A Win and a Loss on Honduras - Western Political Science ...
Strengthening Democracy in Latin America: Evaluating the Tools of the OAS
Kali Wright-Smith
Westminster College
Department of Political Science
Fulton, MO
Kali.Wright-Smith@westminster-mo.edu
Paper prepared for the Western Political Science Association Conference,
April 2014.
Introduction
On the night of June 28, 2009, President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras was forcibly removed from his post and expelled from the country by the military, following orders from the Honduran Supreme Court to depose the president. He was put on a plane and flown out of the country to Costa Rica. In reaction to this event, on July 4, 2009, the Organization of American States (OAS) for the first time invoked Article 21 of the 2001 Inter-American Democratic Charter (IADC), which states:
When the special session of the General Assembly determines that there has been an unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order of a member state, and that diplomatic initiatives have failed, the special session shall take the decision to suspend said member state from the exercise of its right to participate in the OAS by an affirmative vote of two thirds of the member states in accordance with the Charter of the OAS. The suspension shall take effect immediately.
The suspended member state shall continue to fulfill its obligations to the Organization, in particular its human rights obligations.
Notwithstanding the suspension of the member state, the Organization will maintain diplomatic initiatives to restore democracy in that state.[1]
Thirty-three members of the OAS passed a General Assembly resolution to invoke the IADC and suspend Honduras from the organization.[2] The purpose of this mechanism was to accentuate the illegitimacy of the de facto regime following the coup and to encourage member states to “review their relations with the Republic of Honduras during the period of the diplomatic initiatives.”[3] This was an unprecedented action of enforcement from the organization. While Cuba was excluded from the organization from 1962 through 2009, Honduras is the only electoral democracy to be suspended from the OAS.
The first invocation of the IADC provides an opportunity to reexamine the efforts of the OAS to promote democracy and to analyze the strength of its short- and long-term tools. In spite of diplomatic pressure, Honduras did not restore Zelaya to the presidency and was instead ruled under an interim government until the inauguration of new president Porfirio Lobo in January 2010. Consequently, the invocation of Article 21 did not achieve its stated purpose and the first full-fledged military coup in Latin American in 16 years went unpunished. Nevertheless, the short-term response is only the first piece of the process, so it is important to evaluate the broader application of OAS tools to restore democracy in Honduras.
Like other regional inter-governmental organizations, one of the primary goals of the OAS is to protect and promote democracy. There is a broad literature on the democracy promotion efforts of these organizations, including previous work that examines how well the OAS accomplishes this mission, but this question takes on renewed importance in light of the Honduran case. In order to evaluate the OAS’s democracy promotion strategies, it is helpful to first compare them to the institutional mechanisms of another regional inter-governmental organization: the European Union. After reviewing the literature on the strengths and weaknesses of the EU’s democracy promotion strategies, this research will examine the OAS’s historical record of democracy promotion and specifically analyze its attempts to restore and later rebuild democracy in Honduras.
The enforcement of the Inter-American Charter in the Honduran case was a major step toward confirming regional commitment to democratic rule. The overwhelming decision to enforce the IADC is rarely seen in a region which is relatively “hands-off” with respect to pushing for compliance with international law. This action further solidifies resistance to any military involvement in the usurpation of political power and continues the de-legitimation of this institution as a participant in civilian affairs. While there is reason to be optimistic about the OAS’s role in continuously working to strengthen normative commitment to preserving democratic rule, the OAS should focus on improving long-term, bottom-up approaches to promoting democratic consolidation in its member states.
Regional Organizations & Democracy Promotion
Analysis of institutional tools of democracy promotion involves an investigation of the strategies taken by the institution and the outcomes of those strategies. While the institution has influence through its choice of response, the outcome of the response is dependent on the target state. A number of factors influence the effectiveness of democracy promotion efforts. At the institutional level, these include the durability of institutional norms supporting democracy, the degree of consensus that supports these norms, the institution’s enforcement mechanisms, and the variety of cross-cutting rules that reinforce one other.[4] Regional organizations might operate primarily at the elite level by attempting to directly influence government policy, but top-down tools are more effective if they are supplemented with bottom-up efforts to strengthen civil society and mass support for democracy.[5]
The three primary regional inter-governmental organizations—the European Union, the African Union, and the OAS—each emphasize democracy promotion as a core aspect of its organizational identity. However, these organizations differ in terms of what this means, what strategies it entails, and what gains are achieved. Due to regional differences across a large continent, along with the youth and institutional weakness of the African Union, democracy promotion is more of an ad hoc process in Africa. Most institutional efforts at democracy promotion have come through external initiatives, with the AU taking on a more reactive role in democracy protection. In contrast, the EU and OAS have each worked to develop a larger toolbox of democracy promotion measures. Over time, the EU has created an intricate and evolving set of democracy promotion mechanisms.
As the earliest effort at regional integration, the European Union provides a model for other regional organizations to follow. The EU’s democracy promotion strategy rests on three “pillars:” incentives for democratic reform, punishment for democratic deficiency, and democracy assistance.[6] The European Union’s democracy promotion program is far more expansive than that of the OAS. Not only does it attempt to deepen democracy within member states, but it also tries to promote the institutionalization of democracy outside of its member states, primarily through its Neighborhood Policy.
A number of works have assessed the impact of the EU’s democracy promotion efforts. Schimmelfennig (2008) analyzes the EU’s conditionality strategy and finds that the EU is able to persuasively push for political reform in countries that are offered a path to membership. For many states, the incentives of EU membership are compelling enough to enhance democracy promotion.[7] However, this only works in states that believe the benefits outweigh the costs of reform.[8] Further analyzing the economic incentives associated with democracy promotion, Youngs (2001) assesses both “positive” and “negative” measures taken by the EU. He asserts that both positive incentives such as democracy assistance and negative measures such as conditionality can support the EU democracy promotion project, but both sets of measures could be improved by increasing the consistency of their application, augmenting institutional resources that support promotion efforts, and integrating different approaches to form more coherent strategies.
