Soccer Dad

Reluctant roberto

I don't understand why the Washington Post gave Roberto Micheletti a platform to explain himself the other day. According to the editors of the Post, Micheletti subverted Honduran democracy. Such a person doesn't deserve a platform. Yes I know that the Post also gives space to outright terrorists. It still would be nice to see them have some standards.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Micheletti's correct but if if the Post's editors gave Micheletti a platform, why didn't they seemingly not bother to read it?

Today the Post's editors tell us what's wrong with Micheletti.

THE LAST time we addressed the political crisis in Honduras, a tiny Central American country that has become the focal point of a big regional power struggle, we pointed out that the leaders of a de facto government were playing into the hands of their enemies. Roberto Micheletti, the head of that regime, says that he is determined to prevent ousted president Manuel Zelaya from aping the assault on democratic order pioneered by Mr. Zelaya's mentor, Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez. Yet, by refusing to accept an international mediator's plan that would have paved the way for elections and ensured Mr. Zelaya's political retirement, Mr. Micheletti -- egged on by a handful of allies in Washington -- gave the Chavez camp an opening.

The mediator's plans would have involved trashing Honduras' constitution, which the military and Supreme Court followed by ousting Zelaya and installing Micheletti as an interim president. All that was explained by Micheletti.

But by allowing Zelaya back into power, Honduras would have given Chavez a buddy in power. That's a lot more than just an "opening." What will solve the problem? Again the Post's editors:

The only good way out of the Honduran crisis is to go forward with the presidential election scheduled for Nov. 29 and to do so in a way that will allow Hondurans to freely express themselves and governments around the region to accept the results. At the moment, no government is willing to sanction a vote overseen by Mr. Micheletti's administration, and the United Nations has withdrawn its support for the process. If his aim is really to save democracy in his country Mr. Micheletti must act quickly to legitimize the election. The simplest way to do that is to accept the plan put forward months ago by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias -- though any formula that leads to an internationally recognized vote will do. Without a path to elections, the domestic conflict will only intensify -- and that, again, will only help Mr. Zelaya and Mr. Chavez.

Zelaya was trying to fix the Honduran constitution so he could remain in office indefinitely - like his patron in Venezuela. Micheletti accepted an interim appointment as President. So who would you trust to oversee elections? The tyrant's apprentice or the reluctant executive? The Post apparently prefers the former. But that's like giving keys to a drunk and expecting he won't crash.

Here's Micheletti from earlier this week:

Underlying all the rhetoric about a military overthrow are facts. Simply put, coups do not leave civilians in control over the armed forces, as is the case in Honduras today. Neither do they allow the independent functioning of democratic institutions -- the courts, the attorney general's office, the electoral tribunal. Nor do they maintain a respect for the separation of powers. In Honduras, the judicial, legislative and executive branches are all fully functioning and led by civilian authorities.

Coups do not allow freedom of assembly, either. They do not guarantee freedom of the press, much less a respect for human rights. In Honduras, these freedoms remain intact and vibrant. And on Nov. 29 our country plans to hold the ultimate civic exercise of any democracy: a free and open presidential election.
...
The winner of the November election will take office as president of Honduras in January 2010. At that moment my transitional administration will cease, and the newly sworn-in president will hold all the authority vested to him by our country's constitution.

So who would you trust, the man who wrote those words or the guy who has descended into paranoid antisemitism? I would think the choice is obvious.