Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Administration Restating Its Position on Honduran Coup?
WASHINGTON - A letter sent last week by the U.S. State Department has caused many to question the Obama Administration position on reinstating ousted Honduras President Manuel Zelaya.
US President Barack Obama (R) chats with Mexican President Felipe Calderon during the family picture of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) summit, at the Cabanas Cultural Centre in Guadalajara. Obama accused critics of his response to the coup in Honduras of "hypocrisy". (AFP/Ronaldo Schemidt) In an Aug. 4 letter to Senator Richard Lugar - the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - signed by Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Richard Verma, the U.S. condemned the coup, though said Zelaya was to blame for his ousting and did not call for his return.
"Our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual," said the letter. "We also recognise that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarisation of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal."
Vicki Gass, a Honduras specialist at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), said the letter highlighted U.S. support for a democratic government and the rule of law in Honduras, not necessarily support of Zelaya.
"The U.S. hasn't supported Zelaya," she told IPS. "They support democratic order, which means his return, but that doesn't mean they like him."
Frederick Jones, a spokesman for Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator John Kerry, said Friday that the senator was worried the letter "risks sending a confusing signal" about U.S. commitment to restoring Zelaya to power.
Some speculate the letter was a response to a Jul. 30 letter from Lugar to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking her to explain U.S. policy in Honduras.
"I request that the Department provide interested Members a detailed clarification of the steps that it has taken, and intends to take, in response to the events that transpired in the run-up to and period after the forced removal of President Manuel Zelaya from Honduras," Lugar wrote to Clinton.
Critical of the U.S.' lack of decisive action about Honduras, Republican senators have put a hold on the confirmations of two Obama nominees to key diplomatic posts - Arturo Valenzuela, for Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, and Thomas Shannon, for Ambassador to Brazil.
Gass said lack of leadership posed by the empty positions was being felt in the State Department, and the letter may have been a move to please Republicans and get the nominees confirmed.
There is a split in Congress over how the Honduran situation should be resolved. Democrats support Zelaya's return to the presidency, though with limited powers, while Republicans disagree. They have argued that Zelaya's removal saved democracy from a populist dictatorship in the mode of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - a Zelaya ally.
The U.S. has revoked diplomatic visas for five Hondurans associated with the defacto government of Roberto Micheletti. It suspended anti-drug operations from the U.S. military base in Honduras, withheld 16 million dollars in defence aid and warned that it might not disburse the final 10 percent of funds due to Honduras under a 250 million dollar aid program there.
The U.S. also has strongly supported the mediation efforts of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, who has proposed a compromise plan to reinstate Zelaya with limited powers - the San Jose Accord.
The U.S. has rejected calls for economic sanctions, the letter said.
Gass said the U.S. response has been inconsistent.
"[The U.S.] needs to be more forceful in condemning the coup and more consistent within the state department," said Gass.
She said the U.S. needs to "send a stronger message to the coup government," by initially cancelling their and their families' visas and freezing their bank accounts.
The State Department letter angered Latin American leaders, who have also been critical of the U.S.'s lack of action in Honduras. There have been protests outside of the U.S. embassy in Honduras.
Last Friday Obama told reporters that he continued to support the return of Zelaya, but that he could not do so single-handedly. "I ca not press a button and suddenly reinstate Mr. Zelaya."
At the North American Leaders Summit Monday, Obama slammed critics who said the U.S. had not done enough to bring back Zelaya.
"The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say that we're always intervening, and the Yankees need to get out of Latin America. You can't have it both ways."
"If these critics think that it's appropriate for us to suddenly act in ways that in every other context they consider inappropriate, then I think what that indicates is that maybe there's some hypocrisy involved in their approach to U.S.-Latin American relations that that certainly is not going to guide my Administration's policies," Obama said.
Though the White House has made no comments about the letter, Robert Wood, White House spokesman, defended U.S. efforts in Honduras and reiterated that the U.S. stood behind Zelaya, at a press briefing Monday.
"We've made very clear what our position is," he told reporters. "We are a strong supporter of President Zelaya. We want to see him returned. We've made that very clear. There should be no doubt about that."
A delegation of foreign ministers, led by Secretary General José Miguel Insulza, from the Organisation of American States (OAS) - which does not support the coup government and suspended Honduras from the organisation - announced plans to visit Honduras in the next few days to convince Micheletti to accept the San Jose Accord. The Accord calls for Zelaya to serve out his term, which ends in January 2010, and for political amnesty for the coup plotters and de-facto regime.
- Posted in

36 Comments so far
Show Allfrom the article:"The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say that we're always intervening, and the Yankees need to get out of Latin America. You can't have it both ways."
