From a cable sent by the US ambassador to Honduras on 24th July, 2009 we learn that the removal of the then president Zelaya from power by the military and his subsequent deportation was illegal and hence a coup:
— the military had no authority to remove Zelaya from the country;
— Congress has no constitutional authority to remove a Honduran president;
— Congress and the judiciary removed Zelaya on the basis of a hasty, ad-hoc, extralegal, secret, 48-hour process;
— the purported “resignation” letter was a fabrication and was not even the basis for Congress’s action of June 28; and
— Zelaya’s arrest and forced removal from the country violated multiple constitutional guarantees, including the prohibition on expatriation, presumption of innocence and right to due process.
The official US response to the coup back then was ambivalent. While the Hondurian military’s actions were condemned, the US government accepted the outcome of the coup. It hesitated to put pressure on the coupists and sought to mediate between them and Zelaya and his supporters. This was sold as a properly neutral, unbiased position, but the end result was that the coupists won: Zelaya remains in exile while they remain in power. Had the US made this analysis coming from its own embassy public, it would’ve been much harder if not impossible for the coup to succeed.