Honduras at a Glimpse
While the elected Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, remains ousted by the coup that unseated him at gunpoint, Roberto Micheletti (the de facto president) continues to hold power. Yesterday, on September 21, Zelaya made a surprise return to Honduras, and is currently residing in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa. In an arrogant campaign to uphold Zelaya’s exile, Micheletti has sought to keep the reigns of power in his hands until scheduled elections are staged on November 29th. Upon Zelaya’s return, José Miguel Insulza, the secretary general of the Organization of American States (OAS), called on both sides to remain calm.
Hillary and Lula
After floods of criticism followed an initial lukewarm U.S. response to the coup, the State Department has smartened up and opted for a more muscular stance. In the past weeks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pursued the “termination of a broad range of assistance to the government of Honduras,” while also stating that the United States “would not be able to support the outcome of the scheduled [November] election.” Just days ago, Washington increased pressure on Micheletti by revoking his U.S. visa, as well as those of 17 other Honduran officials. Meanwhile Brazil, a rising regional authority, has assumed a similar forceful stance. On September 9th, Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva stated that his administration would not recognize elections in November without Zelaya’s return. Lula went on to say, “We must repudiate it [the coup] unconditionally and demand the return of President Manuel Zelaya to the position the Honduran people elected him to.”
Even though U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton characterized Zelaya’s last return to Honduras from Nicaragua as “reckless”, after Zelaya’s unexpected return yesterday, she issued a statement showing her approval of what had transpired, “Now that President Zelaya is back, it would be opportune to restore him to his position under appropriate circumstances, get on with the election that is currently scheduled for November, have a peaceful transition of presidential authority and get Honduras back to constitutional democratic order.” Lula’s similar stance is reflected in his ongoing willingness to house Zelaya in the Brazilian embassy, despite Micheletti’s murky threats that Brazil would be held responsible for any violence that ensues if Zelaya is not handed over soon.
Neutrality?
Meanwhile, Canada has been all but left out of the picture in these breaking events. Canadian officials have yet to issue an official statement regarding Zelaya’s return to Tegucigalpa, and have been unavailable for comment today. Canada’s Foreign Minister Peter Kent has continually avoided actions to repudiate the coup, and has maintained that Canada will not apply sanctions as long as negotiations remain on course. Kent strongly advised that Zelaya avoid returning to the country in case it provoked a violent reaction by Micheletti’s de facto government. However, negotiations have not remained on course whatsoever, a fact that Minister Kent is reluctant to acknowledge. Until Zelaya’s return yesterday, negotiations had gone stale. Minister Kent’s oh-so-Canadian attempt to remain neutral and see what happens did not have the desired effect: to depose Micheletti. In fact, inaction has demonstrably done more harm than good. To many observers, Canada’s purported neutrality has translated into nothing more than ennui. If Minister Kent sought to emerge as a national hero, holding steadfast to his agenda, it looks more like defeat to this pair of eyes. By failing to act in any direct or principled way, Ottawa has sent a clear message to the golpistas in Honduras: you can get away with it. Kent’s neutrality on Honduras has meant that instead of fighting for democracy, he and his colleagues have hung up a ‘for sale’ sign on Honduras’ Magna Carta, implicitly endorsing a non-elected leader who seized power through the use of force. This situation sets a horrendous precedent for the future of democratic ideals in the region at large. Is Canada really ready to swallow many years defending democracy at the expense of fielding a meretricious neutrality in Honduras?
Step Up
Earlier this summer, negotiations with the interim government veered off course when an OAS mission to Honduras, with Minister Kent aboard, failed to break the stalemate. The OAS was unable to persuade Micheletti to accept the San Jose Accord negotiated by Costa Rica to reinstate the deposed Zelaya, and since then little progress has been made. In a visit to Ottawa on the 13th and 14th of September, Secretary-General Insulza met with Minister Kent to discuss the crisis in Honduras only for the latter to revert to issuing his usual boilerplates. “I welcomed Secretary General Insulza to Canada, and we discussed our continued support of the OAS as it addresses regional challenges through increased cooperation,” said Kent. He went on to insist that, “Canada encourages collaboration in resolving regional issues, and is providing leadership in strengthening democracy and improving security in the hemisphere.” Following the September meeting, the question of whether or not Minister Kent knew about Zelaya’s planned return remains unclear. Because no official statements have yet been made by the Canadian government regarding Zelaya’s return, one can only speculate as to what will happen next. On the one hand if Minister Kent was not aware of Zelaya’s planned return, it would reflect that he has become increasingly distanced from the crisis; on the other hand, if Kent was aware of it, then it would have behooved him to speak out with plaudits about it, given his previous, hesitant convictions.
