Newsweek has a rather curious take this week (7/20/09) on the Honduras coup in a short piece headlined “The World Goes Bananas Over Honduras”:
Poor, hot and fractious, Honduras–the original banana republic–rarely draws a second look from the global community. But on June 28, when President Manuel Zelaya was yanked out of bed by the military and bundled into exile, the world took notice. International leaders unanimously decried the “assault on democracy.” The Organization of American States expelled Honduras, the only nation since Cuba to be so disgraced. Venezuela even threatened to send in troops to reinstate Zelaya. But in the rush to judgment, heads of state showed selective zeal for democracy, at best. “It’s odd that world leaders have determined that coups can only be committed against presidents, [but] not against Congress or the courts,” says Diego Arria, a former Venezuelan diplomat. In recent years, executives in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua have stacked their benches and legislatures with yes men and muzzled the media–while international leaders looked the other way. And unlike those aspiring autocrats, the Honduran military could reasonably argue that it was acting in good faith by ejecting a leader hellbent on seeking re-election–despite an ironclad constitutional clause preventing such a move. Of course, it’s a good thing when world leaders stand up for the people. But if it’s going to mean much, they should try to be consistent.
Actually, it’s not odd at all that world leaders are condemning Honduras as a coup but not Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador or Nicaragua; generally, coups are state takeovers by a small group with military/police backing, which hasn’t happened anywhere in Latin America besides Honduras since…oh right, the anti-Chavez coup in Venezuela by folks on Arria’s side.
And the Honduran military can’t justify its coup by saying the leader they ejected was “hellbent on seeking re-election” for a number of reasons. First of all, it’s clear that Zelaya wasn’t even seeking re-election, since the actual advisory vote on amending the constitution was to happen in the same fall election that would choose Zelaya’s successor. But the very word “election” in that excuse should give you a hint that perhaps there’s something wrong with the logic involved. Asking voters if they want to vote on whether to change the constitution can hardly be considered such a threat to democracy that the military has to suspend that democracy in order to defend it.
It’s notable that all the countries Newsweek listed have leftist governments aligned with Venezuela, while right-wing Colombian president Alvaro Uribe, who not long ago engineered a change to his country’s constitution in order enable his re-election, didn’t merit a mention–or much coverage at all when it happened, for that matter–nor did Venezuela’s anti-Chavez coup, which U.S. media heartily endorsed. Perhaps the issue Newsweek ought to be probing is U.S. media’s “selective zeal” for Latin American democracy.
Actually all you need to know about the supposed “legality” of the Honduran coup is that the golpistas felt it necessary to forge a letter of resignation from Zelaya before they trundled him out of the country. Hardly something that would be necessary if his deposing was “legal” (as if nabbing someone in their pajamas and deporting them from the country could ever be legal in any case).
I don’t like the adolescent tone some of FAIR’s articles take, such as the following in this article:
“…which hasn’t happened anywhere in Latin America besides Honduras since…OH RIGHT [my emphasis], the anti-Chavez coup in Venezuela by folks on Arria’s side.”
“Oh right”? What is this?
Such snarkiness only serves to detract from the dignity and gravity of the article. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious. Don’t go for an easy chuckle from your most ardent supporterts because you may turn off others skeptical of YOUR honesty.
I was also once a newspaper reporter and as tempting as it may have been, I never would’ve been so disrespectful to the people I was writing about, even if I hated their guts.
If the facts alone don’t make a strong enough case, maybe the case isn’t strong enough to be worth making. This is an important and enlightening piece, but your one instance of snottiness undermines your goal–which is what? To expose Newsweek’s corruption or give them the finger? Believe me, just by successfully accomplishing the former you will more than accomplish the latter.
One other important note is that when the Supreme Court ruled against this advisory ballot on the Constitution, Zelaya converted it to a NON-BINDING REFERENDUM. I.E.- it became a public poll.
So, the real question that should have been asked is, how dangerous were the results from this non-binding poll? And the answer is: So dangerous that the people in the military exiled the leader trying to get the poll results.
Hiya, I’m truly pleased I’ve originate this info. These days bloggers distribute only concerning gossips and obtain and this is really frustrating. A clear site with exciting satisfy, this is what I necessary. Thankfulness for keeping this website, I will be real visiting it. Do you achieve newsletters? Cant stumble on it.