As our editorial of today argues, there was a very strong rule-of-law case for the removal of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. Zelaya defied his nation’s Supreme Court and Congress in an attempt to give himself an illegal extra term in office. He fired the top military official who refused to help him break the law. In return, he was arrested and exiled. Based on a resignation letter (which Zelaya now claims he did not write), Congress chose a new president to serve until Zelaya’s term ends, after November’s elections (which will go on as scheduled). But the Obama administration has joined the UN and the world in denouncing the “coup” and demanding Zelaya’s unconditional reinstatement.
Now Obama is scolding the president of Niger for behaving in much the same way as Zelaya. According to wire reports, President Mamadou Tandja simply fired Niger’s Supreme Court after they rejected his bid for an illegal extra term. As White House spokesman Robert Gibbs put it, “These decisions undermine Niger’s efforts over the last ten years to advance good governance and the rule of law.”
Take these two conflicting postures together with the administration’s extreme reluctance to say anything substantial about Iran’s election crisis for weeks, out of fear that even a few words in favor of Iranians seeking real democracy and change would constitute “meddling.” Are there any guiding principles to the Obama foreign policy, or is the president just making it up as he goes along?
