Jul 31, 2009
The mediation effort that US secretary of state Hillary Clinton arranged to try to resolve the crisis in Honduras,
which began when a military coup removed Honduran President Mel Zelaya
more than four weeks ago, has failed. It is now time - some would say
overdue - for the Latin American governments to play their proper role.
They should take the necessary steps to implement the unanimous mandate from the Organisation of American States: "the immediate and unconditional return" of Zelaya to his elected office.
This can be done with or without the help of the Obama administration.
It is important to note that the last two political crises in the
region were resolved without any significant input from Washington. The
first was in March of last year, when Colombia bombed and invaded Ecuadorian territory, in an operation targeting Colombian Farc guerillas.
Latin
America was united in its response, condemning the violation of
Ecuador's sovereignty. The crisis was resolved at a Rio Group meeting
on 7 March, where President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia apologised and pledged not to violate the sovereignty of any country again.
In
the summer of last year, rightwing Bolivians opposed to the government
of President Evo Morales engaged in a series of violent actions that
raised the spectre of a separatist civil war. The heads of state of the
Union of South American Nations (Unasur) met in Santiago
and unanimously declared their support for the Morales government. This
unified regional response, and the ensuing investigations of right-wing
violence sponsored by Unasur, helped put an end to the insurrectionary
hopes of the Bolivian right.
It was too much to expect that a
mediation process set up by Hillary Clinton would resolve the Honduran
crisis. The US government has too many interests that conflict with what the rest of the region wants and needs.
First,
there is the US military base in Honduras, the only such base in
Central America. The constitutional reform process that Zelaya hoped to
set in motion could easily lead to voters' rejection of foreign troops
on their soil. However much our government may prefer democracy as a
political system, when there is a choice between democracy and a
military base, Washington's track record is not a good one.
Brazil's
foreign minister, Celso Amorim, complained to Clinton that the
mediation process should be within the framework of the OAS resolution,
and therefore should not impose conditions on Zelaya's return -
especially, he said, a coalition government with the people who
overthrew the government. This was one of the conditions proposed by
Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, whom Clinton recruited to mediate.
Amorim
also noted that any negotiated solution that was seen as rewarding the
coup perpetrators would increase the threat of military coups in other
countries. These concerns reflect Latin America's strong and
unambiguous interest in a complete reversal of the coup. They will have
to live with the consequences of failure.
In Washington, by
contrast, we have a muddle of conflicting interests: powerful lobbyists
such as Lanny Davis and Bennett Ratcliff, who are close to Clinton and
are leading the coup government's strategy; the Republican right,
including members of Congress who openly support the coup; and new cold
warriors of both parties in the Congress, the state department and
White House who see Zelaya as a threat because of his co-operation with
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and other left governments.
No wonder
Washington's response to the coup has sent so many mixed signals. The
first White House statement did not even criticise the coup, and the
state department still won't officially call it a coup. And Clinton has
repeatedly refused to say that "restoring the democratic order" in
Honduras means bringing Zelaya back - much less unconditionally. It
took three weeks for the administration to threaten a foreign aid
cutoff, and Washington is alone in keeping its ambassador in place.
Latin
America gave Washington a chance to use its influence with the Honduran
elite to restore democracy there. It didn't work. Now it is Latin
America's turn to take the lead. Hopefully, Washington will follow.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
© 2023 The Guardian
Mark Weisbrot
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), in Washington, DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. His latest book is "Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong about the Global Economy" (2015). He is author of co-author, with Dean Baker, of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (2001).
The mediation effort that US secretary of state Hillary Clinton arranged to try to resolve the crisis in Honduras,
which began when a military coup removed Honduran President Mel Zelaya
more than four weeks ago, has failed. It is now time - some would say
overdue - for the Latin American governments to play their proper role.
They should take the necessary steps to implement the unanimous mandate from the Organisation of American States: "the immediate and unconditional return" of Zelaya to his elected office.
This can be done with or without the help of the Obama administration.
It is important to note that the last two political crises in the
region were resolved without any significant input from Washington. The
first was in March of last year, when Colombia bombed and invaded Ecuadorian territory, in an operation targeting Colombian Farc guerillas.
Latin
America was united in its response, condemning the violation of
Ecuador's sovereignty. The crisis was resolved at a Rio Group meeting
on 7 March, where President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia apologised and pledged not to violate the sovereignty of any country again.
In
the summer of last year, rightwing Bolivians opposed to the government
of President Evo Morales engaged in a series of violent actions that
raised the spectre of a separatist civil war. The heads of state of the
Union of South American Nations (Unasur) met in Santiago
and unanimously declared their support for the Morales government. This
unified regional response, and the ensuing investigations of right-wing
violence sponsored by Unasur, helped put an end to the insurrectionary
hopes of the Bolivian right.
It was too much to expect that a
mediation process set up by Hillary Clinton would resolve the Honduran
crisis. The US government has too many interests that conflict with what the rest of the region wants and needs.
First,
there is the US military base in Honduras, the only such base in
Central America. The constitutional reform process that Zelaya hoped to
set in motion could easily lead to voters' rejection of foreign troops
on their soil. However much our government may prefer democracy as a
political system, when there is a choice between democracy and a
military base, Washington's track record is not a good one.
