Comments for BANANAS, Military Coups d'états in Latin America We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:17:09 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2012 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification BANANAS, Military Coups d'états in Latin America http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:45:01 -0600 Comment from Cortillaen on 2009-07-03
I don't understand how you can call it a military coup d'etat when the military was acting on a court order (which was, in turn, following the constitution) in removing Zelayas from power.  That's the sticking point.  The Colonel specifically states (again, unless I'm misreading or the translation is wrong) that the military's higher ups have been leery of Zelaya for a while but took no action (which would have been a military coup) until the court order came down.  That sounds distinctly like a military trying to avoid going the banana republic route.

Basically, I'd like to know why this should be called a coup d'etat, and the reason needs to be more than "I say so".  Why do you think so?  I argue that it is not because it did not involve the seizure of power or any alteration of the constitution or government.  Rather, it was the constitutionally mandated and court-sanctioned removal of a single person who had violated that constitution.
A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group.  In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising.  Rather, in the typical coup, a small group of politicians or generals arrests the incumbent leaders, seizes the national radio and television services, and proclaims itself in power.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition

A coup d'état (pronounced /ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/ us dict: kōō′·dā·tâ′), or coup for short, is the sudden, unconstitutional deposition of a legitimate government, by a small group of the State Establishment — usually the military — to replace the deposed government with another, either civil or military.
wikipedia.com

The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.
answers.com
None of those definitions are accurate for this event.  There was no small group of elites:  It was the military acting on an order from the Supreme Court followed by the installation of the leader of Congress as the new president, as required by the constitution.  There was no seizure of power:  The military only removed Zelayas, leaving executive power to be transferred according to constitutional mandate.   There was no overthrow of the government:  Zelayas was removed, but the constitution and its government are still very much in place.  The removal of Zelayas from office was neither illegal nor unconstitutional.

I will grant that the military commanders' decision to boot Zelayas out of the country was in violation of the court order, but that is a separate issue from his actual removal from office.  It was also intended to avoid the bloodshed of letting Zelayas turn into a martyr and figurehead for a socialist/communist revolution.  Nonetheless, tossing the removed Zelayas out of the country instead of into prison does not make this a coup d'etat.

Lastly, I rather resent your implication that I want to avoid calling this a coup d'etat out of concern for its connotations or to excuse anything.  That sort of mincing dishonesty is something I vehemently oppose.  I disagree with calling this a coup d'etat simply because I do not find it to have been a coup d'etat.  Any other consideration comes after veracity.
]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html#comment-90371 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html#comment-90371 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:09:53 -0600 Comment from Boquisucio on 2009-07-03 Even the Honduran Chief Military Legal Advisor (Col. Bayardo) called it a Coup d’état.  I wish the general readership of this blog could read Spanish.

After booting Zelaya out of the country, The Military handed power to Congress.  The rightful successor to the Presidency according to their constitution.

Some may want not to use such a baggaged-filled term, and try to use euphemisms as a way to excuse the Right's actions, but it doesn't make it something other that what it was Military led Coup d’état.

]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html#comment-90365 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html#comment-90365 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 19:01:58 -0600 Comment from Cortillaen on 2009-07-03 coup d'etat", I don't see it being the proper term here.  Zelaya tried to violate the constitution, the SC ordered the military to remove Zelaya in adherence to the constitution, and the constitutionally-declared next in line took over.  The only illegal attempt to change their government was Zelaya's, while the SC, military, and Congress all abided by the constitution in stopping him.  If there is a coup to be found, it would seem to be Zelaya's failed one.

Further, constantly calling the constitutional protection of their government a coup would seem to serve only to stigmatize the protectors and lend credibility to those demanding the would-be dictator be reinstated.  Words have power, and this one caries a very distinctly negative impression for most people.  Is it really fair to those who defended their country to describe their actions like this, or am I missing something?
]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html#comment-90364 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html#comment-90364 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:30:26 -0600 Comment from BillT on 2009-07-03 a portion of the MSM "gets it" -- now the rest of 'em need to chime in.

Verrrrrrry interesting that the Judicial Activism Bunch is siding *against* the Honduran Supreme Court on this one.

Eh -- maybe not so interesting after all, seeing that the Honduran Supremes are *upholding* their country's Constitution rather than trying to disassemble it.
]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html#comment-90342 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html#comment-90342 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:07:12 -0600 Comment from BillT on 2009-07-02
The Lefties are so fearful of the military because, unless it's been co-opted into the ranks of the True Believers, it's the only force capable of preventing them from staging their *own* coup d'etat -- or of tossing it out afterwards.

The Pak Army traditionally stepped in when things went too far to the Sinister Side, stabilized the country, then went back to barracks. Then-General Musharraf used his power to drag Pakistan's legal system into the 21st Century, to include advancing Women's Rights -- something that Benazhir Bhutto, the Left's Icon of Modernity, refused to do. The average Pakistani was perfectly happy having a President who was also the de facto commander of the Armed Forces -- the Left viewed it as an abomination, and raised the media sh*t-storm which ousted him.

We all saw how well *that* went, now, didn't we?

]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html#comment-90306 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html#comment-90306 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:42:38 -0600 Comment from Argent on 2009-07-02
The military coups are not stablising.  They are perhaps necessary last ditch efforts and always run the risk of a military leader who takes advantage of the situation which IMO has occured in Fiji where the excuses have become more and more lame over time.

]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html#comment-90301 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/07/bananas_militar.html#comment-90301 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:28:31 -0600