Honduras' Dilemma: Does pacifism still make sense?

When is the use of force justifiable? Is violence ever called for in a political conflict? These are questions the international community has been putting off for days in relation to Honduras. It just looks bad for an international actor to appear before the world supporting violence in a country devastated by poverty. On the contrary, pacifism would seem to always represent reason and temperance. But this can’t be true. For human beings act based on expectations about how their fellows will behave and if pacifism were a reliable expectation then others would unjustly capitalize on it. Some of this seems to be going on in Honduras.

The international community has had much patience with Micheletti’s de facto government. First, the OAS unanimously condemns the coup and demands the restoration of the constitutional order. Next, Honduras is suspended from the organization no longer qualifying for credits from the IADB and the World Bank. Then President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica (a Nobel Peace laureate) convinces the de facto government to negotiate with deposed president Zelaya in order to bridge the gap. Finally, after Arias’ effort proves fruitless, Arias and Isulza manage to cool off Zelaya and convince the parts to engage in a second round of negotiations in Costa Rica. Zelaya was ready to go back to Honduras and call for a popular revolt, bloodshed to follow.

At this point it seems unlikely that Arias’ negotiations will restore Zelaya to office. But anything short of that would create a horrible precedent. Powerful political groups in Latin American countries would learn that they can navigate the international pressure—after all, Honduras could, being the 3rd poorest country in the region. This would be a hotbed for political instability in a continent with a terrible record in this respect.

But unless the people of Honduras kicks Micheletti out of office by force, it seems that the de facto government is planning to get away with their goal (i.e. holding on until the end of the year where elections are scheduled). It seems likely at this point that nothing Arias or Insulza does is going to persuade them of restoring Zelaya to the presidency. This seems to be non-negotiable for Micheletti. On the other hand, the international community can not possible accept anything short of Zelaya's resitution. Hence, we have stalemate, and one that favors the de facto government.

Zelaya’s insistence on peace plays in Micheletti’s favor for their strategy seems to be holding on to power while letting time go by. It was worth trying but dialogue is wearing out and, what’s worse, the de facto government is cynically benefitting form this status quo. Shortly there will be no time to loose and the people of Honduras will have to make a choice. It’ll be either violence or Micheletti.