A Yellow Card for a Coup d'Etat

YESTERDAY'S golpe del estado in Honduras was a rather strange coup d'etat -- if only because it was executed almost perfectly. Within the space of a day, the Hondurans managed to exile their proto-caudillo, Señor Manuel Zelaya; installed a new leader under the conventions of their Constitution; got the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress to agree the measures were perfectly fine; and agreed that a national unity Government would run things until elections could be held. These elections, mind you, would be the regularly scheduled elections due to be held in five months' time. Even more amazingly, the Hondurans managed to pull the thing off with almost no bloodshed.

It is thus no surprise the American Government, which for the past 50 years has almost universally screwed up handling Latin American affairs, would find this a bad thing. Once again, the foreign policy dunces in Washington are falling into the same trap in which their predecessors were ensnared; and once again, Washington will completely blow a fantastic opportunity to turn things in our direction.

Let us not forget that, back in 2002, we had a perfect opportunity to rid ourselves of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez when a revolt broke out there. What did we do? We did nothing, and said it was a bad thing Chavez -- that stupid, cruel strongman who has since ground his country into the dust -- was removed from power. Two days later, the coup collapsed and we've been stuck with him ever since. One would hope we wouldn't be dumb enough to not capitalize on a similar situation in Honduras. Yet instead of just issuing a polite statement of concern and leaving it at that, we have condemned the action and our ambassador to Honduras has declared the United States will only recognize Sr Zelaya as president.

Great. Wonderful.

It is worth noting just why Sr Zelaya was thrown out. It seems Sr Zelaya did not like the idea he would have to leave the Honduran presidency, and decided he wanted a referendum on whether he could run again for the office. The Honduran Supreme Court forbade him from doing so. The Congress was furious at the idea. The military, which has a large administrative role in Honduran elections, refused to help. Yet Sr Zelaya did not desist. He ordered the military to assist; when it did not, he fired its chief. He then tried to run roughshod over Honduras' institutions to bring the illegal plebiscite about. Honduras, for its part, got sick of it. And I'm sorry, but when the Supreme Court, the Congress and the military all combine to get rid of the President, the checks and balances equation works. For more on this, see Mary Anastasia O'Grady's essay in today's Wall Street Journal.

It is also worth noting how the usual suspects have reacted. The Cuban Government declared the coup "brutal" and "criminal." (That's the pot calling the kettle black). The Nicaraguan Government was similarly displeased, as were the useless and wretched Governments of Bolivia and Ecuador. Last -- but certainly not least -- Colonel Chavez himself has reacted furiously to the news. Apparently, Col Chavez is so upset that he has mobilized the Venezuelan military (yawn) and threatened to bring down the new Government.

It is true the Hondurans have given these Governments some reason to complain. Apparently, some of the Honduran soldiers who engaged in the coup d'etat chastised the Nicaraguan, Cuban and Venezuelan ambassadors in the process of removing Sr Zelaya. Although one could theoretically argue the envoys of those three nations perhaps deserved it on general principle grounds -- being the point men for their countries' machinations -- it is very much poor form to subject diplomats to such physical manhandling. It should not have been done, and was reprehensible. So that's definitely deserving of a yellow card.

But only a yellow card, in my mind. So far, we've not heard of the Honduran military machine-gunning protestors, nor have we heard of them liquidating its political opponents en masse. Even Sr Zelaya was allowed to keep his head. Thus far, at any rate, the military and other Honduran leaders have handled the coup about as well as could be expected. True, that may change, but until it does, one cannot fault them for going overboard. Particularly when the coup plotters do have a considerable measure of public support for their action.

Also, it's worth noting the Hondurans do not especially care what the rest of the world thinks, and have decided the best defense is a good offense. Already the Honduran Congress has been telling the U.S. to -- well, go jump in a lake -- and President Roberto Micheletti has been making the case that the transition was perfectly legal. One would hope the U.S. would eventually see the wisdom of this, and at least offer its private support to the new Government while explaining it must do other things for public consumption.

