The United States government, along with the rest of the Western Hemisphere's governments, is so worked up about returning ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to power that it hasn't thought through the long- or even medium-term consequences of its threats and demands.
Millions of dollars in aid to Honduras-one of the poorest countries in Latin America-was cut off after Zelaya was arrested by the military and sent into exile in June. The U.S. is not only threatening to cut off hundreds of millions more, it's threatening to impose sanctions and not recognize the results of the November election if he isn't first allowed back in office. These threats, if carried out, will put both Honduras and the U.S. in impossible positions.
Sanctions are supposed to be temporary. Targeted countries are always told what they can do to restore the status quo ante. Iran, for instance, can dismantle its nuclear-weapons program. Syria can cease and desist its support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Saddam Hussein, while he still ruled Iraq, had the option of admitting weapons inspectors.
Honduras, though, will have no way out if the interim government doesn't return Zelaya to power before his term ends in January. Because the Honduran constitution prohibits him and every other president from serving more than one term, it won't be legally possible for Honduras to do what's demanded of it after the end of this year. Unlike Iraq, Iran, and Syria, it will be isolated and trapped under sanctions indefinitely.
Sanctions and diplomatic isolation aren't the geopolitical equivalents of jail time and fines; they're used to coax rogue regimes into changing their behavior. They are tools of coercion, not punishment. By the time 2010 rolls around, it won't make any difference how badly the current interim government of Honduras is or is not behaving right now if the next one is elected in a free and fair election. The "coup regime" will have been replaced. The crisis will be over, the problem resolved. Punishing the next government-and by extension, the people of Honduras-for something a temporary former government did the previous year is gratuitous and, as far as I know, unprecedented. Even a country as roguish and oppressive as North Korea can come in from the cold if it holds a genuinely free and fair election.
While Honduras will be placed in an impossible position that it can't escape from, refusing to recognize the results of the November election will put the U.S. in an equally impossible position. Reality will force the U.S. to back down for one simple reason-it will be possible for the U.S. to back down, while Honduras could only surrender to our demands by using a time machine. We might as well play "chicken" with an inanimate object.
Read the rest in Commentary Magazine.
This may be the worst, most arrogant thing the Americans have done in my lifetime. I can only compare it to invading Panama, seizing the ruler Manuel Noriega, and throwing him into one of their prisons to do time for violating their laws on drugs, "money laundering" etc.. (And with that, the failures that fed his rise to power in the first place.)
It's staggering that the Americans feel entitled to dictate to the Hondurans who must rule them. The Americans shouldn't even have given their opinion on who the legitimate chief executive of Honduras is, because it's not their country.
I forget who it was that said, when told that the Redskin just didn't know right from wrong, "Wrong him, and see what happens." He was right, though, both about the self-respecting character of the American Indian and that if you can see injustice to yourself you ought to be able to apply the same rule to others.
I don't think I've met an American who wouldn't see red if a foreign country tried to impose a ruler on them like this, even if the attempt was weak and thus harmless, and American pressure on poor Honduras is far from harmless, so how can people not see how wrong and arrogant this is?
(I know some do, just not the right ones.)
I support exceptions to the "hands-off" rule when a very dangerous trans-national force is active, or instance Communism. There's nothing like that in this case.
I can see the Americans over-reacting to some wrong they think was done to them, but they have no grievance against Honduras.
This is the rare "perfect storm" of bullying by the Americans with zero excuse, the syndrome that progressives like to talk about endlessly - and it's purely the fault of their own super-progressive president that this is happening.
My dear friend Mr. Blue:
You know that honor does not permit an American to apologize to a foreign audience, however well-respected and regarded, for his country or his President.
However, I do agree with your basic analysis; and insofar as I may influence our policy with my poor powers as a simple citizen, you may be assured that I will do so.
Oh I trust you entirely on that, Grim.
And I not only understand your code against apologizing to a foreign audience, I warmly agree with it. A couple of times I've run into Americans who had the opposite attitude, and I didn't like it a bit. They thought as a foreigner it was my job to be sophisticated and see through the mystification of their country's foreign policies to the crude fascist bullying and exploitation beneath, and they expected me to accept apologies from them that would have cost them nothing, but given them a nigh-godlike moral and intellectual superiority over people like, well, you Grim. My reaction was: no, this is revolting: if someone has to insult the American president like that, you do it, not me, because he's your president, it's your country, and it's your flag. They were unhappy with that reaction, and shocked that someone who has seemed capable of intelligent speech was actually one of those wretched Rambo fans in no-account places like the Philippines, where some of the stupider rural natives are happy to be exploited. We couldn't have been less in sympathy.
