Tegucigalpa, We Have a Problem

I've been keeping an eye on the situation in Honduras which evolved this week. If you have not heard, there is political unrest due to an alleged coup d'etat in the small nation in Central America. President Manuel Zelaya was captured by the military and exiled on June 28. The action has been nearly universally condemned. Here's what's gone down...

Zelaya was elected on November 27, 2005 and took office the following January. In Honduras, the President is limited to serving just one four-year term. Zelaya is a member of the Liberal Party of Honduras (PLH); the National Party of Honduras (PNH) is the other main party in Honduras and leans to the right. The Honduran Constitution explicitly prohibits amendments which would allow for the President to serve more than one term. Zelaya was calling for a referendum in November to allow for the convening of a Constitutional Convention. Despite his low approval ratings, it was considered to be a ploy by which Zelaya would seek an amendment which would allow for Presidents to serve multiple terms.

Latin America has a history powerful heads of state which rule for long periods of time. These often are formed as or devolve into dictatorships. Conscious of this danger, the Honduran Constitution goes as far to revoke citizenship and remove from office anyone who even suggests such an amendment (Article 42, clause 5 and Article 239; link in Spanish). Zelaya wished to move forward with a non-binding vote on June 28 on such a referendum. The military oversees security and logistics for elections in Honduras and, thus, Zelaya had charged General Romeo Vasquez Velasquez to conduct the election. Vasquez refused on the grounds of its perceived illegality; Zelaya had him removed from command.

On June 28, Zelaya awoke surrounded by members of the military who detained (arrested or kidnapped depending on your point of view) him, put him on a plane, and dropped him in San Jose, Costa Rica. The international firestorm began as reports of a military coup began to surface. Meanwhile, the Honduran Supreme Court and the National Congress both indicated that they had authorized the so-called coup.

There is a whole lot more to the details if you are interested. The Wikipedia entry, as usual, is a good source. Although, the neutrality is currently disputed as the events are unfolding.

I have found it very interesting that the international response has been, as far as I can tell, in unanimous support of Zelaya. The Organization of American States issued a resolution to "condemn vehemently the coup d'etat staged against the constitutionally established government of Honduras" - full text here. The United Nations also passed a similar resolution. The Supreme Court of Honduras has fired back (full text in Spanish) stating that the removal of Zelaya was constitutional and in accordance with the rule of law.

It seems clear to me that questionable measures have been taken by the military and those who have ousted Zelaya. There does not appear to be due process and some of his supporters have apparently been detained. However, the overwhelming international support for Zelaya is nonetheless interesting. I'm not sure what I'm missing. This is a Honduran affair and, despite the use of the military, has been a relatively peaceful change of power (no deaths reported) which appears to be consistent with the law in Honduras. It appears to me that the international community is quick to support any existing head of state provided that the government is deemed to be legitimate on the international stage. The international power structure will likely always favor the status quo in these circumstances.

I also did not know of the Organization of American States. This body has adopted the Inter-American Democratic Charter which

"[recognizes] that representative democracy is indespensible for the stability, peace, and development of the region, and that one of the purposes of the OAS is to promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect to the principle of non-intervention."

This sounds quite noble. However, promoting democracy has not always been very consistent with non-intervention - perhaps that is the point of calling both principles out in this introduction. Consider the short description of non-intervention from Wikipedia: "one state cannot interfere in the internal politics of another state." Or consider this more detailed summary from a Chatham House white paper quoting a 1970 UN declaration:

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention
and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or
against its political, economic and cultural elements, are in violation of international law.

The United States is a member of the OAS; so is Cuba and Venezuela. It's hard for me to take any of this seriously. The U.S. hardly practices non-intervention. I'm not sure I'd consider Cuba or Venezuela to be sterling examples of representative democracy. In the worlds of politics and international relations, there is no shortage of hypocrisy.