Not a Coup?

Since it has been a couple of weeks and some developments in the political situation in Honduras have occurred, I thought I'd do a short follow-up post to "Coups for Breakfast."

Earlier this week, the State Department sent a letter to the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which, among other things, indicated that it had not even been decided as to whether or not what happened in Honduras was a coup. I may be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that when a democratically-elected president is gotten out of bed and forced onto a plane by his country's military, the only word for it is coup. Additionally, the $16.5 million in suspended military aid to the country has done little to show disapproval. As noted in an article in today's New York Times, a business leader in Honduras had this to say about the Obama administration's response to the coup: "Their bark is worse than their bite." Surprise, surprise. If Zelaya had been a little less friendly with Hugo Chavez and a little more friendly to the United States, I'd be willing to put money on a lot more suspended aid and a much more forceful 'bite.'

The letter, laughably, also says that the administration's policy is "based on finding a resolution that best serves the Honduran people and their democratic aspirations." Since this sentence follows one saying that the administration does not support any one side or politician - including, as I've said before, the democratically-elected president - it seems slightly hypocritical. In addition to all of this, the letter says that Zelaya's 'provocative actions' in the weeks leading up to the coup led directly to his removal. However, in a democratic country - or one that claims to be, at any rate - there are presumably other, less violent and controversial methods for confronting a president.

Although President Obama has said, and continues to say, since my last post that he supports the reinstatement of Zelaya, the actions and statements of the administration - and, more broadly, of the U.S. government as a whole - indicate otherwise. Again: surprise, surprise.

-the ambassador

Coups for Breakfast

Over the last weekend in June, the Honduran military overthrew the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in a coup d'etat. Immediately, the move was condemned by governments throughout the hemisphere - perhaps most vocally by two leaders not expected to agree on much: President Obama, and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

Their condemnations were slightly different, of course, since while Obama disagreed perhaps with the method, he stopped short of calling for reinstatement of Zelaya. Chavez, on the other hand, had no such reservations. Additionally, he blamed the U.S. for playing a part in the coup.

While it is true that the U.S. has admitted to being in negotiations with the military prior to the coup, administration officials insist that it was all in an attempt to prevent an escalation in tensions from occurring. However, the lack of disclosure of details from the talks hasn't yielded much confidence in such statements.

President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica has been charged with arbitrating negotiations between Zelaya and interim president Robert Micheletti, but after two days no progress has been made. The coup itself was a result of a referendum (which would not have been legally binding, had it even passed, the likeliness of which is put into serious question by Zelaya's dubious popularity in his own country) Zelaya was pushing for, which would have extended current term limits for the president. Given that Zelaya has been relatively unfriendly towards the U.S. and its policies in the hemisphere, coupled with the fact that he has, on the other hand, been quite friendly with Chavez (who makes no attempt to hide his distrust of America), it seems obvious that the term limit extension would have been undesirable for the U.S.

Now, two-ish weeks later, the condemnations emanating from the U.S. have slowed quite a bit - and some members of Congress have even criticized the Organization of American States (O.A.S.) for suspending Honduras. Surprising to some, perhaps, but certainly not to anyone who knows America's track record with democracy around the world.

As a couple of examples (only two, since this post is running quite a bit longer than I originally planned, but make no mistake: there are many more), there was a successful coup in Chile in 1973 - a coup that overthrew a democratically elected left-leaning government, which was backed to some extent (how much still isn't clear) by the U.S. More recently, in 2002, a coup was attempted in Venezuela to overthrow Chavez himself. The U.S. admitted to meeting with some of the planners in the weeks preceding, but denied encouragement of the coup. Still, it was tacitly approved of by the Bush administration's immediate acceptance of the interim government set up following Chavez's removal. It is no wonder, then, that Chavez remains so suspicious of us.

At any rate, the situation in Honduras remains unresolved, though elections are meant to be held in November. Zelaya has not been allowed back into the country since he was rousted from bed by the military and forced onto a plane. A plane he was on which attempted to re-enter the country last weekend was forcibly kept from landing, again by the military. While Micheletti insists that there was no coup and that the military was simply defending the constitution, the actions of the military say otherwise.

I, for one, doubt that Zelaya will be allowed to return to Honduras until he accepts that he is no longer president, which seems unlikely. Just as unlikely is pressure from the Obama administration for Hondurans to respect democracy.

-the ambassador