Coup are you?

June 30, 2009
Power Line Blog


Monica Showalter and her colleagues on the editorial board of Investor's Business Daily have distinguished themselves with their coverage of South America Today they comment on the Obama administration's reaction to the removal of Honduran President Mel Zelaya in "Banana democrats." They write:

During his campaign, President Obama made a big deal of criticizing leaders who are elected democratically but don't govern democratically. He's had a chance to show that it mattered in Honduras. He didn't.

That's the sorry story as Honduras' now ex-president, Mel Zelaya, last Thursday defied a Supreme Court ruling and tried to hold a "survey" to rewrite the constitution for his permanent re-election. It's the same blueprint for a rigged political system that's made former democracies like Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador into shells of free countries.

Zelaya's operatives did their dirt all the way through. First they got signatures to launch the "citizen's power" survey through threats -- warning those who didn't sign that they'd be denied medical care and worse. Zelaya then had the ballots flown to Tegucigalpa on Venezuelan planes. After his move was declared illegal by the Supreme Court, he tried to do it anyway.

As a result of his brazen disregard for the law, Zelaya found himself escorted from office by the military Sunday morning, and into exile. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro rushed to blame the U.S., calling it a "yanqui coup."

President Obama on Monday called the action "not legal," and claimed that Zelaya is still the legitimate president.

There was a coup all right, but it wasn't committed by the U.S. or the Honduran court. It was committed by Zelaya himself. He brazenly defied the law, and Hondurans overwhelmingly supported his removal (a pro-Zelaya rally Monday drew a mere 200 acolytes).

Yet the U.S. administration stood with Chavez and Castro, calling Zelaya's lawful removal "a coup." Obama called the action a "terrible precedent," and said Zelaya remains president.

In doing this, the U.S. condemned democrats who stood up to save their democracy, a move that should have been hailed as a historic turning of the tide against the false democracies of the region.

The U.S. response has been disgraceful. "We recognize Zelaya as the duly elected and constitutional president of Honduras. We see no other," a State Department official told reporters.

Worse, the U.S. now contemplates sanctions on the tiny drug-plagued, dirt-poor country of 7 million, threatening to halt its $200 million in U.S. aid, immigration accords and a free-trade treaty if it doesn't put the criminal Zelaya back into office.

Not even Nicaragua, a country the State Department said committed a truly fraudulent election, got that. Nor has murderous Iran gotten such punishment, even as it slaughters Iranian democrats in the streets. But tiny Honduras must be made to pay.

We understand why the White House is so quick to call this a "coup" and to jump to the side of Hugo Chavez. The Venezuelan despot has made political hay against the U.S. over its premature recognition of the Venezuelan coup leaders who tried to overthrow Chavez in 2002. Obama wants to avoid that this time.

The White House also wants to mollify the morally corrupted Organization of American States, which, by admitting Cuba, is no longer an organization of democracies and now, through its radical membership, tries to dictate how other countries run themselves.

Such a response says that democracy effectively ends with elections. It says rule of law is irrelevant and that rulers have rights, not responsibilities. But if leaders can't be held accountable, they should be removed, as happened in Honduras.

If the U.S. does hit Honduras with sanctions, it will earn ill will in the country lasting for years. It will further erode U.S. moral authority and cost us influence in the region -- becoming an embarrassing footnote in the history of U.S.-Latin American relations.

Is that what the U.S. wants? It's time for a more sophisticated definition of democracy -- one that includes the rule of law and the will of the people.

(OK, call me paranoid, but how long will it be before the President of the United States passes a Health Care Bill for our Citizens and then tries the following:

"First they got signatures to launch the "citizen's power" survey through threats -- warning those who didn't sign that they'd be denied medical care and worse."

If you think that there isn't a potential for a very similar Coup here in the United States, wake up and smell the coffee! Yeah, I said it and you are entitled to my opinion! VN8)

The "no-meddling in Iranian affairs" imperative

Power Line Blog: John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff
http://www.powerlineblog.com

June 16, 2009 Posted by Paul at 3:25 PM

Seth Leibsohn challenges President Obama's view that the U.S. should not be seen as "meddling" in Iranian affairs. It does seem odd that Obama is willing to tell certain Israelis that they cannot build homes for their families, even as his respect for Iranian sovereignty makes him too bashful to talk about basic questions of human rights except in the most general terms.

It has been suggested that Obama is well-advised not to speak up in favor of the dissidents because taking their side would enable the regime to de-legitimize the opposition as tools of evil America. Some have even speculated that the Iranian opposition has asked the U.S. to remain largely silent.

The former claim is extremely difficult to assess; the latter is probably impossible. But we can note the tension between these claims and the view that Obama has made major inroads in influencing Muslim public opinion. For if Obama's popularity extends beyond Iran's student activists and intellectuals, a group that traditionally is pro-American or has no serious quarrel with the U.S., then his support should not be a liability for the opposition. And if his broader popularity is somehow contingent on not criticizing repressive dictators, then that popularity doesn't seem worth cultivating except for egotistical reasons.

I suspect the real reason why Obama can't get off the fence is that he is convinced the regime will survive and thus will be the party he deals with if-and-when negotiations take place. Obama is probably correct that the regime will survive. But even accepting his imperative that we negotiate without pre-conditions with Iran's leaders, I question whether Obama strengthens his hand by refusing to criticize the regime.

It's difficult to imagine what Obama has to offer the regime that would be more valuable to it than an arsenal of nuclear weapons and the ability to extend its influence throughout the region via Hezbollah. But if Obama has identified such a thing, then the regime can be expected to grab it regardless of what Obama has said about other matters. Unless Obama's sheer existence has changed the laws of diplomacy, the course of negotations will be determined by the perceived interests of the parties, not past rhetoric.

For example, no American president made more progress in negotiating with the Soviet Union than President Reagan did. And no American president was as aggressive in his criticism of the Soviet regime.

In other words, interests matter, not atmospherics. But if atmospherics did matter, it seems unlikely that craven disregard of the abuses of the Iranian regime would create an atmosphere helpful to the promotion of U.S. interests during negotiations with that regime.

UPDATE: In the comments, Ed Zuckerbrod observes:

A few weeks back, when Chrysler bondholders refused to endorse a deal that they felt was disproportionately onerous to their interests, not to mention contrary to bankruptcy law and many years of common business practice, President Obama had no difficulty declaring, "I do not stand with these people."

I may be mistaken, but I believe those were the most direct, clearest, and unequivocal words uttered by Mr. Obama on any issue since the day he was sworn into office.

Of course, he was not talking about any mullah dictators, or terrorists, or even white-collar swindlers, but many ordinary Americans like teachers and policemen. Their union pension funds had invested in Chrysler debt, and their retirements were now threatened by the valuations placed on their bonds by the proposed deal.

Contrast that statement with his kid glove handling of Ahmadinejad and the rest of the mullahocracy, and you have to really wonder about this man's character. Here is an issue that has possible implications for world peace for many years to come, and he is fence straddling.

With whom do we stand, Mr. President?