Youngs notes that much of the EU’s efforts are “indirectly” aimed at supporting democracy.[9] The idea of “indirect” democracy promotion by the EU is echoed in other works. Kennedy (2013) maintains that IOs like the EU can promote democracy by strengthening democratic values. Kennedy finds that higher levels of supranational identity—such as identification with the European Union—are connected to post-materialist values. These values, in turn, affect support for democracy. Thus, he is able to demonstrate a more indirect relationship between regional organizations and the strength of democracy within a country.[10]
Other works are less sanguine about the EU’s effect on democratization, particularly the tools driving the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP). Wetzel and Orbie (2012) argue that the EU’s various strategies for external democracy promotion suffer from an unclear conceptualization of democracy, misunderstand the relevant factors connected to democratization, and lack a “systematic” approach to assessing the effectiveness of the program.[11] In a similar vein, Shapovalova and Youngs assert that the EU’s external attempts to promote democracy through the strengthening of civil society have improved, but the ENP still needs to be recalibrated to be more effective in Eastern Europe.[12]
Europe’s tools of democracy promotion are an evolving project. Kelley (2006) notes that the ENP reflects a combination of “learning and adaptation.”[13] The EU recognized its past weaknesses in promoting democratic values outside of Europe, which shaped the development of the ENP. The ENP represents an adaptation because it is a continuation of existing procedures under the EU’s enlargement plan. Its foreign policy strategy toward membership enlargement bled over into its strategy to promote its democratic norms and values in countries outside of the EU. Thus, institutions can learn from previous failures and use existing institutional mechanisms to adapt and expand their influence in democracy promotion.[14]
Further demonstrating organizational learning, the EU received criticism in the 1990s that it was promoting a shallow form of electoral democracy while paying less attention to building deeper democratic norms in a society.[15] This is a criticism that it later responded to, particularly in its external democracy promotion efforts. This is evidenced by the latest incarnation of its policy, the European Endowment for Democracy, launched in 2013. Rather than focusing inward on member states, this represents another attempt to strengthen the ENP by supporting pro-democracy activists in other regions. This policy is innovative for a number of reasons. First, it is a bottom-up approach to democracy promotion, as it was created in the wake of the Arab Spring to financially support activists. Second, it recognizes the importance of supporting the democratic project outside of the European borders. Finally, while funded by the European Commission and supported by some EU members, program operation is autonomous from the EU, which ensures that its decision-making process is less cumbersome and politicized.[16] This latter point is especially crucial given that one consistent area of criticism of EU policy is its inability to efficiently respond to situations.[17]
While most regions do not have the resources, bureaucracy, or lengthy experience with institutionalized democracy of the EU, these programs serve as templates for other regional organizations. The EU has developed a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches to democracy promotion, with both direct indirect and direct mechanisms of enhancing democratization. In light of this review, it is important to analyze the depth, range, and effectiveness of OAS tools of democracy promotion. After discussing the development and application of OAS tools, the focus will shift to a recent regional threat to democracy.
The OAS & Democracy Promotion
Like the EU, the OAS’s tools of democracy promotion can be evaluated along two dimensions: short- and long-term tools of promotion and direct and indirect mechanisms. The first dimension will be the focus of this study, which will prioritize direct forms of democracy promotion. However, it would be disingenuous not to mention the indirect tools briefly as well. One of the centerpieces of the OAS’s work is in the field of human rights, which many studies have shown is inextricably linked to democratic quality.[18] The direct tools of democracy promotion such as those found in the Inter-American Democratic Charter and exercised in electoral observation can affect the protection of human rights in a society, but the OAS also has separate tools, such as the judicial mechanisms of the Inter-American Commission and Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It is not rare for these bodies to order states to reform domestic institutions such as the judiciary or security forces; actions which have clear effects on democracy.
Most of the OAS’s work affects the democratic project in Latin America in some way, but this work will focus on its direct tools of democracy promotion. Following the third wave of democratization, the OAS began creating institutions devoted specifically to its work on democracy, such as its Unit for the Promotion of Democracy. In its legal capacity, the OAS has passed numerous resolutions over the years that affirm the importance of democracy, such as Resolution 1080, adopted in 1991, which mandated that any “irregular interruption” of democracy would lead to an automatic response from the OAS. In 1992, the organization fortified its enforcement mechanisms with the Protocol of Washington, which contained a provision permitting the expulsion of member states if democracy was threatened by a coup. The next step in the growing regional emphasis on democracy was the Inter-American Democratic Letter. The letter called for the creation of a formal democratic charter that would formally re-commit all member states to consolidated democracy and enshrine a broader notion of democracy protection, early intervention, and punishment for threats to democratic rule. On September 11, 2001, the Inter-American Democratic Charter was passed by the General Assembly in Lima, Peru. The IADC specifies that democracy is “a right of the peoples of the Americas” and provides the OAS with the most comprehensive set of enforcement tools.[19]
It is an understatement to say that Latin America’s road to democracy has been tumultuous. Despite an overwhelming turn to democratization by the early 1990s, many countries have experienced democratic reversals or threats to regime stability. Many Latin American countries are designated as “partly free” by Freedom House, and only a small number of Latin American states, such as Chile and Costa Rica, have strong democratic institutions supported by a system of checks and balances and a respected rule of law. Due to the continued fragility of democracy in the region during the last two decades, the OAS has frequently been involved in efforts to preserve and strengthen democracy.
Following the passage of Resolution 1080, the OAS used its direct tools to intervene in threats to democracy throughout the region, including the 1991 coup against Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti and Alberto Fujimori’s 1992 self-coup in Peru. The response to the Haitian crisis was one of the OAS’s strongest, with the removal of diplomatic ties and an economic embargo linked to demands to restore the president. While this pressure failed in Haiti, it was more successful in the short-term restoration of democratic institutions—although they remained weakened throughout Fujimori’s rule—in Peru. The OAS also stepped in to mediate later crises such as the 2002 attempted coup in Venezuela and Ecuador’s 2004 constitutional crisis.[20] However, it is notable that prior to the Honduran coup, the OAS never invoked the enforcement mechanisms of the 2001 Charter.
In their comprehensive analysis of OAS responses to threats to democracy in the region, Arceneaux and Pion-Berlin (2007) reach the conclusion that the OAS is “selective” in its intervention, spending insufficient time addressing less overt forms of institutional weakness. Thus, rather than addressing long-term “dilemmas of democratic deepening,” such as the progressive undermining of institutions, erosion of the rule of law, and threats to human rights, the organization is primarily reactive and responsive to immediate crises.[21] They note this divergence in OAS intervention, stating,
Countries of the region act with vigor to forestall the disruption of the democratic process by military takeovers or stolen elections because they understand all too clearly what is at stake for their own national interests. But when the democratic threat is not so clear, when it involves constitutional crises that irreversibly bend the rules or invent new ones, or when it exacerbates the more intractable, longer-term problems of building stronger democratic processes and institutions, the OAS all too often balks.[22]
The 2009 Honduran coup permits an examination of the immediate response of the OAS and the long-term intervention to deal with more indirect threats to democracy. Long-term tools used by the OAS include sending electoral missions to countries, providing institutional support, instituting good governance programs, holding summits to foster citizen and local government participation, and offering training programs for government officials. Thus, the success of both sets of tools will be evaluated in the Honduran case.
An Unexpected Coup
Coverage of the Honduran coup focused on the rarity of authoritarian takeovers in Latin American in recent decades. Following the end of military regimes in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s, many countries purposely limited the power of the military and attempted to build lasting democracy. Thus, forcible expulsion of a democratically elected president by the military was far from the norm in 21st century Latin America. This is not the only unusual feature of this coup. In this case, the military was the enforcer, but not the instigator of the coup. The removal of the president was ordered by the Honduran Supreme Court following Zelaya’s controversial decision to hold a public referendum on the question of amending the constitution. Such an amendment could have led to changes in presidential term limits. The president of the Honduran Congress, Roberto Micheletti, declared this referendum illegal, and the military refused to support the elections. The military’s refusal to facilitate the elections led to Zelaya’s firing of the commander of the army. The Supreme Court backed the military’s position, but Zelaya continued to press forward with the referendum.[23] When Zelaya determined to proceed with the referendum, he was taken from his home in the middle of the night and forced out of the country. The event was seen as a “class coup” because of the discontent emanating from the middle classes who felt Zelaya was trying to disrupt the status quo and redistribute influence to the lower classes.
