Good write-up -- this helps to clarify some questions.

A couple questions in reference to the article:

1. In reference to the poll numbers, the information cited by Reuters only indicates weak public support for Zelaya -- not weak support for Zelaya AND strong support for his critics.

It's conceivable that Zelaya 30 percent support is still higher than the even more unpopular opposition; or that both are equally unpopular.

Is there any independent polling that demonstrates strong support for the opposition?

2. Also, in reference to the Zelaya's referendum wasn't the measure explicitly intended to be non-binding?

The idea here being that the Honduran Congress is badly compromised and corrupt, and that the referendum would demonstrate that fact (e.g. that the Congress did not represent the people's will -- assuming that the vote for the referendum itself was not compromised and corrupted, the referendum vote would show what the public support for the measure actually was).

That's the rub, was the non-binding referendum an attempt to change the Constitution? Directly? No. Non-binding obviously. But indirectly? Yes. It was the first step an illegal way to change the constitution which the Honduran SCOTUS had rejected. But they did not rule on the SECOND referendum though they have done so indirectly by agreeing with the coup, but again not through the actual process.

The more I learn about this, the more it looks like the Hondurans did the right thing in the wrong way.

Yes, a good summary. But if Zelaya was an unpopular lame duck (only five months left), why did the military have to do a coup at all? Couldn't they just wait for Zelaya to go away?

The characterization of Zelaya as unpopular sounds like contrived, wishful thinking on the part of some in Washington and at this blog, who might be opposed to Zelaya. The only way to get a logical story is to assume that Zelaya was so popular that he could have won the non-binding resolution. That would have represented a threat sufficient to motivate the established elites in Congress and in the Supreme Court to preempt the election with a coup.

Also, Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Latin America, as expressed by the OAS condemnation, is in no mood for a coup. If Obama doesn't take decisive action, Chavez' credibility rises along with the narrative that US policy of interference is still the same. If Obama sides with Zelaya, then the Chavez-haters in the US will have a field day.

If Zelaya was so unpopular, then why did the army fear the referendum?

Can you imagine the USA fearing George W. Bush trying to get a referendum for a third term when he was Mr. 28%.

Sorry but this post is factually wrong.

The referendum was nonbinding. It made no mention of term limits. More important it appealed to Article 45 of the Civil Participation Act, which was not contested by the Supreme Court or the Congress. The public consultation itself was not rejected by the SC and the NC. (Only the previous, binding version was.) Nothing in the constitution forbids the formation of a Constituent Assembly.

The Supreme Court and the Congress had no constitutional power to stop this public consultation.

Last but not least, the referendum could not be tied to Zelaya's reelection bid for quite obvious reasons of timing.

But yes except for all of the above, good write-up.

Fox News (Krauthammer, Kristol, Liasson) have a pretty good synopsis of the foreign policy mob's position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijx2ZkYHTJk

As Mara Liasson says, the administration is "perfectly happy" this happened. Once again, the main difference between Obama and the neocons is the rhetoric.

JohnH,

Chavez is irrelevant in this equation given that every other leader in the hemisphere as well as many in the EU are largely on the same page against the coup.

If it was just Chavez, Castro, and Evo Morales standing tall with Zelaya, Zelaya would have almost no chance of being reinstated.

It is interesting though to witness the stunning hypocrisy of Chavez with respect to this situation and the situation in Iran.

In one case the political process is worthy of respect, because it involves an ideological ally. In another, the political process can be discarded, because of the consequences for an ideological ally. Before the crisis in Iran I would not have classed myself as a "Chavez-hater". Even after it, I don't know if I'd class myself as a "Chavez-hater". I'd just say that the man's opinions are not worthy of respect. I don't really understand the admiration that some have for him -- they seem to buy into the hype and Chavez's self-promotion, I guess.

the real fear is of a return to the "banana republics" by coup era.
other leaders in the area remember what they were like.

Micheletti just let an ABC correspondent on ABC WorldNew, who
was unannounced, into the presidential office and said
emphatically that this was not a coup. it was a constitutional
succession inaugurated by the Supreme Court and backed by
the National Congress.

the issue the Supreme Court dealt with is that only the National
Congress has the constitutional authority to initiate a
referendum, binding or not, not the president. Zelaya literally
stole the ballots last week and said, we're doing it anyway.

Chavez printed the ballots for him. I don't know if that was
because no one in Honduras would do it or he didn't trust
them.

Ahh so the details become clearer.

Zelaya isn't such a poor, helpless victim of a military coup anymore, now is he?

