The Obama Administration is finally being tested on the foreign policy front – both here and abroad.
In Iran, the post-election protests by reformist supporters who were convinced that voter fraud occurred was quickly quelled by the Conservative ruling party. When Obama hesitated to respond, his critics in the U.S. insinuated that he was indecisive and weak. The Administration’s explanation was that they were not going to interfere with internal political conflicts in other nations; however, neither would they acknowledge the legitimacy of governments who ignored basic principles of democracy.
Then one of the United States’ most loyal allies in Latin America, Honduras, has a coup and overthrows a legitimately-elected President who had apparently moved “left” – much to the chagrin of the ruling-class in Honduras. Obama’s critics here in the U.S. now insinuate that the Administration should keep it’s nose out of Honduran politics (support the coup) since the Honduran President in question aligned himself with Venezuela’s President Chavez.
Now I am not some Chavez sympathizer.
However, therein lies the paradox, and the incongruous nature of past American Foreign Policy for the current Administration. If Obama supports a democratic movement in another country that will topple a tyrannical leadership we do not like, we will back him up. But if a democratic ally overthrows a legitimately-elected leader, albeit undesirable in our eyes, many of us want the President to not interfere, thus ignoring the obvious hypocrisy.
Democracy is not some fluid political theory that can be molded to fit the United State’s agenda. If we are to remain the beacon of democracy, consistency is the key. Tyrannical governments will most often try to crush democratic movements in their own country. That is the nature of despots. In turn, Democracies must respect democratic principles in order to assert legitimacy.
Moreover, we now live in a global village that requires nuanced and carefully reasoned responses; we should have learned from the previous eight years that using carrots instead of sticks to change behavior (when possible) is generally the better way to approach foreign policy.
If a tyranny quashes a democratic movement, they should be isolated and shunned by the democracies of the world. In the same vein, if a democratic ally such as Honduras violates the most basic principles of democratic process – putting the proverbial cart before the horse by having the military remove the president at gunpoint, and then impeaching him – we cannot give legitimacy to their government by tacitly accepting the behavior. The consequences for such action must be to “punish” them by breaking all diplomatic and economic ties in an effort to motivate them to adhere to the democratic process. The reality of their actions, as reflected in both the response of the world and Honduras’ subsequent and swift isolation, seems to have awakened Honduras to notion that they may have been mistaken in their “procedures”.
If Honduras would simply reinstate President Zeleya, impeach and convict him, and then remove him from office, all would be forgiven, and the principles of democracy preserved.
The principle issue in American Foreign Policy in the post – WW II era has been the lack of consistency with which we have approached these problems. This hypocrisy seems to have been lost on a significant portion of American citizens over the years. It is important to consider that merely taking a civics class in high school, waving an American Flag, celebrating the 4th of July, and watching cable news to “learn” how things work does not give one a sufficient understanding of the principles of constitutional democracy and foreign policy. A well-educated and informed constituency is the key to democracy.
And like Hondurans, Americans should take heed, as well: Self-reflection is always the first step to redemption.