What is extra mordantly funny is that those same sort of people probably supported now President Obama because he wouldn't be the brutal, oppressive sort that former President Bush (and his evil master Cheney) were. Yet this Honduras policy, as far as I can tell, is pure Obama. It's worse than the groveling to Russia over missile defense, because at least that's just pusillanimous surrender. In Honduras, Obama is making an effort to support a fellow thug in this thuggery.
When you see a country with popularity problems do something you don't like, it's tempting for a moment to project your mentality on other people, and think: "ah, that's why they're not too popular". But that's entirely wrong.
Look at this Moscow Times article on Russian popular hostility to America: The Country Russia Loves to Hate (link)
The facts are stark. The Russians are massively and invincibly prejudiced against America. You are not going to get a hearing, let alone a fair hearing. Russophiles like myself can't present any rational policy proposals based on our goodwill, because it's definitely not reciprocated. How America acts toward Honduras, or in regard to any other issue you may feel bad about, has nothing to do with it. The Russians have already made up their minds based on reasons having to do with their perceived interests and fears in their part of the world, and they are becoming more not less hostile, regardless of Mr. Obama's overtures and concessions.
There's no reason to think troubling issues like the American president's attitude to Honduras are going to weigh any heavier with the French, the Germans, the Chinese, etc..
When the Americans eventually fix this, it'll be for the good of their own souls, and not in any rational expectation of a reward.
Exactly, Annoying Old Guy.
This is the new Exceptionalism - not American, but Obama Exceptionalism. Such naked arrogance even seems to give Chavez pause.
And besides being a monster of egotism, he's unspeakably banal - or as he would drone it out, There are those who would argue that he is too often boring. That may be his downfall, though he's got so many downfalls coming to him that it's hard to pick a favorite.
There's no reason to think troubling issues like the American president's attitude to Honduras are going to weigh any heavier with the French, the Germans, the Chinese, etc..
It's true that these countries don't care, but I do think our current policy undercuts the arguments made by tin pot dictators and populists in the Western Hemisphere (e.g. Chavez) that the US is imposing itself into the affairs of its neighbors.
Most countries in the region will, quite reflexively, go against whatever the US position is publicly. This will pick them up support from the marginal nationalist who doesn't want America having any say.
In this case, everyone, led by Chavez, jumped to the obvious position, expecting America to take the obvious position. Instead, American said "fine, have it your way".
The problem is "fine have it your way" isn't Honduras' way, but Venezuela's way. Charitably speaking for the policy, you could say we're throwing an innocent under the bus to, basically, see if it causes the local leadership to look before they leap to stupid policies.
Less charitably, our policy is basically that of an insecure kid on the playground who decides to join in on the daily taunting of some weakling to curry favor with the popular bully.
Like most after school specials, I expect to find this doesn't end with the bully suddenly becoming a nice guy. More likely, Honduras suffers and Chavez and everyone else still stoke anti-American sentiment whenever it suits them.
Mike, how can you say that our current policy undercuts the arguments...that the US is imposing itself into the affairs of its neighbors? We are imposing, on the side of the tyrants.
I don't see any need to apologize to David Blue about this, since he hasn't been wronged, but I am mystified by the concept of honor that admits we have harmed an innocent, law-abiding little nation but apparently holds we don't need to say so to its citizens.
Look, I haven't followed Honduras too closely, and from what I've read, I disagree with how us (& the UN... for that matter) have handled the situation. From the 3 articles I've read, the white house just went along with what the UN did (which makes sense to me as the WH has about 8 pots on the stove right now).
However, to claim that this is the greatest act of American Arrogance.... it's like no one here has been paying attention for the last decade.
bgates, because it's not about the argument, it's about who's arguing. The US, under the current administration, wants to take away the arguments tyrants make against us. If we're taking their side, we can't be criticized for imposing. :)
Obviously you're right that we actually are imposing. I'd go so far and say you're right if you said you're throwing the baby out with the bath water, and the "gain" of being criticized less by Hugo Chavez (right now) is utterly meaningless.
