Fuera Mel, Fuera Chavez
Posted on July 2nd, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
Despite the amusing coincidence that the color scheme of Eunomia already happened to be pretty close to the colors of the Honduran flag, I am going to do my best not to become an enthusiast. Nonetheless, the more I watch the global condemnation of Honduras’ new government and the expressions of support for that government from Hondurans rallying in the streets, the more I find the international response and Washington’s participation in it absolutely appalling. We should be clear about a few things: we are not all Hondurans (nor would such empty declarations of solidarity do anything for Hondurans anyway), but for that very reason their internal affairs ought to be none of our concern. As I have noted before, state sovereignty is something that very few people take seriously on a regular basis. After all, as we have been told, there are supposedly no longer any internal affairs, but if there is anything that truly is a purely domestic concern it would have to be a constitutional crisis and the enforcement of the country’s own laws against officers of its government.
The swiftness with which several major European states have withdrawn their ambassadors and the speed with which neighboring states have cut off trade relations would make you think that the Honduran government was embarked on a policy of genocide or the brutal suppression of political dissidents. Despite years of internal chaos, misrule and violence, Zimbabwe’s neighbors have never managed such decisive action. Burma’s relations with the surrounding region remain remarkably intact in the wake of the violent crackdown two years ago. Sudan has plenty of friends and allies regardless of what it does. Fortunately the world has moved with dispatch to answer the menace of an internal, largely peaceful political conflict in Honduras. Virtual unanimity in opposing the new Honduran government is easy to obtain in these circumstances, because the outrage comes at such a cheap price. Unlike a risky and probably counterproductive policy of isolating the Iranian government with sanctions and active support for the protesters, there are no serious consequences for almost all of the states now punishing Honduras’ government for its “crime.” Honduras cannot retaliate against any of the actions now being taken against it. Even when one grants that Honduras’ political and military leaders went about things in the wrong way, it is difficult to see the international response as anything more than the most obnoxious grandstanding and moral preening.
Frankly, it makes a mockery of much of the sympathy foreign governments have been showing the protesters in Iran, who are effectively in the same position vis-a-vis Khamenei and Ahmadinejad as Zelaya’s opponents are in relation to Zelaya. Both groups are seeking remedies to illegal actions taken by the heads of their respective governments, but the difference is that Honduran anti-Zelaya forces have succeeded. It is rather as if the IRGC heeded Mousavi’s call to return to the pure principles of the Islamic revolution and arrested Ahmadinejad, then Mousavi took his place, and then the entire world declared Mousavi’s ascension illegitimate and unacceptable.
There are reasonable arguments why refusing to isolate other, incomparably nastier regimes may be the better course of action, but it also doesn’t hurt that major regional and international players have vested interests in not isolating them. Honduras has nothing to use as leverage, and so has no clout, which means that it can be kicked around with impunity. This conflict is one that the deposed president escalated until all the nation’s institutions decided that he had to go. In response, many international institutions and governments have decided that it is not only acceptable but imperative to punish Honduras and to deprive an already poor country of both trade and aid. If it is normally morally questionable to pursue policies that are likely to harm the most vulnerable and weakest members of a population, in this case it seems simply inexcusable, because the wrong that has been done is almost purely a procedural one. Few seem willing to dispute that Zelaya had broken the law and deserved to be removed from office. To its credit, the administration has so far refused to go as far as others have, but it has nonetheless provided cover and support to those beating up on Honduras.
Update: On that last point, I may have given the administration too much credit. The State Department has already suspended much of our aid to Honduras, which will then be cut off indefinitely once they formally declare that a coup has taken place.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
Very well said, Daniel.
In principle, your criticism of the US response to Honduras is true, but if we are talking about the pursuit of American interests in the region, it doesn’t apply. Whether you like the logic of it or not, going along with regional and worldwide condemnation of the coup in Honduras is in America’s self-interest, in that we are best served by distancing ourselves from any criticism that we helped plot or organize or support this coup, which is what the region has come to expect from America. By opposing the coup, it strengthens America’s hand in the region, letting others know that we are not going to back coups against governments in the region, whatever faults that government might have. So while it might to you seem that Obama is interferring in Honduran affairs, the actual perception regionally and worldwide is that Obama is making it clear that America will not interfere in other governments. It’s a strange case where making condemnations like this, which seem to interfere with Honduran affairs, actually sends the opposite signal, and it is being well-received in the region for that reason.
