Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Friday, August 28, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
State Department Recommends Aid Cutoff to Honduras
After two months, the State Department is poised to formally declare
what was obvious to most of the world: on June 28, Honduras
experienced a military coup.
State Department staff have recommended to Secretary of State Clinton that the ouster of Honduran President Zelaya be formally declared a "military coup," which could cut off as much as $150 million in U.S. funding, Reuters reports.
The semi-official story has been that State Department lawyers were studying the events in Honduras to see if they met the "technical definition" of a "military coup." But all along the State Department made clear that it was purposely delaying its formal determination to give "diplomacy" -- the talks in Costa Rica between representatives of President Zelaya and representatives of the coup regime -- a chance to work.
It was never explained why making this determination -- which, under U.S. law, requires a cutoff of aid to the coup government -- would have interfered with "diplomacy." On the contrary: it was immediately obvious that the obstacle to a negotiated solution was the intransigence of the coup regime, which refused to accept a compromise proposal that would allow President Zelaya to return. So, as many Latin American governments argued -- including the Costa Rican government -- if the U.S. wanted a negotiated solution, it needed to ramp up pressure on the coup regime.
But the State Department is now, at last, conceding that its previous efforts were insufficient. Better late than never -- much better.
No doubt Republicans in Congress who have supported the coup regime in Honduras will now complain loudly when Secretary Clinton makes her formal determination -- assuming that she follows the recommendation of her staff.
In anticipation of right-wing Republican complaints, it is important to note two key facts.
First, in making this determination, the State Department is simply following the law. The Foreign Assistance Act requires a cutoff of U.S. aid "to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree." That's what happened on June 28 -- about that central fact there has been no serious dispute. Even the top legal advisor of the Honduran military conceded that the Honduran military broke Honduran law when it removed President Zelaya from office -- and from Honduras.
Second, in making this determination -- and cutting off aid -- the State Department is simply following past practice. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research documented in a recent report, when there were coups in Mauritania and Madagascar, Millennium Challenge Corporation money was cut off within days.
So complain away, right-wing coup-lovers. If we want Latin America to take seriously the claim of a new U.S. approach to Latin America in the Obama administration -- or maintain a credible commitment to the rule of law in the region -- this is the minimum.
State Department staff have recommended to Secretary of State Clinton that the ouster of Honduran President Zelaya be formally declared a "military coup," which could cut off as much as $150 million in U.S. funding, Reuters reports.
The semi-official story has been that State Department lawyers were studying the events in Honduras to see if they met the "technical definition" of a "military coup." But all along the State Department made clear that it was purposely delaying its formal determination to give "diplomacy" -- the talks in Costa Rica between representatives of President Zelaya and representatives of the coup regime -- a chance to work.
It was never explained why making this determination -- which, under U.S. law, requires a cutoff of aid to the coup government -- would have interfered with "diplomacy." On the contrary: it was immediately obvious that the obstacle to a negotiated solution was the intransigence of the coup regime, which refused to accept a compromise proposal that would allow President Zelaya to return. So, as many Latin American governments argued -- including the Costa Rican government -- if the U.S. wanted a negotiated solution, it needed to ramp up pressure on the coup regime.
But the State Department is now, at last, conceding that its previous efforts were insufficient. Better late than never -- much better.
No doubt Republicans in Congress who have supported the coup regime in Honduras will now complain loudly when Secretary Clinton makes her formal determination -- assuming that she follows the recommendation of her staff.
In anticipation of right-wing Republican complaints, it is important to note two key facts.
First, in making this determination, the State Department is simply following the law. The Foreign Assistance Act requires a cutoff of U.S. aid "to the government of any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree." That's what happened on June 28 -- about that central fact there has been no serious dispute. Even the top legal advisor of the Honduran military conceded that the Honduran military broke Honduran law when it removed President Zelaya from office -- and from Honduras.
Second, in making this determination -- and cutting off aid -- the State Department is simply following past practice. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research documented in a recent report, when there were coups in Mauritania and Madagascar, Millennium Challenge Corporation money was cut off within days.
