Another test for Obama

[khib70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Really? Where's that information coming from? Everything I've read on it suggests it was pretty much the equivalent of the SDP split from the Labour Party.



Having read a bit on this just know it seems we're both wrong. It's in the constitution that the Head of Congress assumes control if the President is forced from office or leaves office.



Oh come on! That's the basis for saying he's threatened military action to reinstate Zelaya?



What I'm saying is that they're usually justified historically in shouting that...

With reference to the split in the FSLN, the Wikipedia article seems fairly clear on the reasons. This piece from the "Observer" (stablemate of my beloved Guardian)this year, seems to show that the fears of Ramirez and the others who split to form the MRS were pretty justified, and that Ortega is going the way of Chavez etc right enough.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...a-world-ortega

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Indeed I think perhaps he may be!!

As for the OP, I don't see this as an American problem or issue but it is forever interesting that despite being denounced regularly for meddling America is always the first port of call when such problems as these arise and might need some sort of resolution...

Thats not my point at all. Its not that complicated. 1. Obama has come to office on a (vague) mandate for a new foreign policy dynamic 2. Latin America is full of left wing Govts with genuine democratic legitimacy 3. One of those Govts has just been toppled by a military-backed coup.

Now the moral action from Obama would be to join with the OAS, the EU, and all of South America in demanding a return to civilian rule. Any sign of accepting the coup would send a message to the rest of South America that he doesnt really give a damn about genuine democracy. However, if he could also make some enemies among the more fanatical Cuban exile elements, the CIA and the military industrial complex, if hes seen as not supporting US 'interests'.

It is a genuine dilemma for him, much more so than if there was a left wing overthrow of civilian rule somewhere.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

IYHO


Mel Zelaya's referendum was judged unconstitutional by the country's supreme court, not the armed forces. After his removal a member of Zelaya's own party was sworn in to replace him by the Honduran Congress, who I think are closer to the voice of the Honduran people than Hugo Chavez. So there has been no military coup and the same party remains in power.

Are you related to former Iraqi information spokesman Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf by any chance?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8123434.stm

[Green Mikey]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thats not my point at all. Its not that complicated. 1. Obama has come to office on a (vague) mandate for a new foreign policy dynamic 2. Latin America is full of left wing Govts with genuine democratic legitimacy 3. One of those Govts has just been toppled by a military-backed coup.

Now the moral action from Obama would be to join with the OAS, the EU, and all of South America in demanding a return to civilian rule. Any sign of accepting the coup would send a message to the rest of South America that he doesnt really give a damn about genuine democracy. However, if he could also make some enemies among the more fanatical Cuban exile elements, the CIA and the military industrial complex, if hes seen as not supporting US 'interests'.

It is a genuine dilemma for him, much more so than if there was a left wing overthrow of civilian rule somewhere.

Think you have missed the point here. The question posed by Simar and myself earlier in the thread is not what Obama has to do but why should he have to do anything.

From you post it is clear that you see American intervention as important in the Honduran situation. However, you (probably more than anyone on this site) have been critical of America's previous interventions in Latin American politics. Why then are you so eager to see continuing intervention from America when you are so well versed on the ills that they have caused in the past?

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Think you have missed the point here. The question posed by Simar and myself earlier in the thread is not what Obama has to do but why should he have to do anything.

From you post it is clear that you see American intervention as important in the Honduran situation. However, you (probably more than anyone on this site) have been critical of America's previous interventions in Latin American politics. Why then are you so eager to see continuing intervention from America when you are so well versed on the ills that they have caused in the past?

As i've already said, If he chooses to do nothing, he will be accused of a)double standards (at least in regard to previous US administrations interventions in other parts of the world) and b) representing a continuation of Bush-era policy.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Think you have missed the point here. The question posed by Simar and myself earlier in the thread is not what Obama has to do but why should he have to do anything.