What is most unusual about this coup is the rationale behind it. The supporters of the coup, the Honduran Supreme Court, and the post-coup interim government of Roberto Micheletti claimed that the removal of Zelaya was undertaken for the “defense of democracy.”[24] They argued that they took atypical, but completely legal, means to preserve democracy in the long run. Additionally, the government maintained that the military and Supreme Court followed the tenets of the constitution when they acted to prevent the president from amassing greater power. Among the domestic public, absorption of this message was aided by a media storm that disseminated pro-coup information.
As a result of the controversial nature of this action, the country quickly divided into two opposing camps: those who supported Zelaya and condemned the coup and the pro-Micheletti faction. This factional conflict produced weeks of demonstrations and domestic upheaval. During this time, the interim government suspended civil liberties for 45 days and government forces committed a number of human rights violations against the pro-Zelaya demonstrators which led to injuries and several deaths.[25] After Zelaya came back into Honduras under the protection of the Brazilian embassy, he faced criminal charges by the interim government. Consequently, this contentious situation demanded a regional response.
Prior to the Honduran coup, the OAS had never utilized the enforcement mechanism of Article 21. However, it was apparent from the early stages of the coup that this was a unique situation and the Micheletti government’s position was “extremely firm” and “inflexible.”[26] The interim government resisted numerous OAS warnings, public critiques, and attempts to negotiate an end to the crisis. OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza declared “we all want a prompt return of Honduras, a founding member of the OAS, to the heart of the Organization. But that will only be possible when this country reaches a true restoration of its democratic regime and the outcome of the coup of June 28 has been overcome.”[27]
Regardless of the rationale behind the action, the involvement of the military in a government takeover represented a return to the political crises of the 1960s and 1970s. Unlike many earlier threats to democracy, this event was a complete ouster of a democratically elected president. The coup was coordinated by multiple political institutions, rather than reflecting the actions of a lone figure or political party. Furthermore, the president was not merely impeached; he was removed from his home and forcibly exiled. Thus, this event evoked memories of political coups from Latin America’s authoritarian period. It was the extreme nature of the event and the perception that this act constituted a threat to broader regime stability in the region that spurred the organization to unforeseen action.
The Regional Response
The OAS has been called on to promote democracy and condemn non-democratic action in numerous countries, but the region has never witnessed such an unequivocal response to a non-democratic takeover. The outcry to the Honduran coup in Latin America demonstrates that in spite of the democratic setback in Honduras, norms supporting democratic rule have grown stronger in the region.
Immediately following the coup, Latin America united in its denunciation of the actions of Honduras’s institutions. This message reverberated throughout the hemisphere. In South America, every country condemned the coup and called for the restoration of Zelaya. For some countries, this was a strategic move, as Zelaya had connections to other leftist governments in the region, including Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Evo Morales’s Bolivia. During Zelaya’s administration, Honduras was a member of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), a cooperative organization of eight left-leaning countries with political and economic ties.[28]
Non-ALBA states including Chile, Brazil, and Peru also publically condemned the coup. Former Brazilian President Luiz Inàcio Lula da Silva stated “If the countries that can…make gestures do not do so, we do not know where else there could be a coup.”[29] Zelaya remained in the Brazilian embassy in Honduras during the heart of the conflict and Brazil helped to mediate the resolution. Costa Rica also took a leadership position in attempting to mediate the dispute between Zelaya and the interim government. Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner said that the coup was tantamount to “kidnapping the democratic restoration in Latin America,” while former Paraguyan President Fernando Lugo labeled the coup “a blow to the democratic conscience of the continent.”[30] Immediately following the coup, Peru’s Foreign Minister, Jose Antonio Garcia Belaunde, argued for a “peaceful and democratic solution” through the OAS invocation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter.[31] Other Central American states, including Nicaragua, Panama, and Guatemala, all called upon Honduras to reinstate Zelaya.
The Caribbean Community (CARICOM), composed of 15 states, bolstered the OAS response by issuing a strong statement condemning the threat to democracy and the violence that followed, while calling upon the OAS to “restore respect for the rule of law and constitutional order.”[32] The individual states also issued sharply worded criticisms of the interim government, with Barbados labeling the act an “abhorrent wrong” and Jamaica speaking of the need to demonstrate the feeling that the coup was a “wound to their body politic.”[33] Trinidad and Tobago is historically less supportive of the OAS’s work, as demonstrated by its withdrawal from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and renunciation of its ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights, yet it also reiterated the necessity of working through the Inter-American system to resolve the differences between parties in Honduras.[34] In spite of competing narratives within Honduras, Latin American countries labeled the coup and subsequent actions a violation of international law.[35]
Outside of Latin America, the United Nations, United States, and European Union also condemned the coup and made official demands for the end of violence and the restoration of democracy. Nevertheless, it is notable that pressure from Latin American states was stronger than pressures from the U.S. The somewhat ambivalent external response is the likely result of the difficulty some faced in characterizing the action in Honduras as a “coup.” Because many believed that both Zelaya and his opponents acted in an undemocratic manner and contributed to the crisis, international condemnation was brief. According to the U.S. State Department, it “’recognized the complicated nature’ of events leading to Zelaya's removal.”[36]
The Failure of External Pressure
Although the invocation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the united pressure from OAS members were unprecedented, they did not achieve the desired effect. In the months following the coup, the interim Honduran government seemed relatively immune to the international condemnation that resulted from its actions. OAS orders for the reinstatement of Zelaya were flatly refused as the interim government reiterated its message about the danger of having Zelaya in office. The interim government repeatedly rejected external influence while making references to its status as a sovereign nation.
One common method of democracy promotion is punishment for democratic failures, but Honduras remained intransigent in response to both political and economic pressures. Although U.S. diplomatic presence in this crisis was minimal, it did withhold $33 million in aid to Honduras.[37] Other countries also reduced aid to Honduras or scaled back economic relations. A counterfactual worth considering is how Honduras would have behaved if there had not been elections already scheduled for November 2009. For a country as poor as Honduras, with an annual GDP per capita of less than $5000, it would take enormous resolve to persist in a situation of great economic loss, thus suggesting that economic punishment from within or outside of the OAS can be a useful tool in certain contexts. Because of the planned elections, the absence of a democratically elected leader had a time limit from the beginning of the coup. Honduras may have been calculating that holding democratic elections and inaugurating a new leader would be sufficient to encourage countries to reestablish their ties to Honduras. This was a correct calculation. It is also likely that the situation would have been different in the face of prolonged international ostracism. Honduras has been generally cooperative with international monitors in the last decade and a half, and it has complied with a number of recommendations and rulings of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Its complete disregard for the OAS following the coup does not follow its past interactions with the body, and this is likely the result of narrow elite interests, a belief by some that the coup was crucial for democracy, and conviction that Honduras’s sovereign rights precluded international involvement. Consequently, for Honduras the costs of noncompliance with the OAS’s orders were perceived as lower than the costs of reinstating Zelaya.
