EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Who's in Charge of US Foreign Policy?
The coup in Honduras has exposed divisions between Barack Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton
The current stand-off in Honduras, in which the coup government headed by Roberto Micheletti is refusing to allow the return of elected president Manuel Zelaya, is raising questions about who is in charge of US foreign policy for the hemisphere.
Divisions have been noticeable from early on in this administration, for example at the summit of the Americas in Trinidad last April. Obama went to the summit with the idea of presenting a new face to the rest of the hemisphere and was immediately undermined by his adviser and director for the summit, Jeffrey Davidow. Fortunately, Obama ignored his advisers and proceeded along a diplomatic path.
When the coup occurred on 28 June, the first statement that came out of the White House was a major blunder. Although the US and international press gave Obama a pass, the diplomatic community could hardly help noticing that the White House issued the only official statement in the world that didn't have a bad word to say about the coup when it happened.
This position shifted as events moved forward, and Obama himself even went so far as to say: "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras." But then his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, seemed to contradict him. Twice she was asked by the press whether restoring the democratic order in Honduras meant restoring the elected president, and twice she declined to answer.
There appear to be others in the administration who would be content to let the coup government stall out the remaining months of Zelaya's term.
Obama needs to lay down the law and make it clear that this coup will not stand. He could start by firing the adviser wrote that initial statement in response to the coup. It's not like they were taken by surprise. Everyone saw this coming, and the Obama administration was talking to the Honduran military right up to the day before the coup.
Of course, if Obama really wanted to get rid of the coup government he could freeze the bank accounts of those who seized power, and their supporters in the Honduran oligarchy. This was recommended on Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times editorial board. Such a move would most likely do the job. These people may have a cause, but they are probably more dedicated to their life savings. It would also have the advantage of not hurting poor people in Honduras.
If Obama has qualms about acting unilaterally, he could easily get approval for such sanctions in the Organisation of American States, which condemned the coup and called for the "immediate and unconditional" return of Zelaya. (The OAS doesn't have the authority to require binding sanctions on its members, but it could approve sanctions for those members who want to implement them.)
It should not be surprising that Clinton and Obama have some daylight between them on foreign policy. Their differences over the Iraq war are one of the main reasons why Obama rather than Clinton is president today. But there appears to be some old-fashioned influence peddling involved as well.
It turns out that two of the Honduran coup government's top advisers have close ties to the US secretary of state. One is Lanny Davis, an influential lobbyist who was a personal lawyer for President Bill Clinton and also campaigned for Hillary. G Gordon Liddy, the man who organised the infamous Watergate break-in in 1972, once said of his friend Davis: "He can defend the indefensible." Davis is doing that quite well lately, testifying for the coup government at a congressional hearing last week, and spinning the media on their behalf.
The other hired gun for the coup government that has deep Clinton ties is Bennett Ratcliff. "Every proposal that Micheletti's group presented was written or approved by [Ratcliff]," a witness told the New York Times on Sunday. Who is Ratcliff? He was a senior executive for Bob Squier, known as the father of the modern political campaign. At his funeral in 2000, which was attended by some of the most powerful Democrats in the country, Squier was eulogised by Bill Clinton. Speaking on behalf of himself and vice-president Al Gore, also at the funeral, Clinton said: "But for [Squier], we might not have been here today." And not only them. In 1992, Squier's firm represented about a third of the Senate's Democrats.
It's all part of the "permanent government" that Obama will have to confront if he really wants to change US foreign policy. These people are pitting him not only against the region but the entire world, which has refused to recognise the coup government in Honduras. He is going to have to be tough and make a clean break with the past.
Perhaps most disturbing of all is that Obama has remained silent in the face of repression by the coup government. They have shot and killed demonstrators, closed down radio and TV stations and arrested journalists. This week a trade union leader and a political activist were murdered.
Violence and the control of information are their main weapons of the dictatorship. They will use them much more freely if Obama maintains his silence. This is not Iran, where denunciations from the US serve to discredit the opposition. This is a government that is highly dependent on the US for aid, commerce and moral support – and that the whole world has condemned.
