This time courtesy of the U.N.

So let me get this straight, Hugo Chavez and Muammar Gadaffi, both of whom came to their respective power through military takeovers, are allowed to speak at the U.N. but the leader of Honduras, who didn't come to power through anything that could reasonably be considered a "coup", was not?

The article talks about a proposed rule change that would prevent regimes that arose as the result of a coup from being recognized as UN member states and participating in any UN institutions.

That's a good idea.

One thing, (among many, many others), that just doesn't sit right about the U.N. is just how much clout is given to "nations" whose "leaders" came to power at the barrel of a gun. Recognition by the U.N. after a coup almost encourages such behavior. The mere fact that Gadaffi is on the U.N. security council after most recently throwing a tarmac party for the Lockerbie bomber speaks volumes of the U.N.'s commitment to "security".

Good for Namibia for at least making the suggestion.

Russ