So complain away, right-wing coup-lovers. If we want Latin America to take seriously the claim of a new U.S. approach to Latin America in the Obama administration -- or maintain a credible commitment to the rule of law in the region -- this is the minimum.
- Posted in
Comments are closed
57 Comments so far
Show AllThank you Secretary Clinton for doing what you should have done two months ago. It looks like Obama is showing himself to be a hedger rather than a leader.
The article doesn't say that Clinton has done anything. It's the staff that made the recommendation.
q
This seems like very good news. I hope that Hillary will follow the recommendations of her department, abide by the law and cut off aid to Honduras until Zelaya is restored to office, but I'm not holding my breath.
Lets cut off aid to everyone. They don't appreciate our help, why give it? Many at home don't think we should be involved in other countries business anyway, which for the most part I agree.
The first to experience the shut-off valve of US wealth should be the rightwing dictatorships that do our corporate bidding against the interests of both the indigenous peoples of their own lands and the world's people in general.
When I see the US begin to actually use its resources to promote true democracy, true freedoms - even when those freedoms and democracies run against US corporate interests - then I will have reason to hope that we are finally practicing what we have for so long preached.
And, NO, those "US interests" that the MSM so often asserts have little to do with the true interests of the people; ever notice how the terms "US interests" and "US values" have exchanged places in the rhetorical dialogue?
When I said everyone I meant everyone and at the same time, unless our security and stability is "directly" threatened. Real threats.Not Bush concoctions. Your point about national
I don't believe we should be promoting Democracy or anything else. I know how I'd feel if some Bozo came to Texas and said we needed to become a socialist state. I assume and know thats how some other folks around the world feel when we tell them how to run their own country. Or that they should have a Democracy when they have no history of those roots at all.
An NVA General said it best to me..."why did you think we should do what your government wanted us to do when it was our country" He was a good guy. I told him I didn't think that...they just drafted my butt and said show up.
"ever notice how the terms "US interests" and "US values" have exchanged places in the rhetorical dialogue?"
Actually I have but not as directly as you point out. I don't feel Americans values as I know them and have known them are or have been reflected in government policy for 15 years at least.
henry8 -
Point One - how do you define "security and stability?" Some would argue that the US has the right to do whatever it wishes in order to "secure and stabilize" our own economy. If you mean direct aggression, then I would absolutely agree with you.
Point Two - I also agree with you on the forced spreading of democracy. I think I could have made my point more accurately by describing the support of universal human rights, regardless of governmental type, rather than what we so loosely label as "democracy."
Point Three - You point about the NVA general's remarks are well taken - and again, I agree. That is why I am so opposed to our current support of the Columbian regime in South America, its government-funded rightwing death squads, its liquidation of trade unionists and human rights workers, etc. And, like you Henry, I also got my butt drafted and sent to the 'Nam.
And Point Four - you pinpoint the start of the downward spiral of American values at about 15 years ago, that would be during the Clinton administration. I too was not a fan of Billy Bob, for many of the same reasons I am not a fan of any professional politician - they are not what they project themselves to be. My starting point, however, would be the Reagan Administration, its funding of secret, illegal wars in South and Central America, its anti-constitutional actions with regard to legislative oversight of the military budget, its secretive and illegal trading of arms to the then-described terrorist state of Iran for hostages, etc.
odoco
Point one. I am speaking about "security and stability?" as in a direct attack, Pearl Harbor type, direct agression as you defined. Our economy is under attack from our own business's and government as far as I can tell... but if some other country attacked us economically, you fight them economically, not with troops.
Point two. Right. Got you and yes we agree.
Point three. I don't believe we should support any government other than by words if they are taking care of their people and those people have freedom. Wish we could have stayed home? Anywhere around the Que Son mountain area or the Arizona valley?
Point four. Good point. And probably right. Our economic downturn started with Ronnies changes that allowed the Savings and Loan disaster just as Clinton made possible and George allowed this one.