The Post-Coup Situation
While the OAS reacts more consistently to clear interruptions of democracy than democratic weakening, its record of success at democratic restoration is mixed. Despite the strong immediate response of the organization, the OAS was unable to use diplomatic and economic pressure Honduras to restore Zelaya to the presidency. Thus, it had to move from a more immediate, direct plan to protect democracy to a long-term plan of promoting the reestablishment of democracy. After the election of Lobo, the OAS maintained constant contact with Honduras in order to negotiate the conditions for Honduras’s reentry into the organization. In May 2011, the political conflict in Honduras was formally resolved with the signing of the Cartagena Accord. The resolution mandated that charges filed against Zelaya during the coup were dropped, it permitted Zelaya to safely return to Honduras from exile in the Dominican Republic, and it also gave Zelaya the right to return to politics in the future and allowed his anti-coup supporters to form a political party.[38] Following this agreement, Honduras was readmitted to the OAS as a full voting member on June 1, 2011, by a vote of 32-1.
This move was applauded by many states outside of Latin America, including the United States. In 2010, the U.S. seized on Lobo’s inauguration as evidence of Honduras’s return to normalcy and recognized the new leadership.[39] Although it took longer for most Latin American states to recognize the Lobo government, many Latin American states also expressed their enthusiasm for a return to business as usual and the stabilization of the OAS system. The only clear exception was Ecuador, whose ambassador noted that “Ecuador considers that the conditions do not exist to fully restore Honduras to this organization. Rule of law has not been completed. … Repressive impunity continues.”[40]
The OAS decision also aroused concern from many non-governmental organizations. The interim Honduran government blocked efforts to investigate violations that occurred in the post-coup protests and the current judiciary has been similarly resistant to guaranteeing justice for those who opposed the coup.[41] Lobo granted amnesty to the coup participants, many of who have taken positions in the new government.[42] The Cartagena Accord did not contain any provisions for punishment, in opposition to the wishes of many domestic NGOs. A joint statement from The Latin America and Caribbean division of the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters and Reporters Without Borders read “virtually all the OAS members states agreed to this but not the citizens of Honduras and still less the media, journalists and human rights organization we have been supporting for the past two years.”[43] A letter to the OAS signed by 50 organizations argued that Honduras had not met the conditions for readmission and the institutions that facilitated the coup remained unchanged.[44] According to Reporters without Borders, “the message that the Honduran organizations in San Salvador are sending is that normalization without justice falls far short of the reconciliation that the OAS had hoped to achieve by readmitting Honduras without sufficient guarantees for respect for human rights.”[45] Thus, the OAS’s decision was understood by many as a necessary step while derided by others as an abandonment of its democratic identity.
An analysis by Human Rights Watch reveals substantial abuse in post-coup Honduras. The Americas director of Human Rights Watch, José Miguel Vivanco, asserted
We undertook this independent assessment because a year and a half after the coup in Honduras, the consequences for human rights are still being felt. It is clear from our findings that until Honduran authorities take concrete steps to reduce impunity and stop the attacks, it will be very difficult to restore trust in the country's democratic system.[46]
The continued impunity that surrounds the state and the failure to fully protect civil liberties are troubling. The anti-coup movement continued to contest the outcome of the presidential election more than a year later. Numerous human rights organizations found evidence that the state responded violently to the protesters by setting curfews, imprisoning citizens, and injuring protesters through the use of crowd control measures like tear gas and water cannons.[47]
Human rights organizations have also pointed to restrictions on freedom of expression and the rise in violence against journalists and activists since 2009.[48] According to Freedom House, “Honduras is considered the second most dangerous country in the world for journalists, with 19 killed since the 2009 coup, including several known Zelaya supporters.”[49] The continued suppression of freedom of expression, coupled with the lack of accountability or limitations on authority of the security forces prevent the full reestablishment of democracy.
An Evolving Role for the OAS in Honduras
Although the OAS utilized a tougher set of tools to pressure Honduras to safeguard democratic rule, it was not able to achieve its primary goal of restoring Zelaya to the presidency. The invocation of Article 21 was partially undermined by progressively dwindling OAS attention. While the OAS applied major pressure in the months following the coup, that pressure rapidly abated as time passed. After the election of Lobo, the OAS ceased public entreaties to Honduras to condemn the action taken by the military and courts. The issue was removed from the OAS website, and regional media attention severely diminished. Although it took nearly two years for the OAS to normalize relations with Honduras, the state slipped down on the regional agenda. It was a difficult situation for the OAS, which did not want to surrender and allow Honduras to move forward without any repercussions, but it also recognized the need for Honduras to stabilize its government. One analysis of the situation in 2010 noted,
Aside from the obvious benefits to the country itself, it would be very much in the OAS’ interest to do anything necessary to reinstate Honduras as soon as possible. The longer it waits, the greater the risk becomes of alienating Honduras from the rest of Latin America. Mutual security is vital to preventing a military buildup that could threaten the democratic progress the country has made since 1982. And without the trade leverage and mediation benefits of OAS membership, Honduras will have extreme difficulty improving economically. Between rising aid requirements and the humanitarian crisis that could result from economic isolation, the potential economic peril would not be contained within Honduras’ borders.[50]
Consequently, the OAS shifted to a secondary goal of monitoring and strengthening the democratic situation under the new government. In the unstable post-coup climate, this necessitated the application of a broader range of long-term democracy promotion tools.