Although Minister Kent’s deficit of leadership on Honduras has so far been lamentable, the possibility of redemption remains. If he acts now, it is not out of the question that Canada might contribute to the diplomatic crusade which has been triggered by Zelaya’s return. Canada’s contributions by emulating Brazil might serve as a model for the region at large. There is no better time for Canada to step up to the podium and aggressively pursue- even demand- immediate negotiations to ensure a peaceful transition. As of now, there is no telling where negotiations will lead, and although Micheletti has avoided bloodshed thus far, it is anybody’s guess as to what might happen next.
Upon joining the OAS as a full-member in 1990, Canada took the lead in establishing the democracy-promotion unit, and it is imperative that Ottawa keep to its mandate. It would be unwise for the Harper government to forget Article 1 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter which states that, “the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it.”
Looking ahead
Canada’s lamentably uninspiring foreign policy team is hardly worth its keep if it is unable to take the elementary steps to engage with other leaders in the region, like Brazil, to work towards negotiating a solution in Honduras. After all, it was Canada’s Minister for External Affairs, Lester B. Pearson, who first conceptualized peacekeeping as a tool to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities. If nothing else, peacekeeping is Canada’s claim to fame. Eventually, regional leaders will ask: what was Canada’s contribution to solving the grave problem of democratic legitimacy in Honduras? Depending on Kent’s actions in the upcoming hours, days and weeks, Latin America will either see Canada as a country that did not know how to do the right thing, or will see Canada as a country that instead devoted its efforts with honour to peacefully restore democratic governance. If Kent’s voice can be made to rise above a whisper, let him act aggressively now, and show Micheletti that the time has passed when coups can be tolerated. As of now, within regards to following disgraceful policy and only halfheartedly supporting the grand design of the OAS, there are good grounds to fear that Minister Kent is more closely resembling the president of Panama, rather than the president of Costa Rica.
One could only hope that it is not too late for Canada to play the “good-cop” role in future OAS negotiations. Canada is in a unique position at this time: Minister Kent did not apply the same sanctions as Brazil or even the US. Perhaps this bargaining chip might prove useful if Minister Kent, at this late date, intends to encourage Micheletti to avoid using violence. With some luck, Canada’s reputation for neutrality can still mean something. After all, Canada is the second largest investor in Honduras, and has strategic interests at stake that depend on the stability of the small country. With that being said, it is important that Minister Kent avoid falling into the trap of preserving said stability in Honduras at the expense of democracy. It is now more important than ever that Stephen Harper work with Minister Kent in delivering consistent, intelligent and rational action in response to the crisis in Honduras. Whether the house is falling down or not, Harper’s government must defend democracy in Honduras and show the world that Ottawa deeply cares about preserving democratic institutions and ideals in Honduras, even to the point of risking its sizable investments there.
I suppose attempting to financially asphyxiate elections or enact unconstitutional referendums to extend presidential terms is democratic then. The Inter-American Democratic Charter, enacted in 2001 to prevent constitutionally elected presidents from usurping power in their own countries, appears to have failed miserably. I would bet if the charter were applied in Venezuela today, the country would be found lacking in many democratic freedoms. The Honduras coup, while not legal, was carried out because there were few options left. COHA has the luxury of sitting in a basement office in Washington DC and telling other people that their actions are wrong. However, when faced with a president who attempts to push through constitutional reform by illegal means, action must be taken.
Brian:
There is nothing illegal about a nonbinding referendum asking about a future referendum. In fact it is democratic in nature, adhering only to the will of the people.
