U.S. position on Honduras hurts liberty
One would think that the Obama administration would eschew opportunities to position itself with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. One also would think President Obama would not seek to inject his administration into the constitutionally sanctioned, democratic processes of another sovereign country.
And yet, that’s what’s happened in the case of the ongoing support the president is tacitly lending Mr. Chavez in his efforts to have deposed Honduran president Manuel Zelaya reinstated.
The Hondurans are planning their own democratic elections this fall to replace Mr. Zelaya, who was found to be in violation of that country’s constitution, which provides for removal from office of any individual who seeks a second term as president.
Mr. Zelaya was shown the door because he set in motion a referendum on whether or not he should hold a second term.
Since then, his reinstatement has been a cause celebre for Mr. Chavez, who evidently sees stooge potential in Mr. Zelaya for his far-leftist agenda.
Mr. Chavez, it should be recalled, is no Thomas Jefferson. He came to power via election in the late 1990s, and since then has relentlessly eviscerated that country’s democracy and assumed control of key portions of its private sector, making himself leader for life.
As he has consolidated his power, he has sought to exert his far-left influence and hegemony over other Latin American nations, most notably giving aid and comfort to an insurgent effort to destabilize the U.S.-friendly, democratic government of neighboring Colombia.
Mr. Obama’s swift public condemnation of the constitutional process in Honduras served to align himself and the United States with Mr. Chavez and Venezuela.
Since that time, the administration sought to have a summit conference in San Jose over the issue, sticking Costa Rican President Oscar Arias with the job of recommending a “solution.” Unsurprisingly, that solution turned out to be the reinstatement of Mr. Zelaya as president — at least, the recommendation goes, until the November elections.
The Hondurans aren’t going back on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mr. Zelaya’s case, and last week nixed an Organization of American States effort to persuade them to reverse field.
As a consequence of that refusal, the United States has now cut off all non-immigrant, non-emergency visa services for Honduras. Reuters last week quoted a State Department spokesman saying that the U.S. is taking this action because “we firmly believe a negotiated solution is the appropriate way forward and the San Jose Accord is the best solution.”
Oh, really? For whom?
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
On September 3, the US State Department issued a statement revoking all non-humanitarian assistance to Honduras and said, of the November 29 elections “At this moment, we would not be able to support the outcome of the scheduled elections”.
I guess it depends on what the definition of “is” is.
My personal assesment is that the US continues to feint toward the left on official pronouncements, to keep the interim government in check. It would make more sense that the US, and the international community, insist on a supervised election.
Assasinations carried out against activist members of a fringe party have been associated, politically, to individuals alligned with the “coup”. In a country with so many people vulernable to violence, it is hard to discern who the “good guys” really are. Most often, it is not the common people—whether being exploited by one group, terrorized by the other.
When your friend gets shot to death for refusing to demonstrate for the deposed President, and another sees their children butchered in repraisal for participation in a teachers strike in favor of the deposed President—and both belong to the same evangelical church—its a rude awakening.
antiboyd—
What about the latest statement declaring the US will not recognize the November elections? Other countries are following suit. What will this mean?
Actually, a very shallow analysis and thoroughly non-objective response to a generally overlooked situation.
To distill what has happened in Honduras as a just removal of a President is an oversimplification of what is an ongoing Constitutional Crisis.
Key points missed by the Daily Progress:
President Zaleya turned to Hugo Chavez in a large part as the Bush Administration lost interest in and cut funding support to Honduras in the later years of his Presidency. In fact, it is the gross neglect of the Bush administration that opened the door for anti-American hostility to take root throughout Central and South America, and the unmeasured, inappropriate, and unwanted “colonial” response toward that region that makes it easy for the Chavistas to sieze power.
In contrast, the Obama Administration has pursued an approach consistent with the international community. They condemned the military intervention in the process of removing an elected President, though they did stop short of officially declaring a Coup-de-Etat (unlike the UN, the OAS, the EU).
In one of the few bright spots in Obama’s short tenure, the strategy in play has “worked”. There has been no heavy-handed military intervention on the part of the US—a small miracle in itself since we have a military base in the country—and a very quiet, behind the scenes diplomatic approach—a welcome change of pace.
Lost on the Daily Progress, but not on the interim leadership in Honduras, nor the Honduran people, is an official position encouraging the OAS to mediate the crisis, rather than exert undue US influence, and a diplomatic course that has used an olive branch in place of a big stick. The message is clear, if nuanced: we will not act unilaterally, we will encourage a civil resolution of the conflict, we will allow the people of Honduras to determine the outcome.
Think about it. Honduras is the poorest country, save Haiti, in this Hemisphere. Moreover, it was a staging area for the covert war we fought in Nicaragua. The region had long been destabilized by violent military Coups. What advantage would there be to continuing the failed interventionist “Big Brother” policy of the past? I, for one, see no upside.
In the meantime, what has happened? The Arias-led mediation has failed, almost predictably; blame for that failure rests solely on the parties to the dispute, and their unwillingness to compromise. Violence and bloodshed has been minimal, in comparison to similar crisis in that region. An internal political process—a regularly scheduled general election—will take place—the people will have their say.
This is a case where Secretary Clinton deserves considerable credit (not Obama)—she appears to be the architect of this nuanced approach. Obama wasted little time running his mouth, even as the State Department had been quietly engaged prior to and after the forced removal of Zaleya. She has refused an official audience in Washington to either side of the conflict. The Clinton’s friend, lawyer Lanny Davis, actually represents the interests of the interim government—a valuable ally.
I’d go so far as to speculate that without Hillary, Obama would have had a less moderate, less callibrated approach—given the type of people, mostly leftist radicals, that populate key positions in his administration.
The latest action by the State Department has minimal impact, and taken in context, is a small price for the Honduran people, and their interim government, to pay. It buys time. And in this case, time is the one thing that is working in favor of the “good” guys.
Zaleya has come off, in contrast, looking like a fool. He isn’t taken seriously anymore. He can’t return—the people will not have him. Ortega knows it. Chavez knows it.
“Mission Accomplished”
Thank you, Daily Progress, for getting this story right.
Advertisement