The papers have been full of how Washington was aware of the plan and actively discouraged it, albeit to no effect. The administration already distanced itself from criticism that it backs coups by not backing the coup. Conspiracy theorists will believe what they want to believe, so I don’t see what more they needed to do than that. That doesn’t mean that it then has to run to the other side and declare it illegal and join in demands for Zelaya’s restoration.
If other people see this as non-interference, that is so much the worse for the reputation of a policy of non-interference. Bombing Serbia over Kosovo was well-received in much of Europe–that didn’t mean it was the right or smart thing to do. Aligning our government with all of the forces trying to bring pressure on Honduras is not direct interference, but it is lending aid to those who are trying to interfere. A little more respect for Honduran sovereignty would be a more significant signal that Washington respects the rights of Latin American nations than offering support to the cause of a disgraced executive.
Actually, when our foreign policy is well-received by others, it means by definition that it is good foreign policy, since it advances our national interests to have a good reputation among foreigners. Even if, as you say, it is “wrong” in some principled sense to condemn Honduras and suspend its foreign aid, it is “right” to do so if it advances our national interests. This is why it matters how our actions are perceived more than what their intrinsic value actually is.
Of course, this depends on such matters as blowback. Intervening in Iran in 1953 in plotting the Shah’s coup manifestly did not advance our national interests, in that it stimulated a long anti-American tradition culiminating in the 1979 revolution and continuing ever since. But I see little chance of Obama’s actions relative to Honduras resulting in blowback to us. Quite the opposite, it seems to be having a positive effect on our foreign image, to be seen as going against those who are perceived to be breaking the law and stealing the Presidency of Honduras. So even if you don’t like Obama taking a stand against the coup, the rest of the world does, and that helps America’s national interests.
I understand why this creates a division in your philosophical approach to the politics of intervention, but I’m not sure what you would propose otherwise. Should we sacrifice what is in our national interest in order to support a policy of strict non-comment and disinterest in the foreign affairs of other nation? Doesn’t that seem to be going against your own principles, that US foreign policy should act in America’s own national interests, and not be guided by strict adherence to some abstract principles, whether conservative or liberal?
As for the cause of the “disgraced executive”, the man is going to be out of office within a year when his term ends anyway. So re-instating him doesn’t mean doing anything other than letting him finish his term of office without extra-legal removal, as has occurred. SInce everyone in the region, and virtually in the world, supports this, why on earth should America oppose it? It’s not interferring in another country’s internal affairs to refuse to give it aid, or to recognize the legitimacy of its government, especially when we don’t need to and it would hurt our image in the region and the world. Obama is certainly not suggesting some kind of actual intervention, with soldiers and so forth. There’s no need for that. Nor is this some long simmering problem for the US. It’s an easy course of action, to be sure, but taking the harder, more paleo route seems not to have any serious benefits to us either.
Also, though you admit that Obama has helped dampen rumors that the Americans helped this coup occur, that is once more an example of America interferring in Honduras’ internal affairs, something you say you abhor. So the fact is, even you admit that interfering in Honduras’ internal affairs has helped our national interests, by supporting the case that we did not plot this coup. But if that helped our national interests, doesn’t it help our national interests even more to go further down that line, by condemning the coup and suspending aid to the government? That way we make it clear that the original story wasn’t a smoke screen to hide covert action. And it puts us in the role of “good guy”, at least as perceived by the world. So it’s hard to make a case, I think, that Obama has acted against our national interests in Honduras, even if he has interfered to some small degree with their internal affairs.
To clarify the last post, the first sentence should have read something like….
“Also, though you admit that Obama has helped dampen rumors that the Americans helped this coup occur [by strongly advising and working against the coup before it happened], that is once more an example of America interferring in Honduras’ internal affairs, something you say you abhor.”
The similarity in both cases is anti-democratic activity. Ahmadinejad’s party stole an election, the Honduran military deposed an elected official. The U.S. response is appropriate in both cases. The main reason we did less with respect to Iran is that we had forfeited any leverage by our long history of confrontation.