"I don't believe we should be promoting Democracy or anything else. I know how I'd feel if some Bozo came to Texas and said we needed to become a socialist state."
I'll make an exception in Texas. Texas needs democracy and currently doesn't have it. All the state has are room for Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians on the ballot while the rest of the parties are "write ins". There's no room for their voices to be heard. The same could be said of most states. This country needs real democracy very badly.
Your remark about socialist state brought this to my mind now that I finally recovered just a few days ago well enough to be able to function as normal. If Texas were a socialist state, we would have the much needed health care this state desperately needs rather than criminals running the hospitals and bad doctors gunning for money and not caring for the patients even though they were paid to help them. If it were not for my loving wife, my neighbors and friends, and my former coworkers fighting the injustice of the hospitals and the doctors who are now on trial for mistreating several patients in addition to their mistreating me, I wouldn't be alive today. I'll take socialized medicine to this privatized sh*tcare anyday. The next time I get sick and possibly about to die, I'll go to Canada and get treated ! I don't see single payer having a prayer in this country as it is.
Welcome back my friend! I'm delighted you have recovered....your wife filled in well, but I've missed your posts!!
Single payer is indeed the only answer. This farce they are trying to sell now is nothing more than more profit for the same old players. Look at Obamas deal with Big Pharma and you know all you need to know about this "reform"
"doctors who are now on trial for mistreating several patients in addition to their mistreating me,"
Which hospital? Where? El Paso?
Welcome back...echoed I'm sure by many others!
"Welcome back my friend! I'm delighted you have recovered....your wife filled in well, but I've missed your posts!!"
Thanks. My wife told me about you. I don't know how often I'll post. My wife now works and I'm the house wife or house husband. I don't know if I want to go back and work. I'm close to retiring anyway but I always felt that I could contribute regardless of my age and conditions. I found out some older articles on Obama's dealings with the pharma giants. I didn't expect that at all when I voted for him last year. I might have voted for Nader if he were on the ballot. I am already angry that Obama is gonna pull another LBJ but this time in Afghanistan and I read the article by Lindorff on that. So here we have more people being sent into more "Vietnams" and less care for when they get back. How many of them will survive? How many of those who do survive will have loving care when there is no universal care? And how will the VA system survive? Bush damaged the reputation of that system and I don't know how Obama intends to repair that. And what happens when Medicare and Medicaid are defunded to pay for this fraud bill? The US's failures in Iraq and Afghanistan may not look as bad as those of Vietnam on the surface but the long term failures of Iraq and Afghanistan are already starting to prove just as bad if not worse than the ones in Vietnam. My wife told me about the death of single payer this year and I don't feel like getting any more angry about it at this point. I shouldn't have voted for Obama but I can't stand Palin. But what does it matter? Obama or Nader, Mccain won TX anyway and it wasn't even close.
"Which hospital? Where? El Paso?"
Providence Memorial Hospital. The hospital is not at fault and it is a great hospital. It was a couple of bad doctors who pretended to be doing their job. In my case, they exploited my infections and tried to take cheap shots at treatment. There was a good doctor to replace them eventually. When I was back to functional level, my wife took me to an alternative practitioner to help me out of my mental instabilities. I think I'm okay but I still don't know. I'll try to stick to alternative practitioners as much as possible and beg for a trip to Canada only when it's a severe case. I doubt that even our next governor Kay Bailey Hutchinson will push for statewide single payer.
I hope they hang those Doc's up by their Genetalia.
Shenseki is trying his best I hear, but getting little help from this bunch. We need to bring our kids home. You know there is little to be gained at this point.
Have you thought about retiring and becoming more active in politics? Why go back to work?
Again....WELCOME BACK!
"Have you thought about retiring and becoming more active in politics? Why go back to work?"
