Commentary: The situation in Honduras
|
| Published on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 |
Email To Friend Print Version |
By Frank Edward Paco Smith, Jr., JP
The media is very powerful, so much so that depending on the ‘perspective’ that is put forth, one’s view can be highly influenced.
Based on the information I have uncovered, it appears as though "the system" has (to this point) stumped the efforts of Jose Manuel Zelaya to follow in the footsteps of his mentor, President Hugo Chavez. His initial attempt to run amuck of his nation’s laws, on a grand level, was thwarted.
In my opinion, Honduras’ Congress and Supreme Court did the right thing. Indeed, Zelaya is the constitutionally elected leader of that country. But does that mean the he can defy the laws as set forth in the constitution and beyond that, defy the judgment of the Supreme Court? I don’t think so.
What I perceive to have occurred is a failed attempt at a grab for increased power. One need not look any further than the case of Venezuela, to gain some insight as to what Zelaya attempted to do.
One of the fundamental differences in this case involved a critical miscalculation by Zelaya. Initially, unlike the Venezuelan President, Zelaya presumably does not have an adequate level of loyalty from the military, as does President Chavez.
Second, it appears as though those who are vested with the responsibility to ensure that the different branches of Honduras’ government remain separate and accountable through checks and balances, were not asleep at the wheel. Kudos to those who did their job, as required, under what must have been a highly stressful situation.
 |
| Frank Edward Paco Smith, Jr. is a Belizean who currently resides in Belize. He has a BA in Social Sciences from the University of California at Irvine (USA), an Executive Masters in Business Administration (EMBA) from UWI Cave Hill and an MSc. in Governance and Public Policy from UWI Mona. |
Certain, mainstream, media houses have presented a neat little package which depicts the events in Honduras as a “military coup”. Certainly, it depends on how one defines such an event, but given the history of Latin America, that term carries a negative connotation.
I have come to understand that Zelaya ignored a judgment of Honduras’ Supreme Court and set upon a path to hold a referenda vote, which was not sanctioned. Apparently, he instructed the Army Chief to mobilise security forces to facilitate the vote. When his order was not carried out, Zelaya fired the Chief.
The Supreme Court informed as to the illegality of his actions and requested that the Army Chief be reinstated. In all, Zelaya took it upon himself to attempt to hold the referendum vote, without the logistical support of the Army and, incidentally, in contravention of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
It has been revealed that the Supreme Court informed him of not only the illegality of such an act, but also told him of the potential consequences. When faced with the facts, it is said the Zelaya was given an option; either proceed with the vote and face prosecution under the law or resign as President and receive safe passage to a neutral country.
My understanding is that he signed a letter of resignation and opted to go into exile, rather than face the music.
With that said, and if it is indeed fact, this is where I take issue with those organizations and countries which provided a knee-jerk reaction to the unfolding situation in Honduras.
Specifically, I take issue with the Organisation of American States. This entity, which is led by Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza, immediately called for the re-instatement of the “democratically elected President of Honduras”. My disdain with the OAS runs deeper than just this matter, but I will attempt to remain focused.
By no stretch of the imagination do I claim to be an expert on the affairs of Latin America, but being a Belizean, I have a keen interest in matters that can potentially affect the well-being of my country.
The OAS has based its position on the notion that Article 19 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter should be applied to the present situation in Honduras. Admittedly, I am no expert on the aforementioned charter, but I am someone who believes in the equal application when invoking judgments.
To my knowledge Article 19 can be applied to matters which cause any unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order. I do not share Secretary General Insulza’s view that Article 19 should be applied in this instance, especially given the fact that unlike how matters have been characterised in the mainstream as a ‘military coup’, there are more substantive and critical inputs which have contributed to the critical mass.
Case in point, when one talks of “any unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order”, how exactly does the trampling of individual’s rights to the freedom of speech and expression factor into the equation?
There is a nation in South America, where the voice of any and virtually all opposition is being summarily silenced. Opposition leaning television and radio stations are being shutdown, based on trumped-up charges. There is even the case of a leader of the major opposition party having to seek asylum in a neighbouring country, in order to escape persecution from the newly self-styled Latin American strongman, who incidentally appears to have the tacit support of Secretary General Insulza.
Let’s be real. How is it that the OAS, who is tasked with addressing and facilitating regional matters, appears to be so overtly biased when taking positions on matters of concern? Maybe I missed it, but has the OAS expressed any concerns, let alone taken any action against the South American government who has undoubtedly engaged in the aforementioned activities?