The cynics will say it doesn't matter, that even if Zelaya returns to Honduras with the coup government still holding power, and the military responds with murder and mayhem, Washington can avoid responsibility. But given the long-standing and close ties between the US and Honduran military, Hillary Clinton's relationship with their advocates, the ugly history of the US in Central America and its long support for death squads and anti-democratic forces there and the mixed signals that have come from the Obama administration since the coup, Washington will be blamed for the mess and potential bloodshed that could result.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
28 Comments so far
Show AllThe Permanent Government that Wiesbrot refers to, the Civil Service, is usually relatively nonpartisan. Unfortunately, the Bushies converted their political employees (who are usually only there for the term of the President that installed them) into permanent ones, leaving a team of moles behind. Presidents in the past, have had to deal with a little of this hangover, but they haven't been faced with an organized "fifth column" left behind by the previous admin.
As a US civil servant myself. I must tell you that the ranks of the GSers especially in regulatory functions, have become rather right wing. Limbaugh plays in several offices around me every afternoon. An overall culture of having the same interests as the industry we regulate seems to pervade the office.
There are some exceptions, especially in the scientific occupations. And Interior Dept. agencies still seems to undersstand that their "customers" are the people not the corporations.
I agree that many upper level (and not-so upper level) civil service job appointments have (illegally) used politcal views as a qualification. I myself was asked if I was a "tree hugger" in my interview for the Dept of Labor - MSHA four year ago. But I think it goes back well before Bush. Due to a ratchet-like effect - conservatives engage in right wing bias, but liberals don't engage in left wing bias when filling a job, the ranks of civil service have benome more conservative.
Then again, maybe it just reflects the increasing conservatism of the comfortable suburban middle class that fills the ranks of civil service. And comfortable they are, good pay and much better vacation, sick leave and retirement benefits than thay would get in private industry.
But sometimes it is getting comical. When Labor Secritary Solis ordered GLBT awareness-month posters put in the elevators of the Perkins building (Labor Dept. Headquarters) the poasters were all torn down - often in a manner that suggested "extreme prejudice" with poster frames being broken. In my agency, a recent directive to turn computers and copiers off at the end of the day had to be described as a security measure, not an energy/environmental one, for fear of an employee backlash - the coal mining industry (and it appears MSHA) hates energy conservation measures. When a follow up memo from the IT people it was finally described in a sarcastic tone as a "green" (in mock-quotes) measure. The comical thing is that energy conservation directive actually came from the Bush Adm.
I have the impression that the US Public Service is an increasingly uncomfortable and lonely place these days for anyone with any sense of professional objectivity whatever. If those at the top once had some appreciation for the risks involved in staffing the ranks with like-minded "yes men", it seems to have been largely set aside for the sake of expediency.
pjd412:
Good to see that there are still civil servants who understanding the meaning of civil service. In an era of knee-jerk red-baiting and habitual bashing of "federal bureaucrats," as a citizen (who works in the private sector), I simply want to thank you for your service.
I spent a number of years working with mine workers and know how valuable an honest and efficient MSHA is to mine workers and coal mining communities and states.
--tj
Thanks for the complement. I try to always remember that my "clients" are the miners, or, since my primary job is reviewing coal waste dam designs, the communities downstream of the dams.
And while it is fashionable to treat the mine operators we regulate as "partners", I'm of the opinion that often the only ethical relationship with the operators is polite but adversarial. Most of the mine inspectors cetainly know this.
Question posed in title article: "Who's in Charge of US Foreign Policy?"
Answer: Elite members of "Council on Foreign Relations" and of course AIPAC... with much crossover, dual-loyality between them.
Read WAR IS A RACKET by Gen. Smedley Butler and you will have the answer to your question.
Hoa binh
Absolutely. Some of the corporate and financial institution names have changed since the United Fruit Company's heyday, but the fundmentals certainly haven't.
As for any minor dissention between Hillary and Obama, it can be dismissed as mere quibbles about means and appearances. At the heart of US foreign policy, everyone can be reassured that its geopolitical strategy is under firm control and will remain so as long as the empire itself endures. That, however, may not be much longer as its underpinnings are increasingly shaky of late.
here is a quote from smedley butler:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
so nothing changes....
the imperium grows and kills and kills and grows
funny how the wall street bankers are right there at the top of the mix
this is our legacy to the world....
if you have something we want - we kill you to get it
in the case of honduras - the murderer for empire was negroponte, here is something abut him and his assassinatons school he ran for the cia and the senile reagan:
"In April 2005, as the Senate confirmation hearings for the National Intelligence post took place, hundreds of documents were released by the State Department in response to a FOIA request by The Washington Post. The documents, cables that Negroponte sent to Washington while serving as ambassador to Honduras, indicated that he played a more active role than previously known in managing US efforts against the leftist Sandinistas. According to the Post, the image of Negroponte that emerges from the cables is that of an
an action-oriented ambassador whose anti-communist convictions led him to play down human rights abuses in Honduras, the most reliable U.S. ally in the region. There is little in the documents the State Department has released so far to support his assertion that he used "quiet diplomacy" to persuade the Honduran authorities to investigate the most egregious violations, including the mysterious disappearance of dozens of government opponents"
and so it goes......
the situation in honduras is similar to the situation over much of south america, a small elite who support and live off american occupation set against the democratic and poor masses
over and over, we, the us, choose to support the banks and corporations instead of legitimate democratic movements all over the world
at the very least, let's stop the bullshit about being good and special
our government is comprised of murderous thugs whose chosen path in life is to kill peasants and working people n defense of corporate profits
not much of a government if you ask me
Oregoncharles
RichM I noticed the same thing. A pattern is emerging and I expect it's coming from the empire's PR management system, which is funneled into the MSM. The picture we are supposed to accept is one in which Obama has the good intentions but is bowled over by those who surround him. He will be made to appear intelligent, empathetic, but guileless - he will continue to hug his kids a lot, smile that winning smile, emanate calm, reason, he won't be able to change the course we're on ... but he wants to. That's enough, right?
Don't you remember this nonsense when the Dems kept voting for just about everything the Bush administration wanted? We were supposed to think of them as poor puppies, wanting to do the right think but, lest they appear "weak" on "protecting" Americans, they just had to go along. I remember an entire article on Common Dreams, just before that disappointing midterm election. The author wrote that Democrats really, deep in their hearts, are good, ethical people who want to defy Bush but ..... you know, poor puppies, they just need to find the strength to do so. And they need our votes and more money, please.
Once they have the majority, boy oh boy, are we going to see some changes!
I say, if Obama can't resist pressures, we need to find someone who can. Same goes for our reps in Congress and Senate.
The Green Party is growing! And isn't it about time?
It could be all just this guileness Obama PR trick, but there are reasons for Weisbot´s argument. Basically: the traditional imperialist interventionalist policy is no longer viable -- it only serves to unify all countries against US policies and interests. Obama can probably see this but the neocons and their functionaries in the Pentagon, CIA, State Department, etc., along with operatives like Otto Reich and the mentioned lobbyists, are blind to the new realities in the world. These new realities place strong constraints on US behaviour.
"that Obama "really wants to change US foreign policy." I find it amusing how this author wants to give Obama a pass and blame Hillary. Hillary is not President - Obama is. He is responsible, no one else. He wanted the position - he should be a man and take responsibility. For the record, I voted for Dennis Kucinch but get tired of everyone blaming Hillary for Obama carrying on Bush's policies. It's not like people did not know Obama was going to be Bush III when they voted for him. Wall street and the media put both Bush and Obama in office.
Not meaning to sound too "conspiratorial" about the matter, but...
Re: Hillary Clinton and the Honduran coup. It's a matter of historical fact that Clinton, along with other unnamed State Department representatives, were in Honduras for an important OAS summit in early June, a couple of weeks before the coup, their meeting convening in San Pedro Sula "only hours" after an earthquake rocked the country: to be followed by a diplomatic earthquake for the U.S. in which, despite Clinton's best efforts, the OAS prepared to lift the long ban on OAS membership for Cuba. The Zelaya government in Honduras was among the most vociferous in demanding this change (along with Nicaragua). So (shh, this is the conspiratorial part) what were Clinton and/or some of those holdover State Department employees from previous adminstrations doing at night at the restaurants and lounges of SPS? Were any of Michiletti's agents among their fellow diners and drinkers? If so, did they talk about the weather or perhaps,,,,you get the idea.
