I have no problem treating Cuba as an international pariah. It is deserving of that designation. But I see no “raw power play” involved here. No one really has anything to gain here from Honduras, one way or another. It’s about as insignificant a country as there is. It’s simply about a principle of keeping the miltiary out of democratic government, trying to establish a precedent that helps protect other governments in the region from similar non-democratic responses to political crises. Of course there’s been violations before. That’s why everyone in the region is so interested in making a simple example here.

I don’t want the IMF to exist, in part because it creates the dependency that can be used in this fashion to compel states to pursue policies they may not want, but it does exist. Hey, look, I’m being pragmatic and dealing with the world as it is–you should be pleased. Honduras doesn’t have a right to aid. The institutions that give this aid obviously don’t think their aid is useless or counterproductive. Withholding it over this crisis is absurd. This is all an exercise of power and demonstrating who is really in charge. It is a reminder that Honduras isn’t really allowed to govern itself, but has to do what its creditors tell it to do. If you can’t see what’s wrong with that, I doubt anything I say will matter.

Let’s think about this political isolation some more. The OAS is getting ready to expel Honduras at the same time that many of its members are pushing to bring in Cuba. As it happens, I think Cuba shouldn’t be excluded from the organization anymore, because its exclusion is a useless holdover from the Cold War, but then I don’t make an idol out of democracy as the OAS pretends to do. When it comes to Cuba, the OAS is suddenly very concerned about national sovereignty and non-intervention in internal affairs, which reminds us that probably half of the complaints about what has happened in Honduras are purely opportunistic and driven by sympathy for the politics of the deposed president.

Would I have supported holding Bush accountable for his crimes? You better believe I would have. Unlike here, their political institutions actually tried to keep their executive in check. Does that mean that involving the military was necessary? No, probably not. That was a mistake. The ends don’t justify the means, and I have never said that they do. Ideally, those responsible would have to answer for taking extra-legal measures against Zelaya. But a failure to pursue a political and legal process is hardly the most grave error the Honduran elite could have committed. It certainly doesn’t justify targeting Honduras for punishment because it handled a constitutional crisis poorly.

The disproportionate nature of the international response to what has happened is glaring. Does anyone actually believe that the treatment Honduras is receiving at the moment is justified? I’d like to see someone explain why it is appropriate to isolate and penalize a poor, small country for this sort of mistaken handling of an internal political problem.

If true, it looks like the new regimes committment to democracy is a tad questionable.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/coup-%E2%80%9Cpresident%E2%80%9D-installs-nephew-%E2%80%9Cmayor%E2%80%9D-honduras%E2%80%99-second-city

It is rather as if the IRGC heeded Mousavi’s call to return to the pure principles of the Islamic revolution and arrested Ahmadinejad, then Mousavi took his place, and then the entire world declared Mousavi’s ascension illegitimate and unacceptable.

With the exception that Mousavi has not called for the military to depose Ahmadinejad. It’s the fact that he has rejected a naked grab for power that had garnered him some sympathy.

Few seem willing to dispute that Zelaya had broken the law and deserved to be removed from office.

So the ends justify the means? This is odd coming from a supposed paleoconservative. I’d say a fairly large minority, if not majority, feel that Bush broke the law on many occasions during his term in office. Would you have supported a military coup here?

At any rate, I think it’s perfectly justifiable to link U.S. aid to a ‘no coup’ policy, along with membership in the OAS, particularly given the history in Latin America.

in this case it seems simply inexcusable, because the wrong that has been done is almost purely a procedural one

We’ve already seen the Honduran government suspend civil liberties. We’ve had Honduran military forces raid unsympathetic TV and radio stations. We’ve seen beatings of peaceful protesters on the streets. This morning in San Pedro Sula, Honduras’ second-largest city, explosions and gunfire were heard in the vicinity of city hall. The mayor, a political opponent of Marchetti (he beat him in the mayoral race) has vanished. Micheletti’s nephew has been installed as his replacement. Al Giordano (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/) is indispensable here.

But nothing to worry about, just procedural stuff.

“Also, though you admit that Obama has helped dampen rumors that the Americans helped this coup occur [by strongly advising and working against the coup before it happened], that is once more an example of America interferring in Honduras’ internal affairs, something you say you abhor.”

Of course, this depends on such matters as blowback. Intervening in Iran in 1953 in plotting the Shah’s coup manifestly did not advance our national interests, in that it stimulated a long anti-American tradition culiminating in the 1979 revolution and continuing ever since. But I see little chance of Obama’s actions relative to Honduras resulting in blowback to us. Quite the opposite, it seems to be having a positive effect on our foreign image, to be seen as going against those who are perceived to be breaking the law and stealing the Presidency of Honduras. So even if you don’t like Obama taking a stand against the coup, the rest of the world does, and that helps America’s national interests.

I understand why this creates a division in your philosophical approach to the politics of intervention, but I’m not sure what you would propose otherwise. Should we sacrifice what is in our national interest in order to support a policy of strict non-comment and disinterest in the foreign affairs of other nation? Doesn’t that seem to be going against your own principles, that US foreign policy should act in America’s own national interests, and not be guided by strict adherence to some abstract principles, whether conservative or liberal?

As for the cause of the “disgraced executive”, the man is going to be out of office within a year when his term ends anyway. So re-instating him doesn’t mean doing anything other than letting him finish his term of office without extra-legal removal, as has occurred. SInce everyone in the region, and virtually in the world, supports this, why on earth should America oppose it? It’s not interferring in another country’s internal affairs to refuse to give it aid, or to recognize the legitimacy of its government, especially when we don’t need to and it would hurt our image in the region and the world. Obama is certainly not suggesting some kind of actual intervention, with soldiers and so forth. There’s no need for that. Nor is this some long simmering problem for the US. It’s an easy course of action, to be sure, but taking the harder, more paleo route seems not to have any serious benefits to us either.

If other people see this as non-interference, that is so much the worse for the reputation of a policy of non-interference. Bombing Serbia over Kosovo was well-received in much of Europe–that didn’t mean it was the right or smart thing to do. Aligning our government with all of the forces trying to bring pressure on Honduras is not direct interference, but it is lending aid to those who are trying to interfere. A little more respect for Honduran sovereignty would be a more significant signal that Washington respects the rights of Latin American nations than offering support to the cause of a disgraced executive.