The "passive intervention" of the U.S.
Shannon said Washington's role was not "interventionist".
"This is not an intervention," hastened to correct the under secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs of the United States, Thomas Shannon, to the word used by a journalist covering the summit press offered on Thursday by the U.S. delegation to broker an agreement in Honduras.
Intervention is a term in Latin America diplomatically sensitive when used in conjunction with Washington, but in light of the good results achieved by the delegation of Shannon now some people criticize the U.S. not "intervene" before to unlock the situation in Honduras.
Since the beginning of the crisis, the White House sided with the rest of the inter-American community, despite allegations that it was "behind the coup" or "not doing enough to oust the coup leaders.
The State Department seemed to follow the wishes of President Barack Obama to establish a "new era" of cooperation with the region, which no longer dictates guidelines but to work together.
Except that for some, the U.S. diplomat had "misunderstood" that doctrine and to remain as "passive spectator" allowed to prolong a crisis that would have been shorter with stronger intervention from Washington.
Multilateral non-marginal
In Honduras, both sides seem to agree that U.S. efforts last minute made the difference and unlock the negotiations.
Hopefully the Obama administration has learned that support multilateral and regional efforts does not mean being inactive, waiting to stare at that all is resolved.
Michael Shifter, Inter-American Dialogue
"Who knows what would have happened if the delegation had come before," told BBC World, the ambassador of Honduras in Washington, Enrique Reina, who recalled the insistence of ousted President Manuel Zelaya to U.S. become more involved in the crisis.
Despite these demands, the State Department remained in the peloton diplomat of the Organization of American States (OAS), according to some, with a misconception of what the multilateral work.
"Hopefully the Obama administration has learned that support multilateral and regional efforts does not mean being inactive, waiting to stare at it all resolved," told BBC World, Michael Shifter, vice president for policy-American Dialogue, a hemispheric think tank based in Washington.
"All countries have the same weight, especially with respect to Honduras," Shiffter said, referring to the economic, political and migration between Washington and Tegucigalpa.
For Shifter at the beginning of the U.S. crisis sent mixed signals to Tegucigalpa and he noticed a certain "lack of commitment" to engage in resolving theimpasse.
"Misleading Appearances"
The outcome of this stage of the crisis in Honduras, does that mean U.S. holds the key to solving this type of crisis?
Who knows what would have happened if the delegation had come before
Enrique Reina, Ambassador of Honduras in Washington
"I think that looks can be deceiving," told BBC News, Marck Weisbrot, director of the Center for Political and Economic Research of Washington, who believes that Washington "is the key to solving this type of crisis."
According to him, "the main reason why the crisis is resolved is due to by strength of Latin American countries, saying they would not recognize the legitimacy of the elections and then the U.S. had to bow to that."
Weisbrot, a fierce critic of U.S. hemispheric policy, said "the only reason they could support the de facto government as much as they did in the past hundred days is because what they were doing was perceived."
"It is a manifestation that the U.S. can not go against the rest of the continent. It is an imposing reality. The government of George W. Bush isolated the U.S. and Obama does not want to do that," said .
Closing Work
During the crisis, Obama questioned the same as advocating an end to U.S. intervention, sued Washington to put more pressure on the coup leaders, in what was a recognition of U.S. policy lever.
The main reason why the crisis is resolved by the strength of Latin American countries, saying they would not recognize the legitimacy of the elections.
Marck Weisbrot, Center for Political and Economic Research of Washington
"What we did and accomplished through the OAS was to send a diplomatic message which was important, what failed was to apply the practical solution. The OAS has prepared the ground and that was an important contribution. They played a positive role, but it was not enough,"Michael Shifter told BBC World.
In the State Department they are careful not to present the result of their exclussive efforts as a unique success in Washington, but as the logical consequence of a negotiation process that began in Costa Rica through President Oscar Arias, whose project was the basis for the agreement reached .
Viewed from the perspective of teamwork diplomats might say that Americans with their speech exercised the executive function to "close" a sale long prepared.
Only in this case for many the closer could be none other than the U.S., so that all that time they consider "lost" will be pointed to their account.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/america_latina/2009/10/091030_honduras_eeuu_ra.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment