democracy in Latin America
Source: by Roger F. Noriega, The American Enterprise Institute Posted
on: 13th September 2009
The Obama administration's troubling moves in the last two weeks do
little to bolster democracy in Latin America.
On the same day last week, with the stated objective of promoting
democracy, the Obama administration made it easier for Cuban exiles to
visit their families on the island and made it next to impossible for
Hondurans to visit the United States. In the interest of defending
democracy in Honduras, the administration also rejected elections
planned for November. It seems that U.S. diplomats have concluded that
the only way to ensure the integrity of Honduran elections is to impose
the restoration of ousted president Manuel Zelaya, a would-be autocrat
who forfeited his job in June for undermining those elections in the
first place.
Most of the world misunderstood the events that led to Zelaya's legal
ouster and his exile on June 28 at the hands of the Honduran military.
While some have deferred to the right of the functioning Honduran courts
and congress to interpret and apply their own constitution, most
governments continue to insist that Zelaya should be restored to power.
Unlike most foreigners, Hondurans have read Article 239 of their
constitution and have concluded that Zelaya forfeited his legal claim to
power by trying to hold on to it by overturning an ironclad term limit.
Moreover, Hondurans—most of whom had nothing to do with sending Zelaya
into exile—know that Article 375 would hold them legally liable for
failing to oppose Zelaya's crimes.
Regardless of the sincere arguments on both sides, most observers have
accepted that Hondurans are virtually united in refusing to allow Zelaya
to return to power. Even the demander-in-chief, Venezuelan president
Hugo Chavez, conceded ten days ago that Zelaya's restoration is "hard to
imagine." There was universal acceptance, grudging or otherwise, that
presidential elections scheduled for November 29 represented a path back
to recognized legitimacy for the Honduran government.
As in many Latin American governments, elections in Honduras are
conducted by a nonpartisan tribunal that is a separate and independent
branch of government; the four impartial electoral magistrates were
chosen for their technical expertise. The date and conditions for this
fall's national elections—to choose a new president and congress—were
decreed by Honduras's Supreme Electoral Tribunal in May. All of the
presidential candidates (including the Liberal standard-bearer, Elvin
Santos, who was Zelaya's vice president) were chosen before Zelaya left
office. After flirting with the idea of moving up the date for the
presidential elections to mollify foreign concerns, Zelaya's successor
has not interfered with the work of the electoral tribunal. Moreover,
this same electoral law and tribunal were sufficient to see Zelaya to a
narrow victory just four years ago.
But after two months of wrestling with whether or not the events in
Honduras even constituted a military coup d'état (and eventually
deciding not to decide), the administration adopted draconian sanctions
against Honduras by cutting aid, revoking the visas of those supporting
Zelaya's ouster and refusing to issue visas to Hondurans altogether, and
delegitimizing elections three months before they are even held.
Because State Department lawyers essentially concluded that Zelaya's
ouster was not a military coup triggering a required response, these
tough and blunt measures were clearly discretionary. The fact that these
gestures were announced after Zelaya's most zealous supporters had
recognized that he would never be restored to power makes these
decisions absolutely gratuitous. The sole impact is to paint Honduras,
the United States, and the rest of the international community into a
corner by casting doubt on elections that had nothing to do with
Zelaya's ouster other than constituting a rather salutary solution to
the whole mess.
For decades, the left has criticized the United States for its alleged
failure to respect tiny nations, and the United States has urged these
nations to adopt democratic constitutions and institutions worthy of
respect. Tangled logic, cynicism, and ideological reasoning have
produced a situation where the United States is disrespecting a tiny
nation for daring to defend its constitution and institutions against
foreign meddling.
It is clear that the clumsy response of the administration is rooted in
its desire to run with the pack—in this case a pack led by Hugo Chavez,
a man who has cast himself as our principal foe and who has accused the
United States of supporting a coup against Zelaya despite our posturing.
There clearly is nothing wrong with working in concert with our
neighbors, so long as U.S. interests and ideals are advanced in the bargain.
One can only hope that before any permanent damage is done to our
credibility or to our friends in Honduras, U.S. policy makers will
recognize that what is best for us is supporting elections so the
Honduran people can decide what is best for them.
Topics: constitution, Cuba, democracy, Governance, Honduras, Latin
America, Obama Administration, politics, United States, US
Cuba Sí, Honduras No? What the White House isn't doing to bolster
democracy in Latin America | The Gov Monitor (13 September 2009)
http://thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_states/cuba-si-honduras-no-what-the-white-house-isnt-doing-to-bolster-democracy-in-latin-america-4770.html
No comments:
Post a Comment