Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

Meet Senator Jim DeMint, Honduran Coup Supporter and Apologist: Oh, He's Republican Too

BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY
By Nikolas Kozloff
 
            President Obama has decried it.  The Organization of American States and countries throughout Latin America have condemned it.  The European Union has protested loudly.  The majority of world leaders have raised their voices in opposition, confirmed by a resolution just passed in the United Nations General Assembly.  And yet, one prominent legislator on Capitol Hill has leapt to the defense of the new coup regime which took power in Honduras on Sunday.  That politician is Republican South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint.
            Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was deposed by the military just as he was seeking a non-binding referendum which the Honduran Congress and courts pronounced illegal.  Zelaya’s move was seen as an effort to alter the constitution so he could seek a second term.  Honduras’ Supreme Court said Zelaya’s referendum violated the constitution, a decision which the military has used as a justification for overthrowing the government.  The White House however is not buying these justifications, saying that it’s the military which has behaved unconstitutionally.  “Concerns or doubts about the wisdom of his [Zelaya’s] actions relating to his proposed non-binding referendum are independent of the unconstitutional act taken against him,” an administration official stated. 
            If you’re still having some doubts about whether what happened in Honduras constituted a coup, consider the following: the military invaded Zelaya’s home, kidnapped the President and forced him to leave the country.  The military then installed an unelected President without due process or adherence to the Honduran Constitution.  On Wednesday Honduras’ new government, spearheaded by former head of  Congress Roberto Micheletti, established a nighttime curfew, suspended personal liberties and freedom of assembly, declared the right to detain suspects for more than 24 hours, and restricted freedom of movement both inside Honduras as well as in and out of the country.  Thousands have protested the new government in Tegucigalpa and union leaders have announced a national strike. 
            Audaciously taking on Obama, DeMint chastised the White House for what he called “a slap in the face to the people” of Honduras.  “The people of Honduras have struggled too long to have their hard-won democracy stolen from them by a Chávez-style dictator,” DeMint remarked.  The South Carolinian, who is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went even further, attacking the Organization of American States for “trampling” over the hopes and dreams of a “free and democratic people.”
            It’s hardly surprising that DeMint would come out for the military takeover in Honduras given that he’s been a long time booster of Central American free trade.  In this sense, he shares the ideological views of newly installed Honduran President Roberto Micheletti, a former businessman and conservative politician who has supported the trade initiative.  In recent years Micheletti had criticized Zelaya for moving Honduras into the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas, known by its Spanish acronym ALBA, a socially progressive trade pact backed by Hugo Chávez of Venezuela seeking to counteract U.S-style corporate free trade.  The regional trade group includes Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Dominica.  Since its founding in 2004, ALBA has promoted joint factories and banks, an emergency food fund, and exchanges of cheap Venezuelan oil for food, housing, and educational investment.
            DeMint has long been on the other side of the fence from the likes of Zelaya and Chávez.  First elected to the House in 1998, he has been an eager promoter of far right wing economic orthodoxy like privatizing social security and abolishing the federal minimum wage.  His small town, rural Piedmont district was traditionally dominated by non-union textile mills but more recently had been transformed by the arrival of foreign manufacturing investment which was lured to the area through cheap labor. 
            In 2003, Demint opted to run for Senate when Democrat Fritz Hollings retired.  Placing a big political bet, he vocally supported the Central American free trade agreement which had been opposed by South Carolina textile executives.  One of five Republican contenders in the Senatorial primary, Demint sought to establish his credentials as a true believer in free trade, a somewhat risky proposition predicated on the notion that the textile industry was washed up and new economic players tied to free trade would now be calling the shots statewide.
            The Central American free trade agreement, DeMint argued, would create manufacturing jobs in South Carolina while helping to expand overseas markets for some of South Carolina’s new economic players like BMW.  But Lloyd Wood of the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition said that the agreement would throw thousands of South Carolinians out of work.  In an editorial entitled “Demint’s World More Like Fantasy Island,” South Carolina’s largest newspaper The State slammed the Senate hopeful: “Unfair trade agreements like NAFTA have cost South Carolina tens of thousands of jobs. Now the new Central American Free Trade Agreement threatens to do even more damage.”
            In the Republican primary, Demint came out in second place and faced former Governor David Beasley in a runoff.  “This campaign is going to be all about jobs and unfair trade,” said Beasley, a born again opponent of wide open international trade.  Originally a free trade booster himself, Beasley was voted out of office in 1998.  After that, thousands of South Carolinians also lost their jobs in a recession. 
            In a television ad, Beasley featured a middle aged man who had been laid off after the worker’s manufacturing company moved jobs overseas. Demint for his part refused to back down from his free trade advocacy, winning applause from the likes of the right wing Cato Institute and Club for Growth.  Demint beat Beasley handily after capitalizing on the former governor’s negative image. 
            In the general election, Demint faced off against Democrat and State Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum who also took a more protectionist stand on trade.  The textile industry donated $100,000 to Tenenbaum's campaign and an industry lobbying group put up billboards across the state reading “Lost Your Job to `Free Trade' and Offshoring Yet? Register. Vote.”  In the end however the state’s strong support for Bush in the election helped to push Demint over the top.  Heading to the Senate, Demint later voted for the Central American Free Trade agreement in 2005, helping to secure passage of the initiative. 
            Over the past five years DeMint has promoted his globalizing agenda, the same agenda shared by the likes of Roberto Micheletti and the Honduran elite which has just taken power in Tegucigalpa.  In the days ahead it will be interesting to see whether his fellow Republican compatriots, also believers in free trade, will be so brazen as to come out for a government which brutally represses its people.
 
Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Hugo Chávez: Oil, Politics and the Challenge to the U.S. (Palgrave, 2006) and Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave, 2008).  Check out his Web site at http://senorchichero.blogspot.com
 
BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY


 Fitch store in

 

Fitch store in general Abercrombie And Fitch , everything a good matrimony before marriage have nothing to retain the preceding "female mad batch - Abercrombie" part of the two is the first home in new york city a horde promotion sportswear for men and it is a successful lawyer, that is, fitch.Ezra fitch in a charge over a very intricate to read from the abercrombie is obstinate to read and long abercrombie & fitch. He's also very good brand Abercrombie and Fitch Hoodies, including Abercrombie And Fitch Clothing and Abercrombie and Fitch JeansAbercrombie and Fitch PantsAbercrombie and Fitch Tees. Has become a fashionable personage's first choice, Abercrombie and Fitch Sweaters is all over the world, of course, is also expected to Abercrombie and Fitch Shorts. New Year was coming, everyone wants new clothes to disguise themselves,Abercrombie Clothing is a good choice. BecauseAbercrombie Sale is a well-known brand, Abercrombie and Fitch Outerwearseverywhere, abercrombie is very much a Cheap Abercrombie. There has Abercrombie and Fitch PolosAbercrombie Womens and Abercrombie and Fitch Shirts. Personally, I'm looking forward to Abercrombie Hollister's 2009 New Arrivals, such as Abercrombie Ruehl No.925 like this style.

 

The U.S. is behind again

While the U.S. executive branch looks to further isolate Honduras, DeMint and the rest of the world are now looking to talk with the intern government.  A govenment that was put in place per the countrys' constitution. 

Look, Conservative, be a man

Look, Conservative, be a man and admit what you believe in. You come up here, lying about what happened, it wasnt any impeachment, the non-binding resolution was merely a pretext by people who made it clear every day on their TV shows that they wanted a coup. There isnt any legality to it, the only legality would be to allow for an orderly transfer of power after an election - or an impeachment. It is horrible that Conservatives like you come up here and spread your lies. You talk about how it "could have been done better" or "could have been done legally", whatever, there you have it folks - and no it couldnt have been done legally not to a lawfully elected president serving his term in a lawfully elected manner, with popularity.

Rule of Law

I will try to put this in simple words so even the slowest thinkers can understand. When the top court in your country says "you can't do THAT; it is against the law" then you don't do THAT, you don't even try to do THAT. This is called "the rule of law". I know this is a concept that Americans generally don't understand, especially that part that says that our side must obey the law just like the other side, but I am sure you can grasp it if you work really hard. Zelaya tried to BREAK THE LAW after being told by the Supreme Court that what he wanted to do would BREAK THE LAW; the Honduran Supreme Court stopped him. Do you suggest that Honduras should, like the U.S. did with Bush II, allow a clearly criminal president to remain in power?

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!