Retiring? Yes but sometimes, I still think I can contribute to society despite my age and conditions. Politics? I don't think that my disabled status will earn me even a local seat if I tried. I wasn't much into liberal arts anyway. I was into math and later in my life computer engineering. I thought I remember a computer scientist trying to run for a seat in Congress from this state but I think he was drubbed anyway. Forgot which party he was in. I think he was a Democrat. Who knows?
Maybe I'll ask my wife if she's interested but she actually loves her job. She used to work on trying to help dedicated pols into local offices. My former co-workers begged her for employment and promised to treat her with respect after they accidently found out her top skills in business management when they met her and wanted to sort of console her upon my getting through all this hell.
"I still think I can contribute to society despite my age and conditions. Politics? I don't think that my disabled status will earn me even a local seat if I tried."
Of course you can. I don't think your disabled status would earn you a seat either, but your ideas might, you might. Maybe just as an organizer or activist then?
"Maybe just as an organizer or activist then?"
I am somewhat good at giving advice to political wannabees on how to frame and discuss issues, something my wife used to do when she would try and help a few local candidates run for and win office. An organizer might be something I might be interested in doing. Activism I don't know. Thanks for the suggestions. My wife told me about her discussions with you on the military and your disagreements with Sioux Rose. See my response to Jennifer's welcome back reply.
youll go to canada and die in line, waiting for your socialized health care.
Rightwing myth. Nice try buddy but waiting times in the US are just as bad if not worse thanks to no socialized medicine. Medical appointments are often put through longer wait times and thanks to corporate care, you can and often will get less than what socialized health care would give you. If you were in my shoes, you'd be screaming for socialized health care by now. Maybe that will happen should some serious health related problem or illness strike.
Not socialized JW....Single Payer. England has socialized health care and we don't want anything like theirs! Canada is Single Payer and we could improve on their system I think. France has some good points as do the Swiss and a number of other countries.
Apparently nativetongue.miami he doesn't know that Canada does not have socialized health care.
Wrong place....oops.
JWVerez, welcome back ! I read your posts of today and I feel like crying in joy. I also love what your wife posted on the occasion while you were away. She's a sweetheart and she also met Sioux Rose. Sioux Rose is still here and she has missed you as well. She will be delighted to see your return here as she wished you well and had high hopes for your return. I have learned so much on this site and on Alternet. I even went to truthdig.com. Once again, welcome back. Lots of hugs! We look forward to more feedback and discussions from you. :)
Now, to get to replying to your points. I sort of disagree about socialism. It is possible to have single payer and capitalism under the same roof. Single payer does not require that our system be so socialist. I do like socialism but I also like to mix it in with regulated capitalism. What we have in this country is what Naomi Klein calls disaster capitalism aka unfettered capitalism whereby the big companies get to enjoy their "socialism" while the rest of us are left fighting for crumbs. I read what your wife posted a while back here and I even got to talk to her about it. You are the victim of disaster capitalism where reckless greed is considered "normal" or as Sioux Rose would correctly put it, Mammon rules.
PS: Henry8 is interesting. He can be a mixed guy. I admire his support of single payer and his understanding of regulated vs disaster capitalism. When it comes to the military, he's kind of mixed. He wants to see the troops brought home and does not support mercenaries but I get upset at times when it sometimes shows his military jingoism and he trashes some valid efforts on tackling climate change. I also get upset when he takes the Lou Dobbs side on immigration. I too was a country girl who moved to the city life and had to go through so much in life to adjust and I feel bad that those immigrants were pushed through so much hell that they've been left with no choice but to cross the borders. Plus the treatment of women and children in Mexico is horrible. I've discussed this with him before and I guess he sort of understood. Still, he somewhat macho attitude on some issues makes me want to squeeze him just like I used to squeeze hug pets like Elmyra of Tiny Toons. :)
Hi Jennifer. My wife told me all about you on this site and Alternet. She may not post a lot but she reads a lot. I'm glad you are enjoying learning from these sites. She also told me that you invited your uncle over to read and discuss. It's a great idea to spread the word and bring as many people on board to discuss as you can. I look forward to conversing with Sioux Rose again myself. My wife told me about her conversations with her on the issue of military.
