July, 09 2009, 03:19pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Latin America Experts Call on Clinton to Oppose Early Elections Option in Honduras
Anything Less Than the Urgent Restoration of Zelaya to Office "Would be an usurpation of the will of the Honduran people" They State in Open Letter
WASHINGTON
Over 35 scholars and experts on
Latin America sent an open letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
today urging against the idea of early elections in Honduras as a
possible resolution of the current crisis resulting from the June 28
military coup d'etat. Stating that "Anything less than the urgent
restoration of President Manuel Zelaya to office would be an usurpation
of the will of the Honduran people," the signers urged Clinton to enact
forceful sanctions on the coup regime to ensure Zelaya's prompt
reinstatement. The signers include Harvard emeritus professor John
Womack; scholar, author, commentator, and filmmaker Saul Landau;
Central America expert Hector Perla, and authors and Central America
experts Greg Grandin and Dana Frank, among others.
"It's supremely important that we not make any concessions to those who
have perpetrated military coups. By doing so, we establish a dangerous
precedent," said Dana Frank, Honduras expert and professor of history
at U.C. Santa Cruz.
The letter also notes that the coup regime has suspended civil
liberties, thus eliminating conditions under which free and fair
elections could take place in the near future. The signers also debunk
the pretext for the coup - Zelaya's supposed plans for reelection - by
pointing out that it would be almost impossible for Zelaya to be
reelected before his successor assumes office next year, and that
Zelaya stated before June 28 that he did not seek reelection.
The full text of the letter follows:
________________________________
July 9, 2009
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Clinton,
We, the undersigned, are concerned by proposals by some in Washington's
foreign policy circles to push for early elections as a solution to the
crisis instigated by the illegal and anti-democratic coup d'etat in
Honduras. Anything less than the urgent restoration of President Manuel
Zelaya to office would be an usurpation of the will of the Honduran
people. Following resolutions by the United Nations General Assembly
and the Organization of American States calling for Zelaya's immediate
and unconditional return to office, the U.S. must ensure his prompt
restoration by enacting forceful economic sanctions against the regime.
Each day that the illegal coup regime remains in office further
jeopardizes the capacity for Honduras to enjoy free and fair elections
in November, let alone in an earlier time frame. Elections currently
would take place under a coup regime that has suspended civil
liberties, and where the conditions for free elections do not exist.
Such an election would not have international legitimacy. Democracy has
to be restored before a legitimate election can take place. It is also
important to avoid making concessions of any kind to the coup
government, as it would create a terrible precedent, showing other
anti-democratically minded and power hungry individuals that it can be
worthwhile to carry out a military coup in order to advance their
political agendas.
Since illegally seizing office by abducting the president at gunpoint
and putting him on a plane to Costa Rica, the coup regime has suspended
civil liberties and treated the Honduran people as the enemy. They have
revoked freedom of the press by imposing a media blackout, assaulted
and detained journalists, clamped down on protests, detained hundreds
of supporters of President Zelaya, and killed at least two people by
firing on demonstrators.
The regime claims it acted in order to prevent an unconstitutional move
by President Zelaya to extend his term. Yet an examination of the facts
reveals this to be a dubious excuse for an assault on democratic
institutions and the rule of law. President Zelaya's proposed survey
would have been a non-binding poll of public support for an additional
ballot - on whether a constitutional assembly should be created- in the
November elections. The actual question read: "Do you agree that,
during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth
ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that
will approve a new political constitution?"
Zelaya was not running for reelection in November, nor would he have
been able to. Therefore, Zelaya's successor was always slated to be
elected in November, to be inaugurated in January. Zelaya
had also stated before June 28 that he did not desire reelection.
Possible reelection was not the reason the military carried out the
coup. They opposed Zelaya's policies, and they have at times been
honest about their true motives: "It would be difficult for us, with
our training, to have a relationship with a leftist government,"
Honduran army attorney Col. Herberth Bayardo Inestroza explained
following the coup. "That's impossible."
There is one legal, just, and democratic solution to Honduras' current
crisis: the swift restoration of President Zelaya and the imposition of
economic sanctions-trade as well as aid, on the illegal regime. We call
on the U.S. to take the lead in ensuring this outcome.
