The information coming out is of course sketchy BUT it looks like the Honduran president was unseated from power by the military. This occurred after the President decided to push forward with an attempt to revise the Constitution of that country in order to hold onto power, something we have seen time and again throughout Latin America, read Hugo Chavez Honduras President Zelaya’s good friend. The problem is that the Supreme Court ruled against Zelaya’s attempt to keep his power, he pressed on anyway and here we are.
Now Hugo Chavez, no friend to liberty, is threatening involvement if the Government is in fact overthrown by the military. What we don’t know is if all of the institutions within Honduras were behind this move or if it was simply a unilateral decision by the military etc.
Interestingly, Secretary of State Clinton has moved quickly and aggressively to denounce the military move, framing it as aggression toward Democracy and Constitutional order. Here is the problem. Do we know if it is in fact such a move? Zelaya was trying to change the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled against him, he decided to move forward anyway. If the military were acting on behalf of the government itself to preserve constitutional order, wouldn’t this be the same kind of internal political struggle that the Obama administration felt so powerfully they should stay out of in Iran?
Why are we suddenly willing to jump to the defense of a socialist government where a leader is sidelining the Constitution of his people? A leader who is in bed with Chavez who might just use this as a moment to get his military moving in another part of Latin America? Why are we coming to the aide of someone who could be seen as seeking to make himself an endless dictator.
Not only is this one more example of inconsistency within the foreign policy of the Obama administration, I have to wonder if it is one more show of sympathy for socialism.
Comments