Following the coup, the OAS played an important monitoring role. A year prior to its readmission to the OAS, Honduras received a visit from the IACHR in May 2010. During this visit, the IACHR made many recommendations to Honduras regarding its post-coup political system. In particular, it noted its concern about the presence of high-ranking military officials in the government and the impunity surrounding those who participated in the coup and post-coup abuses.[51] The OAS General Assembly also sent a High Level Commission to Honduras in July 2010 to gather information and report on the status of the situation in Honduras in order to evaluate the possibility of readmitting Honduras to the OAS. The final report emphasized the crucial need for reforms, which included assurance that all charges against Zelaya would not be pursued, investigation into the human rights abuses committed by the state after the coup, and the creation of measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders.[52]
Since the election of Lobo, the OAS has moved into a new phase of interaction with Honduras. In the post-coup era, the IACHR took on the largest and most visible role in Honduras by pressuring the government to make reforms and improve accountability. The IACHR compiled a public report of more than 4,000 documented cases of human rights violations between June 2009 and December 2010.[53] Due to the clear connection between democracy and human rights in the IADC, the IACHR has investigated both the post-coup abuses and the institutional deficiencies that continue to hold back democracy in Honduras. The Commission has frequently visited to Honduras to speak with representatives of government institutions and civil society, collect testimony, and follow-up on reforms ordered by the OAS. In 2009, it published the report Honduras: Human Rights And The Coup D’État, which delved deeply into the decline in human rights protection following the coup.[54] It has subsequently publically criticized the Lobo government’s amnesty decree, the deaths of individuals who opposed the coup, and the extensive violence perpetrated against journalists in its detailed reports and press releases.[55] The IACHR has focused substantial attention on this last issue, as it has ordered Honduras to provide protective measures for over 30 journalists.[56] The legal mechanism of the OAS, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, also accepted a case involving the 2010 dismissal of four judges from Honduras’s lower courts who were reviewing the 2009 coup to determine the legality of the government’s action.[57]
Years after the coup, the OAS is still sending electoral observers and missions to evaluate the state of democracy in Honduras. In 2010, the OAS’s Department of Sustainable Democracy and Special Missions established a special electoral mission in Honduras.[58] In November 2012, it once again sent a mission to supervise primary elections.[59] This department also directly supported the work of Honduras’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The OAS advocated the creation of this body, which was charged with investigating and reporting the events surrounding the coup. Numerous complaints have been raised about the viability of this office.[60] According to a report by the Center for Justice and International Law, “the entire State of Honduras – and the Executive power included – still does not demonstrate a serious political will to clarify the facts that occurred on June 28. Moreover, Honduras does not hold the individuals who were involved accountable.”[61] In spite of its limitations, the Commission’s 2012 report did take the valuable step of labeling the events of 2009 an illegal coup. It declared that the interim government that followed was illegal as well. It also criticized the military’s actions during the coup and asserted military culpability for multiple deaths after the coup. While the Commission also blamed Zelaya for his part in the crisis and reproached the OAS for its inability to prevent the coup, Lobo later acknowledged the role of the OAS in aiding Honduras in its reestablishment of democracy and its work with the Truth Commission.[62]
In spite of the myriad problems that exist in Honduras today, there are signs that interaction with organizations like the OAS and the UN are leading to small improvements. In its report on its 2010 visit to Honduras, the IACHR “noted some progress with respect to the return to a democratic institutional system.”[63] Honduras has encouraged the presence of monitors and advisors. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights established an office in Honduras, and the UN has worked to create a commission against impunity in Honduras, all with the support of the Honduran government.[64] The Lobo Administration also issued an open invitation to human rights monitors from the OAS.[65] In October 2011, Lobo visited Washington, D.C., and signed five cooperation agreements with the OAS on a range of societal issues, including drugs and youth violence.[66] The OAS has noted the positive attitude of the government toward bringing together a “national dialogue among all political sectors,” in order to “achieve the reconciliation of Honduran society.”[67] Upon Honduras’s reentry into the OAS, Lobo expressed his gratitude to the organization and stated, “Honduras will be an active member of the OAS in improving justice and strengthening democracy in the Americas to achieve greater unity within the OAS.”[68]
Implications for Democracy Protection in Latin America
The coup in Honduras represented a major step backward for democracy in Central America. It demonstrated that the state of democracy in one of the OAS member states was fragile enough to be subverted. Democratic consolidation is a long way from complete in a country like Honduras, where democracy is not “the only game in town.” The Honduran coup provoked a clear regional and international backlash against the interim regime, but the attention faded quickly. After Honduras was no longer a flashy story, it did not continue to warrant media coverage. This poses an even greater test for regional organizations, which must focus continuous attention and pressure on a fledgling democracy in order to prevent a long-term backslide. The OAS has recognized this need and has kept a close eye on Honduras since 2009. It has made a number of recommendations to the state, and despite the slow state of reforms, it continues to work with the state to restructure its political system. Secretary General Insulza notes the need for better governance throughout Latin America and argues that political crises such as the one in Honduras could be more readily avoided if greater attention was paid to the long-term issue of improving governance.[69] Thus, the Honduran case supports the findings of Arceneaux and Pion-Berlin and echoes the need for a long-term approach to democratic deepening. While this case shows the OAS willingness to employ its toughest tools of democracy protection, the failure of these tools suggests a need to invest more in the long-term tools of democracy promotion.
The OAS faced the difficult task of remaining steadfast in the face of this challenge to a democratic regime while also ensuring that the people of Honduras would not be punished by Honduras’s continued regional and international isolation. These considerations led the OAS to shift its priorities from restoring Zelaya to helping Honduras to reconstruct its democracy under new leadership. This was certainly a compromise of its original position, but there were few alternative options given Honduras’s emphasis on its sovereignty and the ineffective, and fleeting, diplomatic pressure from other states. The fact that the OAS was able to remain committed to its position that Honduras had to resolve the situation surrounding Zelaya and guarantee his safe return to the country can be considered a minor victory. Secretary General Insulza maintained that various aspects of the Honduran event should be considered a success for the OAS. These include the unanimous condemnation of the coup by member states and the unwillingness of member states to recognize the interim government that replaced Zelaya. Insulza asserted “this is an enormous success for our Democratic Charter and constitutes a precedent that we must value and protect.”[70] Ultimately, the OAS’s experience with Honduras revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the tools associated with democracy preservation.
In the aftermath of Honduras’s readmission to the OAS, both Lobo and Insulza have publically commented on the future of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. While Insulza projects a slightly more positive view of the long-term efficacy of the IADC, both men agree that the preventative measures incorporated into the IADC should be strengthened. Two provisions, articles 17 & 18, deal with preventing interruptions of democracy. They state:
When the government of a member state considers that its democratic political institutional process or its legitimate exercise of power is at risk, it may request assistance from the Secretary General or the Permanent Council for the strengthening and preservation of its democratic system. (Article 17)
When situations arise in a member state that may affect the development of its democratic political institutional process or the legitimate exercise of power, the Secretary General or the Permanent Council may, with prior consent of the government concerned, arrange for visits or other actions in order to analyze the situation. The Secretary General will submit a report to the Permanent Council, which will undertake a collective assessment of the situation and, where necessary, may adopt decisions for the preservation of the democratic system and its strengthening. (Article 18) [71]
Both of these preventative provisions require a request from the government in question and do not allow the OAS to act without this consent. While this may be useful in situations in which the government institutions believe that a conflict can be resolved through mediation (as previously witnessed in Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Bolivia),[72] it does not allow the OAS to make a significant impact in more protracted conflicts like the situation in Honduras. By the time Honduras asked for help, the wheels of the crisis were already set in motion, thereby guaranteeing that the OAS could only deal with the coup after it occurred.[73] As Cooper and Legler noted in 2001, this reactive response to conflicts is a constant struggle for the OAS. [74] The “firefighter approach” to democracy protection has been noted in previous conflicts, such as the 1996 Paraguayan crisis.[75] The IADC was also evaluated during Ecuador’s constitutional crisis of 2004-05, and during this time the Chilean Ambassador to the OAS pointed to the need for greater “preventative, rather than punitive, mechanisms,” and a faster, more proactive approach to crisis situations.[76] In the words of Lobo, there is a need to “change the vision of the Charter, and to reflect that, rather than a punitive instrument of transgressions, the Charter must be strengthened in its preventative approach.”[77] Insulza concurred, stating, “Our action to safeguard democracy would have been much more effective if we had been able to act – with ‘the necessary diplomatic initiatives’ or ‘good offices,’ as the Democratic Charter establishes – before the crisis had reached its breaking point.”[78]
Insulza took the Honduran crisis as an opportunity to reevaluate the OAS’s role in democracy promotion and the importance of the IADC. Insulza recommends fortifying the OAS’s work in two areas. First, he points to the need to help states strengthen governance by improving their legal framework and institutions. Second, he suggests enhancing OAS early intervention mechanisms. The difficulty of achieving this lies in the norms of sovereignty and non-intervention. Insulza expresses, “one of the main challenges for contemporary multilateralism is to find the appropriate balance between respect for these principles and the obligation to protect democracy.”[79]
Conclusion
Democratic promotion has become an area of renewed importance given the myriad of challenges that democracy is facing today. In the words of Youngs,
Autocrats are learning to defend themselves from democracy promotion efforts, often cooperating amongst themselves to do so. Many ‘hybrid’ regimes – combining aspects of democracy and autocracy – seem firmly entrenched rather than mere staging posts on the way to more fully democratic systems. More broadly, the rise of non-democratic powers and the transition to a more multipolar world fundamentally change the democracy promotion calculus.[80]
Understanding how institutions can overcome some of these obstacles and expand their influence on democracy promotion has significant policy implications. This analysis has proceeded with the goal of analyzing the democracy promotion tools of the OAS, particularly against the backdrop of a recent threat to democratic rule in Latin America. The Honduran case, in addition to lessons drawn from the European Union and the history of OAS interventions, lead to several conclusions.
