The selection of Costa Rican President Arias to mediate the dispute between former Honduran President Zelaya and the Government of interim President Micheletti appears to have been a wise one. It may be useful to speculate a bit about why and by whom President Arias was selected, as well as about the likely impact of these things on the power of Venezuelan President Chávez in Latin America.
The possible role of President Arias as a mediator was suggested to Zelaya during his 7 July Washington meeting with Secretary Clinton, and Zelaya agreed to it. Secretary Clinton promptly telephoned President Arias to ask for his help and he agreed. However, hers was not the only contact with President Arias regarding the Honduran situation: he had been asked the day before by Honduran interim President Micheletti to consider playing such a role. I am unaware of any reports indicating that Chávez had sought Arias' selection, and the United States Government has said nothing to indicate that it has been in discussions with the interim Government of Honduras; it seems not to have been.
Zelaya and Micheletti went to Costa Rica as contemplated, and are to meet separately with Arias. Their positions, at least for now, are unchanged: Zelaya says he must be reinstated and Micheletti says that's out of the question. As I suggested in the linked article, this may prevent, or at least postpone, a military confrontation between the Honduran military and forces from other countries, principally Chávez ally, Nicaragua.
During the 1980s, President Arias played a substantial role in efforts to decrease the influence of the United States over much of Latin America and to bring some measure of stability to the region. He received a Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for doing so. However, President Arias is not very chummy with Chávez. During his barely successful campaign for reelection as President of Costa Rica in 2006, Arias' principal opponent was Ottón Solis, much favored by Chávez.
Things seem to be happening behind, but not all that far behind, the curtain. On 7 July, the same day that she met with Zelaya and telephoned President Arias, Secretary Clinton submitted to an interview by Globovisión. The interview was at the State Department in Washington. Globovisión, one of the very few broadcast outlets in Venezuela still able to criticize the Chávez government, has been under vigorous attack by that Government, and may soon be closed; its principals are under criminal charges. Here are comments by a blogger in Venezuela, who does not much care for Chávez:
Questions were standard and Hillary responses standard . . . Still, she made it clear that things in Venezuela are not kosher and that she is aware of it.Alberto Federico Ravell, head of Globovisión, was interviewed on 8 July in Miami as he returned to Venezuela from Washington. He is convinced that
***
No matter what, the interview does not solve anything, does not protect Globovisión from being closed though it makes very clear that the price Chavez will have to pay for it will be very high. Interestingly, the Honduras part . . . revealed how irrelevant Venezuela will become as negotiations keep going.
***
As soon as the interview was over I switched to VTV to watch La Hojilla reaction. I was not disappointed as Mario Silva was livid, as furious as I ever saw him. . . . Proving that the interview hit a raw nerve. The top was Silva belching "who named Arias?" betraying his resentment at 1) his boss not being on the forefront anymore and 2) that Arias did the most to block a commie takeover of Central America 20 years ago.
Clinton supports Globovisión's efforts to speak out against Hugo Chávez's government. . . .In every thing she said I was seeing a red beret . . . .It was incredible that the same day she met with ousted Honduran President Zelaya, she also met with representatives from a television channel that is seen by Chávez as part of the opposition.I think that the full transcript of the Clinton interview confirms that she was, indeed, talking about Chávez, whose media censorship continues unabated. A somewhat different take on the interview is provided here. If, as claimed in that article, Secretary Clinton wanted to "to lower the temperature" in the United States' relations with Venezuela, neither her Globovisión appearance itself, nor statements such as these may have been the best way to go about it:
Clinton said that what the White House hopes to see "over the next months in Venezuela is a recognition that you can be a very strong leader and have very strong opinions without trying to take on too much power and trying to silence all your critics."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dan(Miller)
According to this article,
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, of course, thrives on chaos and is doing all he can to stoke it. But the U.S. in particular doesn't need chaos in Honduras, given the country's strategic location as a transit point for illegal drugs and the threat that criminal cartels pose to the political stability of regional governments.
The new Clinton plan also serves to strengthen the interests of Honduras' neighbors in the emerging bloc of Panama, Colombia and Mexico, all of which do not want a chaotic Honduras.
The three nations did stress earlier that there should be no foreign interference in Honduran affairs, even as they went with the OAS consensus, and all have moved in this direction. Panama offered mediation. Mexico offered asylum to Zelaya. Colombia stopped a 60-person Venezuelan convoy "battalion" of aid headed to Honduras at its border to ward off Chavista cash and interference.
What it adds up to is U.S. interests " not those of Venezuela or Nicaragua " becoming predominant in ending the crisis in Honduras, and in a way that's acceptable to Hondurans and their neighbors.
This will work far better than letting the OAS continue its grandstanding. Sure, some may say Hillary blinked. But it's a good blink.
I hope it is not all wishful thinking.
Dan(Miller)
2 - Baronius
I haven't followed Chavez at all. Do you think he'd knife Zelaya in the back in exchange for a Thanksgiving dinner at the adults' table? If he would, then everyone could get something they want out of the deal.
3 - handyguy
Dan, I believe Clinton and Obama are on the same page. You seem to assume that Obama and Chavez are buddies or allies. Not!
4 - Dave Nalle
Handy, how can you justify Obama's seemingly unqualified and obviously ill-considered support for Zelaya?
Dave
5 - handyguy
As I said several times on Dan's previous thread, I think the administration's initial reaction was about seeing an elected leader removed from office at gunpoint by the military.
Obama is hardly alone in this. All the EU countries went even further, withdrawing their ambassadors, which the US didn't do.
None of this is about showing solidarity with Chavez [!!]. And since the US helped set up the mediation with Arias, I think overall the stance has been moderate, centrist, carefully thought out, like most of the foreign policy statements from this administration.