Further, you grossly misrepresent the nature of such a referendum. It was not designed to remove term limits but call for a constitutional assembly to rewrite the constitution (in which new terms limits might play a part).
Perhaps the Inter-American Charter has something to say about the forced exile of a democratically elected leader? No?
Brian: First of all, it is quite clear you dislike Zelaya very much and feel as though Honduras is better off without him. Fine. But to dislike Zelaya is one thing, saying that a coup is a legitimate form of political expression is quite another. The "few options left" you mentioned should not have been abandoned by Micheletti's and his men. As long as democracy exists, there remain ways in which change can flow from within. It is when democracy is abandoned that the worst solutions are brought about.
COHA has it right, coups are illegitimate and ghastly. End of discussion. "Illegal action" is one thing, deposing a president at gunpoint is another.
The capacity of a government or military entity to use "constitutional" means to overthrow a democratically elected leader, whether they are legal or otherwise, is at the very least troublesome. The concept of democracy in Latin America is not quite the same thing as either Canadian or US democracy. People don't have the same faith in the democratic institutions. The independence of the military is one problem, and the mentality of leaders to attempt to unilaterally rewrite constitutions is another. Canada's real mandate, rather than dictating the unassailable value of democracy, should be encouraging the peaceful and equitable negotiation of democracy in the Honduran and Latin American context so that these situations are prevented. Unfortunately I'm not to convinced that Canada, or for that matter the United States, is capable or even interested in changing the situation in Honduras. A democratic election will take place in November, someone will be elected and the best thing that could happen is the election will be free and fair. Canada can voice its distaste for the current situation all it likes, but it needs to propose a long term plan that can help solve the underlying issues that brought this about in the first place.
Well done Shantel.
First off, the 'non-binding poll' was indeed binding: 48 hours before it was to be carried out, the full text of the decree ordering the referendum was published in the state newspaper La Gaceta. This is the publication that carries new laws, publishing it in that paper is akin to making it law in the Honduran system. Secondly, what democratic means was Micheletti supposed to use? Zelaya had been censured FOUR times. Twice by congress and twice by the Supreme Court. Zelaya was obviously a rogue elephant immune to criticism of any kind. Third, as 'democratic' as a referendum may be, certain items such as constitutional change simply cannot be changed in this manner. The constitution in Honduras is amended by congress (not in some public free-for-all) just as it is done in the U.S. Zelaya basically ignored this law and pushed forth with an attempt to overhaul the basic nature of Honduran society. In 2003, a Honduran analyst wrote in describing Zelaya that 'those who commit illegal actions should be ready to suffer them in turn.' I think that sums up Manuel Zelaya's predicament nicely.
Firstly, the referendum was binding only in the sense that if it passed it called for a new referendum that would ask whether or not the public would support a constitutional assembly.
Secondly, if Zelaya was censored so many times that would lead one to believe that a significant segment of the population was opposed to his actions. You ask how to act democratically respond to an initiative you disagree with – how about appealing to the will of the people to vote down the referendum?
You are correct that the 1982 constitution explicitly states that constitutional reform is to be approved by the national congress. But the poll was intended (the second one, assuming the first passed) to demonstrate public support for a constitutional assembly, not call one into being.
The fact remains that the actions of the golpistas were far, far more irresponsible than any policy or referendum proposed by Zelaya.
Eloquently stated. It has been extremely difficult to impress upon all the detractors that what had been planned was not a binding referendum, but a legal opinion poll. Unfortunately, the mass media – especially the Associated Press in the US – has continued to spread this lie.