It is rather as if the IRGC heeded Mousavi’s call to return to the pure principles of the Islamic revolution and arrested Ahmadinejad, then Mousavi took his place, and then the entire world declared Mousavi’s ascension illegitimate and unacceptable.
With the exception that Mousavi has not called for the military to depose Ahmadinejad. It’s the fact that he has rejected a naked grab for power that had garnered him some sympathy.
Few seem willing to dispute that Zelaya had broken the law and deserved to be removed from office.
So the ends justify the means? This is odd coming from a supposed paleoconservative. I’d say a fairly large minority, if not majority, feel that Bush broke the law on many occasions during his term in office. Would you have supported a military coup here?
At any rate, I think it’s perfectly justifiable to link U.S. aid to a ‘no coup’ policy, along with membership in the OAS, particularly given the history in Latin America.
in this case it seems simply inexcusable, because the wrong that has been done is almost purely a procedural one
We’ve already seen the Honduran government suspend civil liberties. We’ve had Honduran military forces raid unsympathetic TV and radio stations. We’ve seen beatings of peaceful protesters on the streets. This morning in San Pedro Sula, Honduras’ second-largest city, explosions and gunfire were heard in the vicinity of city hall. The mayor, a political opponent of Marchetti (he beat him in the mayoral race) has vanished. Micheletti’s nephew has been installed as his replacement. Al Giordano (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/) is indispensable here.
But nothing to worry about, just procedural stuff.
Interesting – it appears that the mayor of San Pedro Sula, Rodolfo Padilla Sunseri, has been deposed and replaced by Roberto Micheletti’s nephew, who lost to Sunseri in a primary last year.
If true, it looks like the new regimes committment to democracy is a tad questionable.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/coup-%E2%80%9Cpresident%E2%80%9D-installs-nephew-%E2%80%9Cmayor%E2%80%9D-honduras%E2%80%99-second-city
“Anti-democratic activity.” What perfect Newspeak. Everyone can wrap himself up in the banner of democracy and claim that the other person is acting in an “anti-democratic” way–it doesn’t mean anything. Furthermore, when the ostensibly democratic force is acting illegally, I don’t care whether it’s democratic or not. Al Giordano is showing himself daily to be an unreliable partisan. Does it not trouble anyone that there have been so few actual, you know, Hondurans condemning the transitional government?
Would I have supported holding Bush accountable for his crimes? You better believe I would have. Unlike here, their political institutions actually tried to keep their executive in check. Does that mean that involving the military was necessary? No, probably not. That was a mistake. The ends don’t justify the means, and I have never said that they do. Ideally, those responsible would have to answer for taking extra-legal measures against Zelaya. But a failure to pursue a political and legal process is hardly the most grave error the Honduran elite could have committed. It certainly doesn’t justify targeting Honduras for punishment because it handled a constitutional crisis poorly.
The disproportionate nature of the international response to what has happened is glaring. Does anyone actually believe that the treatment Honduras is receiving at the moment is justified? I’d like to see someone explain why it is appropriate to isolate and penalize a poor, small country for this sort of mistaken handling of an internal political problem.
I’m not sure what’s disproportional about the international response to this situation. People are condemning a military coup, which seems pretty proportional to me. Once you take the step of bringing in the military to resolve a domestic political dispute, you’ve crossed a line that’s going to bring a lot of international condemnation. But that’s perfectly proportional. What would be disproportional is some kind of military counter-action, or trade embargo, etc. There’s nothing wrong with purely political isolation, however. That’s how politics works. Those who step too far out of line, get isolated proportionally. The region is very sensitive to the whole issue of military coups, and it doesn’t want such things to be considered an acceptable way to change a government people are dissatisfied with. Not sure why you have such a hard time seeing that.
Some amazing sophistry going on in here in support of Zelaya…
“You are in a maze of twisty, turny passages, all alike…”
A trade embargo would be excessive, you say? So when Honduras’ neighbors shut down trade with Honduras in protest, I assume that would count as an overreaction. Fortunately, Honduras’ neighbors have apparently now seen reason and ended the embargo. But that isn’t all. The World Bank is suspending development aid loans. Whatever I might think of the ultimate wisdom of development aid, cutting off that supply of funds to an impoverished country to make a political point over this crisis is very hard to defend.