Henry8 I can understand. Texas politics is unique in many ways. For so long in history, the Democratic Party has had a mixture of conservatives, moderates, and liberals. The Republican Party used to be somewhat diverse until Bush's family took over the Republican Party in TX after 1992. Regardless, I don't think any state is a whole lot better with their Democrat parties either. Henry8 is more of an independent minded liberal. You are more of a independent minded progressive. Big difference there but some agreements on some issues. Both of us served in the US Marines in Vietnam or at least my wife tells me that Henry8 sounds like he did serve in Vietnam like I did. Perhaps the difference in our ways of looking at this whole Vietnam War fiasco lies with the different results each of us faced when we returned. I don't think he supports the Vietnam War completely but he does have a penchant for military I believe. I do not think that he lost a limb or was seriously wounded so he did not have to go through as much pain and suffering nor did he likely end up costing his family unlike my case which I told you all about. My wife told me about the discussion she had with Henry8 on the issue of abolishing the military. She told me that both she and Sioux Rose agreed to abolishing it altogether while Henry8 didn't. Now I don't like the military being the way it is which I believe is in worse shape than ever and my wife and I agree that it has been undergoing privatization. However, where I disagree with her is where I think that it is best that we reverse the privatization as a way to fundamentally reform the military. At least honesty and transparency would exist.
With regards to capitalism and socialism, I say we shut that box on capitalism altogether. Even regulated capitalism is a Pandora's box to unfettered capitalism. This country needs 20 years of Bernard Sanders style socialism.
Well, that's a lot to say for now. I will be visiting the archives to see all those discussions but don't worry. I'll still be around even if I don't post a lot. You take good care of yourself and stay strong. I know you can do it. I look forward to more online discussions here on CD.
"us wealth"HA we are BROKE and 23 trillion in debt and counting.
I would point out that by size we aren't the country most in debt, by far.
You're kidding, right? I don't know of another country that's bigger in debt. If you can find one, please let us know and let us know the amount that they're in debt. We need to "own" that country and continue our stupid empire building.
That last sentence I wrote was sarcasm. :)
where has this bankrupt country have anything left to give?
A lot.
We have NEVER aided ANYONE. All "foreign aid" has always been a quid pro cuo with the elite of those countries to fleece the "aided" countries for U.S. corporation benefit. If a mafia boss providing protection to a business in return for a "favor or two" is foreign aid to you, then we do altruistically bleed our God given, hard earned American money to those thankless folks in other countries. You know what the IMF does when they give a loan, don't you? It is stipulated that those corporations that build the infrastructure in the foreign country are U.S. corporations. What a deal! You and I finance the loan with our taxes. The people of the other country pay off the loan with interest from their taxes making those countries even poorer and the U.S. Corporations walk away with a tax FREE (that's right - check it out) profit. And then the PR is pushed to cast blame on the foreign country rather than the corporations. And you believe them? Surely, you can't be that naive.
So I guess your answer is to buy stock in Bechtel, right? If you aren't rich, you aren't benefiting from the foreign aid scam.
I agree that we shouldn't have any foreign aid as it is set up. However, you are dreaming if you think we ever act altruistically in any country.
"However, you are dreaming if you think (our government) ever act(s) altruistically in any country."
Now THAT is calling things as they really are, thanks!
and the foreign aid is supplied by corporations that pocket the money - any rebuilding efforts are done with US corporate contractors - food aid is packaged in the US by subsidized farmers who are often the reason that many countries need our aid (subsidized rice imports to Haiti effectively devastated the Haitian rice growers who ended up leaving their fields because they could not compete with cheap US rice)- 50% of the money that we supply in aid is spent here at home - it is just another form of corporate welfare, this time disguised as altruism. Do you really think the right wing would allow us to send humanitarian aid to other countries if they and their constituents were not benefiting?
This is good news if...
