Latin America

As I wrote yesterday, one of the nice things about the post-Cold War era is that the leaders of military coups can no longer count on U.S. or Soviet support purely on the basis of ideology, and therefore, even in the rare instance that they do still succeed, have less of a chance of establishing dictatorships. Evidently, however, however, coup-plotters can still count on Charles Krauthammer's support.

The Washington Post columnist and Fox News commentator attacks the Obama administration in the above clip for taking the side of ousted leftist leader Manuel Zelaya and reccomends the following bizarre rule of thumb for U.S. Latin America policy:

Whenever you find yourself on the side of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and the Castro twins, you ought to reexamine your assumptions.

Well, ok. But what if you also find yourself on the side of reliably pro-American conservatives like Colombia's Alvaro Uribe and Mexico's Felipe Calderon as well as influential moderate leftist leaders like Brazil's Lula Inacio da Silva, Argentina's Christina Fernandez de Kirchner and Chile's Michelle Bachelet? Perhaps then you might come to the conclusion that the U.S. position on the events in Honduras should be decided not on where the players involved fall in the zero-sum, dialectical struggle for Latin America's soul, but whether this is really the best way to protect the country's democracy and the stability of the region.

Brooking Institution scholar and former Costa Rican minister of planning Kevin Casas Zamora, no fan of Zelaya, came to this conclusion in a piece for FP yesterday:

An illegal referendum has met an illegal military intervention, with the avowed intention of protecting the Constitution. Zelaya's civilian opponents, meanwhile, are celebrating. For the past week, the Honduran Congress has waxed lyrical about the armed forces as the guarantors of the Constitution, a disturbing notion for Latin Americans. At the very least, we are witnessing in Honduras the return of the unfortunate role of the military as the ultimate referee in political conflicts among civilian leaders, a huge step back in the region's consolidation of democracy.

That's why Zelaya, though he bears by far the greater responsibility for this crisis, must be reinstated in his position as the legitimate president of Honduras. The Organization of American States, the neighboring countries, and the U.S. government (which is still enormously influential in Honduras) should demand no less. They should also call upon all political actors in Honduras to take a deep breath and do what mature democracies do: allow the law to deal with those who try to step outside it. If Zelaya must be prosecuted for his harebrained attempt to subvert the Honduran Constitution, then let the courts proceed as rigorously as possible. And the same applies to the coup perpetrators. If Honduras is to have a decent future, its politicians and soldiers, in equal measure, must learn that the road to democracy and development runs through the rule of law.

Or you could just keep pretending that the Soviets are on the verge of taking over Latin America.

The Wall Street Journal's Mary O'Grady argues that the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was not in fact a coup, since the president was himself holding a referendum in violation of an order by the country's supreme court. But I don't think one need defend Zelaya to argue that sending troops to break into a president's house and put him on a plane out of the country is generally not the best way to protect "the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators."

If this weekend's coup seems like a bit of a throwback to the Cold War era, that's because it is. Research by political scientists Nikolay Marinov and Hein Goemans, which I wrote about in the May/June print issue of FP shows the number of coups has declined significantly since the fall of the Berlin wall:

And it's not just the number of coups that has changed. Those who seize power are now far more likely to give it up. Since 1990, two-thirds of governments resulting from coups allowed elections in less than five years. The end of the zero-sum competition of the cold war probably has a lot to do with it:

Since the end of Cold War rivalry for spheres of influence, Western powers have become less willing to tolerate dictatorships—and more likely to make aid contingent upon holding elections.

This does seem to be playing out in the Honduran case, with the Obama administration demanding the reinstatement of Zelaya, an ally of Hugo Chavez and frequent critic of U.S. policy. A few decades ago, it's doubtful that the White House would have acted so quickly to condemn the overthrow of an unfriendly leftist leader.

Central America's first coup in 16 years is certainly bad news (as it should be noted, was Zelaya's increasingly authoritarian behavior) but these events are becoming increasingly rare, and once the dust settles, Honduras has a greater chance at returning to democracy than ever before. 

Chart: Goemans and Marinov

During the ongoing political crisis in Iran, another less noticed "revolution" has been going on in Peru with relatively little international attention, but potentially with lasting consequences for both the country and its role in the global economy.

Over the past two weeks, indigenous protesters have successfully forced the Peruvian protesters have successfully forced the government to reverse planned land reforms that would have opened their traditional land to investment and exploration by international energy companies. 