Sincerely,
Marc Becker
Associate Professor of Latin American History
Truman State University*
Blase Bonpane
Director
Office of the Americas
Michael Brun, PhD
Dept. Economics
Illinois State University
Ron Chilcote
Professor Economics
University of California Riverside
Aviva Chomsky
Professor of History and Coordinator, Latin American Studies
Salem State College
Noam Chomsky
Professor of Linguistics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jaime Concha
Professor of Latin American Literature
University of California, San Diego
Luis Duno Gottberg
Associate Professor, Hispanic Languages and Literature
Rice
University, Houston, TX
Steve Ellner
Professor Political Science
University of Oriente, Venezuela
Professor Raul Fernandez
Social Sciences
University of California, Irvine
Dana Frank
Professor of History
University of California, Santa Cruz
James Goldfarb Devine
Professor of Economics
Loyola Marymount University
Greg Grandin
Professor of History
Director of Graduate Studies
New York University
Mark Healey
Assistant Professor of History
University of California, Berkeley
Daniel Hellinger
Professor of Political Science
Webster University
Forrest Hylton
Assistant Professor of Political Science/Int'l. Relations
Universidad de los Andes (Colombia)
Misha Kokotovic
Associate Professor
Department of Literature
UC San Diego
Saul Landau
Professor Emeritus
California State University, Pomona
Jorge Mariscal
Director, Chicano/a-Latino/a Studies
University of California, San Diego
Luis Martin-Cabrera
Assistant Professor of Literature
University of California, San Diego
Gilda L. Ochoa
Associate Professor of Sociology and Chicana/o - Latina/o Studies
Pomona College
Tanalis Padilla
Associate Professor of History
Dartmouth College
Diana Paton
Reader in Caribbean History
Newcastle University, UK
Hector Perla
Assistant Professor, Latin American and Latino Studies
University of California, Santa Cruz
Deborah Poole
Professor, Anthropology
Johns Hopkins University
Suyapa G. Portillo Villeda
CFD Fellow, History Department
Pomona College
Gerardo Renique
Associate Professor, Department of History
City College of the City University of New York
William I. Robinson
Professor of Sociology and
Global and International Studies
University of California-Santa Barbara
Dr. Victor M. Rodriguez
Professor, Department of Chicano and Latino Studies
California State University, Long Beach
Dr. T.M. Scruggs
School of Music
University of Iowa
Victor Silverman
Department of History
Pomona College
Steve Striffler
Doris Zemurray Stone Chair in Latin American Studies
Professor of Anthropology
University of New Orleans
Christy Thornton
Director and Publisher
N
orth American Congress on Latin America
Miguel Tinker Salas
Professor of History
Pomona College
Mark Weisbrot
Co-Director
Center for Economic and Policy Research
John Womack, Jr.
Professor of History, Emeritus
Harvard University
Stephen Zunes
University of San Francisco
*Institutional affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.
LATEST NEWS
Booze Hound! Lina Khan, Not Done Yet, Targets Nation's Largest Alcohol Seller
"The FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," said one advocate.
Dec 12, 2024
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Thursday sued Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, alleging that the nation's largest alcohol distributor, "violated the Robinson-Patman Act, harming small, independent businesses by depriving them of access to discounts and rebates, and impeding their ability to compete against large national and regional chains."
The FTC said its complaint details how the Florida-based company "is engaged in anticompetitive and unlawful price discrimination" by "selling wine and spirits to small, independent 'mom-and-pop' businesses at prices that are drastically higher" than what it charges large chain retailers, "with dramatic price differences that provide insurmountable advantages that far exceed any real cost efficiencies for the same bottles of wine and spirits."
The suit comes as FTC Chair Lina Khan's battle against "corporate greed" is nearing its end, with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announcing Tuesday that he plans to elevate Andrew Ferguson to lead the agency.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of corporate power at Demand Progress Education Fund, said Thursday that "instead of heeding bad-faith calls to disarm before the end of the year, the FTC is taking bold, needed action to fight back against monopoly power that's raising prices."
"By suing Southern Glazer under the Robinson-Patman Act, a law that has gone unenforced for decades, the FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," she added.
According to the FTC:
Under the Robinson-Patman Act, it is generally illegal for sellers to engage in price discrimination that harms competition by charging higher prices to disfavored retailers that purchase similar goods. The FTC's case filed today seeks to ensure that businesses of all sizes compete on a level playing field with equivalent access to discounts and rebates, which means increased consumer choice and the ability to pass on lower prices to consumers shopping across independent retailers.
"When local businesses get squeezed because of unfair pricing practices that favor large chains, Americans see fewer choices and pay higher prices—and communities suffer," Khan said in a statement. "The law says that businesses of all sizes should be able to compete on a level playing field. Enforcers have ignored this mandate from Congress for decades, but the FTC's action today will help protect fair competition, lower prices, and restore the rule of law."
The FTC noted that, with roughly $26 billion in revenue from wine and spirits sales to retail customers last year, Southern is the 10th-largest privately held company in the United States. The agency said its lawsuit "seeks to obtain an injunction prohibiting further unlawful price discrimination by Southern against these small, independent businesses."