There's a pretty good posting today on Dissident Voice describing U.S. diplomatic behavior at the San Pedro Sula meeting: http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/07/slipping-and-sliding-in-san-pedro-sula/
Good points.
Only a couple of days before the coup, the new US Southern Command honcho shot his mouth off and contradicted Obama's "apparent" foreign policy in regard to this region. Chavez brought that contradiction to the attention of the Latin American media. No mention of course was made of that in the US media.
Otto Reich and John Negroponte--both of the bad ole days of Iran Contra and other scams and capers--were doing a syncopated salsa dance in Central America for about 2 months previous to the coup--along with the Posada Gang.
Relationships based on money are always thicker than other kinds of relationships--and history DOES establish the parameters of foreign policy.
Obama is a puppet patsy, and it is completely unrealistic to expect him to do anything but smile, shake hands and wear the suit.
Sioux Rose
NATIVE: Interesting analysis.
Really.
nativetongue.miami: Yes, there are plenty of snakes in the grass for Latin American democracy. Posada, Reich and Negroponte are the baddest of bad news bears and not far behind would be the minions of the National Endowment for Democracy, which was so involved with the 2002 coup against Chavez; and who are still headed in their respective Republican and Democratic branches by John McCain and Madeleine Albright, B. Clinton's Secretary of State and erstwhile campaigner for H. Clinton. Between these and other forces and persons, who knows what evil lurks in those grasses? It's not just Honduras and Venezuela that are seen as straying from U.S. economic/political dominance; there's a whole Bolivarian Alternative of numerous central and South American countries that have escaped from the "backyard" of U.S. control in which they have been confined. Look for plenty of employment for these folks to save the day for U.S. imperialism from these upstart countries. DR-CAFTA will help the "cause," but the stray coup or assassination can be expected.
This really 'stinks' of U.S. involvement. The corporations are using the Bush family's CIA to inslave the peons for a few dollars more. It's time to pull our gunslingers out of this military dictatorship.
Dr. Obimbo, M.D. (Monroe Doctrine) is in charge of "foreign policy" with Nurse Clinton in tow. Next house calls after Honduras - Venezuela and Bolivia.
Mordechai: My only question is really who is the doctor, and who has whom "in tow."
"Nurse" Clinton may be the dark presence that she was depicted by Obama supporters during the campaign, and she as Secretary of State may be positioned to put her putative boss "in tow." One would think, if Obama's and Clinton's foreign policy preferences were so much at odds, he would just fire her; but in Obama's political calculation (or for whatever reason) he may not feel powerful enough to do that (if he really wanted to).
THAT would be very interesting.....
"Who's in Charge of US Foreign Policy?" - That's US voters, remember? And by proxy the government. In principle.
Re Honduras: Could the coup-makers hang onto power even as long as up to now without the seldom mentioned supports from the USA in practice - support like refraining from pressuring the junta by freezing their access to money?
Our answer to that question answers which attitudes run the policies practiced.
"Action speaks louder than words". - Speak up, Obama!
During the period following Obama's election victory many people were fiercely confident a new era was being born.
Their excitement was extreme. He says all the right things
but let's see what he does. We are beginning to see that not
much has changed.
I was, and still am, "skeptically cautious" in making any such
conclusions about "Change We Can Believe In".
Were 0 to act against the coup, he would not do so unilaterally, or close to it.
Whatever resistance exists is not with the electorate nor with the countries in the region, but with the old guard rightist thugs and apparatchiks who administrate US and corporate policies through the region.
That resistance is real and bitter, but far from unanimous. These people are in the minority and have been.
Who's in Charge of US Foreign Policy? Israel.
Dear President Obama,
I'm one of your fans and erstwhile camapaign workers. And I think that in general you have been acting like a wimp lately, so until I see a change for the Good and the True in your behavior, I will be referring to you as The Wimp. I get around, esp' on the internet, so you or your staff may become aware of me and this sobriquet. Know that I use it in a spirit of cooperation and brotherhood and believe that you have the capacity and deep desire to become one of mankind's heroes.
Sincerely,
tom arnall
arcata
He has been called much worse, and deservedly so, on CD and other forums...
Besides, GHWB has already claimed that title...