When i heard about it a few nights ago, I couldn't help but think back to what occured with Queen Liliuokalani back in 1893.I've been watching videos on it, gathering info. on the details what happened reported by non-US media, and I couldn't help but make comparisons.They say that he was about to hold a controversial referendum but that's when the Supreme Court stepped in, vowing that they were defending the rule of law, saying that what Zelaya was doing was illegal. Worse, Congress claimed that they accepted what was a letter of resignation from the President, though he denied having written it.Even Pres. Obama, which is what got me, said something like this is like going backwards, and that he hopes that we don't see more of these, where military coupls are a means for political transition.Now tell me, how much of this is similar to what happend to the HK? And how much of it actually differs? Although I don't know all the details of their constitution and if it was illegal for the President to have this referendum or as they say seeking to change the constitution to allow him to stand for re-election, did they have to go to extremes?Just seeing the people going against their own military says a lot. Yesterday while watching a video on BBC's website, they even pointed to the speak of Congress who was sworn in as the interim (I guess) Pres. that it is more of an elite group that is taking over.Again, akin to what happened in Hawaii. And yet I continue to read about these opinions of other countries, for most (based on the info. I've gathered myself) other countries, they support Zelaya and like Obama, recognizes him as the legal head of state. Yet again, I go back to what happened to the HK, why didn't other nations recognize Queen Liliuokalani as the head of State? Of course that's an easy one to answer, but I'd be interested to see others think.
I think they did, however the U.S. used the Monroe Doctrine that gives them the right to go to war if needed to agains those who opposed. Similar to Manifest Destiny to take what you can at all cost! I'm not an historian, but perhaps others can shed light on this topic too.
Comments