Crisis in Honduras: a constitutional President overthrown

The overthrow of President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales in Honduras has vividly raised the spectre of a continent plagued by coups de etat and dictatorships once more. The governments of Latin America have been unanimous in their condemnation of the coup, with the OAS, the Rio Group, ALBA, Mercosur and UNASUR calling for the restoration of the constitutionally elected president. The ousted President has also received the support of the Inter American Human Rights Commission, and has been invited to address the UN General Assembly ‘as soon as possible’ by its President, Miguel D’Escoto.

Some Context:

Honduras is a deeply unequal country, the richest 10% of the population take home 43.7% of the National Income, while the bottom 30% take just 7.4%. Just under 40% of the population live in poverty (defined as earning less than double the cost of the basic food basket) and only 4.7% of the population have access to the internet, which might go some way to explaining the vociferous (and largely anglophone) criticisms of President Zelaya on some websites[1].

President Zelaya was taking steps to address this inequality, a process which earned him the enmity of much of Congress. He also pursued a leftist foreign policy, joining the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) and bringing in Cuban doctors to provide healthcare to the poorest sectors of Honduran society. This has undoubtedly caused significant discomfort among some in Washington, especially at a time when much of Latin America has seemed to move beyond the reach of US political power. It also caused outrage among the Honduran elite, who have become increasingly hostile to President Zelaya.

The catalyst for the assault on the Presidential home by the armed forces, and the subsequent detention and expulsion of the President from the country was the vote that was due to take place yesterday (Sunday 28^th June) upon whether a referendum ought to be held, alongside the Presidential election ballot in November 2010, which is when Zelaya’s term officially ends, on the convocation of a constituent assembly, . In other words, the coup was sparked by a non-binding vote which asked the population whether or not they wanted to be asked about a constitutional reform.

The coup was officially called for by the Honduran Supreme Court, although this is highly misleading as the Supreme Court in Honduras has no legislative function, rather being the equivalent of an electoral tribunal which governs the electoral process. It is not the highest instance of the Judicial branch, and it is indicative of the state of much reporting on the crisis that this has as yet not been picked up on.

This is merely the first of several lies and misleading statements being issued by the de facto government. Prime among them being that the coup is in fact a ‘constitutional transfer of power’ as if this is possible when the President’s home is assaulted by the military, the President himself bundled into a military aircraft in his pyjamas and flown into exile, with his Ministers detained and beaten alongside the ambassadors of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Secondly, the illegally installed ‘president’, Roberto Micheletti has declared that “80 or 90 percent of the population support what happened today”, this is highly doubtful given his declaration of a curfew, the ongoing demonstrations, road blockades in the west of the country, and the general strike called for by social organisations and the trade union movement. However, Micheletti has unsurprisingly received expressions of support from the Honduran business sector. It remains to be seen whether the Honduran military will be prepared to shed the blood of civilians to protect an illegal government with no international backing.

Although there is little direct evidence of US interference in the coup, Eva Golinger has indicated certain similarities between the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002 and the current situation in Honduras. She points out that a New York Times article states that the US government was working for “several days” with the coup planners in order to 'prevent' the coup. Surely, it would seem naïve not to believe that if the US government had expressed their firm opposition to the coup, it would never have occurred.

Regardless of the extent of US involvement in, or support for the coup, it is undoubtedly a litmus test for President Obama’s policy towards the region. With such universal condemnation of the coup, if the US does not act to support the reinstatement of President Zelaya it will cause profound harm to its relationship with Latin America as a whole, as well as further eroding what little ‘soft power’ the US retains in the region, and send a powerful message about the truthfulness of US rhetoric on liberty, democracy and the right to self determination.

 

---

[1] Figures from 2007, source: ECLAC Annual Report 2008

Snapshots of Obama’s First 100 Days: A French Spring in Washington?

When Barack Obama fielded questions from an adoring French audience in Strasbourg earlier this month, he pleased his hosts by singling out a shining example of European ingenuity in public transportation – the high-speed rail system. The president disclosed his envy for high-speed trains to the audience, and it should not be taken lightly when American presidents get envious. Just two weeks later in Washington Obama actively campaigned for a similar network in the United States and committed $8 billion for good measure.

Riders of the TGV rejoiced at high velocity, no doubt. Six years ago, seldom were heard any encouraging words for all things French. Claims of France’s relegation to the “old Europe” highlighted the opinion that America could replace Paris with Prague and Berlin with Budapest. The election of the progressive Obama has seen off that argument. In a strange twist of fate that would make Donald Rumsfeld smolder, we see a lot more of France in American public policies these days.

Looking at the ambitious agenda laid out in these lively first 100 days, the social democratic tendencies are remarkable. In response to the ongoing financial crisis, the Obama administration is considering deals to secure a large ownership stake in 19 of America’s largest banks. Speculation rose this week that it would seize a majority stake in the nation’s largest automobile manufacturer, General Motors. The stimulus bill passed in February includes $27 billion devoted to transportation infrastructure, in addition to the money set aside for high-speed rail. And then there’s health care component: $634 billion in the administration’s proposed budget to serve as a “down payment” for overhauling the fragmented and ineffective private system into a public-private entity, aimed at driving down costs and providing universal coverage.

