Honduras and the rule of Military Law
As some of you may be aware, there has been a little spot of bother in Honduras – the place Starbucks gets its Coffee from. There has been a coup where the democratically elected President has been deposed by the Army. Hardly news for Central America you would say. But this one is quite interesting and harder to pick than a broken nose on who is going to come out on top – the deposed President or the Army.
Furthermore I find myself in quite a quandary over this one. On the one side you have twats like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Luiz Da Silva supporting the guy. So you know he’s a demagogue and bullshit artist driving his country towards a one party state; and the economy of his country down the lavatory. On the other hand I agree with Democracy and the Rule of law. Short Recap of what happened in Honduras. The Demagogue government got elected, the constitution said that they weren’t allowed to hold a referendum within 180 days, the Supreme Court of judges upholds constitution and says government can’t hold a referendum within 180 days, government asks Army to help with constitution – Army says can’t hold referendum within 180 days. Government fires head of Army. The demagogue government ignores constitution, Judges and marches into army bases to collect ballot boxes (where they are stored) to hold referendum within 180 days. Army gets the arse and frogmarches President onto plane in his Pyjamas (which since they had Snoopy on them is against constitution) and sends him to Costa Rica. World’s politicians moan about how deeply unfair it is that politicians can’t ignore Constitution, and how Army shouldn’t have the right to frogmarch Politicians onto planes. Army says “Blow me”.
The only military dictator I’ve liked is the chap in charge of Fiji. But he bought me a beer so he can’t be all bad (see my pictures on Facebook); and besides he sends his political prisoners (who ironically were punished for starting a coup) to an island beach with palm trees, which even Amnesty Insufferable has a hard time comparing to the Gulags of North Korea and the Burmese treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi. On the other hand I’ve also met a bloke in Angola who chopped people’s hands off (again in a drinking establishment) so Military rule can be a double edged sword. Obviously in most all countries in the world the Military is the only efficient state run organisation in the nation (including the UK). Can you imagine if the Health Department tried to take a country over? They would have to reopen all the patients they left scalpels and Artery Forceps in to arm themselves; mis-identify the Radio Station and bridges about three times before pure chance got them to the structures in question. They would then announce they could not cure the problem as the medicine required would be too expensive, and then send the country home with some paracetamol to die. I suppose the Fire Service could be called efficient, but they’re too busy trying to get into the knickers of housewives whose Cat they just plucked from a tree. Basically the Army takes over or nobody does. This causes great angst amongst politicians, as they don’t like reminding that they are included, nay, are indeed the pinnacle of the non-efficient end of the State curve.
So what have we learnt about Military Coups, kids? Well obviously you can derive great enjoyment from the fact that Hugo Chavez is squirming, and having a quick reminder of what happens to Lefties when they inevitably mess up - no matter how many peasants they arm. South America hasn’t had this much of a demonstration of the limits of political power since Salvador Allende blew what few brains he had out with an AK-47 inscribed “To Sal – love and kisses from your buddy Fidel”. Furthermore I’m bemused by the staggering incompetence of Obama and the US State department who are kissing ass to the Saudis, Syrians and assorted Islamic undemocratic whack jobs; yet get all misty eyed for democracy when a pro-American Army overthrows an Anti-American president. You haven’t seen such a catastrophic failure of American Diplomacy and power projection since President Carter. On the other hand we must mourn the death of democracy in another country in Central & South America. To support such actions would be hypocrisy of the highest order. Just because it's Right doesn't make it right.
For those of you wanting to read more this is an excellent piece.
7 immoderate opinions:
What puzzles me is why all these Central and South American countries - except Costa Rica - have armies in the first place. It's not like the place is a war zone, like Africa, any near Islam or Europe (until 1945) where it was/still is constant warfare for millennia. (C & S America, being, all things considered racially, religiously and culturally fairly homogeneous).