From you post it is clear that you see American intervention as important in the Honduran situation. However, you (probably more than anyone on this site) have been critical of America's previous interventions in Latin American politics. Why then are you so eager to see continuing intervention from America when you are so well versed on the ills that they have caused in the past?

I hardly think that, for example, refusing to recognise the new government equates to an 'intervention'.

[Green Mikey]

[QUOTE=hibsbollah;2082932]Thats not my point at all. Its not that complicated. 1. Obama has come to office on a (vague) mandate for a new foreign policy dynamic 2. Latin America is full of left wing Govts with genuine democratic legitimacy 3. One of those Govts has just been toppled by a military-backed coup.[QUOTE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As i've already said, If he chooses to do nothing, he will be accused of a)double standards (at least in regard to previous US administrations interventions in other parts of the world) and b) representing a continuation of Bush-era policy.

How can he develop a new foreign policy dynamic when if he is seen to be breaking from the policy of previous administrations he is accused of double standards?

You have yet to give me a reason from the Latin American perspective supporting intervention from Obama. Accusations of double standards and being Bush-like are American concerns not a reason for intervention in the politics of another nation.

[hibsbollah]

x

[khib70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are you related to former Iraqi information spokesman Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf by any chance?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8123434.stm

Do pay attention. The President's proposed action was ruled unconstitutional by the country's Supreme Court, and its elected Congress. He decided he was going to do it anyway. He was therefore removed. That is not a military coup by any definition, and certainly not just because you say so.

The guy was another hero of the revolution who got a wee bit pissed on power like Chavez, who he was clearly copycatting, and Ortega, who went for the rigged election option instead.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That is not a military coup by any definition

Look it up in the dictionary, and then read how the rest of the world is defining events in Honduras. Im afraid you are making yourself look a bit silly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8124154.stm
What exactly happened?
At dawn on the 28 June, 200 to 300 troops came to Mr Zelaya's home, and, in his own words, told him to surrender or they would shoot him.
He was driven to the airport and put on a flight to Costa Rica. Later on Sunday, the speaker of Congress, Roberto Micheletti, constitutionally second in line to the presidency, was sworn in as interim leader. He declared an overnight curfew for Sunday and Monday.

[khib70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Look it up in the dictionary, and then read how the rest of the world is defining events in Honduras. Im afraid you are making yourself look a bit silly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8124154.stm
What exactly happened?
At dawn on the 28 June, 200 to 300 troops came to Mr Zelaya's home, and, in his own words, told him to surrender or they would shoot him.
He was driven to the airport and put on a flight to Costa Rica. Later on Sunday, the speaker of Congress, Roberto Micheletti, constitutionally second in line to the presidency, was sworn in as interim leader. He declared an overnight curfew for Sunday and Monday.

Don't be patronising. I don't need a dictionary to know what a military coup is. You are taking your custonmary selective view of the facts.

Zelaya was declared by the Supreme Court and Congress to be acting against the Constitution. He refused to desist. He was replaced by the Speaker as per the Constitution. Those are the facts. If you want to call that a military coup, please yourself, but don't expect a dictionary to back you up.

Imagine what this forum would be like if George Bush had decided to mess about with the Constitution to extend his term, like Zelaya proposed to do, and Chavez has already done.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don't be patronising. I don't need a dictionary to know what a military coup is. You are taking your custonmary selective view of the facts.

Zelaya was declared by the Supreme Court and Congress to be acting against the Constitution. He refused to desist. He was replaced by the Speaker as per the Constitution. Those are the facts. If you want to call that a military coup, please yourself, but don't expect a dictionary to back you up.

Imagine what this forum would be like if George Bush had decided to mess about with the Constitution to extend his term, like Zelaya proposed to do, and Chavez has already done.

He didnt need to, because the US constitution already allows a president 3 terms, which is what Zelya was proposing a referendum on. I suspect that your obvious political leanings make you unable to form a rational analysis of whats going on there.