So refreshing Nikolas that you know the truth... and probably because you wrote the book about Chavez! In your esteemed view, HOW COME NO ONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?????????????????????? What could be the political reason that the world has in condemning what happened here? I understand that it was illegal and could have been done another way, but what does ANYONE do when repeatedly been screwed over? You stop it. Not once, twice, three times... numerous times Mel broke the law, and the 'referendum/vote' last Sunday was to be the last straw. He is BACK-PEDDLING now to say, 'Oh, it was never my intention to continue another term'. Ya right. Chavez is backing him, and when/if Zelaya comes back, we may as well become another Venezuelan country/state. THE MAJORITY UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION HERE. THE MAJORITY SUPPORT MICHELETTI.

It absolutely does matter

It absolutely does matter who has credibility and who does not. Why? Because right-wingers lie. In this case, you arent being honest, it wasnt an impeachment at all. It wasnt a legal, legitimate case of impeachment at all. It wasnt as you described at all either. I take it you are a Conservative, I dont think many people would believe you arent one - with your misrepesentation blatantly in order to support a military coup. What a shame that some people like you get a kick out of telling lies. You said, they were supposed to arrest him, yeah right, on what charge?

Coup or impeachment

You demonstrate the hazards of over-partisanship and conclusion jumping. First, I am not an American, and my general political position would be well to the left of centre on the American political spectrum (which is to say hard-right almost anywhere else). Second, all politicians, left or right, lie, so the assertion that right wingers lie is completely unhelpful. Finally, matters of right and wrong do not correlate with matters of right and left. I repeat, in a clash between a democratically elected legislature and a democratically elected executive, the legislature should always win, and this is true regardless of the positions on the political spectrum of the executive and legislature in question.

what it was...

you are all correct. it was not an impeachment. it was an 18-count indictment from the Honduran Supreme Court, agreed to by the National Congress. the most important item was the referendum. they ruled, because their Constitution says explicitly that only the National Congress can call for a vote for an amendment, no one else. Zelaya ignored the ruling by saying that he will do it as an "opinion poll". that still didn't work for legality. he ordered the Armed Forces to back him; they said the Court ruled. he fired the Joint Chief for not following him, the other military leaders resigned. he then marched a large group of people to where the ballots, printed by Hugo Chavez, were under security and stole them and announced, "We're doing it on Sunday, anyway." the indictment, signed the Thursday before, June 26, 2009, called for his arrest and detention. it seems likely the army took it upon themselves to send him out of the country for fear of violence. who really knows. and things snowballed from there. the indictment includes malfeasance, not protecting the Constitution [not just for the referendum], and not meeting constitutional deadlines among them. La Prensa lists them here:http://www.laprensahn.com/Sintesis/Lo-ultimo/Ediciones/2009/07/02/Noticias/Honduras-Los-18-delitos-de-Manuel-Zelaya one can only wonder what would have happened if the Army had just detained him rather than shipping him off to Costa Rica. the Supreme Court and the National Congress have the legal right to remove the president for a period of time when his/her actions are in question while there is an investigation or trial. [by the way, the president of Costa Rica said in a statement, "Please don't send him back here again."] if you read the Honduran news, the coverage is overwhelming that the majority of people do not want him to come back in the country. even Honduran Cardinal Maradiaga today pleaded with Zelaya not to return; he fears what is now peaceful could become “un baño de sangre” - a blood bath. mike/

jm, "Didnt work for

jm, "Didnt work for legality" - sounds like your coup - your coup doesnt work for legality. "One can only wonder what would have happened if the Army had...", whatever, they didnt did they, and not because they didnt want to but because they didnt - that is why the Army broke the law. Indictment - says you - says those who say it wasnt a coup - your indictment is not legal - there is no impeachment - you say they "could have" done a legal impeachment and I tell you Conservative that no they could not have done it legal thats why they didnt.

Repug Coup

What more would expect from the party of sarah palin? Certainly we have grown to expect that no matter the position President Obama takes on an issue, the repugs will, in a knee-jerk manner, will take the opposite, and most likely, illogical side of ANY issue. This ridiculous repug reaction to the coup in Honduras is typical of a party who's ideas, people and policies have become symbols of the worst things America has been or will ever be. I say disband the RNC. And, please...... We MUST build a new party who's ideals are more in line with the needs of the people in the USA. This is our only chance for success as a people.

Coup?

This still sounds more like an impeachment than a coup to me. The president tried to usurp legislative authority and the legislature impeached him. The Supreme Court then ordered the army to remove him because he wouldn't go peacefully, and the legislature appointed a new president. It is true that the army was supposed to arrest the president, not exile him, and the legislature was a bit sloppy in their impeachment process. However, the duly elected congress is still in place and in power and the properly appointed Honduran Supreme Court remains in place and functioning. In a clash between the executive and legislative branches in any country, my sympathies are with the legislative branch, because they are more representative. This remains true regardless of the political positions of the various actors.