Brazil's
foreign minister, Celso Amorim, complained to Clinton that the
mediation process should be within the framework of the OAS resolution,
and therefore should not impose conditions on Zelaya's return -
especially, he said, a coalition government with the people who
overthrew the government. This was one of the conditions proposed by
Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, whom Clinton recruited to mediate.
Amorim
also noted that any negotiated solution that was seen as rewarding the
coup perpetrators would increase the threat of military coups in other
countries. These concerns reflect Latin America's strong and
unambiguous interest in a complete reversal of the coup. They will have
to live with the consequences of failure.
In Washington, by
contrast, we have a muddle of conflicting interests: powerful lobbyists
such as Lanny Davis and Bennett Ratcliff, who are close to Clinton and
are leading the coup government's strategy; the Republican right,
including members of Congress who openly support the coup; and new cold
warriors of both parties in the Congress, the state department and
White House who see Zelaya as a threat because of his co-operation with
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and other left governments.
No wonder
Washington's response to the coup has sent so many mixed signals. The
first White House statement did not even criticise the coup, and the
state department still won't officially call it a coup. And Clinton has
repeatedly refused to say that "restoring the democratic order" in
Honduras means bringing Zelaya back - much less unconditionally. It
took three weeks for the administration to threaten a foreign aid
cutoff, and Washington is alone in keeping its ambassador in place.
Latin
America gave Washington a chance to use its influence with the Honduran
elite to restore democracy there. It didn't work. Now it is Latin
America's turn to take the lead. Hopefully, Washington will follow.
Mark Weisbrot
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), in Washington, DC. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy. His latest book is "Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong about the Global Economy" (2015). He is author of co-author, with Dean Baker, of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (2001).
The mediation effort that US secretary of state Hillary Clinton arranged to try to resolve the crisis in Honduras,
which began when a military coup removed Honduran President Mel Zelaya
more than four weeks ago, has failed. It is now time - some would say
overdue - for the Latin American governments to play their proper role.
They should take the necessary steps to implement the unanimous mandate from the Organisation of American States: "the immediate and unconditional return" of Zelaya to his elected office.
This can be done with or without the help of the Obama administration.
It is important to note that the last two political crises in the
region were resolved without any significant input from Washington. The
first was in March of last year, when Colombia bombed and invaded Ecuadorian territory, in an operation targeting Colombian Farc guerillas.
Latin
America was united in its response, condemning the violation of
Ecuador's sovereignty. The crisis was resolved at a Rio Group meeting
on 7 March, where President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia apologised and pledged not to violate the sovereignty of any country again.
In
the summer of last year, rightwing Bolivians opposed to the government
of President Evo Morales engaged in a series of violent actions that
raised the spectre of a separatist civil war. The heads of state of the
Union of South American Nations (Unasur) met in Santiago
and unanimously declared their support for the Morales government. This
unified regional response, and the ensuing investigations of right-wing
violence sponsored by Unasur, helped put an end to the insurrectionary
hopes of the Bolivian right.
It was too much to expect that a
mediation process set up by Hillary Clinton would resolve the Honduran
crisis. The US government has too many interests that conflict with what the rest of the region wants and needs.
First,
there is the US military base in Honduras, the only such base in
Central America. The constitutional reform process that Zelaya hoped to
set in motion could easily lead to voters' rejection of foreign troops
on their soil. However much our government may prefer democracy as a
political system, when there is a choice between democracy and a
military base, Washington's track record is not a good one.
Brazil's
foreign minister, Celso Amorim, complained to Clinton that the
mediation process should be within the framework of the OAS resolution,
and therefore should not impose conditions on Zelaya's return -
especially, he said, a coalition government with the people who
overthrew the government. This was one of the conditions proposed by
Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, whom Clinton recruited to mediate.
Amorim
also noted that any negotiated solution that was seen as rewarding the
coup perpetrators would increase the threat of military coups in other
countries. These concerns reflect Latin America's strong and
unambiguous interest in a complete reversal of the coup. They will have
to live with the consequences of failure.
In Washington, by
contrast, we have a muddle of conflicting interests: powerful lobbyists
such as Lanny Davis and Bennett Ratcliff, who are close to Clinton and
are leading the coup government's strategy; the Republican right,
including members of Congress who openly support the coup; and new cold
warriors of both parties in the Congress, the state department and
White House who see Zelaya as a threat because of his co-operation with
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and other left governments.
No wonder
Washington's response to the coup has sent so many mixed signals. The
first White House statement did not even criticise the coup, and the
state department still won't officially call it a coup. And Clinton has
repeatedly refused to say that "restoring the democratic order" in
Honduras means bringing Zelaya back - much less unconditionally. It
took three weeks for the administration to threaten a foreign aid
cutoff, and Washington is alone in keeping its ambassador in place.
Latin
America gave Washington a chance to use its influence with the Honduran
elite to restore democracy there. It didn't work. Now it is Latin
America's turn to take the lead. Hopefully, Washington will follow.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.