[hibsbollah]

Obama says Honduras coup 'illegal'...
Be interesting to see developments over the next few days...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8125292.stm
Obama says Honduras coup illegal

US President Barack Obama has described the removal of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya as illegal.
His remarks came after left-wing Latin American leaders declared their support for the deposed leader, who was expelled by the military on Sunday.

In Honduras, pro-Zelaya protestors have been demonstrating in the country's capital, Tegucigalpa.

Mr Zelaya's removal followed a power struggle over his plans for constitutional change.

The BBC's Stephen Gibbs in Tegucigalpa says all day hundreds of pro-Zelaya protesters have been taunting the thousands of soldiers deployed around the presidential residence, accusing them of taking part in a "criminal coup".

The ousted president, who was in office since 2006, had wanted to hold a referendum that could have led to an extension of his non-renewable four-year term in office.

Expulsion condemned
Polls for the vote were due to open early on Sunday, but instead troops stormed the presidential palace at dawn, detained Mr Zelaya and flew him to Costa Rica.

The military, Congress and the Supreme Court in the Central American nation had all opposed Mr Zelaya's referendum.




Our correspondent says that even though the international community regards the exiled leader as the legitimate leader of the country, any comeback will not be easy.
Speaking after a meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Mr Obama said Mr Zelaya remained the democratically-elected leader of Honduras.

And he said a "terrible precedent" would be set if the coup were not reversed.

Earlier on Monday, speaking in Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez spelled out his opposition to the situation in Honduras.

"We cannot allow a return to the past. We will not permit it," Mr Chavez said.

He spoke after talks with Mr Zelaya, President Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega.

'Voracious elite'
After turning up in Costa Rica on Sunday, Mr Zelaya called his ouster a plot "by a very voracious elite, an elite which wants only to keep this country [Honduras] isolated, in an extreme level of poverty".

In Tegucigalpa protestors defied a curfew order between Sunday night and Monday morning, imposed by Mr Micheletti.

As Speaker of Congress, Mr Micheletti had been the next in line to the presidency. His swearing-in was greeted with applause in Congress.
In a speech, he said that he had not assumed power under the "ignominy" of a coup d'etat.

The army had complied with the constitution, he said, and he had reached the presidency "as the result of an absolutely legal transition process".
Congress said he would serve until 27 January, when Mr Zelaya's term had been due to expire.

Presidential elections are planned for 29 November and Mr Micheletti promised these would go ahead.





.

[Green Mikey]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He didnt need to, because the US constitution already allows a president 3 terms, which is what Zelya was proposing a referendum on. I suspect that your obvious political leanings make you unable to form a rational analysis of whats going on there.

Firstly, the US constitution allows 2 terms.

Secondly, what khib70 is not debating the relative length of terms allowed in the US and Honduras but is highlighting the fact the Zelaya tried to change the constitution to alter term limits.

As for the part of your post in bold, that makes me

In future would it not be better if you stopped ridiculing other people's posts (as you have done here) and replied with fact based debate?

[givescotlandfreedom]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

1) The embargo/isolation of Cuba was put into place nearly a year before the missile bases were built. And that's not to say that was the beginning of attempts to destabilise the country.

2) I'd be very surprised if the U.S. didn't have nukes trained on Havana.

What's your point?

Plus the shipping of missiles within range of the US was a response to the US doing the same thing in Turkey which could reach the USSR.

[Betty Boop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He didnt need to, because the US constitution already allows a president 3 terms, which is what Zelya was proposing a referendum on. I suspect that your obvious political leanings make you unable to form a rational analysis of whats going on there.

Firstly, the US constitution allows 2 terms.
Secondly, what khib70 is not debating the relative length of terms allowed in the US and Honduras but is highlighting the fact the Zelaya tried to change the constitution to alter term limits.

As for the part of your post in bold, that makes me

In future would it not be better if you stopped ridiculing other people's posts (as you have done here) and replied with fact based debate?

