As the de facto regime in Honduras battens down the hatches in the face of international opprobrium, refusing to yield in its opposition to the return of President Manuel Zelaya, and presses ahead with the presidential elections scheduled for November 29, it appears that the rest of the hemisphere is gathering itself for another effort aimed at the restoration of constitutional order in that country.
OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza, perhaps with one eye on his own campaign for re-election in 2010, has defended his organization’s handling of the Honduran crisis and has indicated that consultations are still ongoing with a view to securing endorsement by the interim president, Roberto Micheletti, of the San José Agreement proposed by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias.
Mr Insulza had already been moved last month to refute accusations that, in condemning the events in Honduras and not in others, the OAS was practising “a double standard by turning a blind eye to the abuse of individual rights or the manipulation of democratic practices in some countries by undemocratic means.” He quite reasonably pointed out that, as an international organization, “the OAS answers to its member states.”
With hindsight, however, the OAS was perhaps too hasty in its immediate reaction to the coup when it gave the Micheletti government an ultimatum of 72 hours to return power to Mr Zelaya or face suspension. Indeed, as Mr Insulza has also pointed out, the OAS resolution barred him from speaking with the de facto government. Understandably, the coup-scarred OAS was intent on taking a firm line in order to uphold the principles of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. But perhaps more time was needed for cool heads and quiet diplomacy and the Secretary General should have been authorized to speak with the interim government and explore options for a negotiated solution before suspension from the OAS.
Now, President Arias has announced that a high-level US mission, most likely headed by Tom Shannon, the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America, will visit Central America in the near future to hold discussions with regional leaders on the situation in Honduras and possible new measures to be taken. In addition, it seems that in spite of Venezuelan sabre-rattling, more moderate Latin American countries like Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico, are trying to influence an outcome acceptable to all.
At the same time, however, Mr Arias has reiterated that the San José Agreement is the only solution acceptable to the hemispheric community. The Arias proposal, it will be recalled, provides inter alia for the reinstatement of Mr Zelaya with restricted powers. This has thus far been the major sticking point in the negotiations for Mr Micheletti, even in the face of increased international pressure, including the threat of severe economic sanctions and non-recognition of the results of the elections. But, as we opined last week, the de facto government seems to be playing for time until the elections, as it adheres to its own chosen course to restore constitutional order in Honduras, in the hope that the election of a new president – both Mr Zelaya and Mr Micheletti are constitutionally barred from the elections – can draw a line under the present crisis.
The position of the OAS is that Mr Zelaya must be restored to office if the November elections are to be regarded as legitimate. However, there is a conundrum in that the OAS and the Arias proposal may have a problem in equating the restoration of constitutional order with the reinstatement of Mr Zelaya, which, with his presidential powers curtailed, pragmatic as this may be, would itself be a breach of the constitution. In addition, the elections were convened before Mr Zelaya’s ouster by Honduras’s constitutionally designated authority, the supreme electoral tribunal (known as the TSE in Spanish), which remains in place and will be in charge of supervising the elections. The TSE’s legitimacy is not in doubt, so why not recognize the elections? Moreover, international rejection of the elections could well be seen as external interference in the country’s established constitutional procedures.
By insisting on the return to power of Mr Zelaya and by refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the elections, the OAS has placed itself firmly between the proverbial rock and hard place. But it perhaps did not have any other option, for it would have been damned for not taking robust action to defend democracy in the Americas. Nevertheless, a negotiated solution is required.
Carlos Fuentes, the famous Mexican novelist and acclaimed commentator on Latin American history, culture and politics, has stated that the elections should go ahead to choose a new president, “whose legitimacy would be accepted by everyone.” That certainly appears to be a pragmatic approach, but the bigger conundrum is which principles should be compromised in the quest for a solution.