It absolutely does matter

It absolutely does matter who has credibility and who does not, right winger.

Wade you are misinformed.

There is a class war against the poor in Honduras. And the 128 members of the unicameral legislature sided with the wealthy upper class who control all the resources. 50% of the population live in abject poverty, unemployment rate is 27.9%. So a President comes to power who raised minimum wage and talks about improving the lot the working poor. He was trying to keep Honduras from being a pawn of greedy foreign influences and investors. But no, we can't have that now can we? The argument that Zelaya was illegally seeking a new constitution is erroneous. He was seeking a new constitution, but that is not illegal under natural or divine law. The only people who would block it are those who fear power in the hands of the people.

Misinformed - NOT

It doesn't matter who is right-wing and who is left-wing, nor does it matter whose proposed policies were "better"; there was a clash between a democratically elected president and a democratically elected legislature, and the legislature won, as it always should. The courts sided with the legislature, as is entirely proper, and the army carried out the court's orders, as was also proper. Natural or divine law does not enter into the question, only Honduran law. There is a process for amending the Constitution, and Zelaya was not following it, and was thereby violating Honduran law. Try to put this into an American context; suppose that Bush Jr. had decided he wanted a third term and proposed to simply put a constitutional amendment to referendum, without bothering to get the assent of Congress and the requisite number of states, claiming a right under divine or natural law. Would it be a coup to impeach and remove him? That is exactly what happened to Zelaya, and the fact that Honduras happens to have a leftist president and a rightist congress, rather than vice versa, does not change the principle of the thing one bit.

Wade

Wade, dude, you are not even on the same page with your Bush analogy. In fact, Bush got away with much more than Zelaya, by falsifying intel on Iraq, by lying about his intentions for that war, and by usurping war powers without declaring war. Yet he was allowed to plunge us into two "wars" and destroy our economy with barely a whimper from the other two branches of government. A better US analogy might be something like this: A US president decides to hold a non-binding national referendum on the constitutional provision of two terms for president of the US. Congress and the US military decide they don't like him or this idea and they conspire to kidnap him and spirit him away from the US under custody. Zelaya did NOT usurp the Honduran constitution. His referendum was NOT an effort to change the constitution. It was a NON-BINDING referendum--a "pulse of the people" referendum. He was DEPOSED by the Military for his efforts. That is a Coup d'etat, plain and simple. You and your wingnut buddies continue to muddy the picture by throwing Hugo Chavez into this, portraying Chavez as a Dictator. He has been ELECTED time and again, in spite of US and CIA interference with the Venezuelan political process, just as Zelaya was elected. So who do YOU side with in the name of "democracy"? The unelected Army-installed Honduran dictator, Roberto Micheletti . You wear your motives and your political stripe on your sleeve Wade. Don't be too surprised when few, if any, fall for your not so clever rhetoric.

P.S.

Btw, Lariokie, don't you wish the U.S. Congress had displayed as much guts five or six years ago as the Honduran Congress is demonstrating now?

Chavez?!

What does Chavez have to do with this? As noted, the Supreme Court of Honduras ruled that Zelaya's referendum was illegal. He persisted in defiance of the law, and the Court, with the concurrence of Congress, ordered him removed and arrested, as was its legal right under Honduran law. Instead of arresting him, the army shipped him out of the country (in other words, the army let Zelaya escape). There is nothing stopping Zelaya from returning to Honduras except an eighteen count indictment and a warrant for his arrest. This has nothing to do with political stripes of any sort; it has to do with whether the executive or legislative branches is more powerful. If there was a coup, it was committed by the Honduran Congress; the army just followed orders, as it should. My view, which has everything to do with right and wrong and nothing to do with right and left, is that there was an attempted coup by Zelaya, who wanted to perpetuate his hold on office, and it was foiled by the Court and the Congress.

Impeachment at the point of a bayonet?

At least the coup has support in one segment of Honduran society:

Honduras coup was 'answer to prayer' for many evangelicals

Yet evangelicals in Honduras tell CT that the majority of the Central American nation -- including its Protestants and Catholics -- are in favor of the removal of Zelaya, though not necessarily of the military method.

ChristianityToday.com

Evangelicals

Anything evangelicals like is anti-human, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-progress, and morally repugnant.