Was Zelaya Ousted Legally?
ByAccording to the US Congressional Research Service, the Honduran Congress has the power to remove the President from office. While that might be a surprise to some readers (see an extensive discussion of this issue on an earlier post), what should come as no surprise is that other leftists in the region are undermining the government of Honduras and by extension, the economy and public security.
According to Bloomberg:
This much is already clear: Hondurans now seem farther away from a safe transition to a new democratically elected leader who adheres to the country’s constitution.
Don’t expect Zelaya to regain the presidency with full powers before the national election scheduled for Nov. 29. Less than 50 percent of Hondurans support their former leader and his approval rating has tumbled, according to a CID-Gallup poll taken two days after Zelaya was ousted in late June. Hondurans are evenly split about whether he deserved to be forcibly removed from office.
Zelaya provoked his opponents by trying to bend the constitution so he could seek another term as president. He was dragged out of the presidential palace in his pajamas and flown out of the country.
Sneaking In
His ambition endures, which is why Zelaya snuck back into the country last month in advance of the national election. He had tried unsuccessfully to re-enter Honduras in the three months since he was booted out. His most recent attempt might have failed too if the Brazilians hadn’t welcomed him inside their embassy.
By opening the doors to Zelaya, Lula allowed himself and his country to be used to promote the individual aspirations of a foreign leader. Zelaya’s situation in Brazil’s embassy is illegal, according to Jorge Zaverucha, a political scientist who directs the Center for Study of Coercive Institutions at the Federal University of Pernambuco in Brazil.
Brazilian authorities claim they aren’t violating international law because they didn’t welcome Zelaya as an exile. They have refused to define his current political status by arguing they are simply offering him “humanitarian shelter.”
The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations doesn’t say that a diplomatic mission should take in a legally deposed president and let him use the shelter as his political campaign headquarters.
Taking Advantage
More important, Article 41 of the convention states that anyone enjoying the same privileges and immunity as Zelaya in Brazil’s embassy has “a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs” of the host country.
A leader who disrespected his own country’s constitution can’t be expected to follow international rules of conduct.
Protected by the inviolability of the Brazilian embassy, which is considered foreign soil in Honduran territory, Zelaya has given speeches to his followers from inside the mission, made political phone calls, held numerous media interviews and even incited a rebellion against the de facto government.
The article goes on to talk about how Michelleti et al have also made mistakes, something the international media has made sure is known around the world.
I know some of you are rolling your eyes and wondering what this has to do with Guate. Well, for starters, Honduras is next door; it’s kind of like Arizona being concerned with what happens in New Mexico. More importantly, these revolutionary developments are part of a trend in the region that expats and future expats should know about. If a coup is going to ruin your weekend, you best think twice about moving.
To the rest of you: What do you think, is Brazil doing the right thing by letting Zelaya use it’s embassy to foment instability and prolong the crisis?
Loading ...
7 Comments
October 7th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
There's not such thing as a "legal coup". No "Constitution" can be used for the obscure goal of ousting a duly elected and constitutional president in any country.
At the end, the "golpistas" are contradicting themselves since, all they had to do was to wait for the November elections instead of imposing by force their same-old-politics of do as we say and not as we do, representing the 11 families that control the frail economy in Honduras.
I take my hat off to Brazil's position, no society should be alone at the mercy of troglodytes that call themselves "defenders of democracy" by killing, kidnapping and reducing the constitution to nothing more than a roll of toilette paper.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
So you´re supposed to respect a person´s idea of keeping themselves in power more than you should respect a country´s Constitution?
Here we go with the whole 11 (or 14 or however many there happen to be in any country) family bashing. Whether you like it or not, these 11 families probably provide employment for a great many Hondurans. They could just as easily pick up and leave for say, Switzerland, and leave all these people without employment, but they wouldn´t have to worry about their businesses being burnt down. I don´t care if it was a Popeye´s or a "shuco" cart that gets destroyed. Both are businesses that employ locals and destroying them means destroying a Honduran´s ability to provide for their family.
