The removal from office of the president of Honduras was perfectly lawful, and was neither “undemocratic,” nor a “coup,” as Andrew Hunt argues in his column.
The president was removed by soldiers acting on orders from the Honduras supreme court, and replaced by the speaker of the nation’s congress with almost unanimous approval from legislators. A Gallup poll shows that only 28 per cent of Hondurans oppose their president’s removal.
He was removed after he used intimidation to try to change the Honduras constitution and extend his rule. Article 239 of the Honduran constitution bans presidents from even proposing changes to constitutional term limits, and Article 272 gives the military power to enforce them.
Thus, I did not back a “coup,” as Hunt claims. I simply opposed forcing Honduras to reinstate a president it legally removed from office for misconduct.