But nonetheless, I think that's what the Chosen One is doing.
MikeDC, I think you're right. And my view is the less charitable one.
I also think the Americans can stand to do less, diplomatically.
Every country in the world would like to use American power as a bludgeon, at America's cost, when its in their own best interests. (And not only countries but individuals, such as Manuel Noriega in his rise.)
But the list of countries that are such reliable, long-term and valuable allies that the leadership should be allowed to say from time to time, "I have uncritical American support in my back pocket" is very short, arguably only two names long. (U.K., Japan, though I would add Poland and Australia.)
When American interests aren't at risk, when there is no deadly internationalist force in motion (such as Communism, or, in my opinion, Islam), when the Americans don't have grievances (such as they had against Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq for consistently violating its cease-fire agreement), and when the interests of category 1 allies aren't at risk (as with North Korea tossing missiles over Japan and pursuing nuclear weapons), I think the Americans ought to resist the intrigues of the players that want to involve them in every problem under the sun, and say "that's none of our business" a lot.
Alchemist, we canceled the visas of everyone in the Honduran government, and suspended foreign aid. That's quite a bit more than absentmindedly voting along with a majority in the General Assembly, which would itself be grotesque. Granted, it's a busy time in the White House; between the Martha's Vineyard vacation, the Camp David vacation, and the trip to Copenhagen to win the Olympics for Jarrett and Country, it's no wonder Fearless Leader's only talked to the Afghanistan theater commander once. If it weren't for the occasional Date Night in NY or long weekend in Chicago I don't see how he'd have the strength to do Letterman at all.
As to the "last decade", one difference is that there were arguments advanced in favor of Bush's removal of the totalitarian terrorist-supporting government of Saddam Hussein. If you would like to put forth an argument in favor of Obama's undermining the peaceful constitutional republic of Honduras, go ahead. Or are you reading ahead in Obama's playbook, and criticizing Bush for undertaking what progressives once upon a time last summer called "the good war"?
No, I'm criticizing Bush for not only invading a country based on pre-emptive shoddy evidence; but saying at the same time:
"Not only will this war last ONLY 6 months, we'll actually make a profit from the oil".
It's hard to get more arrogant than that. Or the idea that "a single democracy will spread freedom throughout the region." Which seems to be the fundamental base for the Bush presidency. Just a tad cocky, no?
Now, I don't agree with the WH decision, but I also haven't found an article that clearly explains WHY they're doing it. At the moment, I'm not sure what to call it.
Alchemist:
I call it arrogance, because it's unjustified coercion.
Invading not just on evidence, but "pre-emptive" evidence. Well.
Besides not knowing the definitions of, at a minimum, "pre-emptive", "cocky", and "arrogant", you don't seem to know the function of quote marks. There's clearly no point in arguing with you about Honduras until you've been supplied with talking points. Let me know when somebody writes an article for you defending Obama's decision to back Chavez in strong-arming a little constitutional republic.
As far as Bush goes, claiming that "God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom" - note the quote marks, indicating that I am repeating words that another person actually said - is arrogant only if the speaker identifies himself with God. That's more your guy's tick. Democracy in Iraq seems like it might just catch on, and there was a concurrent pro-freedom movement in Lebanon; even the Iranians took to calling for free and fair elections. (Could you defend Obama's reluctance to lend even rhetorical support to the Iranian protesters, or hasn't anybody written that article for you either?)
Iraq may yet collapse, and Afghanistan too; but Bush's efforts to change them were born of hope.
Surely hope for change doesn't equate to arrogance.
America's invasion of Afghanistan was justified. Justifications were provided. You could say they were inadequate. I wouldn't agree. But they were there.
America's invasion of Iraq was justified. Many justifications were provided. In part they were correct (Saddam Hussein was indeed a tyrant who consistently violated the terms of his cease-fire from the previous war) and in part they proved bogus, because the CIA did a bad job. But they were there.
Alchemist:
That's what I mean by "unjustified".
With Senator John F. Kerry doing his best to stop Senator Jim DeMint from going on a trip to Honduras to talk to people there, we're down to the level of "justification" where politicians supporting the policy use "no I won't let you look at what we're doing and why!" and "stop talking back or I'll make life harder for you!" as arguments. An external policy of raw force rapidly became an internal political contest of raw force.
Ah, a clue what might be going on (link).