Cincinnati, OH
Wow. This is poorly written and deeply mis, or uninformed. The writer is not at the OAS or in Ottawa or he/she would have heard the OAS Sec Gen praise Canada and Minister Kent *in particular* for being active and playing a leading role including being part of delegations of Foreign Ministers scheduled to visit Honduras to mediate. Canada has kept aid flows to Honduras, which flow to NGOs and are not direct government support, flowing. If you're a struggling NGO in Honduras getting CIDA funding or someone receiving assistance from a struggling NGO you probably appreciate the Canadian position. We did cut military assistance – language training for 5 NCOs – and one could feel the ground move in Honduras and the standing ovation in the OAS after this announcement. Where the Minister and the ministry have fallen down is communicating what is being done. But truth be told there is not much interest in Canada in this story. Regional leaders will never ask "what was Canada's role" they're aware of the work being done at the OAS and the quiet support behind the scenes. The situation in Honduras is extremely complicated. The president was found in violation of articles of the constitution (you may not like the articles or think they're odd, but that's the Honduran constitution and though odd, the constitution does not violate any basic human rights) the president committed an escalating series of violations the precipitated the crisis leading to the supreme court issuing an arrest warrant that was executed by the military as per the constitution (military, not the police, is charged with this responsibility). This was ratified by the Congress a few hours later in a, I believe, 120 – 2 vote? Kicking him out of the country, however, is not in the constitution and neither is keeping him out of the country. So complicated. A country like Canada, deeply steeped in rule of law and respect for institutions would look at this situation and proceed cautiously.
Although I disagree with pretty much everything you've said, you did pinpoint something very important in one of your thoughts. "Where the Minister and the ministry have fallen down is communicating what is being done." But my question to you is: if the minister and the ministry can't communicate what they are doing, maybe they should start trying a little harder. If you're saying that respectable researchers at COHA like Shantel can't decode what the Canadian government is doing (or not doing), how could you expect the regular Joe to know what's going on? What has been said in the main article is true and concise. Canada lags behind. If it plans to pick up the slack, government should let Canadians and the rest of the world know about it. Brazil and other members of the OAS have made their positions very clear with statements that leave no room for ambiguity. "Quiet support behind the scenes" is a pathetic way to say that Canada isn't doing enough.
Obviously the situation is complicated, but that is no excuse for Minister Kent or Stephen Harper to sit around and twiddle their thumbs, humming and hawing. Your concluding sentence better said would be, "A country like Canada, deeply steeped in rule of law and respect for institutions would look at this situation and act to PROTECT the institution of democracy Micheletti undermined by exiling Zelaya." Caution cannot be used as an excuse to shirk responsibility.
The present article has been republished in the Camana Bay Times of the Cayman Islands
http://www.camanabaytimes.com/canada-and-honduras… and the news service Scoop of New Zealand http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0909/S00320.htm
Once again Canada looks to be making itself sidelined. It is not good when you have an influencing and important nation like Canada who is well known for its heroic peacekeeping missions start fading out because of bad decisions. We hear about the plan to take our peacekeepers out of Afghanistan…that will do about as much good as Mr. Bush on the USS Abraham Lincoln saying "Mission accomplished," and that was nearly 6 1/2 years ago, and we all know where we stand now. In these kind of matters you need to be all in…there is no little bit here and a little bit there, maybe this and maybe that. I agree Shantel, Canada must be involved and fully involved, this sitting on the sidelines not knowing what to do is doing no one any good at all, especially if it wants to maintain any kind of positive relations with Honduras.
To reply. The author states that Canada has fallen down and not done enough in Honduras. It's up to the writer to research this statement. Call foreign affairs canada, call the minister's office, call the canadian mission to the oas. anyone of the three would be happy to set you straight. or let your fingers to the walking… http://w01.international.gc.ca/minpub/publication… the ministry has issued press releases, but they don't get picked up. there is just no interest in this story in canada. the minister could go out and yell and scream about this but i don't know that it would do much good. canada does not "have" to do anything here other than what it is doing. hopefully there will be another mission of foreign ministers invited to honduras and if so, canada should, once again, be invited. unless we have an election called or there is a confidence motion scheduled in the house. sorry, but that's the reality of a minority government. so, i hear quite an uproar from 3 or 4 people on this comment thread, but out of the canadian public i hear silence or a yawn. so, given the level of interest shown by the public this makes what foreign affairs and the minister have done all the more impressive.
Oh, the bit that "Caution cannot be used as an excuse to shirk responsibility. " Is something from someone who has never had responsiblity for making this sort of decison nor worked in a position of responsibility in a government.
Sounds like perhaps mpk is in the government and is finding excuses as to why nothing has been done.
Freedom, even it takes a hundred years, is worth the wait.