Several commenters on here jumped immediately from point A to point K and accused the president of kissing up to Chavez. This is patently ridiculous.
I'm not saying Zelaya is an angel, and neither is the administration. But his referendum seemed unlikely to pass [he has an approval rating in the 30s], he hasn't even completed one term, the referendum was still being formulated -- at one point allowing him to run again two elections from now, not immediately.
In other words, the Hondurans may have overreacted. And the commenters on here were way too quick to call what they did just fine and dandy. And the reason the commenters said that was purely ideological, an allergic reflex because Zelaya is friendly with Chavez.
And, of course, because it provided another opportunity to kvetch -- with utter wrongheadedness in this case -- about Obama.
6 - Clavos
Waitaminnit!
Isn't all "kvetching" about Obama "wrongheaded?"
7 - Hector
Is not as easy to say that the hondurans overreacted, the famous referendum, with votes printed and delivered by Venezuela was already set to favour Zelaya (to this I mean it was fraudulent), and was wanted to stop general voting in november cause he change at last minute the cause of the referendum from "to you want a fourt ballot to call a constitutional assembly?" to " do you want to call a constitutional assembly?", what make him back to call inmeadiatly the referendum finished.
8 - Dave Nalle
The sad fact is that in countries like Honduras, sometimes the military IS the most democratic representative of the people. They are recruited from the peasantry, have a loyalty to family and their home region, and if they think a president is out of control, their choice to remove him before he goes too far may actually be a more accurate representation of the will of the people than a rigged election.
Dave
9 - roger nowosielski
"The sad fact is that in countries like Honduras, sometimes the military IS the most democratic representative of the people."
Considering the long and checkered history of military takeovers and dictatorships in Latin America, that's a rather tall statement, don't you think?
10 - Dan(Miller)
Here is an OpEd piece from the LA Times making, quite well I think, the point that there was no coup in Honduras, except perhaps one attempted by former President Zelaya. The article explains a bit about Honduran law, the Honduran Constitution, and the role of the Honduran military in the situation there.
If people here persist in calling Zelaya's ouster and the continuing refusal to reinstate him a "coup," I can think of very little further to say about it.
Dan(Miller)
11 - Dave Nalle
Considering the long and checkered history of military takeovers and dictatorships in Latin America, that's a rather tall statement, don't you think?
It's a very accurate statement, IMO. The military is often a far more representative institution than the government in these countries and in many cases the only one which really represents the common people of the countries in a signficant way.
Dave
12 - roger nowosielski
Which is why, perhaps, so many of the Latin American countries have been susceptible in the past to military style of dictatorships. So they're popular at first until someone like Peron or Allende decide to hold on to their power.
13 - Dan(Miller)
Here is a blog by a "gringa" in Honduras which, I think, helps to put things there in perspective.
Dan(Miller)
14 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
Don't you know anyone who isn't white, who has an opinion?
15 - roger nowosielski
But those opinions don't matter, Cindy.
16 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy, re Comment #14 -- as a matter of fact I do. The "middle class" Panamanian mentioned in my Comment #277 here is "not white." He has, in fact, quite dark skin.
I disagree with the notion, implicit in your question, that "white" opinions are somehow less valid than "not white" opinions; sometimes, "white" and "not white" opinions are remarkably similar. That seems to be the case here in Panama, where former President Zelaya is well regarded by very few people, regardless of race.
Dan(Miller)
17 - Clavos
Cindy,
Though I'm white, I'm as Mexican as any brown-skinned campesino, and therefore just as Latino.
There is little difference, culturally, between Mexico and the Central American countries.
18 - roger nowosielski
Except for Salvadorians perhaps. Some of them happen to think they're made of better clay.
19 - Clavos
That's true of any nationality anywhere (not just in LatAm), and doesn't negate the point that there is actually very little cultural difference in the region, since it all was at one time either part of the Mayan empire, or under its control (In Mexico's case, this is true of only the southern half of modern Mexico).
20 - roger nowosielski
Perhaps there's more of a middle class in El Salvador, or intelligentsia perhaps, than in the more impoverished LatAm countries. Or it could be my experience was with an oddball.
21 - handyguy
The sad fact is that in countries like Honduras, sometimes the military IS the most democratic representative of the people.
To leap from this highly questionable and wholly unproven generalization to applying it specifically in the Zelaya case is a quite amazing [though 'sadly' unremarkable] instance of sophistry.
In other words, how can you possibly know if this is true in all cases, in a few cases, or in no cases? And most of all, what gives you the wherewithal to pronounce it as The Answer to the question, What happened in Honduras?
Let's just all make stuff up, and then assert it as "Facts."
22 - Dan(Miller)
The Venezuelan Government is not happy with Secretary Clinton's remarks made during her 8 July Globovisión interview and noted in the article. According to the Venezuelan Foreign Relations Ministry,
"In a moment in which efforts are being made to improve the relationship with the United States government, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton repeats the old practice of giving recipes and emitting evaluations of Venezuelan democracy," stated the Ministry.
"The insinuations of the Secretary of State reflect a profound lack of knowledge of our reality," the Ministry's statement continued. "It is difficult to believe in the sincerity of [the U.S.'s] intention of recomposing bilateral relations."
Dan(Miller)
23 - handyguy
One would assume that Clinton deliberately tweaked Chavez's nose, at Obama's direction or with his approval. Possibly because the administration's stance was being misinterpreted in some quarters as being pro-Chavez.
24 - roger nowosielski
Like in the present instance.
25 - Cindy
Clav,
Obviously no one speaks for Latin America any more than I speak for the U.S. simply because I am white or I live here.
I am interested only in the specific opinions of born and raised Hondurans.