As a general rule, coups d'etat are not the ideal way to bring about positive change, but in this situation I can't fault the Hondurans for throwing Sr Zelaya out. In recent weeks it became clear he was plotting to usurp the powers held by the nation's institutions and seize them for his own benefit. Removing him from office and exiling him will thus maintain Honduras' democratic traditions, and God willing, save it from going the way of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Accordingly, The Rant hopes President Micheletti will steer Honduras through these rough waters with a calm hand and judicious restraint, and puts the country on a fast track back to normality.

Just Another Day in Los Angeles

IF YOU THINK this is weird -- well, just go down to Venice Beach, that's all I'm saying.

A Refreshing Call for Openness, But ...

SO TODAY I chanced across a column from Will Bunch, a senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News, in which he chides the Washington media for their inept war coverage prior to our invasion of Iraq. Since even the most ardent booster of the operation would have to admit things in Iraq have been problematic, Mr Bunch asks why not enough work was done to examine the policy aspects of the war beforehand.

But he really hits home when he accused the Washington media of being self-serving -- downright venal, really -- in their coverage. Mr Bunch, who here is citing the work of journalist Michael Hastings, writes:

But Hastings focuses on the reason that I find the most chilling: That Beltway journalists felt that staying with "the pack" -- avoiding what would be a contrarian, and thus uncool (my word) position -- was the safest way to climb the well-paying and prestigious career ladder ...

... Hastings correctly notes that there is safety in the pack, that journaliists who got it wrong had the comfort of knowing that so did everyone else -- and that you could always change your position with everyone else as events on the ground changed. The real-world consequences of being wrong...well, those were 11,000 miles away.

This is a well-considered point. With any given issue, there are at least two sides to consider, and when the issues are important matters related to them deserve heavy scrutiny. When we're dealing with a war -- a matter of the gravest importance -- the scrutiny should, if at all possible, be ultimate. Personally, I would not criticize the Washington media as much as Mr Bunch does, if only because journalists must rely on their sources; and if all one's sources are saying X even when one tries desperately to find someone to say Y, there's only so much one can do. Resources are not infinite; time is not infinite; even if one does one's best to look at an issue, things can still go awry.

Still, as I said, it's a fair point Mr Bunch made. Which leads me to my next question: had things been exactly reversed, would Mr Bunch have written such a stirring column?

Let's say, just for kicks, that back in 2003 the press believed the war would be an absolute disaster and we were entering into a ruinous quagmire. Let's further say that, in this alternate universe, the war was a complete success. Not only were we welcomed as liberators, Iraq soon became stable and prosperous and free, and everyone there got along, and the birds flew and the angels sighed. Would Mr Bunch ask why the press screwed up so badly in its initial assessment?

I'm just wondering, because if you ask me, there's a bit of a herd mentality when it comes to how a lot of things are covered these days. Global warming, the housing market, the economy, you name it -- there's often not much difference out there.

Why, I would venture to guess 80 percent of journalists thought, in 2006, the housing market would never relinquish its gains; that on March 6 of this year, 90 percent believed we were headed for financial Armageddon; and that 95 percent now believe global warming is not only certain, but is such a crisis that it requires spending hundreds of billions of dollars to try and stop it.

Were I a cynic -- and I am most certainly not -- I might even suggest that Mr Bunch benefits now from this herd mentality, as certainly no one popular thinks our endeavor in Iraq is going well, and it's a lot easier to castigate others when one has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Now, it may be Mr Bunch has been right all along, and railed against the effort prior to it being a gleam in Rumsfeld's eye; I am not familiar enough with his work to know. But if that's not the case, then I have to ask -- where was this column six years ago?

But I don't mean to take away from his main point. A journalist has to keep his eye on the truth, whether he likes it or not. I just hope this spirit of open-mindedness and intellectual rigor carries through to coverage of everything else.