The Honduran military coup

The pseudo-continent of Central America is a part of Latin America that I feel passionately about and is quite often overlooked in the dynamics of global studies of the region. There is a country in the area that has grabbed world headlines in the past week for all the wrong reasons and consequently has raised all sorts of questions regarding the political instability of Central America. The country being discussed in this blog is Honduras.

I will treat this article more like a mini-essay and thus will explain the aims and objectives here: I will begin with a brief history of Central American politics in the past fifty years and then focus in on Honduran current affairs. I will then describe the notion of a ‘military coup’ both in Latin America and globally and consider different interpretations of what is happening currently in the country. Finally I will explore possible repercussions for the country and its people.

Central America is nestled in between the main continent of South America and the extensive power of USA. It automatically then becomes involved in the intercontinental activities of both regions. The most prominent in recent times has been drug trafficking; especially cocaine but others include prostitution of young children and women, human trafficking and exploitation of child workers.

(The drug routes have developed more increasingly complicated of late but for over forty years, Colombia and Bolivia have been hubs of crop cultivation, which logistically flowed through the Central American states before finding their fiscal trade offs in North America, Western Europe and beyond. It should be noted that the routes now involve Western Africa from the southern cone ports, like Buenos Aires and the Rio Grande do Sul territory of Brasil and while this is irrelevant for the nature of this essay, does provoke interest of how globalised economies affect all sectors of the financial system.)

Back to Central America, the region has undergone major transformations in recent times, buoyed by the Salvadoran and Guatemalan civil wars, the former a twelve-year internal conflict and the latter lasting thirty-six. The pre-requisites to the civil wars differ; El Salvador underwent economic disparities whereas in Guatemala the strife was built upon indigenous struggles. These events combined with the presence of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua created political uncertainty in the region, that remain to this day. The reason why I refer to the three aforementioned nations is not only because of their political influence but geopolitical location; Honduras is surrounded (with the exception of the northern border) by all three states, which has a corollary effect on how the country is ruled.

Nevertheless Honduras has been an exemplar representation of progressive democracy since 1986, with the demise of military rule that had governed from 1963-1981, which is even earlier than Spain’s road to democratisation. A new constitution introduced in 1987 helped to solidify a move to a liberal democracy, recognising civil rights and human rights activities. A regular change of government every four years since 1986 up to the modern day has also consolidated their aims of reaching a stage of consistent, cumulative democracy.

The nation’s people legitimately elected Manuel Zelaya in 2006 whom possessed a rather standard manifesto. He was a centre-left candidate who displayed a close interaction to the lower classes. In the 2005 election, he ran as a candidate that promised and eventually fulfilled salary increases to the teaching sector and raised the minimum wage. Zelaya did this to distinguish himself from previous presidents. However this detrimentally affected the national budget that in turn forced Zelaya to turn to alternative investment opportunities. That is where Hugo Chávez was able to help out, providing economic growth in Honduras in exchange for oil purchases. Chávez’s anti-imperialistic standpoint to the US was ill matched to Honduras who, in years gone by, had been an ally of the superpower. However, just by the growing bilateral relations, both local citizenry and outsiders began to ask questions of Zelaya’s future intentions. His desire to finally adapt the constitution was the final straw it seems and the military came to end to his tenure as leader.

In the news the oust has been widely explained as a military coup and whilst the terminology I do not disagree with, the association commonly made with coups in Latin America have overt assumptions. This is especially the case when the military happen to be involved. It is correct to say that there has been a military intervention in Honduras and describing it as a coup does not seem so far from the truth. Nonetheless the military here are not playing the role they once used to and this must be clarified. They are not implementing a dictatorial or totalitarian role in the country and they have not posed anti-American ideologies. In some respects it seems that the military have been used as the force of power to override Zelaya but not to ordain full control of the people. This situation is unlike that of, for example Operation PBSUCCESS in Guatemala in 1954 or the military coup of Goulart in Brazil in 1965. In these instances, amongst many others, the CIA played a pivotal role in aiding the military to topple the previous governments; however there has been no sign of such in the current Honduran case.

The country’s people in support of the Zelaya’s removal were concerned of another Chavista-esque ruler, worried by the flourishing relationship between Zelaya and the Venezuelan leader. Those still in support of Zelaya tend to be the working-class where Zelaya devoted a huge portion of his fiscal attention, building homes for the poor and accelerating the quality of basic services and infrastructure. The OAS and American presidency have voiced their opinions loudest, condemning General Micheletti and his military backing whilst other left-leaning governments in the region have criticised the move by the military to force Zelaya out of office. Both Obama and Hilary Clinton have distanced any US involvement in the overthrow and are supporting Zelaya in his bid to return to office. Clinton herself managed to negotiate an agreement that meant Oscar Arias, was present as the chief negotiator between Zelaya and Micheletti to help settle the current Honduran crisis. To get Arias onto the case is no small feat; he is the president of nearby Costa Rica and ex-Nobel Prize winner, acknowledging his efforts to end the civil wars in Guatemala and El Salvador during the eighties. The position of the United States then is vastly different from the past where it has served as a catalyst and assistance to the antagonist.

What one should be concerned with is the fact that a military coup has actually succeeded in the 21st century. Regardless of how long it will eventually last, the sheer reality that it has taken place is more the concern. If one is to consider the various international organisations that have been established worldwide – CIA, EU, IMF, UN and in Latin America – UNASUR, ALBA, MERCOSUR, OAS etc, the globalised world that we live in is supposed to guarantee protection for countries that abide to international law. There are obviously exceptions to that rule in this day – Afghanistan, Iran, Venezuela for example and perhaps even China. In addition, the increasing popularity of bilateral relations between countries in Latin America and elsewhere (Cuba-China, Chile-India, Venezuela-Russia) helps to homogenise the political arena and signify that it is harder to break rules today in case the country then has to face the grave repercussions. Having said that, Honduras has spoken up and demanded the rest of the region to recognise its concerns. Stimulated by Zelaya and his dependency on Chávez, much to the consternation of some, the military represented a cumulative apprehensiveness that climbed to its breaking point. It is my desire to say that the leitmotiv of military coups in the region has found an incongruent case in Honduras and how it was manifested may present the birth of 21st century citizen rebellion. When the whole world was concerned with the Iranian elections and the subsequent transient spell of uncertainty, Honduras grabbed headlines with forceful action, completely negating the rights of the leader and the country’s constitution.

It is irrelevant for me to voice whether I believe it was right to overturn Zelaya. One can measure up why it may have happened and even empathise with the idea that some did not want to see Honduras taken on a puppet role for Chavez and his quest for regional dominance. The more important issue is where does Honduras go on from this? Arias’ negotiations have slumbered after initial talks led to nowhere. Will this move by the Honduras catalyse further political disparity in the central American region? How will it affect the ARENA government, newly-established as the governing party of El Salvador – it is renowned to have affiliations with the left and still embodies leftist policy. How will this digest with Álvaro Colom in Guatemala after the clandestine nature of the Rodrigo Rosenberg case? In a region which boasts the highest homicide rates in the world and where underemployment is rife due to export-led (remittance) economies, the significance of stable political arenas is integral to solve the outstanding concerns of the area. One can only hope what has occurred in Honduras is understood both locally and globally and that, in the future, less bellicose operations are used to convey antagonism towards political leaders.