"If these critics think that it's appropriate for us to suddenly act in ways that in every other context they consider inappropriate, then I think what that indicates is that maybe there's some hypocrisy involved in their approach to U.S.-Latin American relations that that certainly is not going to guide my Administration's policies," Obama said.
--------CONTEXT of 'intervention' is key, Mr. Obama...... if Yankee intervention is, say, ousting a democratically elected leader like, say, Arbenz back in '54, that is INAPPROPRIATE.... if Yankee intervention is doing all one CAN do to reinstate a democratically elected leader like Zelaya after armed coup thugs whisk him out of the country in his pajamas, well, that I'd call APPROPRIATE. If you spot hypocrisies, well, by all means, NAME them and hopefully with patience, a dialogue can be had, a deeper understanding can be reached through deep listening by all parties...hypocrisies have a way of getting projected all over the place....always best to be most vigilant about YOUR OWN. You know this. We all do, I hope.... the trick is remembering it despite our thin-skinned reactivity and certainty that we know all the facts already.
According to the article.
The USA does not support the coup but condemned Zelaya's 'provocative actions'---'that led to his removal'
This is typical of the duplicity that the US Government and Americans in general have always exhibited. What a stark contrast to what the American people claim to hold sacred; due process in a democratic society.*
So, since the Democrats under Mr Obama's 'leadership' have initiated a 'provocative action' to install 'universal health care'---something that the 'conservative right' opposes vehemently; it would be perfectly within the Presidents approval for the "Far Right of American Lunatics"---to take control of the US Military, and then--stage a coup and oust President Obama.
Which means those 'fools over there on the left', missed a 'wonderful opportunity' to 'oust' President Bush, for violating so many international laws they can't be listed here----what a country.
"God Bless America" 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'-------'Let Freedom Ring'----and 'jesus is coming back, and he is really pissed of at them godless communists'
Only an American President could exhibit such hypocrisy---do it with a straight face--and still not be called down over it.
*Just one more confirmation that there cannot possibly be a 'God';
millions of Native Americans had to die in order for the USA to exist, and they have this 'mockery of logic' to claim for it.
Good Luck America, you really really need it.
And I see this article called Chavez a "populist dictator" without the appropriate use of quotes, as I did above.
With all the free and fair democratic ratifications of the Chavez presidency, and the Venezuelan constitution, along with a vigorous, right-wing opposition media, Venezuela looks like a model democracy to me - certainly far ahead of the US.
If the right-wing opposition is are having trouble replacing Chavez, it is simply because they cannot convince the people of their alternative. That the Capitalist elites cannot control the Venezuelan people (notably the poor) through their ownership of the Media, as is the case here in the USA, must really piss them off.
And since when has "populist" become a epethet?
And going back to Honduras, since when is a popular poll or referendum ever anti-democracy? If Zelaya broke some laws, then the laws need to be changed anyway. To hell with "rule of law" if those laws are unjust!
Good point pjd:
From article: "They have argued that Zelaya's removal saved democracy from a populist dictatorship in the mode of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - a Zelaya ally."
The author failed to contextualize and qualify the statement. Chavez of course was elected by free and fair elections and himself survived a coup attempt (supported by the USA). The ignorance and misinformation are astounding, I expected a bit more from an IPS article.
Litvinsky sez: "(U.S. Republicans) have argued that Zelaya's removal saved democracy from a populist dictatorship in the mode of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez ..."
***
Neocon to English translation:
"Fascists have argued that Zelaya's removal saved unfettered capitalism from democratic oversight."
I can't seem to find "Populist dictatorship" in my Neocon-English dictionary. Must be a new meaningless phrase.
Re Goebbels sez August 13th, 2009 2:34 pm, who complains,
"I can't seem to find "Populist dictatorship" in my Neocon-English dictionary. Must be a new meaningless phrase."
It's right there between "clean coal" and "Islamofascist."
populist dictator: a president, who through fantasic PR and a compliant media and an equally ignorant populous, is allowed to run rough-shod over the constitution and to break any and all laws, international and national, as he sees fit to cheers in the streets.
AKA GWBush.
Chavez was elected in free elections, but his behavior after winning the election isn't exactly supportive of democracy.
Please post an extensive summary of the many years you have spent in Venezuela that have led you to that conclusion, Fox News Flunky.
Folks like you are living and embarrassing proof of the total failure of the gringo educational system.
Nobody can THINK in gringoland.
Nor do they care to.
Pots and kettles: our electoral system is fraudulent and you point fingers at Chavez? Ignorance, Hypocrisy and imperialism are not virtues in my book.