Why would Zelaya burden the people of Honduras with more seemingly dictator-ish behavior?

Good luck winning that second election, buddy.

Franklin--if Chavez said that, then I'd say that he is as guilty of hypocrisy as Washington's foreign policy mob. As you say, "in one case (Iran) the political process is worthy of respect, because it involves an ideological ally [or at least someone closer to Washington's ideological preferences). In another, the political process can be discarded." Last week the mob glorified the protesters in the name of 'democratic elections,' regardless of whether Moussavi won or not. This week they are all quietly supporting a coup.

Chavez is extremely relevant in this situation, because he has taken the lead in explaining US behavior in the region. It seems that US behavior in Honduras will make his narrative even more believable, enhancing his own credibility and prestige. Leftist candidates will still be able to rail against to the Great Satan, and it will continue to resonate with Latin American voters.

Thanks for the update and the clarifications, Faith. Much appreciated.

Mike: You're wrong. This statement is false:

>> National Congress has the constitutional authority to initiate a referendum, binding or not, not the president.

If you think it's right, give your sources.
If you have no credible sources, please avoid spreading facts that are false.

Let me point out why reforming the Honduran constitution should be a priority.

Which other democracy has single 4-year terms for presidents? Which other democracy has a constitution that requires 2/3 of congress to remove the army chief? What these 2 things ensures is that the military essentially controls the government. Which is why what just happened is a military coup with a civilian facade.

If you thought Zelaya was wrong to inquire about popular support for rewriting the constitution, then go ahead and make your case. That'll be delightful. But please stop spreading the canard that Zelaya wanted to run again in Nov. How in the world would adding a question to the ballot help him continue past January? That he might have wanted to run again much later is not out of the question but that's exactly what Kirchner tried to do.

First, thank you Doubting. The fact that the constitution was formed during the height of US influence in Honduras through the funding of the Contras (and Negroponte was ambasssador)should be mentioned as a background for understanding the political system of Honduras. This constitution was intentionally structured to be anti-democratic and to legitimize the rule of the Honduran oligarchy. If you doubt the power of the US government and corporations, then consider the history of United Fruit and Dole in Latin America or the six previous military interventions over the past century.

Second, just because a PRE-coup poll states that Zelaya was unpopular does not translate into support for the coup by the populace. By that logic, when Bush was at 20% popularity, it would follow that 80% of the population would have supported a coup against him. There is no logical entailment here.

"I'll be following the situation in Honduras as it unfolds." Faith Smith

Shouldn't you have typed, "I'll be spinning the situation in Honduras as it unfolds", Ms. Smith?

Love the "even-handedness" here from Faith Smith, who really shows her dedication to human rights.

The supposed excuse for this coup was Zelaya's terrible, scary violation of the constitution -- letting people vote in what is functionally a straw poll. Today, the Honduran Congress, having illegally elected its speaker President after the legitimate president was taken from his home at gunpoint, just eliminated five major individual protections under that same sacred constitution.

Read about it here:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/07/200971222536394913.html

The usurpers yesterday named Billy Joya, one of the most notorious killers of the death squad Battalion 3-16, as a ministerial advisor.

They're attacking and arresting journalists, shutting down radio and TV stations, censoring others.

Yeah, the country's really uniting around this "democratic transition".

as far as the power of the president to call a referendum, i just
read the Honduran Constitution, in Spanish yes but with some
help from a translator.

i also just wrote a long explanation of what i found in reading
it. what i did then was say "screw it" and erased it all.

whatever i discovered is going to be roundly contested. i
thought that i was a great cynic, but... i can't say any more.

if you want to find out about what i read i direct you to the
Constitución - Articulo 51, Articulo 319, Articulo 373, and
Poder Judicial Seguimiento de Casos y Tramites for the
Supreme Court ruling. the only thing that is not there is the
sealed arrest warrant that the court issued on June 26. i would
also direct you to the websites for La Pensa and La Tribuna the
Honduran newspapers.

Faith, i appreciate your help and i don't think you're doing any
"spinning". you're reading the sources, just as i am.

"The coup government in Honduras announced this evening that the congress has passed a decree suspending all constitutional rights in the country indefinitely." Yep, looks like the return of democratic processes all right. Good job, Hillary!

Meanwhile, "All member nations of the European Union have withdrawn their ambassadors in Honduras." But what is Obama doing? Just words and more words. Obama's problem is that he simply doesn't mean what he says.

