There’s recently been a coup in Honduras. The specifics are odd and seem mitigating, after the military ousted the President the legislature removed him from office and the Supreme Court had been actively countermanding his orders, mostly notably his firing of the head of the military.
Nonetheless, the event has been universally condemned in the Organization of American States and the U.N., properly in my view. Nonetheless, via Austan Mogharabi of the Democratic Piece, Daniel Larsen critiques our meddling and compares it with our more limited criticism of the Iranian electoral theft and crackdown. Larson makes the fair point that our bad history doesn’t only apply to Iran:
U.S. intervention in Honduras has been no less than it has been in Iran. Indeed, it has been far greater. At least six times in the 20th century beginning in 1907, U.S. forces were deployed in Honduras. For fear that the U.S. might be seen to be replicating the error of 1953, Obama has kept his distance from the Iranian dispute. As ever, Central American nations’ past resentments about frequent U.S. intervention count for little or nothing, and so Obama has dived right in. [Emphasis mine]
I completely agree that U.S. forces should not be used here. The President hasn’t even officially declared it a coup pending OAS negotiations. Such a declaration would cut off U.S. aid. Similarly he hasn’t met with the ousted President who as I said above seems like he should have been ousted, albeit by legal means.
So why the tougher line on what can be accurately described as a more benign coup?
- Honduras is part of a region with nigh universal democracy and international organizations that reinforce those norms.
- Honduras has a much closer relationship with the U.S. and thus is more open to non-violent influence.
- Iran is a great power, Honduras is not. I’m not realist, but yes, that sort of thing does factor in. Ignoring such a factor can tend to get people killed.
I think point #1 is the most important. Note the highlighted text above, we’re not getting out ahead of Central Americans, we’re following a more aggressive Organization of American States (which also consists of South and North Americans, but it’s unanimous so it isn’t as if we’re outvoting them). This is not the President’s first Latin American challenge. The first one was dealing with Cuba and the OAS. Sec. Clinton handled that one well and a move towards full normalization of Cuba into the OAS was thwarted while at the same time the historic barriers based on communism rather than authoritarianism were removed. I do support re-engaging with Cuba diplomatically and economically, but we shouldn’t treat it the same a democratic regimes.
I have no objection to the President being removed from power. I don’t even object if the legislature has to stretch some to do it. I’m now fairly supportive of the impeachment of U.S. President Andrew Johnson (although he wasn’t convicted and removed). He was impeached not so much for crimes as ineptitude. I can live with that. What wouldn’t be okay would be if the military removed him and then Congress impeached him. I expect the ultimate resolution will be essentially a mediated do-over with essentially the same result.
Comments