The United States delegation to the ongoing crisis in Honduras has negotiated an agreement between Manuel Zelaya's supporters and the de facto administration in that country. All that remains is for the nation's Congress to approve the deal.
Never mind the fact that the United States is on the wrong side of the issue; that we have essentially forced the legal government of that nation to accept its Constitutionally ousted former leader.
[Interim President Roberto] Micheletti later joked with his aides that [United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] stuck so close to her message it appeared she had a limited vocabulary. "I kept trying to explain our position to her," he said, according to officials close to the talks, "but all she kept saying was, 'Restitution, restitution, restitution.'"
Speaking on Friday in Pakistan, Mrs. Clinton called the deal a "historic agreement."
"I cannot think of another example of a country in Latin America that, having suffered a rupture of its democratic and constitutional order, overcame such a crisis through negotiation and dialogue," she said.
I cannot think of another example in history where a nation was so blatantly forced to violate its own Constitution and surrender its sovereignty by a nation that holds up its own Constitution so highly as ours as an example for others to follow.
Yes, we've supported tin-horn dictators. We gave aid to the Shah and Saddam. We supported the Bay of Pigs invasion. All true and depending on your viewpoint of history, some or all were bad decisions; never have we looked at a friendly nation--an ally--and said, "We don't like the fact that you have held true to your Constitution, so we're going to join with your enemies and force you to violate it."
The principle fact in evidence is that Zelaya violated his nation's Constitution. He did so above the lawful objections of Honduras' Congress, Supreme Court, military leadership and his own Attorney General. He violated every rule for holding referendums and elections his nation has, and yet the government of the United States stands with a would-be dictator.
Perhaps this is a look inside the mind of President Obama. After all, the Constitution of the United States clearly gives him no authority to take-over General Motors or Chrysler; nor does he have the legal authority appoint a "Pay Czar" who can "claw-back" the contractual salaries of private companies. Yet he has done so. Could it be he stands with Zelaya, not because he believes that Honduras violated its own laws and Constitution, but rather because he cares for neither? Could it be that he cannot oppose Zelaya because he sees himself as entitled to the same kind of power to thwart the Supreme Law of the Land? That opposing Zelaya would call into question his own quest to grab more power for himself?
I cannot see into the man's heart, so I am only posing these questions for critical evaluation. Perhaps I'm overreacting and there are other reasons why our President would so openly support a power-seeking would-be dictator. Ignorance and stupidity are all that come to mind, but there may be something more legitimate. Whatever the Administration's reasons, I believe them to be wrong. How would the people of this nation have reacted if Nixon had decided to hold on to power after being impeached instead of resigning in disgrace before the vote? What would have been our response if the Soviet Union or United Nations had refused to recognize our government after such an impeachment?
The salient question now is what is Zelaya's future? Will Honduras' Congress approve the agreement? If not, what will happen to the newly and Constitutionally elected government without international recognition? Will there be a peaceful transition to the newly elected government if Zelaya is returned? Will there be assassination attempts either way?
All these questions are posed for one simple and unassailable reason: The United States government stood for the violation of a nation's Constitution and against the rule of law.
Originally posted at The Minority Report.