"Thousands are protesting in the streets throughout Honduras, facing repression and risking detention, or even worse, assassination." But no pictures of protesters--I guess only Iranian protesters count here at TWN.
http://www.chavezcode.com/2009/07/day-4-cnn-backs-coup-suspension-of.html

Mike: The articles you and Faith point to have nothing to do with public consultations whatsoever. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a public consultation about the creation of a constituent assembly needs permission from the NC or the SC. On the other hand, article 5 of the 2006 Public Participation Act does just that. Furthermore the nonbinding version of Zelaya's referendum was not rejected by either body. Show me any evidence that it was.

What happened is that after Vasquez (oops, famed two-time SOA grad, Romeo Orlando Vasquez Velasquez,) was fired, Zelaya was kidnapped in his pajamas. So picture Obama firing Admiral Mullen and a few hours later finding himself shipped to Canada in his pajamas.

But fine if you want to defend military dictatorships, please go ahead. The Dems have a long record of doing just that. Tradition, tradition. But please get your facts right, or you'll just bin yourself with Hannity, Beck, and their ilk. You get to pick your authoritarian/colonial tendencies. But you don't get to pick your facts.

As for you, Faith Smith, I hope your next dispatch will enlighten all of us about Battalion 3-16 (mentioned above) and its connection to the coup leaders. And if you can spare a few words for the memory of Father James Carney, that'll be lovely. Thanks.

>> I'm sure Obama wishes he didn't have to take a stand for a leader such as Zelaya.

Such a leader... yeah, a guy who dares to ask for a survey. The audacity. Thank God the jackbooted thugs are back in charge.

What an impressive bunch you are.

(typo) Act does just that --> Act allows such a thing

My guess: it's going to turn out to be an oligarchic pushback against the reformist populism spreading across the Americas. What I cannot tell, since Obama was hands off in the elections in El Salvador, is what his real instincts are in this crisis. I know what the Washington establishment's instincts are, and have been since George Washington, as the first POTUS, was the first POTUS to wage war against native Americans, which was made possible in part by recognizing their nationhood. The only reason for treaties with native American tribes was as part of the separate nation notion.

Oligarchs (and religious zealots) have about as much use for popular democracy as they do for land reform and appropriate taxation for the common good.

In order to understand why this re-election issue is almost an existential issue in Honduras let me point to article 42 in their Constitution that though sounding a bit crazy nonetheless clearly states that you will “lose your conditions as a citizen if inciting, promoting or supporting continuance or the re-election of the President.”

"Can you imagine the USA fearing George W. Bush trying to get a referendum for a third term when he was Mr. 28%."

You're thinking backwards. Can you imagine the USA fearing George W. Bush trying to get a referendum for a third term when he was Mr. 88%.

In fact, Bush used his popularity to seize extraordinary executive powers (often explicitly illegal) to the ultimate detriment of the country. Chavez did the same in Venezuela.

"In fact, Bush used his popularity to seize extraordinary executive powers (often explicitly illegal) to the ultimate detriment of the country. Chavez did the same in Venezuela." Jinchi

Name one "extraordinary executive power" seized by President Chavez.

Some background on the coup:

http://www.senorchichero.blogspot.com/

More Honduaras information from outside the box of the 'Young
Professionals in Foreign Policy':

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/

There is broad latitude in the Honduran
constitution for interpreting the President's
responsibility to "Uphold the constitution." While
no one here is an expert in Honduran law, it seems
fairly clear that President Zelaya was, at the
least, on course to attempt to change the
constitution to enable him to run for a second
term or more. This is the latest fad in Latin
America - using democratic means to erode
democracy. It's certainly true that the Supreme
Court and the Congress disapproved of the
referendum (the SC holding it unconstitutional)
and there can be no doubt that Zelaya's goal was
fundamentally in violation of the constitution.

What is less clear, to anyone who actually reads
the constitution, is what the legal remedies are
for removing a sitting president from office. In
the US, like many western democracy, we are
accustomed to the idea of impeachment.
Unfortunately, there are no such provisions
contained in the Honduran constitution. That
doesn't mean that procedures are lacking. The
constitution makes clear that each branch has a
responsibility to defend the constitution and the
laws of the state. It's quite possible that
secondary legislation was passed spelling out the
process for removing a president from office.

It does seem suspicious that the Congress or Court
didn't revert to legal means to remove Zelaya from
office. Abduction and forced deportation is the
nuclear option and you don't generally go there
first. I suspect that they were simply being
opportunistic. They wanted Zelaya out and this
was as good an excuse as any. It's a strange idea
since the new president is from Zelaya's own
political party. Imagine Harry Reid ordering the
kidnapping of Obama and then assuming the
presidency.