Let’s think about this political isolation some more. The OAS is getting ready to expel Honduras at the same time that many of its members are pushing to bring in Cuba. As it happens, I think Cuba shouldn’t be excluded from the organization anymore, because its exclusion is a useless holdover from the Cold War, but then I don’t make an idol out of democracy as the OAS pretends to do. When it comes to Cuba, the OAS is suddenly very concerned about national sovereignty and non-intervention in internal affairs, which reminds us that probably half of the complaints about what has happened in Honduras are purely opportunistic and driven by sympathy for the politics of the deposed president.
Yes, a trade embargo is excessive, but as you say, that’s been lifted. Reaction to a very recent coup is also very different than accepting the perpetual existence of a non-democratic regime such as Cuba’s. Honduras’ neighbors and the international community are well within their rights to be worried about military coups in the region, and using their political and even economic influence to convince Honduras to rectify this mistake seems like a proportional response. Honduras cannot expect outsiders, including the IMF, to support their government under all circumstances. If they feel that accepting such aid is less important than saving face over this stupid coup, then it is they who are placing their own insider politics above the welfare of their people. Or do you think that Honduras’ government has an inherent right to IMF money regardless of its actions? If you are against outside intervention, you ought to be against the IMF altogether, so it’s actually good that the IMF is withdrawing support for the regime.
I’m supposed to agree that using Honduras’ dependency on outside aid to dictate its internal political choices is the non-interventionist position? That’s ridiculous. You might as well say that I have to endorse past imperial seizures of other nations’ customs houses over unpaid debts. After all, those nations didn’t have a right to loans! I don’t know how you can sit there and tell me that all the wealthier and more powerful nations in the world are justified in squeezing Honduras because they kicked out their criminal president.
I don’t want the IMF to exist, in part because it creates the dependency that can be used in this fashion to compel states to pursue policies they may not want, but it does exist. Hey, look, I’m being pragmatic and dealing with the world as it is–you should be pleased. Honduras doesn’t have a right to aid. The institutions that give this aid obviously don’t think their aid is useless or counterproductive. Withholding it over this crisis is absurd. This is all an exercise of power and demonstrating who is really in charge. It is a reminder that Honduras isn’t really allowed to govern itself, but has to do what its creditors tell it to do. If you can’t see what’s wrong with that, I doubt anything I say will matter.
The proposed expulsion of Honduras is based on its alleged violations of the Charter. Cuba could not adhere to that Charter if it joined tomorrow. That’s the point. If Honduras’ actions are intolerable under the Charter, Cuba’s are routinely beyond the pale. As Alvaro Vargas Llosa has pointed out, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador have all engaged in violations of the Charter and have not suffered because of this. Until this week, these same governments couldn’t have cared less about the Charter. Again, this is simply a raw power play designed to force Honduras to receive someone they cannot stand and want gone.
I’m glad that you’re being at least half-pragmatic, but going only half-way leaves you stuck in the middle of the cross-fire. You simply can’t expect international bodies like the IMF, or the US for that matter, to give aid to countries unconditionally. And you can’t expect them to prop up governments through this aid when they don’t approve of what that government does. It’s simply not pragmatic to assume otherwise. Yes, Honduras needs aid, and yes, if it wants that aid, it has to play by certain rules. If it doesn’t want to play by those rules, it will have to do without that aid. This all seems pretty straightforward. You simply can’t logically advocate the continuation of IMF aid “without interfering in Honduras’ internal affairs”, when that aid is clearly a form of interference with Honduras’ internal affairs. And yes, lenders do have a right to impose conditions on those they give loans to. If a country doesn’t want to abide by those conditions, they shouldn’t ask for help. If they can’t survive without help, they’ve already ceded some of their own sovereignty.
I have no problem treating Cuba as an international pariah. It is deserving of that designation. But I see no “raw power play” involved here. No one really has anything to gain here from Honduras, one way or another. It’s about as insignificant a country as there is. It’s simply about a principle of keeping the miltiary out of democratic government, trying to establish a precedent that helps protect other governments in the region from similar non-democratic responses to political crises. Of course there’s been violations before. That’s why everyone in the region is so interested in making a simple example here.