Robert Naiman has at least recovered somewhat from his bout of subjunctivitis (believing a thing is true because you want it to be true) with the Obama administration; and has left it somewhat in doubt whether this staff "recommendation" will be implemented. With the administration's woeful history, especially in the foreign policy area, of different officials saying very things, this ought not to be a breath-holder. It may as well be a trial balloon of something Clinton might do: to see how much resistance will be raised by Chavez-obsessed gung-hos of both political parties. Also off the record of "caving" at right wing pressure (as on health care "reform,") this balloon may well be shot down before H. Clinton ever makes that "announcement."
"Trial balloon" cuts both ways, doesn't it? Is it only the right-wing that can apply pressure? The State Department number is 202-647-5171. Have you made your phone call?
Robert, What is the call ** this and that when the mailbox is full mean?
I just called the number and got a human.
I got a human this time. was able to leave a message.
Yes, I have made the call; spoke to a human who referred me to a line where I left the requested message. This is a good idea. However, I cannot believe that a thousand calls to that line can equal the impact on the State Department that the explosive scream of one Republican politician or one big campaign donor on the instigation of lobbyist Lanny Davis could have. We have toy pop-guns to shoot at the "balloon," the coup supporters have multi-millimeter missiles. Still, let's shoot away with our pitiful weapons; they're all we have.
"If we want Latin America to take seriously the claim of a new U.S. approach to Latin America in the Obama administration"
After spewing gibberish we want people to believe, we may actually have to ram it down their throats. God Bless the United States of America!!
The following has been sent out by Just Foreign Policy:
Call the State Department at 202-647-5171. Deliver the following message:
"Secretary Clinton, please follow the recommendation of the State Department. Legally define the de facto regime in Honduras as a military coup and cut off all non-humanitarian aid to Honduras until President Zelaya is reinstated."
Please forward this message to anyone you know who you think will take action.
Thank you for all you do for a just foreign policy,
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
I just tried to reach them but the phone mailbox is full.
and The recording also says press ** this and **that...
I hope they are gettin flooded with calls.
I just called the number and got a human. I think it's safe to assume they are getting some calls. SOA Watch also put out an alert (others may have done so as well.)
I had better luck this time and I was able to leave a message with the human and a recorded one... they must be flooded.. a good sign.
The ONLY reason they are doing this now--and it has nothing to dowith the coup in Honduras--is because AT THIS MOMENT UNASUR presidents are meeting in Argentina to formulate a strategy to torpedo the installation of gringo bases in Colombia.
http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/n141365.html
http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/n141361.html
http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/n141358.html
Great we can put the pressure here, and they can do it there.
Thank you for the links. Good stuff.
Yes, excellent point.
About the only thing we can hope for as a silver lining in this disgusting black cloud of immorality on the part of the U.S. "de facto" government, is that it may be pushing the Latin American govt.s to stand up and take leadership on their own. The U.S. may be reminding Latin America how imperialism has not gone away by its transparent support of the military coup in Honduras; it may inadvertently end up helping Latin Am. liberals to realize that even their own power is at risk when the U.S. enforces its power.
Note the section of aporrea is Tiburón, shark, a reference to the great Willie Colón and Ruben Blades song where the shark is U.S. imperialism and the chorus calls for "palo al tiburón." A shark by its nature has to keep on the move to breathe.
Okay, they stalled this long and all the State Dept did was make the recommendation to Hillary. Let's see how long it takes her to decide. Once she decides, how long it will take to do the actual funding cut (assuming they are't pre-funding in expectation of a funding cut), and oops, the elections are in November. Funding resumes after the elections or in January when the new President is seated? What are we looking at now, possibly as little as a month or so of real cuts?
dont get your hopes up, shes a bought and paid for carpet bagger.just like 3/4 of em
Maybe, but it won't hurt to try anyway.
I guess they've got the November election results all set. Now they can pretend to demand democracy. Bullshit, Hillary. We know it's bullshit.
I don't see the problem with a cut off of funds if it helps gets the Coup out or power.
Plus the given of "election irregularities" in a military coup, nobody can really be sure of the count.
We'll see