Why U.S. changed its position
BY CARLOS ALBERTO MONTANER
Hondurans are anxious to know what will happen in their country after the Nov. 29 elections. Consequently, a very alert segment of civil society, almost all of them dynamic young people, supported by the magazine Strategy and Business, organized an international seminar on Nov. 12 to examine in depth this bedeviled affair. I participated in the event, but, on my own, because I wanted to satisfy a different curiosity. I'll explain that later.
Guatemalan Julio Ligorría, an expert in crisis-solving, was asked for an analysis of how and why the international perception of the government of President Roberto Micheletti had been so negative, even though Manuel Zelaya's removal had resulted from the application of a national law. Ligorría was also asked what could be done to straighten out the mess.
Peruvian Alvaro Vargas Llosa, the author of a couple of essential books on how to emerge from underdevelopment, was asked for a futuristic vision of what it would take for Honduras to stop being the third most stubbornly poor country in Latin America, a country where 73 percent of the population survives precariously within the boundaries of poverty.
From me, they expected a prediction on what would be a violent response from the Castro-Chávez bloc to the legitimate government that will emerge from the ballot boxes, to which I added an uncomfortable final warning: This may be the last opportunity for Honduras to save individual freedoms and the republican structure.