The international community rapidly protested against the military ‘coup’ and dismissed the reasons that lead to Mr. Zelaya’s forced resignation. Though he had acted illegally, the use of the military against Zelaya was a bad choice. For some analysts it is still difficult to say, under the Honduran laws, if the military’s actions were, in fact, legal. For example, read Miguel Estrada's LA Times article. Still, the way the overthrow was forced through threatened the democratic order according to the international community. Mr. Zelaya then gained international support.
For a region such as Latin America that has passed through the nightmare of military coups, dictatorships, and dirty wars, the fact that the military have expulsed a President is reminiscent of those tragic periods. The international community is right. Armies are not supposed to exile a President if he commits an illegal action. This was the worst way to deal with Mr. Zelaya’s intended actions against the Constitution.
Roberto Micheletti was sworn in as interim President while new elections are taking place. Today, the Honduran government doesn’t have the support of any major country in the region (certainly not Brazil’s or Mexico’s), not the support of Mr. Chávez (an important economic supplier for Honduras), and certainly not the sympathy of the US. That is why for some analysts the fact that Micheletti’s government is acting with so much radicalism and indifference to negotiation (as if there were alternatives to the isolation that has come to the Central American country) has been disturbing. Some wonder whether the US has committed some kind of support to Michelletti against Mr. Zelaya (a close friend of Chávez). That does not seem to be a feasible option. Even if some conservative sectors in the US have privately supported the action against Zelaya, it does not mean in any way that the Obama administration would favor the coup. In 1963 when President Ramón Villeda was ousted by the military (without a Supreme Court order), the first response of the Kennedy administration was to speak out against the action, but this changed after two months in favor of the new anti-communist regime. Nonetheless, this time the Obama administration is very well aware that this is the first big challenge in the region and a big opportunity to get close to Latin America. The fact that no Latin American country supports the new government in Honduras will prevent the US from taking contrary action or make a similar turn as in 1963.
So with all sanctions against Honduras (expulsion from the OAS, suspension of funds from the Inter-American Development Bank, European Union, World Bank, IMF and the US), one may think that the ‘coup’ was a big miscalculation of those who planned it. I heard from someone from the Mexican government that participated in rounds of talks that have taken place in the region that those who wanted to prevent Zelaya’s re-election balanced the negative impacts of the removal of the President against their conviction that by no means Zelaya could be allowed to reform the constitution. They concluded that going against Zelaya was worth it and the country could afford it. They have succeeded so far. After the conflict, in the remote scenario of Zelaya’s return, the constitutional reform will not be mentioned again. Besides, if elections take place in November, it is likely that a new government will be able to erode sanctions that have been imposed on the country. So, the orchestrators of the ‘coup’ could become the winners after all, with all the sacrifices that the Hondurans have been obliged to tolerate. But all that could change if Micheletti’s government does not show signs of goodwill to the international community regarding the current crisis.
I think that after all, the Honduran conflict shows how fragile democracy still is in Latin America, even though the region celebrates its largest period of democracy with former guerrilla movements acceding to power by elections in Nicaragua and more recently in El Salvador. Latin America today is faced with two threats that challenge the strengthening of democracy: from those that once in office want to manipulate institutions, and from those that will do whatever it takes to preserve the status quo. Both challenges to democracy put institutions in peril.
comments