Is it not two consecutive terms?

[Green Mikey]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is it not two consecutive terms?

Sorry, should have said consecutive.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He didnt need to, because the US constitution already allows a president 3 terms, which is what Zelya was proposing a referendum on. I suspect that your obvious political leanings make you unable to form a rational analysis of whats going on there.

Firstly, the US constitution allows 2 terms.

Secondly, what khib70 is not debating the relative length of terms allowed in the US and Honduras but is highlighting the fact the Zelaya tried to change the constitution to alter term limits.

As for the part of your post in bold, that makes me

In future would it not be better if you stopped ridiculing other people's posts (as you have done here) and replied with fact based debate?

Ridiculing others posts isnt something I do, if you look at my post history. But when someone spends obvious time and energy composing posts that says black is white, as khib does, I can't help myself. To answer your point, just because Zelaya called for a referendum to extend term length, and was in dispute with the courts about the validity of this, does not excuse a military overthrow, and is a military coup, as all media outlets, the US, the EU, the UN, and the entire world accept. (except, seemingly, you two).

[LiverpoolHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ridiculing others posts isnt something I do, if you look at my post history. But when someone spends obvious time and energy composing posts that says black is white, as khib does, I can't help myself. To answer your point, just because Zelaya called for a referendum to extend term length, and was in dispute with the courts about the validity of this, does not excuse a military overthrow, and is a military coup, as all media outlets, the US, the EU, the UN, and the entire world accept. (except, seemingly, you two).

Not even that, a referendum on whether to hold a referendum. The dastardly, undemocratic, power hungry, tyrannical ****bag!

[khib70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He didnt need to, because the US constitution already allows a president 3 terms, which is what Zelya was proposing a referendum on. I suspect that your obvious political leanings make you unable to form a rational analysis of whats going on there.

Whatever happened to the Pot and Kettle smiley?

[khib70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He didnt need to, because the US constitution already allows a president 3 terms, which is what Zelya was proposing a referendum on. I suspect that your obvious political leanings make you unable to form a rational analysis of whats going on there.

Firstly, the US constitution allows 2 terms.

Secondly, what khib70 is not debating the relative length of terms allowed in the US and Honduras but is highlighting the fact the Zelaya tried to change the constitution to alter term limits.

As for the part of your post in bold, that makes me

In future would it not be better if you stopped ridiculing other people's posts (as you have done here) and replied with fact based debate?

Cheers Couldn't have put it better myself

[Green Mikey]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ridiculing others posts isnt something I do, if you look at my post history. But when someone spends obvious time and energy composing posts that says black is white, as khib does, I can't help myself. To answer your point, just because Zelaya called for a referendum to extend term length, and was in dispute with the courts about the validity of this, does not excuse a military overthrow, and is a militarycoup as all media outlets, the US, the EU, the UN, and the entire world accept. (except, seemingly, you two).

Contradiction is something you clearly do

When have I commented on wether or not there was a military coup in Honduras? I pointed out that you had misinterpreted khib70's post and had ridiculed him as a result.

My earlier posts were asking why you believe this to be an issue for Obama.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Contradiction is something you clearly do

When have I commented on wether or not there was a military coup in Honduras? I pointed out that you had misinterpreted khib70's post and had ridiculed him as a result.

My earlier posts were asking why you believe this to be an issue for Obama.

Which ive answered ad infinitum.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don't be patronising. I don't need a dictionary to know what a military coup is. You are taking your custonmary selective view of the facts.

Zelaya was declared by the Supreme Court and Congress to be acting against the Constitution. He refused to desist. He was replaced by the Speaker as per the Constitution. Those are the facts. If you want to call that a military coup, please yourself, but don't expect a dictionary to back you up.

Imagine what this forum would be like if George Bush had decided to mess about with the Constitution to extend his term, like Zelaya proposed to do, and Chavez has already done.