The months following the Honduran coup witnessed both a major loss and a minor win for the OAS. This is the first time that Article 21 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter has been invoked, which means that the Honduran coup placed the OAS in new territory. The invocation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the resulting regional pressure did not lead Honduras to change its behavior and restore its previous government as desired. This episode has been described as
a resounding defeat for the Organization of American States, which is left in tatters, incapable of protecting the lofty goals of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and equally unable to bridge not just the traditional divide between the hemisphere's North and South but now also the ideological rift that is threatening to split Latin America between left and right.[81]
This case clearly illustrates the OAS’s inability to handle many of these internal political conflicts and deficiencies in governance. However, the united regional outcry in support of democratic rule illustrates that the norm of democracy has been internalized more fully over time and is clearly tied to evaluations of a country’s legitimacy. As Secretary General Insulza has pointed out, satisfaction with democracy and trust in government have risen in the last decade in Latin America.[82] This case illustrates that despite a multitude of governance issues that continue to haunt Latin America, there is regional commitment to ensuring democratic rule and preventing a return to previous eras of authoritarianism. At least some of this norm internalization must be credited to the OAS’s work to keep democracy on the regional agenda and its evolving institutional mechanisms of democracy protection and promotion.
The OAS is stronger when it is part of a broad network of organizations working to strengthen democracy. The Inter-American Democratic Charter is only one piece of a larger contract to preserve democracy in Latin America. The Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) have also created protocols which guarantee democratic rule and include provisions for dealing with threats to democracy. These organizations, in addition to regional NGOs, have actively participated in mediating democratic crises, applying pressure on governments, and pursuing negotiations to prevent coups.[83] Legal deepening of democratic norms is still in its youth in Latin America, and as more overlapping institutional tools are created, democracy promotion will be more complete in the Americas. The legal mechanisms to support these norms will also become more effective if these organizations share experiences, learn from each other, and take advantage of opportunities for cooperation and joint diplomatic influence on member states.
The OAS played two clear roles in the Honduran situation. The first was attempting to bring the crisis to a swift end through the restoration of Zelaya. The second was in its work with Honduras following the coup to restore democracy in Honduras. Its first role was unsuccessful, while the outcome of its second role remains to be determined. The OAS does not get sufficient credit for the second role it played, and continues to play, in Honduras. The work done by OAS Rapporteurs, missions, and diplomats is clearly needed to monitor and assess the institutions and actions of member states. Improvement is gradual and hard to measure, but the OAS provides states with needed political expertise, technological resources, and financial aid to develop their institutions. The continued presence of OAS offices and bodies in Honduras means that in spite of diminished media attention, the state knows that it will gain attention if it acts with impunity.
In order to achieve the most positive long-term impact on regional democracy, the OAS needs to continue to learn and evolve. This includes ensuring that its toolkit involves both top-down and bottom-up approaches to democracy promotion. The OAS has worked with the Honduran government to build new programs and encourage reforms, but given the history of political conflict at the elite level and the weakness of democratic institutions, the OAS needs to follow the EU model and focus greater attention on bottom-up approaches as well to enhance societal partnerships with other regional IOs and NGOs in attempts to strengthen Honduran democracy. These tools are difficult, costly, and require long-term investment, but they would provide a deeper pay-off. While Honduras, like other countries in Central America, faces significant societal, institutional, and economic challenges that can produce instability, efforts to fortify civil society and ensure protections for pro-democracy activists and journalists will help to improve accountability and transparency.
Although the OAS faces obvious obstacles in its attempts to mediate internal crises in its member states, it is likely that support for norms of democracy throughout Latin America today would be lower without the continued work of the OAS. The next important step for the organization is to fortify its emergency measures, improve its ability to mobilize sustained regional and international pressure, and work to develop its long-term preventative tools in order to advance democratic institutions and deepen adherence to democratic norms.
Works Cited
“An Opportunity for Honduras.” June 1, 2011. The Los Angeles Times. .
Acevedo, Domingo E., and Claudio Grossman. 1996. “The Organization of American States and the Protection of Democracy,” in Farer, Tom, ed., Beyond Sovereignty: Collectively Defending Democracy in the Americas. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 132-149.
Arceneaux, Craig, and David Pion-Berlin. 2007 “Issues, Threats, and Institutions: Explaining OAS Responses to Democratic Dilemmas in Latin America.” Latin American Politics and Society 49 (2): 1-31.
Botcheva, Liliana, and Lisa L. Martin. 2001. "Institutional Effects on State Behavior:
Convergence and Divergence." International Studies Quarterly 45 (March): 1-26.
“Brazil, Peru condemn Honduran limits on Zelaya.” December 12, 2009. .
“Brazil, Venezuela condemn Honduras vote result.” November 30, 2009. PressTV. presstv.ir.
“Caribbean countries condemn coup in Honduras; call for Zelaya reinstatement.” July 1, 2009. BBC Worldwide Monitoring. .
“CARICOM, OAS condemn ‘coup’ in Honduras.” June 29, 2009. BBC Monitoring Latin America. .
Casas-Zamora, Kevin. December 1, 2009. “Democracy Loses the Honduran Election.” Foreign Policy.
.
Center for Justice and International Law. May 17, 2010. “Considerations on the Implementation of the Truth Commission in Honduras.” .
Center for Justice and International Law. June 1, 2011. “Concerns Regarding the Possible Readmission of Honduras to the OAS.” .
Center for Justice and International Law. June 17, 2011. “CEJIL Testifies About Crimes Against Honduran Journalists in U.S. Congress.” .
Cingranelli, David L., and David L. Richards. 1999. Respect for Human Rights after the End of the Cold War. Journal of Peace Research 36 (4): 511-534.
Cooper, Andrew F., and Thomas Legler. 2001. “The OAS Democratic Solidarity Paradigm: Questions of Collective and National Leadership.” Latin American Politics and Society 43 (1): 103-126.
Davenport, Christian. 1999. Human Rights and the Democratic Proposition. Journal of Conflict Resolution 43 (1): 92-116.
“Ecuador Police convicted over Raphael Correa Protest.” June 28, 2011. BBC News. .
Feldman, Noah, David Landau, and Brian Sheppard. June 7, 2011. “Fixing Honduras.” The Los Angeles Times. .
Freedom House. “Freedom in the World- 2011.” .
Freedom House. “Freedom in the World- 2012.” .
Fukuyama, Francis. 2001. “Social capital, civil society and development.” Third World Quarterly 22 (1): 7-21.
