Let us a prevent a blood bath in Honduras

By: Carlos Alberto Montaner - The United States Ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, an extremely competent diplomat, tried very hard to keep Congress from ousting President Manuel Zelaya. After his arguments and pressures were exhausted, and faced with something that seemed inevitable, he did something that ennobles him: he sheltered the president's son in his residence to save him from any violent outcome. Fortunately, Zelaya's expulsion from the presidency and from his country was bloodless. It wasn't exactly a military coup: the Army obeyed the orders of the Supreme Court after continued violations of the law by a leader intent on getting reelected, even if he violated the Constitution, and on dragging the nation to Hugo Chávez's "21st-Century socialism" camp against the will of his compatriots. Nevertheless, it seems that there is still something worse than the depressing spectacle of a freely elected president who is forced to leave his country at gunpoint: trying to impose his return by force. If Zelaya steps again on his native soil he will be arrested and charged with 17 different crimes that he probably has committed. He will be imprisoned and that's going to be very embarrassing for those who, irresponsibly, may decide to accompany him in that mad adventure. This is most grave. That situation, fanned by Hugo Chávez and Daniel Ortega, who are already talking about invasions and resorting to force, can unleash a blood bath in the country and would destroy the weak political institutionality laboriously achieved three decades ago, when the era of military dictatorships mercifully ended. Peter Hakim, president of Inter-American Dialogue, without abandoning his firm condemnation of the manner in which the president was removed, put it this way: "Zelaya is fighting with all the institutions in the country. He is in no condition really to govern." And that's the truth. According to Mexican pollster Mitofsky, in a survey made in April, the most unpopular leader in Latin America was Manuel Zelaya. Only 25 percent of the nation supported him. Another survey revealed that 67 percent of Hondurans would never vote for him again. Why? Because the Hondurans attributed to him a deep level of corruption; because they assumed he had links to drug trafficking, especially the drugs originating in Venezuela, as former U.S. Ambassador to the O.A.S. Roger Noriega revealed in a well-documented article published in his blog, and because violence and poverty -- the nation's two worst scourges -- increased dramatically during his three years in power. Simply put, a huge majority of the country -- not excepting the most popular sectors, the two major political parties (including Zelaya's), the Christian churches, the other branches of government and the armed forces -- do not want him as president, although all agreed that he should finish his mandate and leave power in January 2010. However, they didn't want him to break the law to perpetuate himself in the presidency, as Hugo Chávez has done and Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales and probably Rafael Correa are trying to do. The Hondurans, without question, do not want to go down the path of the collectivist and anti-Western "caudillismo, " allied to Iran, Cuba and North Korea, advocated by Hugo Chávez. What to do under these circumstances? The worst, I insist, is to resort to force against the will of the people themselves. The government of interim President Roberto Micheletti already is summoning reservists and the Army prepares to defend the nation's sovereignty. The nationalist discourse is heating up and a mindset of "defense of the motherland" against foreign enemies is beginning to imbue Honduran citizens. A huge majority thinks that an aggression is being prepared abroad, shrewdly propelled by the Chavists, in which -- inexplicably this time -- the Americans are involved on the side of the enemies of democracy and the rule of law. If a conflict explodes, one of the poorest countries in the Americas will suffer the bloodletting already experienced by Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua during the Cold War. However, there is a satisfactory solution within almost everyone's reach: to move forward the general elections planned for November. The candidates are already there, freely elected in open primaries, and both enjoy much popularity. Why plunge that society irresponsibly into a maelstrom of violence? Once the new government is selected, a government enveloped in the legitimacy generated by a democratic process, the Honduran people can push this lamentable episode into the past. That will be best for almost all parties in the conflict. Mel Zelaya may lose the game, but the Hondurans would not pay with their blood the price of the mistakes and misdemeanors of a maladroit ruler.