Eleutherian

The U.S. State Department has publicly announced they do not support economic sanctions against Honduras for constitutionally removing their former president. According to Richard Verma, assistant secretary for legislative affiars:

Our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual. Rather, it is based on finding a resolution that best serves the Honduran people and their democratic aspirations.

President Obama has taken a different stance on the issue. Instead of supporting democracy, Obama has refused to recognize the new Honduran president, cut $16.5 million in military aid, and revoked visas for several Honduran government officials.

The U.S. government continues to harass the Honduran government for constitutionally removing their former president. The United States, home to the oldest written constitution of any country, should support the Honduran government and its new president, not lead the international attack against political freedom.

The Washington Post reports that the U.S. has revoked the visas of four Honduran government officials. The Post states:

Officials of the current Honduran government say the arrest was legal, noting that Zelaya had defied the Supreme Court in calling a referendum that could have led to overturning the constitution's ban on a second presidential term. But his ouster has been roundly condemned internationally as a coup.

The international community doesn't care about the country's constitution. A mindset exists that leaders of countries should not be removed. (Unless of course the leader is called a dictator and is removed through military force by a coalition of the willing...then it's just fine).

I love to see countries follow through with their constitution (unlike in the United States and Ukraine). However, while abusing the constitution goes largely unnoticed in many countries, the international community has jumped on the constitutionally-sound removal of the former Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, mislabeling it a "coup."

The decision to remove the president came not from the military but rather from the Supreme Court, which was granted the power through a 2003 amendment. Additionally, after the removal, the military never seized leadership control. The country followed the process outlined in the constitution, swearing in the speaker of Congress as president.

Honduras's constitution clearly dictates presidential limitations and the punishments for attempting to return the country to its authoritarian past.

Article 4 states that attempts to violate the alternation in the office of the presidency constitute "treason." Article 42.5 even says that any person who incites, promotes or supports presidential re-election will lose his or her citizenship.

Zelaya was notified and warned repeatedly by the Supreme Court, Congress, and the attorney general for attempting to change the presidential term limits statute. The military was charged with arresting Zelaya but chose to expel him from the country to avoid a violent confrontation with his supporters.

Would the situation be better or worse with Zelaya in a Honduran prison? The military broke with constitutional procedures in their actions. Only time will tell if they chose wisely. In the mean time, the international community should cease their condescending rhetoric toward the Honduran government. Honduras should be cited as an example of political freedom, not criticized for following their constitution.

The Huffington Post has an interesting article on baby seal clubbing in Namibia. Hunters in the annual commercial seal hunt are expected to club approximately 90,000 seals (representing a little over 10% of the country's seal population of 850,000). The article states:

Namibia is one of only a few remaining countries with a commercial seal harvest. The government argues that the seal population needs to be controlled to protect fish stocks....The government has said seals consume 900,000 tons of fish each year, more than a third of the fishing industry's catch, and that the cull is needed to protect fisheries.

Two interesting points are raised in this article (amusingly titled "Seal Sorrow").

First, there are two instances of how the natural market forces of supply and demand influence the seal clubbing industry around the world:

1. Due to the economic recession and changing consumer tastes, hunters in Canada clubbed less than one-third of their alloted quota. Without adequate demand for seal products, less seals will be hunted each year. This involves economic considerations and cultural preferences - NOT government mandates. It is not the proper role of government to legislate morality.
2. In Namibia, seals are clubbed because they threaten an important human food supply. The real problem here is not the seals but rather the lack of fish. Fishery populations are declining around the world from the over-harvesting that occurs under traditional systems. In the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has proposed instituting individual fishing quotas (IFQs), which gives fishers an incentive to increase the size of their resource. Reason Magazine previously covered and supported similar IFQ systems that have prospered in New Zealand, showing the effectiveness of private sector ownership as an incentive.

The second notable point from the article is the response by animal activists. Some groups continue to work through governments to try to ban the industry and their products. However, they have only succeeded in making felons out of hunters and creating black markets for their goods. Other activists, like Francois Hugo of Seal Alert South Africa, have taken a more practical approach. Hugo effectively delayed Namibia's seal hunt by one week after his failed attempt to purchase the company that purchases the Namibian seal products. While another company would have seen the opportunity to gain a large market share as a result, this at least represents a private sector approach to the cause.