You would think a merry band of French social democrats decamped from the rive gauche to infiltrate the Washington area (although surely not on the Potomac’s own left bank, Virginia). To make sure the parallels did not get out of hand, the Brookings Institution convened a panel asking the now mind-blowing question: “Is America the New France?” Senior Fellow and moderator Justin Vaisse quickly pointed out that if the United Sates was indeed turning into France, the journey to New York would take a mere 90 minutes, all citizens would enjoy health coverage, eighty per cent of homes would be powered by nuclear energy, and the food of far higher quality. Clive Crook, the chief Washington columnist with the Financial Times, opined that while the differences are narrowing, Americans and the French still retain vastly different views of the individual’s relationship to the state and of what one should expect of his government. Brookings Senior Fellow William Galston underscored this point with compelling data from a recent OECD survey: French public spending is 15 per cent higher than in the United States. This translates into France boasting half the poverty rate of America and 25 per cent less inequality between the rich and the poor. France also offers twice the amount of benefits to its unemployed, which recently rose to 8.2 per cent.

Overall, the panel concluded, embracing French public policies can yield only limited benefits for Americans. The overriding concern is that the American government, in the absence of a viable and coherent opposition, will exert too much control over its citizens - a decidedly transformative prospect, and not one for the better. All agreed that over-indulging in the American social democratic experiment would be detrimental to the American self-image as independent, self-determined, and hard-working. As for the upgrade in gastronomy, the American appetite will surely abide without any qualms whatsoever.

Obama, Clinton and the Future of US Foreign Policy

Today, one of the most polarizing figures in American politics went before the Senate for confirmation hearings on her suitability to serve as the next US Secretary of State. When Hillary Clinton was nominated back in November many on both sides of the political spectrum were outraged. But perhaps none were more disturbed by her selection than the die-hard, anti-war liberals that helped propel Obama to victory on November 4. While many might see this as a sign of politics as usual, the fact of the matter is Obama made a brilliant decision in choosing Clinton and she will be an excellent Secretary of State – if she is allowed to do her job.

The relationship between the Secretary of State and the President is second to none when it comes to the effective and smooth operation of American foreign policy. A good Secretary of State is one that is said to possess the total trust and confidence of the President. An ineffective Secretary of State is one overshadowed and micromanaged by the President. Rusk was ineffective because Kennedy, a foreign policy neophyte, choose weak man he could control. Kennedy wanted to run foreign policy by himself. Kissinger was effective because Nixon but all his faith in him. Baker did wonders for George H. W. Bush, Powell failed spectacularly because Cheney cut him off at the knees.

Appointing Hillary Clinton Secretary of State sent a message to the world about the importance of shifting American foreign policy in a more liberal internationalist direction. Obama went for political experience. While in the Senate, Clinton stunned experts from fields as diverse as nursing and education, to national security on her grasp of the small details of her diverse policy portfolios. She will bring that same dedication to her job at State. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton brings a level of star power to the post that will strengthen her ability to shed light on important issues by keeping them on the front burner.

But her appointment, and most likely confirmation, are not without risk. Senator Clinton and President -Elect Obama have been rivals. Senator Clinton is seen as pragmatic and reportedly does not carry personal grudges. It is rumored the same is not true for many of her personal staff. When it comes to filling out State Department posts in the next few weeks, the truth will be readily evident. But one should have no qualms about Mrs Clinton getting down to business as part of the team letting sleeping dogs lie.

After all, this is a woman who when elected to the Senate from New York went and worked with people like Lindsay Graham who just a few years earlier had tried to impeach her husband. In no time at all Clinton had Republicans singing her praises as a bipartisan politician. Even Rupert Murdoch reportedly apologized to her during he Senate tenure for the negative press she got in the New York Post while First Lady. If Hillary Clinton is anything at all, she is a can-do operator. But she can only be a doer if the other side plays ball.

Obama is the most popular American politician in living memory, with the star power of Jack Kennedy and the perceived wisdom of Franklin Roosevelt. If such a President backs his Secretary of State wholeheartedly then it would appear that the starts are in alignment. But at the same time, the President is the most visible figure in America. And globally Obama is even more popular. He of course will be giving the orders, but will he let Clinton carry them out in a manner befitting her talents? Even more important, where does Joe Biden, a man widely considered the dean of foreign policy in the Senate fit in to the future running of American foreign policy?

One good option is for Mrs Clinton to do the day-to-day diplomacy, while Mr Biden engages in a radical overhaul of the US national security establishment. Right now, American foreign policy is dead in the water not just because of failed Bush policies. The US Agency for International Development has been gutted, the State Department has been neglected, and the Department of Defense looms large over all aspects of American foreign policy, presenting an overly militarized Uncle Sam to the world. The various organizations do not work well together. Quite frankly, the relationship in conflict zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan has been downright hostile. No wonder US foreign policy is dysfunctional.

With a number of hot button issues such as Iran, Israel-Palestine, the war in Afghanistan, insecurity in Pakistan and a recalcitrant Russia, Mrs Clinton will not have time to run policy while over-seeing a massive overhaul of the State Department, never mind the wider national security architecture. State after all is only one part of a much larger puzzle. Mr Biden, with an excellent knowledge of the type of world American must lead and a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the US national security establishment would be well suited to carry out such a review and start change in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense, State and other related cabinet posts. Using such an approach will ensure that policy problems will be well managed, structural issues can be addressed and Mr Obama will have time to worry about a number of other pressing domestic issues.

There is no reason to doubt that Mr Obama and Mr Biden will not back Hillary Clinton 110 percent. But if history is any guide, the going may be more difficult that many expect. Vanity and ego are not strangers to politics. Hopefully, the wisdom that Mr Obama has displayed in is selection of cabinet appointments will carry on into the execution of policy.