The demonstrations against the reform turned violent earlier this month in a confrontation that left 50 dead, including 23 police officers. Peru's prime minister offered to resign over the controversy after the government caved to the Indians demands. The leader of the protest movement has fled into exile in Nicaragua after being charged with inciting the violence. 

President Alan Garcia has come under fire for his insensitivity to the violence and for comparing the protesters to "garden watchdogs" protecting their food. Garcia had framed the new development as both an economic opportunity for the region, a way of clamping down on illegal logging, and a way to combat drug trafficking by increasing government presence. 

Granted, the news has been dominated by Iran this month for good reason, but protests leading to the killing of 23 police officers, the reversal of a major government decisions affecting multinational corporations, and the resignation of a head of government, seems like a pretty big deal. I think it's safe to say that if this had happened in Asia or the Middle East it would have been front page news in the United States.

Consider how intertwined it is with U.S. foreign policy, it's always surprising how little discussion Latin American affairs (unless Hugo or Fidel are talking) merits in the United States. Peru's largely ignored situation is a perect example. Since when are race, money, violence, and drugs not interesting topics? 

AFP/Getty Images 

Last Thursday, Mark Sanford, the governor of the U.S. state of South Carolina, just disappeared. No one -- not his bodyguards, his wife, his staff -- knew where on Earth he was. 

On Monday, his staff told reporters that the idiosyncratic governor had gone for a quick solo jaunt on the Appalachian Trail. (Even though it was father's day weekend. And, a special Nude Hiking Day on the trail, natch.)

Well, Sanford's back. It turns out the governor was in Argentina for the week. The Wall Street Journal reports: 

He said it was a stressful legislative session and he wanted a break. He had considered – but vetoed – the idea of hiking the trail. “But I said ‘no’ I wanted to do something exotic,” Sanford said “… It’s a great city.”

He didn’t give many details about the trip, but said he was alone and drove along the coast.

Sanford said he cut the trip short by a day after being told by his chief of staff that he was getting lots of media attention. “I don’t know how this thing got blown out of proportion,” Sanford told the newspaper.

To be honest, this story is so bizarre I don't quite know what to say about it. Heading to Argentina for a week sounds delightful. But to run off without telling anyone? (The last time I considered doing that, I was in the fourth grade and had just tried putting my brother down the laundry chute.)

It's so vastly irresponsible -- not just weird, but irresponsible -- for a major public official to do that, in my mind, it disqualifies him for the job. Taxpayers pay to ensure the safety of their governors -- who knows how much money South Carolina spent looking for the guy? That's just for starters.  

And so, bewildered, I turn it over to you, readers. What was he doing in Argentina? Any good theories?

Update: Sanford was in Argentina with another woman, who he's known for eight years and been engaged in an affair with for the last year or so. He's resigned as the head of the Republican Governors' Association; my guess is that he'll ultimately resign as the governor of South Carolina as well.

And, what a strange, weirdly touching press conference. Key quote: "Oddly enough, I spent the last five days of my life crying in Argentina." 

Getty Images 

NYU economist, FP contributor and aid critic extraordinaire William Easterly says no:

The only useful definition of human rights is one where a human rights crusader could identify WHOSE rights are being violated and WHO is the violator. That is what historically has led to progress on human rights...Poverty does not fit this definition of rights. Who is depriving the poor of their right to an adequate income? There are many theories of poverty, but few of them lead to a clear identification of the Violator of this right.

It's true that lack of income, in and of itself, isn't a human rights violation. But poverty is about a lot more than just income. As Easterly knows, those who live on less than a dollar a day are poor not just because they lack income; the lack of income implies lack of access to services, clean drinking water, adequate education, housing, employment and so on. All of these are violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights. To give just one of many possible examples, estimates indicate that as many as 8,000 children die daily in Africa alone from preventable diseases such as cholera and dysentery. It's certainly true to say that these are diseases of poverty - the rich can ensure that their water is not contaminated and can seek treatment at private hospitals as opposed to understaffed government clinics - but they are more than that. They are violations of the right to health and the right to clean water.

Is this more than a semantic debate? Both agree poverty ought to be alleviated and that poverty is connected to actual human rights violations. Easterly calls it "disappointing" that Amnesty is "blurring its previous clear focus on human rights." Is it? 

SHAUN CURRY/AFP/Getty Images