Putting the Honduras Debate in Perspective

The intense debate in Washington and elsewhere in the Americas about Honduras, and especially about how the United States should respond to the forcible deportation of President Manuel Zelaya, illustrates how hard it is to overcome long-standing expectations about US behavior in the Americas.

As long ago as the mid-1970s, I argued that the "hegemonic presumption" of the United States was ending. The phrase referred to a bundle of attitudes and expectations in the Americas: that the United States was the only major power; that Latin American countries should follow the US lead; that the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Development Bank should be instruments of US policy; that extrahemispheric actors are unwelcome intruders in the Americas; that political movements which challenge US dominance -- or even US ideology -- are threatening; and that the United States can and should control its environment by eliminating challenging movements through covert or overt intervention.

This presumption seemed to be ending then because it could no longer be supported by the objective realities of power. In truth, however, hegemonic attitudes and policies lingered on, as was evident in Central America and the Caribbean during the 1980s, with reference to the "Washington Consensus" on liberalizing economies in the 1990s; and more recently with regard to the "war on terrorism," the "war on drugs" and the war in Iraq.

Administrations of both parties in Washington clung to the notion that Latin American countries should take a US-centric view of the world and of appropriate policies. Many US observers, including US government officials, were repeatedly surprised when one Latin American country or another resisted Washington's views; the Bush administration's dismay that Chile and Mexico would not support the US-UK position on Iraq at the United Nations was a classic illustration.

Time and again, when a Latin American country presses approaches that are directly antagonistic to US positions, questions are raised in Washington about whether the United States is "losing Latin America," why, and whose fault this is. Partisan strife on other issues, and the recurrent US tendency to use Latin America (and especially Central America) as an arena to score points in other games, heighten this tendency. The crossfire about Honduras exemplifies this unfortunate tendency.

In fact, some in the United States and some in Latin America and the Caribbean do still expect (and some hope) that the United States will intervene forcefully in Honduras and in other countries where Hugo Chávez exerts his influence in an anti-American direction. The expectation that the United States will act, unilaterally and decisively, regardless of inter-American institutions or prevailing Latin American opinions, arises from long history, reinforced by recent experience.

What Honduras shows is that the administration led by Barack Obama recognizes that it is not in the interest of the United States to perpetuate and reinforce this expectation. The new US authorities understand that the United States no longer has the means to exert quick control in such countries as Honduras, and that trying to do so could undermine more promising multilateral avenues for achieving US objectives.

Although the United States is still the only superpower in the hemisphere, and is more powerful than every other nation in the Americas, the influence of the US government in the region has declined compared to what it was at the end of World War II, the height of the Cold War or the immediate post-Cold War moment. Those were extraordinary periods when extrahemispheric powers were effectively excluded from the Hemisphere and when countries within the region, even the larger ones, were constrained from pursuing their own interests if they differed from those of the United States. Today, however, Latin American countries increasingly act as countries do elsewhere in the world, defining and pursuing their own interests.

The challenge for US policy in the Americas is to identify, nurture and pursue shared interests with the countries of the region and to reduce and manage conflicts of interest. It is in this context that multilateral institutions and diplomatic initiatives are so important. Relying on multilateral procedures rather than on unilateral dictate requires patience and perseverance, but it will be a more reliable way both to protect US interests and to promote inter-American progress.

Abraham F. Lowenthal, professor of international relations at the University of Southern California, is president emeritus of the Pacific Council on International Policy and a non-resident senior fellow of the Brookings Institution.

Comments

[douglaslagos]

typo below, should be "closet-socialist", not close-socialist.

[douglaslagos]

Obama does not support the new government in Honduras. Obama supports Chavez and Zelaya, and any leftist government. Look at his actions, they speak for themselves.
Obama's high officials will only meet with Zelaya, but not with representatives of the new Honduran goverment.
I believe that Obama is a close-socialist. Hope I'm wrong, but don't think so. Have any of you seen Obama's FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd? Mr. Lloyd is an out and about socio-communist. See it with your own eyes and hear it on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF2C235fD7o
Hear what Mr. Lloyd says at about minute 1:20. He states that the great revolution that Chavez did with the private media (closing them down) is a great thing!

[S1m0n]

There's no sign that the Obama administration disapproves of the Honduran coup, and every reason to believe they gave prior approval to the coup plotters. This, in turn, is a far more convincing explanation for american inaction since than the above account.

