Posted by
hwalker on Friday, July 03, 2009 1:42:01 PM
Today I mean to comment on the state of affairs in Honduras, particularly addressing some of the questions raised by the peculiar response of the international community. First, the so-called facts, as presented by the mainstream media: Manuel Zelaya is a democratically elected president of the country, which is a constitutional democratic republic. He serves under a constitution that has stood the test of twenty seven years...not long by constitutional standards, really, but a beacon of stability in Central and South America. Zelaya was deposed after moving forward with an effort to allow presidents to seek re-election. The Honduran constitution limits individuals to one, four year term. He sought to do this by calling for a referendum on constitutional reformation. This act, apparently, is one which by constitutional prescription immediately removes him from office.
This is where the "facts" begin to get murky. Zelaya was accordingly removed from his home by the military and sent into exile in Costa Rica. Some sources, including the Wall Street Journal, report that this was carried out by the military in pursuance of an order by the Supreme Court with full support from the legislative body. What is clear is that the military acted with the full support of the Supreme Court, and at least partial support of Congress. What is unclear is whether or not their action was in pursuit of a direct order from the court, and how much opposition there might have been in the legislature if the entire body had been convened. In any case, it appears from all presentations of the issue that the military action was not taken independently, and therefore not be considered a military coup, as we hear most media outlets, and the international community shouting from the rooftops.
This is where we encounter our first curiosity: Why is the international community reacting so strongly to the deposition of a leader who is more closely aligned with the authoritarian regime of Venezuela, particularly when that leader seemed to be making a Chavez-inspired power grab? We will not make the assumption, as some writers choose to do, that the Obama administration is filled with imbeciles who don't know how to use Google, and so proceed hastily on poor information. Is it simply that the international community is repelled by military intervention in civil matters, and so refuses to support the new regime? My guess is no. To begin with, this doesn't explain motivation for such a strong response. In fact, there is disincentive in this case to speak out in favor of Zelaya in the form of constituent disapproval. No one likes old Chavez very much, and to side with his ally is a bad political move. With all those cunning aids running around, no one is ignorant of that fact. So again, where is the benefit to supporting Manuel (King of Honduras) Zelaya? Two words: Foreign oil.
Let's look at the larger picture of Obama's foreign policy agenda. Obama aims to extract our troops from the Middle East by means of diplomacy, and he means to do it in a timely manner. It's pretty clear he cannot do so as long as the nation is dependent on Middle Eastern oil reserves, the largest known reserves in the world. It is unreasonable to assume that the nation will be entirely free of our oil addiction any time soon, which means that in order to accomplish this goal, the goal of Middle Eastern diplomatic extraction, we must find a new drug dealer. The next biggest oil reserves outside of the Middle East (including the Caspain Sea, which for all intents and purposes can be considered in the Middle East) are in Canada, South America and China. The problem with Canadian oil reserves is that they find themselves in tar sands, which make the resource extremely expensive and difficult to extract. China is out, for obvious reasons. That leaves us with South America, and when speaking of South American oil reserves, one speaks of Venezuela. Zelaya is best buddies with our new drug dealer. To complicate matters, one promising location for new oil exploration happens to be off the coast of Honduras. So, why are we supporting Zelaya, and by extension, tacitly supporting Chavez? We desperately need what they have.
All this talk about Middle Eastern oil raises another curiousity: Why are we so outspoken about the issues facing democracy in Honduras, but Obama barely chided the Iranian government for the violence committed against its protesters this past month (and let's be honest people: We only ever heard any peep from the White House at all because of the issue of tacit consent)? Because in Honduras we have little to lose and quite a lot to gain. How would it have been if we would have kept our mouths shut? It would have been fine. Honduras is a small country, the poorest in the region. To side with the military interventionists could have been spun as a show for the rule of law. To side with the deposed leaders can be conveniently written off as opposing military intervention in civil matters, which historically hasn't gone so well much of anywhere (think of Singapore, and basically every other south east Asian country). And then the incentive exists in the form of an oil source to do the latter. Yet, in Iran the situation is exactly the opposite. There is no way to win. To side with Ahmadinejad would be to upset the domestic constituency. To side openly and strongly with the protesters would be to alienate even further Ahmadinejad and his political affiliates (aka the Ayatollah), and to make remote any chance of diplomatic engagement. Considering the fact that Iran probably has nuclear weapons, and if not is closely allied with North Korea (Kim Jong Il has been waving them around like their Tonka trucks of late), to handle such relations with kid gloves is the only option.
In sum, Chavez and his cronies are the lesser of two evils. We are not in a new era. We continue to suffer from our own inability to get over our wildly wasteful consumptive habits, despite the tremendous hangover we now suffer. Our love affair with the SUV in the middle of the suburban Costco parking lot is costing the world thriving democracy. Obama can push through tightened CAFE standards all he wants, but until we are willing to express our great liberty in more reasonable, sustainable and ingenious ways, the bearers of our choices will continue to be the silenced voices of Iranian protesters.