My dictionary defines a coup as a 'sudden and decisive stroke of state policy; spec. a change in government carried out violently and illegally'

I'm struggling to see how that doesn't relate pretty much exactly to what has happened in Honduras.

Two/three questions. Do you believe that every nation's constitution (those that have them anyway) should be immune from ever being altered, and should it be legally enshrined within the constitution that to question it is illegal? Do you think term limits are an admirable thing, and why?

N.B. It's not just Zelaya who has been arrested, a whole section of the political left in Honduras. Trade unionists, peasant activists, indigenous people activists, human rights activists and other assorted supporters of Zelaya have been interned.

[Green Mikey]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which ive answered ad infinitum.

You didn't answer my question on why Obama's intervention is advantageous from a Latin American perspective.

Doesn't matter though...I'm getting used to your contrradictions now

[LiverpoolHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You didn't answer my question on why Obama's intervention is advantageous from a Latin American perspective.

Doesn't matter though...I'm getting used to your contrradictions now

Probably because it should be a fairly obvious answer depending on what you mean by this term 'intervention'? Refusing to recognise the new government (if you count that as 'intervention') would put pressure on the military and the oligarchs to allow the return of Zelaya to power whereas recognising it would cement its (false) legitimacy.

Notably the Americans are refusing to officially label it a coup.

[Green Mikey]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Probably because it should be a fairly obvious answer depending on what you mean by this term 'intervention'? Refusing to recognise the new government (if you count that as 'intervention') would put pressure on the military and the oligarchs to allow the return of Zelaya to power whereas recognising it would cement its (false) legitimacy.

Notably the Americans are refusing to officially label it a coup.

Intervention...have a look in your dictionary

So for all the problems America has caused in Latin America when a coup takes place they are charged with some aspect of the resolution. Sounds like thery are damned if they do and damned if they don't...

[LiverpoolHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Intervention...have a look in your dictionary

So for all the problems America has caused in Latin America when a coup takes place they are charged with some aspect of the resolution. Sounds like thery are damned if they do and damned if they don't...

No, not really - well not at all actually. It's no more than would be expected of any other prominent international neighbour of a country in crisis.

I fail to see how, for example, publically refusing to recognise the new government is, in your mind, apparently similar in any way to the umpteen cases of them overthrowing progressive Latin American governments.

[hibsbollah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You didn't answer my question on why Obama's intervention is advantageous from a Latin American perspective.

Doesn't matter though...I'm getting used to your contrradictions now

I have decided you are definitely on the wind up

[khib70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My dictionary defines a coup as a 'sudden and decisive stroke of state policy; spec. a change in government carried out violently and illegally'

I'm struggling to see how that doesn't relate pretty much exactly to what has happened in Honduras.

Two/three questions. Do you believe that every nation's constitution (those that have them anyway) should be immune from ever being altered, and should it be legally enshrined within the constitution that to question it is illegal? Do you think term limits are an admirable thing, and why?

N.B. It's not just Zelaya who has been arrested, a whole section of the political left in Honduras. Trade unionists, peasant activists, indigenous people activists, human rights activists and other assorted supporters of Zelaya have been interned.

In answer to your questions:
I've already said that I don't think any constitution is immutable. However, changing it with the sole aim of extending your term of office is not a legitimate amendment.

It follows from the above that I don't think that questioning the constitution should be illegal. The constitution, like the government, should be accountable to the people.

Term limits are essential to allow democratic accountability. It's very easy for an elected leader to become a dictator simply by abolishing inconvenient checks on his power.

When I say I don't see this as a military coup, I mean that the elected Congress is still running the country, and the President has been replaced according to the law of the land, and the decisions of the Supreme Court.

I also agree with the other poster who says that calling for US interference in another country when your guys are losing, and condemning it when they're winning, is a contradictory position based more on knee-jerk anti-Americanism than any kind of consistent political stance.