Xiomara: "The US Has Given an Ultimatum to the Coup Regime"

It's rather heartening to see all the shops in my local area in England suddenly stocking fair trade bananas, as they obviously can't get hold of the Chiquita ones from Honduras.

I can't thank you enough for your on the ground reporting--I was not a fan of Obama and wasn't thrilled with your advocacy for him during the primaries.  But I've gotten over that because of what you are doing for justice now.  Thank you, thank you.

Now we are beginning to see who the "reckless" people were.. both Capitan Joya (who was ambitious) and Mrs Clinton (who fails to understand what is written on walls-even when the inscriptions are in English and signed by her Commander in Chief) should have some explaining to do to the peoples of the Americas and the world at large.

 In the light of recent historical events...I would suggest that Ambassador Llorens tender his resignation as well.

 As for Cardinal Rodriguez....the Roman Catholic Church has lost still more "credibility" regarding its claims to "universality." His eminence is no Dom Helder Camara...How little courage on his (the Cardinal's) part...when push came to shove..

 North American "decision makers" need to learn how to listen to the grass-roots, and dismiss the lobbyists with their monopoly money and lies...

Viva la libertad.

I certainly hope that such an ultimatum has been delivered, and that the U.S. government is ready to follow through on it immediately.  But Patricia Rodas, unlike Xiomara Castro de Zelaya, was in the meeting with Llorens and Pres. Zelaya, and her take reported on TeleSur was that the U.S. officials brought nothing new to the conversation and no new proposals.

Of course, the meeting itself, particularly Amb. Llorens traveling to meet Zelaya, was a signal to the coup makers. 

But the 'ultimatum' might be entirely understandable spin: XCdeZ was speaking to a crowd that needs all the encouragement it can get.  She may also have been using her platform to pressure the U.S. government to issue such an ultimatum to the coupmakers.

Or, best case, it's real: she could be reporting an important development, and using the public airing to pressure the U.S. government to follow through quickly.

Hope so.

For up until now all the uprisings in Honduras have been just one rich dictator battling another.

Not the most pressing of issues, but the references - and certainly not just here - to Zelaya & Co. as being legitimate seem troubling.

For one, there is the fact that any system which claims to appoint one person as - legitimate or not - the leader of millions and millions of people is absurd and only survives on its own inertia and support from those who benefit from such a system, which is certainly not the vast majority of people.  On that basis, it is laughable to call any president "legitimate".

Secondly, it is my understanding that democracy exists in name only in Honduras and it's largely the ruling classes electing one of their own every few years. This was the case with Zelaya until he was overthrown because he dared to care just a tad too much about the lumpen.  So if an illegitimate system made Zelaya president, how can he be legitimate?

And it is clear those mobilizing against the coup have broader goals than the return of Zelaya - mainly the Constituent Assembly - a much more empowering mechanism than elections. In fact, Zelaya, Micheletti, and the rest might want to get together and fix this quick before the unwashed masses figure out they can run the whole show without the "help" of the ruling class.

Obviously one needs a term to differentiate between gov'ts. But perhaps a word other than legitimate could be used, such as elected, overthrown, deposed, in exile, etc.

Honduras' de facto leader vowed on Friday that no country will push the small Central American nation around and pledged to resist international pressure to reinstate toppled President Manuel Zelaya.

Roberto Micheletti, who was named president by Congress just hours after soldiers overthrew Zelaya on June 28, said Honduras had enough basic foodstuffs to endure economic sanctions if it were further isolated over the coup.

"We don't accept anyone imposing anything on us. There is no country -- no matter how powerful -- that is going to tell us what to do," he told Reuters in an interview.

"We respect many of the points of the agreement but we do not accept some of them like the return of Mr. Zelaya, we don't accept it in this country under any circumstance. If he wants to come back he can but only if he faces trial."

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/07/31/world/international-us-hondura...

@ Scott.

I strenuously disagree.  Legitimacy is all about how power is recognized and obeyed or not obeyed.  Legitimacy is the issue in the Honduran coup.  We've known since at least Machiavelli that institutions collapse when they lose legitimacy.  The fact that Honduran Democracy substitutes "one leader of the ruling class for another" is not the issue any more than that American democracy tends to substitute one AIPAC or corporate purchased congressman for another is an issue.

The underlying issue with "legitimacy" is how power is perceived and obeyed.  We saw a clear example of that this week when as a response to the US jerking the diplomatic visas of 4 Honduran coup leaders, the Micheletti government ordered Venezuela's ambassadors to leave. Venezuela responded that the coup government is not the "legitimate" government of Honduras and has stayed put in their embassy.  When a legitimate government orders a country's ambassadors out, they leave.  The only way the coup government is going to get the Venezuelan embassy closed is the same way they got Zelaya out.  They are going to have to militarily storm the embassy, shoot the ambassador or beat him up or put him on a plane, possibly in pajamas.

Here's a thumbnail explanation of Weberian "political legitimacy".

http://www.answers.com/topic/legitimacy

Roger Abraham Vallejo Cerrado, 38, secretary of the San Martín high school - Participated in a different anti-coup demonstration in Tegucigalpa July 30, 2009 - who received a bullet wound to the head... 

Roger died this morning...

August 1.2009

@Nancy Chester,

Thanks for your response, Nancy. I don't know if I fully see your point. For me there are two issues pertaining to legitimacy. One is the notion that any hierarchical form of governance is legitimate. Even using Weber's definition, I would argue it is not.  Therefore, I would argue Zelaya is not legitimate.  Obviously, others disagree and this is too deep of an issue for a comments section.

So the main issue is the notion that legitimacy is what is at stake. Obviously it's what's at stake for Zelaya, Micheletti and the rest, but I would argue that they are irrelevant, as are their needs and concerns.  What is relevant are the needs and concerns of the Honduran people.  So for the average anti-coup protester, is legitimacy what brings them out in the street?  Is it concern about Zelaya and the "rule of law"?  Or was the removal of Zelaya a catalyst for something broader that allowed for the addressing of issues greater than legitimacy - such as the Constituent Assembly, participative democracy, social issues, survival, etc.

What makes me think about it in this context is that every communique from the National Front Against the Coup demands not only the return of Zelaya but also the convening of a Constituent Assembly.  The demand for its convening and not just a vote about if it should be convened is a matter that extends beyond Zelaya.  And as the Front is a broad-based grouping, I imagine its demands are more moderate than many of the "member" organizations or individuals on the street.

Scott, in my opinion, raising the issue of legitimacy with regard to Zelaya as President of Honduras - during this coup in Honduras - only serves to cloud the issues.

To me, your raising this issue during the coup in Honduras makes it appear that you are questioning Zelaya's legitimacy in particular, instead of questioning the "legitimacy" of most elected leaders.