Guzman, Andrew. 2002. "A Compliance-Based Theory of International Law." California Law Review 90 (December): 1823-1887.
Haas, Peter. 2000. "Choosing to Comply," in Shelton, Dinah, ed. Commitment and Compliance. New York: Oxford University Press, 43-64.
Helfer, Laurence R., and Anne-Marie Slaughter. 1997. “Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication.” Yale Law Journal (107): 273-328.
Henderson, Conway W. 1991. Conditions Affecting the Use of Political Repression. Journal of Conflict Resolution 35 (1): 120-142.
“Honduran president thanks OAS countries for allowing re-entry.” June 2, 2011. People’s Daily Online. .
“Honduras Human Rights.” Amnesty International USA. .
Human Rights Watch. December 21, 2010. “Honduras: Prosecute Post-Coup Abuses.” .
Human Rights Watch. November 3, 2011. “Honduras: US Legal Case Over 2009 Coup.” .
Human Rights Watch. January 22, 2012. World Report 2012- Honduras. .
Hurd, Ian. 1999. "Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics." International Organization 53 (Spring): 379-408.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. December 30, 2009. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 55.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. “Preliminary Observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights On Its Visit to Honduras, May 15 to 18, 2010.” .
Inter-American Democratic Charter. 2001.
Kelley, Judith. “New Wine in Old Wineskins: Promoting Political Reforms through the New European Neighborhood Policy.” Journal of Common Market Studies 44 (1): 29-55.
Kenney, Ryan. 2013. “The role of supranational identity in promoting democratic values.” European Union Politics 14 (2): 228-249.
Kilcourse, James. 2013. “A New Approach to Democracy Promotion in Europe’s Neighbourhood.” The Institute of International and European Affairs. .
Koremenos, Barbara, Charles Lipson, and Duncan Snidal. 2001. The Rational Design of
International Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laten, Grant. June 9, 2010. “It’s Time to Readmit Honduras to the OAS.” Center for Strategic and International Studies. .
Levitt, Barry S. “Ecuador 2004-2005: Democratic Crisis Redux,” in Legler, Thomas, Sharon F. Lean, and Dexter S. Boniface, eds. Promoting Democracy in the Americas. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
McLaughlin Mitchell, Sara, and Paul R. Hensel. 2007. “International Institutions and Compliance with Agreements.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (October): 721-737.
Mitchell, Ronald B. 1994. "Regime Design Matters: Intentional Oil Pollution and Treaty Compliance." International Organization 48 (Summer): 425-458.
“OAS Readmits Honduras To Regional Block After 32-1 Vote.” June 2, 2011. Latin America News Dispatch. .
Organization of American States. 2009. “Insulza: Return of Honduras to OAS Will Be Possible Only When the Outcome of June 28 Is Overcome.”
Organization of American States. Permanent Council, Resolution CP/RES. 953 (1700/09) of June 30, 2009. .
Organization of American States. December 4, 2009. “Insulza: ‘Return of Honduras to OAS Will Be Possible Only When the Outcome of June 28 Is Overcome.” .
Organization of American States. “OAS SUSPENDS MEMBERSHIP OF HONDURAS”
July 5, 2009.
Organization of American States. April 19, 2010. “Secretary General’s Speech- Europe and America: Cooperation For Democracy.” .
Organization of American States.” July 29, 2010. “Informe de la Comision de Alto Nivel de la OEA Sobre la Situacion en Honduras.” AG/Res. 2531 (XL-0/10).
Organization of American States. Annual Report- 2010. .
Organization of American States. October 4, 2011. “LA OEA y Honduras firman acuerdos de cooperación.” .
Organization of American States. October 1, 2012. “OAS to Observe Primary Elections in Honduras.” .
Ottaway, Marina, and Thomas Carothers, eds. 2000. Funding Virtue: Civil Society Aid and Democracy Promotion. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“Peru condemns Honduran coup, calls for restoration of democracy.” June 28, 2009. Andina- Agencia Peruana de Noticias. .
Picq, Manuela. July 10, 2011. “Indigenous Resistance is the new ‘terrorism’.” Al Jazeera. .
Poe, Steven C., C. Neal Tate, and Linda Camp Keith. 1999. Repression of the Human Right to
Personal Integrity Revisited: A Global Cross-National Study Covering the Years 1976-1993. International Studies Quarterly 43 (2): 291-313.
Ramírez, Lautaro M. July/August 2011. “Legal Instruments that Safeguard Democracy in the Americas.” Vol. 63, No. 4. .
Reporters Without Borders. June 7, 2011. “Concern about future of civil liberties, human rights after OAS readmits Honduras.” .
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2007. “European Regional Organizations, Political Conditionality, and Democratic Transformation in Eastern Europe.” East European Politics and Societies 21 (1): 126-141.
Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2008. “EU Democracy Promotion in the European Neighbourhood: Political Conditionality, Economic Development and Transnational Exchange.” European Union Politics 9 (2): 187-215.
Scholte, Jan Aart. 2002. “Civil Society and Democracy in Global Governance.” Global Governance 8: 281-304.
Shapovalova, Natalia, and Richard Youngs. 2012. “EU democracy promotion in the Eastern neighbourhood.” working paper. .
Thompson, Ginger. December 4, 2009. “Honduras: U.S. Urges Support of Neighbors for New Leader.” The New York Times. .
“Trinidad condemns Honduran ‘coup’.” June 29, 2009. BBC Monitoring Latin America. . Accessed May 13, 2010.
Wetzel, Anne, and Jan Orbie. 2012. “The EU’s Promotion of External Democracy:
In search of the plot.” CEPS Policy Brief 281.
Wilkinson, Tracy. May 9, 2010. “Q & A: Guatemalan seeks answers in Honduran coup.” The Los Angeles Times. . Accessed May 13, 2010.
Yantz, Brianne. June 28, 2011. “OAS Readmits Honduras After Zelaya Returns, But Human Rights Concerns Remain.” Impunity Watch. .
Youngs, Richard. 2001. “Democracy Promotion: The Case of European Union Strategy.” Center for European Policy Studies. Working Document No. 167.
Youngs, Richard. 2008. “Is European democracy on the wane?” Center for European Policy Studies. CEPS Working Document No. 292.
Zanger, Sabine C. 2000. A Global Analysis of the Effect of Political Regime Changes on Life
Integrity Violations, 1977-93. Journal of Peace Research 37 (2): 213-233.
-----------------------
[1] Inter-American Democratic Charter. 2001.
[2] OAS, Permanent Council, Resolution CP/RES. 953 (1700/09) of June 30, 2009. .
[3] Press Release. OAS SUSPENDS MEMBERSHIP OF HONDURAS
July 5, 2009.
[4] Mitchell 1994; Guzman 2002; Hurd 1999; Botcheva and Martin 2001; Koremenos et al. 2001; Helfer and Slaughter 1997; Haas 2000; McLaughlin Mitchell and Hensel 2007.
[5] Ottaway and Carothers 2000; Fukuyama 2001; Scholte 2002.
[6] Youngs 2008, 1.
[7] Schimmelfennig 2008.
[8] Schimmelfennig 2007.
[9] Youngs 2001.
