Obama Reacts To Honduran Situation

I suppose we shouldn't be overly surprised that President Obama has chosen to be on the same side of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. I guess it shouldn't be overly shocking that he would choose to send mixed messages about his foreign policy reactions.

Initially, in the aftermath of the fraudulent Iranian elections, he was silent. After much pressure, he finally came out with a weak statement concerning the way the Iranian government treated the protesters:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

As you will notice above, I took the liberty to highlight the part I want to focus on. So let's bring this up to the Honduras situation, shall we?

The constitution of Honduras allows its president only one term and the deposed Manuel Zelaya had sought a referendum allowing him to run for re-election. Normally, this wouldn't be such an issue except for the fact that he is not a very popular president. This begs the question, why would someone who is so incredibly unpopular seek re-election in the first place? Seeing how Hugo Chavez has rewritten his country's constitution, placing himself into a position to hold that office indefinitely, wouldn't have anything to do with it--would it?

So, here we are. Without having taken into consideration the entire picture, the American President has chosen to call the actions taken by the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court, illegal. Hugo and Fidel have done so as well. And they have done it under the banner of the democratic process and respect for a democratically elected official (who was trying to pull his own coup against the constitution and subvert the rule of law).

Knowing that Zelaya would not have been re-elected in an election and understanding how the people are not upset with the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court for protecting their constitution, how can we believe Obama's feigned concern for the democratic process? I understand the hypocrisy of Chavez and Castro in this case, it's not hard to grasp that they fear such a thing could happen to them. But why is Obama willing to interject in this case, so soon?

I mean, if we are to believe that he has an ounce of integrity, why do we not read:

The Honduran people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Honduran government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

I think the answer is plain. What do you think?