From what I´ve read, Brazilians are not so happy with their government openly aiding and abetting Zelaya´s personal agenda. It´s one thing to give asylum; it´s quite another to have your embassy used as a stronghold for someone who is calling for violence.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
And as for reducing the Honduran Constitution to a roll of toilet paper: that´s exactly what Zelaya did. Se la pasó por el arco del triunfo. Apparently, in Mr. Carias book, there is no such thing as a system of checks and balances provided by a three power government system.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I thought both sides were wrong. And I doubt the Constitution allows the Congress to instruct the military to depose and exile the president. I would think it outlines some process by which the Congress removes the President. I also think that they could have waited Zelaya out. He had no legal means of continuing in power once his term expired. As for the Brazilians, I wouldn't expect them to hand over Zelaya; they're stuck with him, and I'm sure they'd rather not be.
As for the 11 (or whatever) families, when are these people going to learn that they can exercise plenty of power through legal means? And if they have such a strong case politically, maybe they should try making their case to the people.
October 7th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I know somebody will probably want to burn me alive for saying this, but deep down, I really don’t care. Not at all. Whenever somebody brings the topic up at some party or whatever, I find that I want to refill my drink and walk away, that’s how much the topic bores me at this point. Since it is a rare thing that I have a chance to go back and read what was written after me in some blog post, I won’t know if this indifference seems terrible to others. (lol)
However, since you ask for an opinion, Zelaya was being probably being sneaky and manipulative, and the coup wasn’t legal. But really, it’s just another instance of regression to banana country-ism. Latin America moves two steps forward, one step back. I do know that the de facto government is brutalizing citizens and impeding freedom of press, freedom of association and many other freedoms we take for granted in the USA. That is sad. Chravez, too, impedes freedom of press and other kinds of freedom. It’s not related to ideology, it’s related to a lack of respect for democracy and civil society. Sad that Latin America is so lovely and has so many things going for it, yet the politics is what often screws it all up. But I guess it is a matter of time and education and, I don’t know, getting used to democracy and the ways it is supposed to really work. That means working within the legal system, even when the majority doesn’t like the president.
Imagine if we’d thrown a coup on Pres. Bush in the US when his approval rating was deep in the doldrums?
October 8th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Right on, Trudy. It gets to a point where the two sides of the debate are just throwing inflammatory attacks over each others' heads, with Michelleti and Zelaya being the most guilty, and the topic becomes nauseating and tired. These guys are two political actors on Honduras' stage, and the citizens of Honduras are their props. They both want the same thing, and they offer the people different ideological cookies to lure them into their camps. The only way to make serious judgments about these situations–whether in Honduras or the US or any other country that has a political decision to make–is to know a bit of the history and commit to the road of less violence.
Someone who claims devotion to the constitution and only blames Zelaya is failing to see the many more blatant attacks on the constitution and personal liberty coming from the de facto government. Equally, anyone devoted to peace and democracy in Honduras must judge the Zelaya camp guilty of bowing more to Chavez and foreign ideologies than to the will of the people. The same mistake of ideological devotion is being made, by the way, by Obama devotees in the US now. What's all the talk of change worth now when the guy seems fully devoted to another hopeless war which, by many calculations, makes less sense than Bush's war in Iraq.
October 9th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
The Honduran Congress didn't instruct the military to depose Mel, the Honduran Supreme Court, which has the power to, instructed the military to remove him. Granted, kicking him to Costa's curb was a dumb thing, but it's been shown more than once that Mel was corrupt. The Honduran government wants to try Mel on charges stemming from his presidency, not anything having to do with what's happened since.
And I keep hearing of the 14 family cabal in Honduras (kind of like the 12 or whatever family cabal in Guate). Who are these people, and how do they infuence day to day life?