Argentina’s stock and bond markets are up following the weekend’s midterm elections which dealt a humiliating blow to the ruling leftist Front for Victory coalition. In Honduras, many people are celebrating as its Chavez-embracing president is ousted – amid some odd tut-tutting by the Obama administration. WSJ columnist Mary Anastasia O’Grady raises this interesting issue: Why is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on behalf of President Obama, condemning what might be considered a legal ouster of a constitution-defying political leader? At the very least, one would think the U.S. President would avoid taking sides in this particular fight. Here’s the column:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html
7 Comments to Honduras & Argentina Politics
One more comment. Either the WSJ editorial pages has no clue whatsoever about contemporary history, or they know how interference plays out to strengthen the worst dictators, but decided to write the piece just to make an anti-Obama point.
I don’t know which is worse.
Gabriella SternJune 29, 2009
My point is, why take a position at all in this case, given the ambiguity of the situation?
Very easy answer: the elected president was overthrown by military force. (There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about that.) Support for a military coup would completely discredit the Obama administration in the Americas.
I would guess that the Journal’s editorial writers are aware of that. If they are not, that would be even scarier.
HeloisaJune 30, 2009
I went to the WSJ page to look for news about MJ’s will, and found the bizarre editorial about Honduras. I agree with Gabriella that the US should stop taking positions like Americans take pain killers – I was impressed by Obama’s restrain about Iran. But the Honduras affair is not about taking positions; it is merely about not recognizing a government in the Americas that came to power by force.
The NYTimes has published an editorial that explains the situation in Honduras clearly. The author, Alvaro Vargas Llosa, is knowledgeable (and as a matter of public health seems to have taken his anti-rabidness immunization).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/30Vargasllosa.html?th&emc=th
Sergio GoldbaumJune 30, 2009
My guess is Mrs Clinton is following CIA reports, which have been written based on news from Brazilian newspaper. That is: like me, she has no idea about what is going on there.
best wishes,
sgold
June 29, 2009
The explanation is very simple: Clinton and Obama condemned the coup in Honduras because it was a coup. It is counterproductive for a foreign country to be seen as supporting one or another side in a political dispute. It is worse if the country is the United States. Worst of all would be for the US to support a military coup d’état in Latin America.