[10] Kennedy 2013.
[11] Wetzel and Orbie 2012.
[12] Shapovalova and Youngs 2012.
[13] Kelley 2006, 30.
[14] Kelley, 30-31.
[15] Youngs 2001.
[16] Kilcourse 2013.
[17] Youngs 2001.
[18] Henderson 1991; Davenport 1995; Cingranelli and Richards 1999; Poe et al. 1999; Zanger 2000.
[19] Ramírez, Lautaro M. July/August 2011. “Legal Instruments that Safeguard Democracy in the Americas.” Vol. 63, No. 4. .
[20] Arceneaux and Pion-Berlin 2007.
[21] Ibid., 1, 10.
[22] Ibid., 2.
[23] Freedom House. “Freedom in the World- 2011.”
[24] “Trinidad condemns Honduran ‘coup’.” June 29, 2009. BBC Monitoring Latin America. . Accessed May 13, 2010.
[25] Freedom House 2011.
[26] Organization of American States. “OAS Suspends Membership of Honduras.” .
[27] Organization of American States. December 4, 2009. “Insulza: ‘Return of Honduras to OAS Will Be Possible Only When the Outcome of June 28 Is Overcome.” .
[28] Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Cuba.
[29] “Brazil, Venezuela condemn Honduras vote result.” November 30, 2009. PressTV. presstv.ir.
[30] Organization of American States. “OAS Suspends Membership of Honduras.” .
[31] “Peru condemns Honduran coup, calls for restoration of democracy.” June 28, 2009. Andina- Agencia Peruana de Noticias. .
[32] “Caribbean countries condemn coup in Honduras; call for Zelaya reinstatement.” July 1, 2009. BBC Worldwide Monitoring. .
[33] “CARICOM, OAS condemn ‘coup’ in Honduras.” June 29, 2009. BBC Monitoring Latin America. .
[34] Ibid.
[35] “Brazil, Peru condemn Honduran limits on Zelaya.” December 12, 2009. .
[36] Feldman, Noah, David Landau, and Brian Sheppard. June 7, 2011. “Fixing Honduras.” The Los Angeles Times.
[37] “An Opportunity for Honduras.” June 1, 2011. The Los Angeles Times. .
[38] Freedom House. “Freedom in the World- 2012.” .
[39] Ibid., Thompson, Ginger. December 4, 2009. “Honduras: U.S. Urges Support of Neighbors for New Leader.” The New York Times. .
[40] “OAS Readmits Honduras To Regional Block After 32-1 Vote.” June 2, 2011. Latin America News Dispatch. .
[41] Human Rights Watch. November 3, 2011. “Honduras: US Legal Case Over 2009 Coup.” .
[42] Center for Justice and International Law. June 1, 2011. “Concerns Regarding the Possible Readmission of Honduras to the OAS.”
[43] Reporters Without Borders. June 7, 2011. “Concern about future of civil liberties, human rights after OAS readmits Honduras.” .
[44] Ibid., Center for Justice and International Law.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Human Rights Watch. December 21, 2010. “Honduras: Prosecute Post-Coup Abuses.” .
[47] “Honduras Human Rights.” Amnesty International USA. .
[48] Center for Justice and International Law. June 17, 2011. “CEJIL Testifies About Crimes Against Honduran Journalists in U.S. Congress.” .
[49] Freedom House. “Freedom in the World- 2012.”
[50] Laten, Grant. June 9, 2010. “It’s Time to Readmit Honduras to the OAS.” Center for Strategic and International Studies. .
[51] Freedom House 2011.
[52] Center for Justice and International Law.
[53] Yantz, Brianne. June 28, 2011. “OAS Readmits Honduras After Zelaya Returns, But Human Rights Concerns Remain.” Impunity Watch.
[54] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. December 30, 2009. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 55.
[55] Inter-American Commission on Human rights. “Preliminary Observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights On Its Visit to Honduras, May 15 to 18, 2010.” .
[56] Ibid.
[57] Freedom House 2011.
[58] Organization of American States. Annual Report- 2010. .
[59] Organization of American States. October 1, 2012. “OAS to Observe Primary Elections in Honduras.” .
[60] Wilkinson, Tracy. May 9, 2010. “Q & A: Guatemalan seeks answers in Honduran coup.” The Los Angeles Times. . Accessed May 13, 2010.
[61] Center for Justice and International Law. May 17, 2010. “Considerations on the Implementation of the Truth Commission in Honduras.”
[62] Freedom House 2012.
[63] Organization of American States. Annual Report- 2010. .
[64] Human Rights Watch. January 22, 2012. World Report 2012- Honduras. .
[65] Inter-American Commission on Human rights. “Preliminary Observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights On Its Visit to Honduras, May 15 to 18, 2010.” .
[66] Organization of American States. October 4, 2011. “LA OEA y Honduras firman acuerdos de cooperación.” .
[67] Organization of American States.” July 29, 2010. “Informe de la Comision de Alto Nivel de la OEA Sobre la Situacion en Honduras.” AG/Res. 2531 (XL-0/10). (Original quotation is in Spanish. All translations are the author’s).
[68] “Honduran president thanks OAS countries for allowing re-entry.” June 2, 2011. People’s Daily Online. .
[69] Organization of American States. April 19, 2010. “Secretary General’s Speech- Europe and America: Cooperation For Democracy.” .
[70] Organization of American States. “Insulza: Return of Honduras to OAS Will Be Possible Only When the Outcome of June 28 Is Overcome.”
[71] Inter-American Democratic Charter. September 11, 2001. .
[72] Organization of American States. “Secretary General’s Speech.”
[73] Ibid.
[74] Cooper and Legler 2001, 104.
[75] Acevedo and Grossman 1996, 148.
[76] Levitt, Barry S. “Ecuador 2004-2005: Democratic Crisis Redux,” in Legler, Thomas, Sharon F. Lean, and Dexter S. Boniface, eds. Promoting Democracy in the Americas. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 238.
[77] Organization of American States. October 4, 2011. “Presidente de Honduras: La OEA es el punto de encuentro de nuestras semejanzas y nuestras diferencias.”
[78] Organization of American States. “Secretary General’s Speech.”
[79] Organization of American States. “Secretary General’s Speech.”
[80] Youngs 2008, 1.
[81] Casas-Zamora, Kevin. December 1, 2009. “Democracy Loses the Honduran Election.” Foreign Policy. .
[82] Organization of American States. “Secretary General’s Speech.”
[83] Ramírez, Lautaro M. July/August 2011. Americas. .
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- xii international congresso of bien basic income earth
- br
- agreement between the united states and hungary
- embaixadas brasileiras no exterior
- cybersecurity practitioners workshop
- brazilian consulates in the u
- a win and a loss on honduras western political science
- embassy of brazil
- the work plans and strategies of offices of the
- curriculum vitae of cathleen mac andrew
Related searches
- jobs for a political science degree
- difference between a nonprofit and a foundation
- difference between a tablet and a laptop
- why is political science a science
- difference between a population and a sample
- a negative and a positive equal
- difference between a manager and a director
- difference between a cyst and a tumor
- a negative and a negative equals
- difference between a college and a university
- difference between a policy and a procedure
- r a 9711 and a o 2014 0029