As to public opinion polls, like in much of Latin
America, polls tend to reach those who live in
cities and have higher incomes. Poll data is
always suspect because the vast majority is
impoverished and the impoverished generally
support the left. We should also remember that
the state run media is exclusively backing the new
president and ignoring coverage of opposition
protests (the Iranian playbook, step by step).

Finally, no matter how wrong Zelaya was or how bad
a president he was, I don't believe it is possible
to justify kidnapping him and evicting him from
the country in his pajamas. The appropriate remedy
to a president mad with power (assuming he was) is
arrest, trial, and conviction.

Yeah. Obama should support this military coup!

Nobcentral,

Well the first and most obvious Constitutional means of removal would seem to be the term limit itself, correct?

If Zelaya refused to move out at the end of his term, then it would make sense for the other political figures to start looking at extra-Constitutional options.

Alternatively, within the Honduran Constitution, doesn't the Congress -- and only the Congress -- have the ability to amend the Constitution?

Couldn't they simply have added articles of impeachment and then proceeded accordingly?

From the WSWS:

There is ample evidence that the Obama administration was deeply involved in plans by Zelaya’s opponents within the Honduran ruling elite—sections of business, the military, the political establishment and the Church—to destabilize or topple his government. The New York Times on Tuesday cited an unnamed US official as saying that US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon and US Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens spoke to “military officials and opposition leaders” in the days before the coup. He said, “There was talk of how they might remove the president from office, how he could be arrested, on whose authority they could do that.”

http://tiny.cc/JpRZw

hmmm... error above?

link to above article:

http://tiny.cc/lgm00

Franklin,

I completely agree. They could have easily waited
for his term to expire and then the problem would
have been dealt with. Or the Congress could have
gone through the rather complex process of
altering the constitution to add articles of
impeachment. That's why this looks like a power
grab in the name of democracy, ironically, what
Zelaya intended with his plan to modify the
constitution.

At any rate, the claim that it was necessary to do
this is dubious as any referendum would have been
struck down by the Supreme Court in any event. The
president can't change the constitution through
referendum, period. I fail to see the necessity
of removing by force at this point and once that
claim expires, the rest of their justification
falls apart as well.

Article 2 of the Honduran Constitution of 1982 provides (my translation)

"The sovereignty corresponds to the people from which all powers of the state emanate and which are exerted through representation."

So again, I ask, how could any referendum to the people, from whom the powers of the state (supreme court, congress, military, and etc.) emanate, be considered to be unconstitutional or extra constitutional.

If the people of Honduras express, through a referendum, their wish to amend their constitution to provide for multiple presidential terms, then it should be.

Chris - Read the last section entitled: TITULO VII:
DE LA REFORMA Y LA INVIOLABILIDAD DE LA CONSTITUCION

Article 373 says only the Congress with 2/3 majority
can change the constitution.

Article 374, among other things, says that
presidential term limits can not be altered.

http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Honduras/ho
nd82.html

I would like to read the section of the constitution that authorizes the military to abduct and overthrow an elected president. If they were acting legally then they would have conducted him to trial.
It's a military coup and whoever wants to support them has to admit it first.

with all the back and forth about the legality/illegality of what
happened in Honduras, someone has finally asked THE most
important questions.

Jesus Rios, with Gallop World Poll:

"So, if Zelaya does in fact return to power before the November
presidential election, the question then becomes: how will he
manage to govern amidst an adverse public opinion
environment and among institutions that backed his ousting,
including his own political party? And, what role, if any, will
Chavez play in Honduran politics from now on? Will Zelaya drop
or moderate his pro-Chavez stance to regain political support?
According to the 2008 Gallup survey, just 20% of Hondurans
approve of President Hugo Chavez."

reality. what a concept!

Right, Mike...Pollsters Never Lie...

I should have typed: "Right, Mike...Pollsters Never Lie......or ever manipulate data in the interests of their clients..."

he ASKED a question.

how can Zelaya, if he returns, have any effect given he seems to
have little support?

that he works for Gallup and bases his statistics on a poll that
was administered in all Central American countries about Chavez
last year, to me, is a reason of why he's asking the question.
combined with what most are observing in Honduras of the
demonstrations asking the "Mel" not reurn, it's an important
question no matter who it comes from.

friends and family in Honduras are telling us that everything is
relatively calm and the demonstrations are organized and
peaceful. their fear is if Zelaya returns, there will be violence.