What an odd term, "populist dictator"!
What an assumption, that because a leader has the support of his people, he is a dictator!
Zelaya didn't break the law; the golpistas did, funded by Washington lobbyists who were major Clinton supporters in 2008.
US Corporations are not allowed to do business with Cuba, North Korea and iran.
So why not bar them from business in the Honduras?
Zelaya was working to raise the minimum wage for workers of his country. Of course Chiquita (United Fruit) and Dole American exploiters of Honduran labor paid the US trained military to force Zelaya out of the country.
Now pay attention folks. This is the Barak Obama's foriegn policy.
"We also recognise that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarisation of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal."
It is so provocative to even think of raising the wages of a poverty riddled country. Chiquita (United Fruit) gave 2 million to Bush for his 2000 campaign. When in office Bush overruled the WTO court and screwed independent banana growers of Ecuador out of 280 Million court settlement.
Clearly Obama is not the president of the people. He is so owned by corporate interests.
Good to look at http://www.narconews.com/Issue59/article3760.html about Clinton and Honduras.
Good to look at http://www.narconews.com/Issue59/article3760.html about Clinton and Honduras.
Yeah, I never really believed the Obama administration was really "backing" Zelaya from the beginning. I always felt their public "support" for Zelaya was nothing more than a delaying tactic and that we would eventually start hearing how the US needs to work with the new Honduran government because it is the reality of the situation . . . just like we are now.
"Supporting" Zelaya at the beginning got the media never bringing up the connections the coup plotters had with the School of the Americas and never questioning anything. Once the dust settled, America would be friends with the new leaders who conveniently held the same capitalist agendas as America.
I think ABE WINKEN nailed it right on the head with his post.
I just saw the Democracy Now video with Amy Goodman interviewing golpista apologist Lanny Davis. Despite Lanny Davis's blatant bullying and red baiting, Amy Goodman was a class act. While she was very polite and diplomatic I admired the way she wouldn't let that goon Davis have his way with her.
I am far less interested in what any governmental official says or doesn't say and much more interested in what they do or do not do. By that standard the US is backing the Honduran coup and by January 2010 everyone will say, "well it doesn't make any difference now because Zelaya's term has expired".
Poet
The article they published isn't anti-Chavez. I bet you can't be specific about the anti Chavez comment.
Bet I can.
Reprinting the libelous "populist dictatorship" attack against Chavez is anti-Chavez.
Duh again.
See my 10:11 pm comment to Robert Naiman's article yesterday.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/12-4
· Yr Obd't Servant
"We also recognise that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarisation of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal."
Very dangerous language from a president who is facing the prospect of lynch mobs very soon. I heard some right-winger today blaming Obama for "polarizing" the nation - as if we were united under Bush.
I don't see why you think President Obama will be facing lynch mobs very soon. He's very popular and I really like him.
There's even a story on the very site about it. Duh.
NarcoNews.com has soooo outscooped IPS on this story the IPS story looks like US Propaganda System BS. There is absolutely no mention that the US Government continues to fund the illegal Honduran government, which proves Obama's and his minions's words to be the usual lies related to any US Imperial project.
This is a Chiquita & Dole sponsored CIA coup. Now Dole is also on by complete boycott list.
Anything grown, picked and packed by slave labor makes me gag.
Obama's failure to establish solidarity with the common men and women in Latin America is one of the many foreign policy disappointments for people like me who swallowed abit too much of the campaign koolaid. The continued sponsorship of the interests of transnational corporations is abominable.
What would Martin Luther King do? Certainly not kiss the butts of Uribe and Calderon! Certainly not increase the number of US bases in Colombia (the genocidal democracy)! And, certainly embrace the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, and others where the long suffering majorities have finally grabbed a share of power.
I hope I'm not being racist in suggesting King as a man whose policies Obama should use as a role model. But, unless I'm mistaken Mr. O seemed to be channeling MLK w/some success in the hard-fought primaries where the progressive vote was at stake both in competition w/Mrs. C and 3rd parties. Since the primaries his policies have been compromised to say the least.
So, how in the hell do we get him onto the MLK track!?
In '68 I wanted either a MLK/RFK or a RFK/MLK ticket. That dream was literally blown up in our violent nation.
Great sites for news on Honduras & LA in general are NarcoNews, Upside Down World, School of Americas Watch, and CISPES.
sincerious..you are so right.
I constantly have MLK in my mind, also Robert kennedy.
and constantly list the things MLK stood and died for --
that obama quite openly and shamelessly treats as if they are "quaint" - in the same way that John Yoo treated the geneva conventions and Nuremberg Trials treaties as "quaint"....
