Why the West Should Support the Honduran "Coup"

If Zelaya were a patriot, and had the interests of his country at heart, you’d think he’d bow to the will of his party, of Congress, the Supreme Court and even the army (whose commander he attempted to fire) and accept the reality of his position.

Why are the world’s political leaders so intent on returning deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to power? When the onetime businessman-turned-politician sought to change the constitution to permit him to serve a second term as president, the Supreme Court said no, the attorney general said no, Parliament said no, the army said no, and Zelaya’s own party said no – and they combined to kick him out. That may not be the way we do it in our democracy, but it seems more democratic than what Mr. Zelaya was trying to do. The puzzle is why the U.S. and Canada are so concerned. No one relishes a return to Latin American coups d’etat as a means of changing government, but clearly Zelaya is at odds with the pillars that support Honduras – not usually thought of as one of the world’s rogue states. Prior to being bounced, polls showed Zelaya’s popularity hovering about 25%, with the country’s murder rate at around 12 per day, mostly drug related. Not bad for a country of 7.6 million people. Journalists critical of his rule have turned up murdered. The only countries of Latin America poorer than Honduras, are Haiti and Nicaragua -  yet Nicaraguan troops are reported to be moving to the border, as if ready to invade and restore Zelaya in the name of democracy. What nonsense. It’s significant that Zelaya has thrown in with the left. The likes of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Raul Castro are supporters, along with Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega. Perhaps U.S. President Barack Obama supports Zelaya (or, to be more accurate, deplores the way he was deposed – dumping him in neighboring Costa Rica, clad only in his pajamas) as a gesture towards the left, implying that the U.S. is more sympathetic these days than under past presidents. Controversy abounds around the Zelaya name. His land-owning father was sentenced to 20 years in prison for the 1975 murder of farmers found dumped in a well on his land, shot with his rifle. Dad was freed on an amnesty in 1980. If Zelaya were a patriot, and had the interests of his country at heart, you’d think he’d bow to the will of his party, of Congress, the Supreme Court and even the army (whose commander he attempted to fire) and accept the reality of his position. His gambit for power failed. Back to the drawing board. Suspending Honduras from the Organization of American States (OAS) serves little purpose, and imposing sanctions even less. Zelaya ignored the advice of Peter Kent, Canada’s minister of state for foreign affairs in charge of the Americas, that the “time is not right” for him to return to Honduras. As a former journalist, one hopes Kent sees the folly of what Zelaya is attempting, and steers Canada away from the issue. A plane carrying Zelaya was denied landing at the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa – as awkward to spell as it is to pronounce – by soldiers and vehicles on the landing strip. He is not wanted. The OAS is comprised of states that dread the spectre of those in charge being deposed by the people – or a faction of the people. The OAS prefers the status quo, whatever it is (especially leftist), to radical change. The interim government in Honduras, led by the Roberto Micheletti, has suggested elections scheduled for Nov. 29 might be held sooner, but remains adamant that Zelaya will be arrested if he returns to Honduras. The more one looks into the situation, the more one is forced to the conclusion that Honduras has had a bellyful of Manuel Zelaya, and that its future doesn’t include him as president.