tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post7125678043351721396..comments2024-02-21T05:16:22.788-05:00Comments on Two Weeks Notice: A Latin American Politics Blog: The State Department and HondurasGreg Weekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15765114859595124082noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-32825832842915088742009-08-27T18:55:30.641-04:002009-08-27T18:55:30.641-04:00So if the police had removed Zelaya and put him on...So if the police had removed Zelaya and put him on a civilian airliner, then it would not have been a "military coup".<br /><br />Your arguments for a "military coup" are not very convincing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-19647711426825245492009-08-27T16:05:52.457-04:002009-08-27T16:05:52.457-04:00The next several days will be very interesting and...The next several days will be very interesting and, if the past is any guide, also unpredictable.Greg Weekshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15765114859595124082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-11694170375401388992009-08-27T15:53:35.989-04:002009-08-27T15:53:35.989-04:00According to Reuters, State staff have recommended...According to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE57Q5GV20090827" rel="nofollow">Reuters</a>, State staff have recommended making the "military coup" determination.Abby Kelleyitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06510968255983729033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-60338236905547263662009-08-27T15:51:24.925-04:002009-08-27T15:51:24.925-04:00There is no doubt it is a military coup, as milita...There is no doubt it is a military coup, as military rule (or a junta) is not a necessary component. As always, I refer readers to Alfred Stepan's works (esp. _The Military in Politics_) on the "moderator model" of civil-military relations. It fits this situation perfectly. There have been many military coups in Latin America that have not involved direct military rule. Stepan examines why that changed in Brazil in 1964.Greg Weekshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15765114859595124082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-31528066533957423252009-08-27T15:41:56.646-04:002009-08-27T15:41:56.646-04:00I'll be the first to admit that I'm not co...I'll be the first to admit that I'm not convinced this was a military coup (you're more than welcome to read my Examiner.com articles on the subject), simply because there was no "junta" that took over immediately after Zelaya was removed. The Congress followed what they felt was the proper legal procedure by appointing someone to act as interim president. That means that Micheletti was chosen - he did not force his way into the hot seat, and this is the biggest reason for my skepticism.<br /><br />That being said, the Supreme Court should never have sent Zelaya to Costa Rica, and I believe they've publicly acknowledged that. If they had kept Zelaya in-country (I don't buy the excuse of avoiding riots), then all this mess might have been avoided.<br /><br />Anyway, on to the subject of the OAS. I firmly believe that organizations like the OAS - and the UN, and any other regional organization - have no teeth to accomplish anything meaningful. To be blunt, you can write and approve as many resolutions and sanctions as you want, but if a country's leadership REALLY wants to do something, they'll continue to do it regardless of international pressure. I don't have the space for all the countries engaging in nasty behavior despite sanctions and resolutions, but you know what I'm talking about. <br /><br />Bottom line, unless Micheletti is forcibly removed (by whom, I don't know), I think we'll see a November election without Zelaya as a personal witness.Sylvia Longmirehttp://www.examiner.com/x-17196-South-America-Policy-Examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-2794272562932904672009-08-26T18:37:03.082-04:002009-08-26T18:37:03.082-04:00I was just coming here to post the link. I think ...I was just coming here to post the link. I think it's worth including a different passage dealing with the ruling on the coup's military coup-ness:<br /><br />---------<br />SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: We have said from the very beginning, what we do know is that the legitimate government, the legitimate president, was taken out of office in a way that was not prescribed, in a way that was unexpected and forced. And we call that a coup, a coup to the head of the government.<br /><br />There are specific – we have laws – there’s a – I forget the exact section of the law that deals with our – the way we can handle assistance and the way we can handle our relationship with a country if there is a military coup, if the person in charge of, leading, and then taking over the government after the coup are the military. And we are examining to determine whether or not that’s the case here.<br /><br />QUESTION: Thank you. One last question. Just when would you expect to finish that inquiry? <br /><br />SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Immediately. <br />------<br /><br />So: tomorrow?Nellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01969732734453586544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-48053022355397865782009-08-26T17:15:04.953-04:002009-08-26T17:15:04.953-04:00Somehow I don't think it's the lawyers'...Somehow I don't think it's the lawyers' understanding they need, but I do love that quote.Abby Kelleyitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06510968255983729033noreply@blogger.com