[altohone]

"in Honduras and in other countries where Hugo Chávez exerts his influence in an anti-American direction."

Hugo's influence in Honduras was just squashed by an interventionist elite against the rule of law... can't get more anti-American than that... unless putting ideology ahead of country is your idea of being a good American.

How can someone who takes themselves seriously portray the failure to act against a coup that undermines our principles as positive.

Can we assume payments were not made to encourage this supporter of right wing extremists the same way Lanny Davis is being paid to espouse these views?
I should say, can we assume there will be disclosure of the payments?

[Rule Of Law]

No.........not facts and logic--no.­........I'­m melting, I'm melting...­..........­.........

:)

[Ira7]

Honduras is simply a bad example to use as any indicator of America's/Obama's current attitude in the region:

Basically because half of the world believes there was a coup, and the other half doesn't.

I'd like to hear Mr. Lowenthal's opinion though on why the U.S. is doing nothing to oppose a dictatorship in Venezuela, and is leaning towards supporting another one in Honduras?

[sticksnstones]

" Basically because half the world believes there was a coup, and the other half doesn't. "

I don't know where you pulled that out of, Ira, but I can guess. Name a single sovereign country in the entire world which supports the Honduran coup d'etat. Take your time.

No matter how many times you insist that Venezuela is governed by a dictatorship, it will not make it so. Dictatorships are predominantly a product of coup d'etats in Latin America. Search extralegal arrests and detentions in Honduras for the latest manifestation of this phenomenon.

[LuxSF]

Chavez might have been elected but that does not mean he respects democracy. I also encourage you to make some research about how some of the most undemocratic and brutal presidents in history have also been elected. Seeing democracy as a simple act of casting votes it's limited and passe.

[Billy Hell]

Just exactly how do you define "US interests" and the promotion of "inter-American progress" Professor?

[PunditBasher]

This is perhaps the funniest article I have read in a long time

The author uses his own past interventions in S. America where he, as "founding director of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Latin American Program" advocated supporting right wing dictators over democracies, now says that the United States should not oppose a new right wing dictator because we shouldn't intervene

[Rule Of Law]

Ain't that the great thing about freedom?

As long as you do things our way, we'll let you have some.

[Rule Of Law]

Hugo Chavez is not anti-American. He is anti-American Business and anti-American meddling, as are most other countries in our hemisphere with functioning democracies.

The Honduran Coup was staged by military brass who'd received their training at the School of the Americas--also known as the School of Assassins. In other words they learned everything they know about overthrowing an elected government from us.

[JGallardo]

That Hugo Chavez is not anti-American and that Venezuela is a functioning democracy (They just closed another group of independent media) is really like not knowing or not understanding. I will agree that he is not anti-Obama, whom he carefully leaves out of his usual "Yanqui Imperialism" tirades.

Furthermore, aside from being trained at your "academy for assassins", West Point, Annapolis and other fine US military schools, the Honduran Army has also been trained by those "assassins" from the UN Peace keeping forces, with whom the Honduran Army has participated on more than one occassion. They were just sent back from Spain who didn't let them participate in Irak after they had received all the training on peacekeeping missions.

The new Honduran Government just extradited to the US a Syrian terrorist, wanted in the US for judgment.

[zola77]

Well, the debate is not just about how the US should react to events in Honduras, its also about the way the US military in Honduras is supporting the Coup government. Although it isnt reported about in the US, it is in other countries.

The US government cant wash its hands of this (not outside of the US anyway). The US military in Honduras has been providing material and strategic support to the coup regime - a regime that is killing Hondurans who want their president back and supporting the curfew that has been imposed on the people to stop them protesting - The vast majority of Hondurans. The problem is the US trained military that refuses to enact the people's wishes and restore the constitutionally elected president to his post.

Unfortunately the US still acts as it wants in Latin America. The US government and military is partly responsible for the coup and this article is disingenuous because it fails to state that basic fact - one that is very clear to the rest of the world.

[Rule Of Law]

Just FYI--

"The Brookings Institution (of which Lowenthal is a non-resident senior fellow) was initially centrist, the Institution took its first step rightwards during the depression, in response to the New Deal. In the 1960s, it was linked to the conservative wing of the Democratic party, backing Keynsian economics. From the mid-70s it cemented a close relationship with the Republican party. Since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the right in parallel with the increasing influence of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation."