinion agrees with you. But those people evidently do not know the facts or the law in the case. So I am unmoved by the fact that uninformed people disagree with me. If someone were to argue the law, I would listen. You didn’t. If someone were to argue the facts, I would listen. You didn’t. It is not talking down to someone to insist on facts. And it does not reflect well on you to express such hurt feelings after insinuating (repeatedly) that I support military coups, Pinochet, etc. That is an unsavory approach. Insisting on citations of facts is not talking down. (The best you could do is the very lame assertion that many judges are “white,” without even bothering to sustain whatever case you are making in this particular example) Whatever charge you might try to make, of course, would be true of Zelaya, who is a wealthy businessman from the same circles. So what?
There is an old saying from the law courts. “When the facts are on your side, pounds the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.” Neither the law nor the facts are on your side, so you pound the table by making insinuations about Pinochet and about race. I think you are better than that. I hope so.
No, you have not offended me, though I am disappointed by your, to use your words ,”unsavory” approach. I have already told you that this does not work for you – after all is it not our goal to convince people of the virtues of individual liberty? Or do we strive to “win” an argument against somebody on an internet blog. You are, of course, free to continue like that but I think that this would be a great waste of time and energy as well as your outstanding intellect.
Also, I have in no way said that you are a supporter of Pinochet or a racist. And if we speak of insinuations – no, I am not a supporter of “strongman”.
I have just told the obvious facts: A number of so-called “liberals” are great admirers of Pinochet (f.e. the founder of the Libertarian Society of Cambridge and people at CUCA). They still speak of the “glory days” when he brought in the so-called Chicago boys. It is also a quite visible fact that most high court judges, business leaders and right-wing politicans of Latin America come “from the same basket”, so to say. These are facts which lead me to be a bit hesitant to cheerlead a putsch without too much independent insight.
However, at the end of the day, I am not too “good” to freely admit that I do not know everything. Nobody is always right. We will see what happens in Hunduras….
Austrian, I will merely note that you did not respond to any of the factual claims (e.g., Zelaya attempted a military coup by illegally ordering the army to intervene in a legal dispute with the courts and the congress), or points of law (e.g., the provisions of the Honduran constitution) that I offered, but simply persisted in referring to the arrest and removal of the president on a warrant from the supreme court and with the approval of the congress as a “putsch,” as if ignoring facts is a sufficient response. It isn’t. Instead, you claim (without any names or evidence offered in support of it) that undergraduate “liberals” at Cambridge University celebrated the Pinochet government. I will listen to arguments and evidence, but you have offered none.
I concede that the decision to exile Zelaya may have been unwise and may even have been illegal. But his arrest seems to have been fully within the law.