EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Rattling Democracy in Latin America
Ecuador's recent crisis proves that a decisive and unified response from the international community can help determine the outcome of an illegitimate coup.
In late September, tear gas and the smoke from burning tires filled the air as Ecuador's president was held hostage in a police hospital.
For people throughout the Americas, Ecuador's attempted coup brought flashbacks of the June 2009 coup in Honduras. Indeed, Honduran activists still reeling from the 2009 coup were among the first to send messages of solidarity to people in Ecuador resisting the attempted coup. But why did the coup fail to topple President Rafael Correa in Ecuador, while in Honduras the current president was the winner of elections hosted by an illegal coup-installed government?
More than a year after the coup that overthrew President Manuel "Mel" Zelaya, politically motivated human rights violations in Honduras remain disturbingly common. a recent Witness for Peace delegation to Honduras confirmed that human rights conditions have deteriorated since the coup. Under acting president Porfirio Lobo, journalists, labor organizers, women, and members of the gay community have all become targets of state violence. Targeted assassinations and threats against social movements continue to be denounced on a monthly basis and the country has also become one of the most dangerous worldwide for journalists.
The United States is one of the few countries that has recognized Lobo's presidency. For example, President Barack Obama hosted Lobo at an official function for heads of state in New York City a few weeks ago. The tacit consent that Washington has shown Honduras allows continued U.S. funding for the Honduran military, despite accusations of its involvement in systematic human rights abuses.
For months, independent observers have warned that U.S. support for the military coup government in Honduras will embolden right-wing forces and cause instability throughout the Americas.
When protesting Ecuadorian police officers assumed control of the country's airports, tear-gassed the president, and held him hostage in a local hospital, it confirmed those fears.
Since taking office, President Correa has pursued economic policies that challenge U.S. corporate interests and refused to allow the United States to continue to use the Manta military base. Correa's alignment with the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) fed suspicions that the U.S. would support the attempted coup.
But within hours of the news breaking, Latin American, European, and North American governments expressed clear support for democracy in Ecuador. Secretary Hillary Clinton issued a statement that "urge[ed] all Ecuadorians to come together and to work within the framework of Ecuador's democratic institutions to reach a rapid and peaceful restoration of order."
And by 10 o'clock that night, a team of more than 500 military and police officials had rescued Correa, and the coup d'etat was largely considered a failure.
In contrast, the United States never spoke out strongly against the Honduran coup and was quick to throw support behind Roberto Micheletti and then Lobo's government. Now, even as reports of human rights abuses pour out of Honduras, the United States continues to support Lobo both symbolically and financially.
Ecuador's recent crisis proves that a decisive and unified response from the international community can help determine the outcome of an illegitimate coup. Honduras can't wait any longer: The United States must take a stand on human rights by voting against Honduras' reintegration in the Organization of American States. If we fail to hold the Honduran government accountable, it will set a dangerous precedent, leading to more antidemocratic acts of force in the Americas.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

16 Comments so far
Show Allthe "international community" is in NO way unified for any political or economic purposes.
ecuador and correa was lucky this time, as the US and its fascist allies were busy putting more urgent fires out elsewhere whereas other progressive latin american leaders could afford to act swiftly and decisively.
Unrest in Ecuador ended the night the crisis started. "Other progressive latin American leaders" did nothing to solve the problem, it was solved when the military acted to pull the president out of the hospital where he was surrounded by angry policemen.
US allies are not all fascists. Would you define a fascist for us?
perhaps the other south american countries did not directly aid in keeping Correa in power...and his country's Army did ....BUT it is quite likely that apart from the army's and special police department's loyalty to his administration...the KNOWLEDGE of how the other "left leaning" south american countries came behind Honduras' deposed leader against Zelaya ....REMINDED the army and special police where their loyalties OUGHT to be...to their duly elected leader:
CORREA.
I don't think it really matters what other left leaning countries did or did not do. Left leaning countries aren't necessarily working as they should (meaning their democracies are weak and tend to be autocratic). They do prefer Corresa to a coup, but Chile's government also protested the police uprising, and they are not that far left of center.
Look at history, the "left leaning" countries in Latin America raised a storm during the Honduras coup and nothing happened. The whole credit goes to Ecuador, its Army, and its other institutions. Outsiders had no impact on outcome. They usually don't.
Left-leaning countries in South America raised a storm and little happened in Honduras not nothing. The US still supported the coup, of course. They would likely support the coup in Ecuador as well were they to decide that they could get away with it.
Of course having the US overextended in the Middle East is a factor, and likely a decisive one in most scenarios.
But none of this indicates that response from the rest of the hemisphere has no effect. The US makes these decisions based largely on profit-loss decisions made by related corporations and major players in government. If you can make the decision to attack more costly or less gainful, they change strategy.
The "left leaning" countries in Latin America, speaking very generally, could teach the US a thing or two about democracy. I suppose in a lot of senses that's no great shakes. But it is a marked shift from the rightist regimes of the last centuries.
Sara Joseph has a peculiar definition of "democracy" and where it is in Latin America.
Well it a lot further along then that "Democracy" in the United States of America is it not?
clinton was up to her neck in the coup in honduras.....
just the 1st of many if those pesky countries in central and south america keep up their dreams of true democracy where the oligarch's don't run roughshod over the locals......
john perkins has laid it all out in his books on the economic jackals and hitmen - as he was one until he saw the light so to say.....
honduras was the point when all hope for a new admin hit the proverbial brick wall at 100 mph
gnken
Lot's of luck. Wait till after the Election and the Republicans take the House and Senate. I know a consultant who told me he is traveling to Columbia and Venezuela quite frequently. This person is not a fan of Hugo Chavez to quote him he says "Chavez is a F*)*&g Bum". I look for more violence to erupt supported by the US and Obama won't have much say so. I look for Columbia to be the big Staging point to lauch and help fund Coup's to overthrow current Govt.s in the Americas that the US Doesnt like. We shall see.
My guess is that within hours, when Clinton had to say something, it was not at all clear that the golpistas would be successful, and the US was helpless to have the Marines fly Correa out of the country to the Central African Republic (not having granted Correa his base outside Miami), so she said what she said, which was, effectively, nothing. It doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of Correa to me.
Even more to the point, to judge politicians based on their pronouncements rather than on what they do and what they choose not to do, is regrettably naive. If the words "Hillary" and "democracy" are used in the same sentence, there's a risk of their mutual annihilation, like matter and anti-matter.
"For months, independent observers have warned that U.S. support for the military coup government in Honduras will embolden right-wing forces and cause instability throughout the Americas."
Isn't that the point? Kind of like how we destabilized Chile (but one example) to bring stability.