Getting back to the matter of Honduras, it was reported that the Venezuelan President expressed something to the effect that he would fight and defeat those who have taken over in Honduras, following Zelaya’s departure. Can someone tell me whether such a vow contravenes some statute of the OAS?
What it sounds like to me is that a leader of a foreign country has publicly expressed his intention to proactively meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. Where is Mr Insulza’s castigation of such expressed intentions? To date, I have heard nothing from the OAS which calls upon President Chavez to temper, what I hope is, his rhetoric.
Again, I see a great disparity in the manner in which the OAS selectively chooses to address issues. My friends, I detect a very insidious and certainly dangerous trend. I won’t go as far as calling the Secretary General a “Chavista”, just yet. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there is a strong likelihood that it very well may be a duck.
Concerning a different issue, the recent moves by the OAS to specifically facilitate the potential for Cuba to re-enter the regional body also deserves closer scrutiny. I am not against Cuba’s re-entry, but I have a concern when special concessions are made for specific countries in order to appease certain, regional leaders. If one of the basic tenets of the OAS involves the need to facilitate and promulgate democracy and democratic institutions, I think that precept should remain paramount. Again, the matter of Cuba is a completely different issue, but I believe it is important to acknowledge especially when one perceives a certain trend in the anglings of the OAS.
Although I am a stickler for the rule of law, one must give credit where it is due. Prior to the current situation in Honduras, President Chavez had proven rather effective in co-opting support throughout Latin America to legitimise his self-styled socialist revolution. This can be attributed to many factors, including his capacity to: plan, evoke stirring rhetoric and above all capitalise on the frustrations of many disenfranchised individuals throughout Latin America, who have developed a lingering disdain for the systems and structures which have perpetuated considerable economic inequalities.
In all, President Chavez has proven a very astute tactician. I do not agree with many of his tactics, but I admit that he has proven rather effective, to this point. Bearing this in mind, I hope that my fellow Caribbean counterparts are taking a critical view of these issues, for the lure of ‘petro-dollars’ is appealing.
Yet, I do not wish to see the general tradition of freely contested elections become a thing of the past in the Caribbean. Choice is important and the potential for certain elements of a self-styled socialist system do not appear to share synergies with this concept. In other words, be mindful of those who bear gifts, for more often than not, they come with invariable conditionalities.
I applaud Honduras’ Congress and the people of that nation for stopping former President Zelaya in mid-stream. My disquiet is ever-growing for the position taken by those nations and organisations, worldwide, who wish to focus primarily on Zelaya being the 'democratically elected' president of Honduras. They should stop with their knee-jerk reaction and realise that although Zelaya was democratically elected, within his capacity as the Executive...he is not above the law, as set forth in Honduras' Constitution.
Unfortunately, the entire realm of International Relations is becoming perverted much like the notion of Human Rights. The latter began as a meaningful concept, but has morphed into an internationally sanctioned sorry excuse for perpetrators of (local) crimes; whereby they commit atrocious violations (e.g. murder, rape, etc...) and once apprehended, their rights and not those of the victims, become paramount. Unfortunately, it appears as though the major players in the realm of international relations have succumbed to this misguided concept.
In sum, I applaud those who stood up to Mr Zelaya, a presumptive authoritarian in the making. As for the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean, wake up! Stop these aspiring autocrats before they gain a strangle-hold on your respective: seat(s) of power, economies and ultimately your destinies. It is interesting because they are a new breed; one which consistently reminds the masses of the atrocities brought about by leaders who were propped-up by “the Empire”.
What they fail to explain is that similarly, yet uniquely, they are constructing their personal fiefdoms, at the expense of the masses. I guess at the core level, it is politics as usual. This time, at least in one case, it has taken on a distinctively local dynamic and is backed by wealth derived from natural resources.
With the misguided calls proffered by the OAS and other organisations, it will be a challenge for Honduras to defy their calls for Zelaya's re-instatement. Yet, I encourage them to stay the course, for once they are convinced that their actions were within the legal parameters set by the Constitution of Honduras, the law is on their side. Don't let the external forces dictate your internal matters, on this level!
On the whole the recent activities in Honduras have opened a ripe discussion as to whether the questionable reasoning of a regional body holds primacy over the laws of a sovereign nation, in such instances. | | | | Reads : 736 | | | |
|
|
