The legally elected president of Honduras Manuel Zelaya decided he wanted to rewrite Honduras' Constitution and was going to add a non-binding referendum to permit it in an upcoming election in 2009, in order to allow him to run for additional terms. The Honduras supreme court said that was unconstitutional and ordered him to stop. He did not. They ordered the Zelaya to be arrested and exiled to Costa Rica. He was on June 28, 2009.
In what would become a pattern, the Clinton/Obama regime seemed to be blind sided by the whole affair. They hesitated. The hesitation was interpreted as implicit support for the coup. In fact, as time worn on the Clinton/Obama regime recognized the newly formed government and have continued to send money to them for support of their military. The same military that executed the coup.
This is obviously a very simplified version of what occurred, there are a lot of detail and nuances many would like to add to the story, however these are the facts and remain so today. Despite calls by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives for a change in the policy, pointing out the many human rights violations since the coup (not to mention the coup, itself) the Clinton/Obama regime policy has been that the coup was legitimate. This, despite statements by the Clinton/Obama regime in the weeks/months following the coup making half-hearted attempts to support reinstating Zelaya. The facts are that no aid was cut off except some as required by law pertaining to support for democracy. No diplomatic ties have been severed as a result. Nothing has changed other than the names and faces of the Honduras leaders. Oh, and the uptick in violent and bloody human rights violations. This too will become a pattern in the Clinton/Obama regime's foreign policy (or lack thereof).
Admittedly, few in the U.S. media made a big deal out of this and fewer still came down on the Clinton/Obama regime for their lack of..., what really? Lack of interest? Lack of disdain for military coups in their own hemisphere? Lack of support for rule of law? Seriously, in spite of all the other foreign policy debacles that have transpired in the interim, is it any surprise to learn that the Clinton/Obama regime had no interest in such trivial events in such a trivial country? Can't you here Hillary saying in some briefing, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
"Honduras' institutions are particularly troubled, in part as a result of the country's 2009 military coup. Large swathes of the country fall out of the rule of law, making it—and its neighbors—prime terrority [sic] for drug trafficking. "I should take a moment to point out a statement also included in this report regarding the illegal immigration. I'll come back to the entire subject at a later point, but I found the comment so profound I really had to take a moment to point it out. So, apparently Obama met with leaders of these Central American countries to talk about stemming the tide of these illegal child immigrants. This is how these presidents responded:
"The Central American presidents said that the United States bore some responsibility for the crisis, due to its market for illicit substances that pass through the region, and its "ambiguity" on immigration reform." [Emphasis added]I know, fascinating, right? The U.S. is perceived to be ambiguous regarding immigration reform.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand, U.S. foreign policy. So in the early months of the Clinton/Obama regime, the first of many foreign policy failures to come gets scant attention by the U.S. Main Stream Media (from now on referred to as MSM).
Here and here are some of the articles used to write this piece. You'll note that much of the coverage is from foreign media. Shocking, I know.