The White House may be in the process of reversing one of its egregious foreign-policy blunders. The Wall Street Journal reports that in answering questions from Sen. Richard Lugar, the State Department is beginning to hedge its bets on ousted president Manuel Zelaya. The report explains:
The U.S., in an apparent softening of its support for ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, won’t impose economic sanctions on Honduras and has yet to decide whether Mr. Zelaya’s removal from office constitutes a coup.
A letter from the State Department to Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, states that the U.S. “energetically” opposes Mr. Zelaya’s June 28 ouster. But the letter also expresses the harshest criticism yet of Mr. Zelaya’s own actions that preceded his removal from office, including trying to change Honduras’s constitution to potentially stay in power.
“We energetically condemn the actions of June 28. We also recognize that President Zelaya’s insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal,” Richard Verma, the assistant secretary for legislative affairs, said in the letter, reviewed Tuesday by The Wall Street Journal.
Perhaps someone in Foggy Bottom got hold of a copy of the Honduran constitution, consulted church leaders, or watched the massive demonstrations in favor of the military/congress/supreme court/Roberto Micheletti. Or perhaps the Obama team has finally recognized that it is folly to try to ingratiate ourselves with Hugo Chavez. Whatever the cause, this may be the first sign that the administration is trying, as Sen. Jim DeMint put it, to “walk back” its support for Zelaya.
If so, that would be a good thing indeed. But it would also demonstrate once again that this administration is severely lacking in judgment when it comes to assessing and understanding the world’s bullies and rogues. Unfortunately, one doesn’t get many “do-overs” in foreign policy.
