Professor Greg Weeks, the author of Two Weeks Notice: A Latin American Politics Blog, has been generous enough to share his perspective about what is happening in Honduras. I have noticed that the analysis and reporting of the situation in Honduras is tinged with ideology on both sides of the political spectrum. This morning I read a right of center commentary by Carlos Mantener, while earlier in the week I read a more progressive point of view by Roberto Lovato. And while the OAS and many states have condemned the removal of Manuel Zelaya as president, some conservatives here in the US have indicated that they support the Honduran military’s action. Plus, the media blackout in Honduras hasn’t helped make things any more clear for bloggers like me who aren’t very well versed in the country’s political and military history. Given my relative weakness in this area, I thought it would be a good idea to chat with an expert. Professor Weeks has been a scholar of Latin American politics for the past 14 years and is currently at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, and has written two texts on politics in the region.

1. Some feel that President Obama has a unique opportunity with the situation in Honduras to restore more credibility and make good on his desire for a “new” relationship with Latin America by condemning the removal of President Manuel Zelaya. In light of the recent restoration of diplomatic relations with Venezuela and Obama’s insistence that the coup in Honduras is illegal, do you think we are entering a new era in US-Latin American relations?

U.S. policy is indeed evolving, though there is so much continuity that I hesitate to call it too “new,” at least yet.  But it is important and notable that the U.S. government did not much like Zelaya, yet still is calling for his return, while also showing a willingness to pursue a multilateral solution.  The Bush administration tended to view Latin America in black and white terms, with no room for nuance, and it is nice to see the Obama administration moving away from that.

2. It has also been suggested that Zelaya is trying to stay in office indefinitely and therefore establish a dictatorship. If Zelaya’s popularity was in fact dropping as it has been suggested, why didn’t the opposition let the non-binding referendum take place? It seems that he would have lost it and been on his way out within a year, right?

The argument that he wanted to stay in power forever is not backed up by any empirical evidence that I have seen—in fact he made clear statements to the contrary.  The wording of his proposed vote did not mention the presidency (or any other specific part of the constitution) at all.  And indeed, even if he had the right to run again, he would have no chance of winning.  His approval rating was hovering around 30 percent.  I think his political opponents, including the military, saw his refusal to respect the Supreme Court’s orders as the straw that broke the camel’s back, and therefore decided to move against him.

3. Who do you think is behind this coup? Would you suspect that it is part of the military or most of the military? And any on the School of the America’s connection, which has a controversial history of producing graduates who have been accused of human rights violations and other criminal activities?

I think the School of the Americas is irrelevant to this crisis—the military (which, it seems, was mostly unified, though there are rumors of splits) found itself in an untenable position, stuck between two authorities.  Behind the coup is a political class that had tired of Zelaya, did not like his attitude or his reforms, yet was unwilling to resolve the crisis democratically. I should note, though, that I have talked to other people who argue that the military pushed for the coup even more so than civilians because they believed he was acting outside the constitution to the point that forced removal was necessary.  It will take time to sort out what the role was of each political actor.

4. I understand that both Zelaya and his replacement, Roberto Micheletti, both belong to the liberal party. Can you explain what some of the differences were between them?

The Liberal Party in Honduras dates back to the 19th century, and in part its strength has come from its willingness to allow internal dissent.  In the case of Zelaya and Micheletti, differences in policy positions, especially whether Zelaya was becoming too close to Hugo Chavez, transformed into personal dislike (Micheletti even called him mentally unstable).  It is not too common for a party to overthrow one of its own presidents, so this is yet another unusual aspect of this crisis.

5. If the US formally declares that this leadership shuffle is in fact an official military coup, and US aid to Honduras is cut off, what might we expect?

That would likely be the endgame for Micheletti, and the announcement of putting on the “hold button” until Monday (as one senior administration official put it) sends a clear signal that the U.S. is considering a formal cutoff.  Honduras has a very small and weak economy, and would suffer if the aid pipeline was shut off.  The U.S. has a tremendous amount of leverage with Honduras.  The World Bank has already “paused” its loans, so the government would quickly find itself strangled economically.

6. Finally, the de facto rulers of Honduras have imposed a media blackout. Do you think that we will see more reporting from Honduras via twitter, youtube, and blogs as we have seen in Iran?

Unfortunately, my guess is no.  Iran is a much wealthier country than Honduras.  It is estimated that only about 6 percent of Hondurans use the internet (compared to 35 percent in Iran), which is much too small to be a central part of a political movement.  There do not seem to be very many blogs written by Hondurans about the politics of the country.

In general, though, the coup government’s anti-democratic actions after Zelaya’s removal (such as the media blackout and suspending constitutional rights) are shifting international opinion even more.  It is difficult to claim the actions were intended to save democracy when you suspend democratic rights after the fact.