Mike Derham, writing as a PPI fellow, has an op-ed today on Honduras for RealClearWorld.  Check it out the gist:

Chávez is happy to exploit the crisis only to advance his brand of Latin socialism. Had Zelaya not gravitated toward Chávez’s Bolivarian “revolution,” Chavez would have paid Honduras no mind. Though present circumstances allow Chávez to protest that he’s supporting the democratically-elected president, he’s not. Chavez is supporting autocracy: to extend his presidency, Zelaya would have to take a page from Chávez’s undemocratic playbook and illegally leverage his way into another term.

This turn of events has given some American commentators reason to back Micheletti’s government, calculating that any enemy of Chávez is worth supporting in the name of freedom.

While opposing the likes of Chavez and his allies is attractive on the surface, in this situation, it is the wrong move. If Zelaya returns to Honduras to peaceably serve the remaining six months of his term, it will be a victory for democracy and the rule of law.

President Obama and his foreign policy team have been measured and firm in their support for the democratic process. Critics suggest that his administration is weak because it postponed a decision until Monday on whether to continue aid to Honduras. But by giving Hondurans an opportunity to resolve the issue peaceably, without outside pressure, the Micheletti government declared that it is willing to enter into dialogue with Zelaya.

President Obama has emphasized that the United States’ post-Cold War policy towards Latin America would support institutions and legal processes, not individuals and political ideologies. As he said in his remarks earlier this week, both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. have recognized the need to “stand with democracy,” even if democracy means that regional leaders aren’t American allies.

The following is a guest-post from Michael Derham, a fellow of the Truman National Security Project:

While most of us were recovering from the after-effects of “the World’s #1 Michael Jackson Tribute band” Sunday morning, in sunny Tegucigalpa the Honduran military stepped in and told President Manuel Zelaya to beat it. He has been replaced by the recent head of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti, a political opponent despite nominally being member of the same party. Like so many Latin American coups, while the details of the event were funny (Zelaya was sent packing to Costa Rica in his pajamas), the greater implications are not so humorous.

Zelaya was elected three years ago on a center-right ticket but in his time in the office swung him to the left, aligning himself with Hugo Chávez. But while those who previously supported Zelaya might not be thrilled with the direction he’s taken politically, it’s his questionable move to go for a second term — disallowed under the Honduran constitution–that caused the military to move against him. The coup occurred the morning of a planned non-binding referendum ordered by Zelaya against the wishes of the Honduran Congress.

Zelaya called the referendum on whether to re-draw the constitution to give him another four years. While Zelaya has been downplaying the nature of the referendum - after the coup he was describing it to BBC as a poll “like Gallup would conduct” - his opponents saw that he would use any expression of public support for another term as leverage to compel Congress to call a binding referendum this fall. The Supreme Court issued an order for his arrest, which lead the army to act.

Once Zelaya was whisked off to gilded exile in Costa Rica, the Organization of American States closed ranks to condemn the coup and called for Zelaya to serve out his term, still recognizing him as legitimate president. This is opposed to the rash actions of others in the region, notably Hugo Chávez. Chávez is giving truth to the phrase “only fools rush in.” He is supposed to have sped to ally Nicaragua last night to meet with Zelaya to lend his support. In the early hours after the coup, Chávez was on his nationally televised TV show “Aló Presidente” saying he was going to invade Honduras.

Unlike Chávez and others calling for hasty action, the Obama administration has walked a fine line. Reports indicate that as the crisis was culminating, US officials were working behind the scenes to resolve the situation in a peaceful, constitutional manner. The Obama administration has rightly supported the OAS, and has called the coup for what it is. Smartly, Secretary of State Clinton has emphasized that economic aid will continue to one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, while the Honduran military, which has a strong relationship with (’dependence on’ might be a better phrase) the US will likely be frozen out of additional aid. But Secretary Clinton has held off on moving to cut aid to give Honduran actors the opportunity to work towards a peaceful solution of the crisis.

While one can question the wisdom of Zelaya’s policies or his motivation for seeking a second term, the solution imposed by the military is worse than the problem. While during the Cold War such a coup might get the quiet backing from international supporters, today the Micheletti government is finding itself isolated internationally - even from neighbors El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua, which have cut off trade relations with Honduras.  Alone, and with Zelaya to speak at the UN today , the Micheletti government will likely be forced to back down.  A likely outcome would be a compromise, where Zelaya is allowed to return and serve out his term, with the understanding that his attempts to seek a second term are at an end. That could come as soon as Thursday, when Zelaya has planned to return to Honduras, in the company of the Secretary General of the OAS.

Derham is a writer living in New York City.  He specializes in Latin America, finance, and economics.  The views expressed here are his own.

A few days ago, I wrote about CNAS’s new paper on Afghanistan.

When presenting the paper at CNAS’ conference today, the authors - Andrew Exum and Nate Fick - invited Boston University historian Andrew Bacevich to sit on the panel and offer reactions.

Oh, did he, essentially rejecting the idea that there was any link between US national security and our presence in Afghanistan.  Following that train of though, Bacevich suggested that we ought to send 60,000 American troops to Mexico, a country whose drugs and mafias he stated potentially pose more of a direct threat to American security.

Well, okay… Except that Mexico doesn’t actually pose a greater existential threat to American security.

Think about it–violence in Mexico only poses secondary, indirect threats to a subset to American security.  Drugs, guns, immigrants, or anything else that flows across the Rio Grande simply does not threaten massive, immediate destabilization of American security that al Qaeda could.

But a terrorist attack conceived, plotted, and/or launched from Afghanistan or Pakistan–though it may only kill several thousand people (and possibly many, many more)–risks a severe and instantaneous economic, cultural, and political ripple effect throughout American society. The safe-havens needed to launch this attack are fostered by the lack of stable governing institutions, and they actually exist relatively well in Mexico, which combines these much-more-stable institutions with a more vibrant economy.

It’s this risk of massive, immediate destabilization from Af/Pak (vs. a low-level, slow, controllable effect from a democratic Mexico) that we allocate the military and civilian resources where we do to prevent those eventualities.

See what happens when the White House doesn’t listen to us?

Brazil’s oil industry is turning to China for cash in the latest sign of how Beijing’s clout is growing amid the global economic downturn.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was set to arrive in Beijing Monday to meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao, who is expected to unleash billions of dollars of credit to help Brazil exploit its massive oil reserves. Brazil will return the favor by guaranteeing oil shipments to Chinese companies.

Back in September, Mike Derham wrote in these here pages about that very issue, saying:

The US needs an updated energy strategy for the Western hemisphere.  A focus of that strategy should align US energy demand with the supply of traditional and alternative fuels from Brazil. By using Brazilian energy as a bridge, America could manage declines in traditional energy supplies and take advantage of Brazilian sources as long-term alternatives come online. This strategy will identify new sources, while US policy emerges to increase our energy security in a time of contested resources. …

However, demand for Brazil’s emerging resources is not uncontested. … China - in accepting shipments of oil from Venezuela - has already locked up energy sources for its galloping economy. Perhaps most disturbingly, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has said he wants his country to join OPEC. Membership in that cartel would mean that Brazilian oil production would no longer respond to market demand, but would rather be subject to geopolitical maneuvering.