So I guess the only reason that these countries have armies is to prop up an unpopular government, but then even the military have had enough and stage a coup, and so on. They'd be better off shutting them down, which means the president could never be quite so despotic in the first place, so there'd be no need for a military coup in the second.
PS, you can add Musharraf to your short list of 'Military dictators who were all right, actually, considering what came before and after them'/
i'm wondering why you think the Honduran Army went rogue?
they acted under orders from the Honduran Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress.
Mark, Mark, Mark... what to do with you? These countries have armies because the United States funds and trains them in order to ensure cheap resources and a ready market for their shoddily made crap. Oh, and to ensure their populations remain passive and pliable.
How laughable for idiots to regret the loss of democracy whilst celebrating the military coup which murdered Allende and thousands of Chileans by Thatcher's butcher mate.
Liz. Pinochet was a right bastard, but he killed a mere 3,200 people. Mostly commies, which by the standards of cold-war inhumanity is pretty ameteur.
Let's talk about Allende - Because Allende was effectively undertaking a communist revolution, the average result of which is a 10% depopulation of the country. 3,000 or 10% depopulation? Your call...
Now that is not what happened in Honduras. There is no CIA involvement, the foreign involvement probably comes from Venezuela, where amending the constitution to suit a leftist boiler-plate merchant has already happened.
But you probably think Chavez is a good bloke too.
Jackart,
Thanks for the link.
Mark,
First, add Panama to your list of Central American nations that have no military. But as to your question: The Central and South American countries have militaries for the same reason everyone else does: to guarantee national sovereignty. Though it may escape our notice, these nations have an extraordinary number of border disputes, most having to do with coastal areas, islands, and claimed exclusive economic zones. They fight over this stuff. Just one example: I distinctly recall the first time I saw a map of Central America pinned up in a Guatemalan army office: It did not include Belize, for that little nation is considered by some Guatemalan’s to be rightfully their property. Or check out the Alto-Cenepa War between Peru and Ecuador in 1995 as but one of many many examples. Additionally, they use their militaries in roles that in more developed nations are more traditionally assigned to national police. Border patrol, anti-smuggling (and not just of drugs, the Hondurans worry extensively about the Mahogany trade, as but one example). And most controversially, the military has a preeminent role in domestic security against illegal armed insurgents. My point is not that the existence of these militaries is “good”, only that these countries have just as much legitimate need, right, or incentive to them as the UK or your preferred developed nation.
Anonymous (post 2),
I see your point, but I defy you to show me any evidence that the Honduran constitution allows summary exile of the duly elected President. I have been referring to this incident as an extra-constitutional exile rather than a coup, particularly when conversing with US conservatives. They seem more willing to listen with the elimination of that one word.
Liz,
I hesitate to even respond, but… The US funds a tiny fraction of these nations’ military budgets. Admittedly, the various foreign operations bills provide various assistance to the Central American militaries for counter narcotics, but they also support Humanitarian Disaster Relief, Medical Readiness assistance, Peace Keeping training, and a wide variety of other programs. Look, I’m not saying it’s wise or free of strings, but your puppet master narrative is a bit overdramatic.
Jackart,
I understand your perspective, but I think it too easy, way too easy, to assume that any leftist would be as bad as the worst LATAM historical example you can find. Also keep in mind that, from a purely consequentialist standpoint, US intervention in LATAM reverberates for decades. They still bring up Allende because they are still pissed about it, even if “they” were not born. We need to keep this in mind before applauding intervention, and the Honduran military/supreme court/whomever should have kept in mind the concept of long institutional or cultural memory before encouraging the military to frog march the elected President onto a plane bound for Cost Rica.
Wow, I kinda screwed up the identity choices on that comment. It was from me, Jack!
This is quite telling about Obama.
He virtually ignores a popular democratic uprising in Iran and condemns the Hondurans for upholding their constitution.
I think guys like him would prefer that the military be loyal to the commander in chief rather than the constitution.
Post a Comment