a very important question

This beautiful lady from Roatan, Honduras is asking a very important question. What side is Mr. Obama on?

Parsing Mr. Obama's statements

I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya. As the Organization of American States [OAS] did on Friday, I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference.

- President Obama, June 28

Assuming the words an American President speaks (or, especially, releases in statements) are chosen very carefully, let's see what Mr. Obama is really saying:

"I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya."
No shit! This was the day Mel Zelaya went to sleep in Honduras and woke up in Costa Rica. Everyone who is a stakeholder in Honduras was "deeply concerned by the reports." There was a lot of uncertainty about how this would play out (as there still is).

"As the Organization of American States [OAS] did on Friday, I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter."
- "As the Organization of American States [OAS] did on Friday, I call..." He seems to simply be saying that like the OAS he, too, is making a "call." Initially, at least, the United States' official position was to defer to the OAS to resolve the crisis. His mentioning the OAS could be interpreted as an endorsement of all actions taken by the OAS regarding the situation in Honduras. I think this is what gets us Hondurans worried. We know "the United States stands for democracy." (Hell, George W. Bush said that in just about every speech he made and spent close to a trillion [borrowed] dollars to secure an oil source "restore democracy" in Iraq). The OAS, on the other hand, affected as it is by Chavez and his 'compinches' is not so much into the "democracy" thing. Look, for example, at the case of municipal elections in Nicaragua that were allegedly rigged and fraud-ridden. What did the OAS do about that situation? Not so much.
- "respect democratic norms" is vague. Sounds nice but doesn't really say anything.
- "[respect] the rule of law" actually shows support for the democratic institutions of Honduras, as they were upholding the law of the land. Manuel Zelaya was the "actor" not respecting the rule of law.
- "[respect] tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter." Hmmm. I'll get back to this later...

"Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference."
- "existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully" is a smart advice. He's simply asking both sides to refrain from violence in resolving the dispute.
- "through dialogue". The President is merely suggesting a smart way to proceed
- "free from any outside interference". This could actually be interpreted as a warning shot across the bow of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and other interfering types.

While I need to take another look at the Inter-American Democratic Charter, I would say this statement -- overall -- is very neutral. "Diplomatically-correct" is the phrase I've been using lately. He certainly doesn't sound too terribly upset about Mr. Zelaya's ouster, just "deeply concerned." Who knows? Maybe he was just deeply concerned that Costa Rica wasn't far enough, maybe he was thinking, say, the moon would have been a more appropriate drop-off spot for Mel Zelaya.