Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Clinton terminates aid to Honduras
After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Honduras' ousted President Manuel Zelaya today, the State Department announced that Clinton has decided to terminate U.S. assistance to Honduras. Clinton had previously suspended U.S. assistance to the Central American state in the wake of the June 28 coup.
Negotiations led by Costan Rican President Oscar Arias under the auspices of the Organization of American States broke down last month, after Honduras' de facto leader Roberto Michelleti rejected efforts to allow Zelaya to return to power before Honduras' November elections.
The State Department further said that it was in the process of revoking the visas of identified members and supporters of Michelleti's de facto regime.
"Restoration of the terminated assistance will be predicated upon a return to democratic, constitutional governance in Honduras," the State Department said.
At stake for Honduras, approximately $18 million in U.S. assistance, reports estimate.
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
Josh Rogin reports on national security and foreign policy from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, the White House to Embassy Row, for The Cable.
Comments? Tips? Email josh.rogin [at] foreignpolicy.com
Follow The Cable on Twitter, @TheCable_FP
I'm confused- I thought the
I'm confused- I thought the 18 million had already been cut off and that the real issue was the approx. 150+ million (I am seeing different numbers in different reports- some say 135 million, some say over 200 million) via the Millennium Challenge Corp.? The statement issued by Ian Kelly today was worded in a way that seemed vague and didn't specify any of the above- it said it's cutting off all but "humanitarian" aid but couldn't much of the MCC funds be categorized that way if they chose to allow more than the usual amount of funds to flow to a coup regime?
In the article you link to it says:
"...U.S. officials said the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a U.S. government corporation that gives funds to poor countries with a record of sound policies, had about $135 million in aid for Honduras that would have to be scrutinized and could be in jeopardy."
I thought those were the funds at issue today? Because if not, then this whole announcement is a bit of a non-announcement because even the process of revoking the visas has been ongoing for at least several weeks.
The BBC today seems to also think the issue is the over 100 million dollars, see here.
********************
Secretary Clinton Blog
What was done in Honduras is according to constitution
YOu might question Obama's claims of the actions of the
Honduran Congress's removal of Zelaya.... The appropriate parts
of Hondoran constitution are included here in. It was appropriate;
IT WAS LEGAL. Obama is lying to the Citizens of the United States.
If Obama does not recognize the appropriateness of the Chavez
supported, drug dealing criminal Zelaya's removal then you
must question the Obama agenda.
First, this is an illegal act by the president of the United States and certainly in
violation of our laws and probably a host of international laws. ... Called Blackmail, and
intentionally lying to the American People. Blackmail should certainly qualify as a HIGH
CRIME... and perpetrated on a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The Honduran Congress
acted within strict compliance with their constitution. IT WAS LEGAL.
Zelaya was a drug dealing criminal and a puppet of Hugo Chavez. Is Obama dealing with
Chavez to promote a common hidden agenda?
Excerpts from the Honduran
Excerpts from the Honduran Constitution.
Title II, Chapter 3: (citizens)??Article 42: The legal rights of any citizen is lost:??5) If the citizen incites, promotes, or supports the continuance or the re-election of the President of the Republic;??(Note: He lost his Citizenship)
Title II, Chapter 4: (executive power)??Article 238: In order to become the President of the Republic or designated to the Presidency, one must:??3) Be in possesion of a citizen's legal rights;? (NOte: He no longer was qualified to be President)
?Article 239: A citizen who has previously held executive power can not be President or designated to the Presidency. Those that break this provision or propose reform of this provision, as well as those that help directly or indirectly, will immediately cease to hold and exercise the power of his/her post, and will be banned from holding any future public office for a period of ten years.??(Cannot be president in the future)
Article 244: If need be, the lawful duty of the President of the Republic, or of its substitute, will be presented to the President of the National Congress if in session, and if not to the President of the Supreme Court. ??(Note: The President of the National Congress is acting president)
Article 272: The Armed Force of Honduras is a permanent National Institution, essentially professional, a-political, obedient, and undeliberate. It is constituted to defend the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic, to maintain the peace, public order, protect the Constitution, the principles of free suffrage, and the changeability of the President of the Republic. ??(Use of the military was correct to ensure orderly transition)
Article 278: The orders that tie the powers of the President of the Republic to the Armed Forces, through its Chief, shall be followed and exercised. ??
Title VII, Chapter 1: (constitutional reform)??Article 373: Constitutional reform can only be declared by the National Congress, in regular sessions, with a 2/3s vote of its members. The decree to be voted on will specify the article or articles to be reformed, and it must be concurred by the subsequent session of Congress by a 2/3s vote before it takes effect.??
