By Arshad Mohammed and David Alexander
U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a "terrible precedent" of transition by military force unless it was reversed.
"We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there," Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.
Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term.
The Honduran Congress named an interim president, Roberto Micheletti, and the country's Supreme Court said it had ordered the army to remove Zelaya.
The European Union and a string of other foreign governments have voiced support for Zelaya, who was snatched by troops from his residence and whisked away by plane to Costa Rica.
Obama said he would work with the Organization of American States and other international institutions to restore Zelaya to power and "see if we can resolve this in a peaceful way."
"TERRIBLE PRECEDENT"
"It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections," Obama said, noting the region's progress in establishing democratic traditions in the past 20 years.
Despite Obama's comments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration was not formally designating the ouster as a military coup for now.
Such a designation could force the U.S. leader to cut off most aid to Honduras. Under U.S. legislation, no aid — other than for the promotion of democracy — may be provided to a country whose elected head of government has been toppled in a military coup.
"We do think that this has evolved into a coup," Clinton told reporters, adding the administration was "withholding" that determination for now.
Asked if the United States was currently considering cutting off aid, Clinton shook her head no. The State Department said that it was unable to immediately say how much assistance the United States gives Honduras.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he did not believe Obama had spoken to Zelaya since the ouster.
He said the administration had worked in recent days to try to prevent the coup from happening, and "our goal now is on restoring democratic order in Honduras."
OBAMA CRITICISM
Analysts said quick criticism of the coup by Obama and Clinton on Sunday pleased Latin American countries bitter about the long history of U.S. intervention in the region.
The Obama administration's stance contrasted with the equivocal position taken in 2002 by former President George W. Bush's administration, which was seen as tacitly accepting a coup against Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez.
Clinton stressed the United States was working with other nations in the hemisphere to restore full democratic and constitutional order in Honduras.
A senior U.S. official who spoke on condition he not be named said that by holding off on a legal determination that a coup has taken place, Washington was trying to provide space for a negotiated settlement.
"Much of our assistance is conditioned on the integrity of the democratic system. But if we were able to get to a … status quo that returned to the rule of law and constitutional order within a relatively short period of time, I think that would be a good outcome," Clinton said.
Obama is just plain Wrong: A Citizen’s View. He is guilty of meddling in other
countries affairs and being “stupidly” uninformed (AGAIN!)
It was interesting to see the reaction to Heads of State of the countries around the world when the corrupt
President, supported by illegal drugs from Hugo Chaves, was Legally removed from office according to the
Honduran Constitution. Again, the President of the United States has spoken without understanding the
facts as he has done quite frequently. President Obama has again stated that the removal of Zelaya was
illegal. Not quite so.
The President, Manuel Zelaya, was removed and replaced by the President of the congress in accordance
with the Honduran Constitution. President Obama might well be advised to read articles 42, 239, 244, 272,
278, 373, 374 of the Honduran Constitution.
Using his own words, he once again has acted “STUPIDLY”, without knowing the facts. Not only was the
removal justified, but done in strict accord to the Honduran Constitution. Zelaya, in effect, removed himself
from office by his illegal, unconstitutional in trying to force a constitutional amendment to allow him to stay
in power. Constitutional Amendments are the purview of the Honduran Congress, not the President. These
actions by constitutional law resulted in the loss of his rights as a citizen, and therefore lost his eligibility to
be President.
“The rights of any citizen is lost if the citizen incites, promotes, or supports the continuance or re-election of
the president of the Republic.” Article 42. (Note: They have a one-term restriction as constitutional law)
The obvious reason this is so upsetting to the Heads of State like President Obama is that he, too, on
examination of his statements and actions has, in my opinion, has usurped his constitutional authority, has
violated his oath of office both as a U.S. Senator and as President to uphold and defend the constitution,
and has infringed on the Peoples and States rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.
If we had a congress that represented the people rather that name calling and labeling the people “un-
American” we would be impeaching President Obama, Our “Bill of Rights” has and is being trampled. The
problem is that many or most of congressmen on both sides of the isle are equally guilty.
Of course Obama wants to paint this as illegal, because he may (someday), continuing along his path of arrogant rule may just find himself in the same predicament.
So it appears that Honduras is more of a ‘republic’ and a ‘democracy’ than the United States.