I am CONVINCED that - regardless of what american and even MLK's OWN children seem to have tolerated , basking perhaps in the afterglow of their own father's Legend as a great american , but lacking his leadership and courage to have perhaps CONTINUED his struggles - i am convinced that MLK would be HORRIFIED at how
FAR from across the fence obama stands from MLK and what MLK stood and DIED for.
MLK spoke up for not JUST antiracism and for his fellow black americans --but saw its fundamental issue crossing race barriers - as we can see everywhere in the globe:
ECONOMIC JUSTICE....and Against MILITARISM and WARMAKING.
but obama is the EXACT opposite to what MLK and what MLK stood and fought and died for.
I wonder if obama actually feels in his private thoughts, ANY sense of shame? that he can even intone the NAME :
"MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR"
or THINK about it -- and CERTAINLY see how HE has betrayed that very name and everything Dr King Died For -- as well as so many countless billions have died FROM:
Economic Injustice and War?.
but here he is - OBAMA the american EMPEROR chosen by his plutocracy of Big Banks, Corporations, MIC ....presiding over the very system to ENHANCE it --
that MLK died from fighting against it.
MLK said:
"I must with great shame and sadness say that the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own country and government"...........
and OBAMA LEADS that nation IN those very same things!
as leaders - where MLK had courage and sacrifice -
obama only shows cowardice and "comfort zones".
NO TWO people of the same "color" could have been more UNlike
as MLK and Obama.
no 2 americans and leaders could have been more UN like.
the First MLK -- stood for True Justice, Economic Justice, Peace and brotherhood of all ...
the second, Obama - stands for the OBSTACLES to those.
"Our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual," said the letter. "We also recognise that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarisation of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal."
===========
\
the line from the article -- on the US position - leaves out or misrepresents the REAL reason Zelaya was ousted by the oligarchies -
that it was not because he had positions "the led to the polarization".......
but that he THREATENED the interests of the oligarchs and US interests - to KEEP THE WAGES of Hondurans low.
the REAL issue for his ouster was not because of the SUPPOSED "unconstitutional" attempt to extend his presidency....
but that DURING his presidency he put into effect THE RAISING OF THE MINIMUM WAGE.
Read what my blog has to say about the Honduran coup. You can access it at ahgoldberg.radioleft.com. All this US president has to do is what a nominally Democratic president did in 1994 by going to the UN Security Council to restore a democratic government in Haiti back then. No permanent member state on that body would veto this, and member states would be authorized to use whatever action is necessary to restore the democratic government of Honduras and throw out the coup gangsters. With UN backing it would be internationally sanctioned.
AD
Read what my blog has to say about the Honduran coup. You can access it at ahgoldberg.radioleft.com. All this US president has to do is what a nominally Democratic president did in 1994 by going to the UN Security Council to restore a democratic government in Haiti back then. No permanent member state on that body would veto this, and member states would be authorized to use whatever action is necessary to restore the democratic government of Honduras and throw out the coup gangsters. With UN backing it would be internationally sanctioned.
AD
All we're getting from Obaam is weasel words from a weasel to paraphrase G Mennon Williams
on another public policy matter, and I don't mind standing in for Soapy Williams, as he was called one bit. We should be so lucky as to have a president with his guts.
AD
snydly
"We also recognise that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarisation of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal."
...What did he do?...try to reform his health care system?
I'm for BHO and health reform, but a statement like this cuts both ways.
Also important is to figure how much, if any, the coup had yanqui-proxy corporate strings attached before saying that we are finally keeping fingers out of the Latin Am pie.
When I first heard the news reports that a coup had occurred in a Latin American country and that the U>S. condemned it, my instincts said, "U.S., keep your bullying hands off little Honduras - coup or no coup!" Nothing has changed my mind since.
I speak as someone who remembers all our interventions in Latin America since '65 with Johnson's Dominican Republic invasion -- taken in the name, of course, of 'protecting Democracy.' But don't just take it from me. Historian Peter Winn's fine book, Americas, pp.486-87, rightly says Latin Americans "are long jealous of national sovereignty and wary of foreign [i.e.,U.S.]intervention in the name of higher values.
Progressives should ask ourselves, what if the situation were idealogically reversed -- say, a leftist coup had ousted a 'democratically' elected rightist politician? (Don't say 'impossible'; military coups are by no means automatically rightist. Remember, Chavez himself, was a 'golpista' in the early '90s against a reactionary civilian government.)Would we progressives be so quick, then, to urge on the U.S. to 'restore democracy?'
Best no intervention at all -- even for 'good causes.'