Article 374: It can not be reformed, under any circumstances, the previous article, this article, the Constitutional articles related to the form of government, the national territory, Presidential term-limits, the prohibition of a President to be re-elected, and the requirements and prohibitions on who can and can not be President.??
So there you have it. Not very ambiguous now is it? By using the miltary to unseat Zelaya, and by seating the President of Congress as the next President, the Legislature/Supreme Court/Military acted exactly as their Constitution instructs.
In the middle of all this propaganda calling what happened in Honduras, a "coup", let's all take a minute and analyze just exactly what a "coup" means and whether our President should be in the business of telling other democratic countries whether or not they should follow their Constitution. When foreigners speak of American ignorance, I think this is what they have in mind. Ivy League Educated? with the inability to read.
why not have a trial before getting rid of him?
So Ricardo, when someone is alleged to have committed a crime and abused his or her authority as President, then there is a unilateral determination by a court and the person does not have to be investigated, brought up on formal charges nor do they get a chance to defend themselves in any kind of court of law?
Wow, sounds like a system ripe for abuse, perhaps even more so than the US system!
And if Zelaya broke all those laws you listed above, then why didn't they arrest him prior to surrounding him at gunpoint and spiriting him off to another country? That seems kind of sketchy. I mean, isn't that what *used* to happen so often in Latin America (and yes, the US had a BIG role in that) and why some are a bit worried that this is more of a return to the past and not in a good way.
Usually, in democracies, we institute adversarial legal proceedings EVEN WHEN we believe enough evidence exists to demonstrate wrongdoing and even when it would seem the black-and-white letter of the law has been violated. Because without an opportunity to defend oneself against charges like that, it's not really such a beacon of democracy, which I think is what the ENTIRE WORLD seems to have an issue with with respect to Honduras.
Don't get me wrong, the US is far from perfect and arguably isn't in a position to lecture Latin America about democratic principles (given our history of covert activities there), but whenever people start throwing Hugo Chavez name around as a reason for why Zelaya was such a bad dude, it makes me think their legal argument isn't perhaps so strong after all.
Also, the amount of US aid that has been "terminated" is negligible, so much so that Micheletti apparently could care less because they will still get the huge chunk of $$$ that will still flow to them [Honduras] via the MCC and other programs. This is a silly slap on the wrist that will accomplish little- in fact, it already hasn't accomplished anything because this is aid "cut-off" is simply making permanent what had already been suspended.
*****************************
Secretary Clinton Blog
So Ricardo, when someone is
That's actually pretty close to what the Honduran Constitution says - it basically says that the Supreme Court can make the decision that a President has violated the constitutional law (which they did), and ask the armed forces to remove him from power (which they did). The only mistake the Honduran military made was in sending him out of the country - it was understandable (considering his penchant for mob action), but foolish. Had they simply kept him in jail for a while, only Bolivia and Venezuela would be screaming.
Don't project American constitutional norms on to other countries.
So it's a "return to the past" for a President who had in recent history directly violated the law by inciting his supporters to illegal action to be removed by the order of the Supreme Court, and then for a President to be filled in his place by the elected Legislature (including most of the members of Zelaya's own party)? Don't make me laugh. The above point is for someone too superficial to look beyond the obvious "OMG sent out of the country by troops!"
Not all democracies are alike - they actually have differing constitutions and laws, believe it or not (remember what I said about projecting American constitutional norms on to other countries). Zelaya's removal violated no laws, and actually followed what constitutional procedure there is for the removal and replacement of a President.
Why? Chavez is actually a perfect example of the type of illiberal democracy Zelaya was leaning towards when he was removed. Like Chavez, who used referenda, the dominance of his party in Congress, and voter intimidation/mob action to create an authoritarian regime centered around him, Zelaya tried something similar - when he couldn't get an illegal referendum to go, he simply had his followers break in and distribute the ballots illegally.
Not for a country of that size.
after Honduras' de facto
No shock there. We saw how Zelaya treats the law before he was removed - when the military refused to do his illegal referendum in spite of a Supreme Court order against him, he resorted to mob action to try and get it done.
Now think of how he'll act if he gets back in power for two months. For one thing, he'll have won a political battle against the various forces of Honduran constitutionalism that got him removed in the first place, and he'll undoubtedly use that leverage to push for more, using the same type of tactics he used before.
What they ought to be saying is that they'll support the return of Zelaya to police/army custody in Honduras in order to stand trial, if they care so much about "democratic, constitutional" government.