Honduras: Time for the People

After the failed attempt at mediation by Costa Rican President Oscar Aryan, in the political crisis in Honduras – unleashed by participants in a coup d’etat, who, on June 28, took control in Honduras and imposed a illegal regime – international diplomacy reached a new impasse: The usurpers rejected the proposal that Manuel Zelaya return to the position of chief executive, to allow for the formation of a government of national unity.

Obviously, the position of those who wager on some recognition of the illegitimate government, headed by Micheletti Robert, is that discussion regarding reestablishment of constitutional order is not only useless, but counter-productive: The hearings and mediations have given coup participants coverage and maneuverability in consolidating a regressive, repressive, anti-democratic and unacceptable adventure, thus, allowing a pernicious precedent that threatens institutions and the rule of law in the rest of Latin America.

It should not be overlooked that the main weakness in the international campaign to reinstitute the constitutional presidency has been the uncertain position of Washington toward the protagonists of the military riot, a position that reflects, moreover, contradictions and dissent in the heart of Barack Obama’s administration. In the days following the military eruption in the presidential residence in Tegucigalpa, it has become evident that the United States’ chief executive is far from being able to depend on the discipline and loyalty of his collaborators; that between him and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, there are serious differences regarding foreign policy; that there are factions in the military and intelligence community that do not view negatively the adventure of the Honduran coup participants; and that all these elements have given oxygen, time and maneuverability to the unholy regime of the Central American nation.

The most recent position taken by Washington, that Hondurans must find a solution for their own country, constitutes an undisguised sophism for nonintervention, given that the U.S. – for decades – has been and continues to be the fundamental support for military institutions that, at last month’s end, no longer acknowledged their constitutional commander; furthermore, the corporate oligarchy, which promoted and endorsed the riot, has been the traditional protégée and ally of the White House in the region.

Given these circumstance, Zelaya’s appeal that civil resistance be organized against the coup and his announcement that he would, again, attempt to enter his country, as well as the manifestos of popular organizations that reject the anarchists, confirm that soon the destiny of democracy in the Central American nation will depend, essentially, on the capacity of its society to mobilize in its own defense.

It is up to the international community, especially to Latin America – the people, as well as the governments – to offer full and total solidarity to the fights in which Hondurans engage themselves, because not only will they be defending the rule of law and legality in their own country, but they will be defending the viability of democratic institutions in the entire region.