So, those who plotted the coup in Honduras at the end of June last year got their way, after all. The coup-backers' bogeyman, President Manuel Zelaya, was successfully overthrown and remains in exile in the Dominican Republic, and the new government led by Porfirio Lobo has been recognized as democratic, or very close to democratic, by Washington, the EU and most of the countries that cut off ties when Zelaya was ousted.
The latest countries to recognize the Lobo government and restore full diplomatic relations were Chile and Mexico, both citing a report by the Organization of American States - which expelled Honduras after the coup - that concluded Lobo has made "considerable progress in the cause of restoring democracy and freedoms in the Central American country."
Still holding out are the left-leaning Latin American nations inspired by Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, and, most notably, Brazil and Argentina. So was it right for the US, the EU, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Peru and others - including all of Honduras' Central American neighbors except Nicaragua - to recognize the Lobo government? And if the answer is yes, should those who haven't done so follow suit?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of last June's coup - those behind it justified their move by arguing that Zelaya was trying to change the constitution illegally so he could run for another term in office - not having diplomatic relations with a country should not be used as a "punishment" for events in the past, nor as a means of protest because one nation does not like another nation's system of government. Otherwise, western-style democracies simply would not have diplomatic ties with most countries in Africa and the Middle East, nor with quite a few in Asia.
Nor of course with Cuba, although the argument that if a country is going to have diplomatic relations with Havana then there's no excuse for not having them with Tegucigalpa doesn't entirely stand up, as Cuba was not a democracy when the present incumbents took power.
Of course, withdrawing ambassadors and cutting ties can and should be used as a means of expressing disapproval of a serious breach of the democratic "rules of the game," as happened in Honduras last year, but times move on and the de facto government has given way to one that has earned a certain legitimacy.
Like it or not, Lobo was democratically elected, although Zelaya should be allowed to return without having to face criminal proceedings - and perhaps those who carried out the coup should face at the very least a full investigation (although not necessarily criminal punishment as Chavez and company maintain). But in deciding whether to restore relations, a nation needs to give priority to the current situation, and, of course, practical issues such as its own political, business and cultural interests, along with the interests of its own citizens.
In conclusion: Breaking off diplomatic relations may be a useful means of protest but in itself it doesn't solve anything, and over time has negative effects in other areas such as trade, investment, travel and cultural exchange. In the case of Honduras, it's time for the Venezuela-led bloc to fall in line with the rest of the region.
bnamericas