"When Southern's unlawful conduct is remedied, large corporate chains will face increased competition, which will safeguard continued choice which can create markets that lower prices for American consumers," FTC added.
Southern Glazer's published a statement calling the FTC lawsuit "misguided and legally flawed" and claiming it has not violated the Robinson-Patman Act.
"Operating in the highly competitive alcohol distribution business, we offer different levels of discounts based on the cost we incur to sell different quantities to customers and make all discount levels available to all eligible retailers, including chain stores and small businesses alike," the company said.
Peterson-Cassin noted that the new suit "follows a massive court victory for the FTC on Tuesday in which a federal judge blocked a $25 billion grocery mega-merger after the agency sued," a reference to the proposed Kroger-Albertsons deal.
"The FTC has plenty of fight left and so should all regulatory agencies," she added, alluding to the return of Trump, whose first administration saw
relentless attacks on federal regulations. "We applaud the FTC and Chair Lina Khan for not letting off the gas in the race to protect American consumers and we strongly encourage all federal regulators to do the same while there's still time left."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Senate Prepares for NDAA Vote, Progressive Caucus Says It Is 'Past Time' to Slash Pentagon Budget
"This legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Dec 12, 2024
As Senate Democrats prepared to move forward with a procedural vote on the annual defense budget package that passed in the House earlier this week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus outlined its objections to the legislation and called for the Pentagon budget to be cut, with military funding freed up to "reinvest in critical human needs."
CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said following the passage of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2025 (H.R. 5009) that "it should alarm every American taxpayer that we are nearing a trillion-dollar annual budget for an agency rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse."
Jayapal, who was one of 140 lawmakers to oppose the package, emphasized that the Pentagon has failed seven consecutive annual audits.
Despite being the only federal agency to never have passed a federal audit, said Jayapal, the Department of Defense "continues to receive huge boosts to funding every year. Our constituents deserve better."
As Common Dreams reported last month, more than half of the department's annual budget now goes to military contractors that consistently overcharge the government, contributing to the Pentagon's inability to fully account for trillions of taxpayer dollars.
The $883.7 billion legislation that was advanced by the House on Wednesday would pour more money into the Pentagon's coffers. The package includes more than $500 million in Israeli military aid and two $357 million nuclear-powered attack submarine despite the Pentagon requesting only one, and would cut more than $621 million from President Joe Biden's budget request for climate action initiatives.
Jayapal noted that the legislation—which was passed with the support of 81 Democrats and 200 Republicans—also includes anti-transgender provisions, barring the children of military service members from receiving gender-affirming healthcare in "the first federal statute targeting LGBTQ people since the 1990s when Congress adopted 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act."
"This dangerous bigotry cannot be tolerated, let alone codified into federal law," said Jayapal.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that the legislation "has some very good things we Democrats wanted in it, it has some bad things we wouldn't have put in there, and some things that were left out," and indicated that he had filed cloture for the first procedural vote on the NDAA.
The vote is expected to take place early next week, and 60 votes are needed to begin debate on the package.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of exorbitant U.S. military spending, said in a floor speech on Wednesday that he plans to vote no on the budget.
"While middle-class and working-class families are struggling to survive, we supposedly just don't have the financial resources to help them," he said. "We just cannot afford to build more housing, we just cannot afford to provide quality childcare to our kids or to support public education, or to provide healthcare to all."
"But when the military industrial complex and all of their well-paid lobbyists come marching in to Capitol Hill," he continued, "somehow or another, there is more than enough money for Congress to provide them with virtually everything that they need."
Jayapal noted that the funding package includes substantive pay raises for service members and new investments in housing, healthcare, childcare, and other support for their families.
"Progressives will always fight to increase pay for our service members and ensure that our veterans are well taken care of," said Jayapal. "However, this legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction."
By cutting military spending, she said, the federal government could invest in the needs of all Americans, not just members of the military, "without sacrificing our national security or service member wages."
"It's past time we stop padding the pockets of price gouging military contractors who benefit from corporate consolidation," said Jayapal, "and reallocate that money to domestic needs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Urge Biden to Limit Presidential Authority to Launch Nuclear War Before Trump Takes Charge
"As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled," wrote Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Ted Lieu.
Dec 12, 2024
Two Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden Thursday, urging him to place more checks on potential nuclear weapons use by mandating that a president must obtain authorization from Congress before initiating a nuclear first strike.
The letter writers, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), argue that "such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A president could order a nuclear launch only if (1) Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check on executive power or (2) the United States had already been attacked with a nuclear weapon. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine."
The two write that time is of the essence: "As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled."
The Constitution vests Congress, not the president, with the power to declare war (though presidents have used military force without getting the OK from Congress on multiple occasions in modern history, according to the National Constitution Center).
During the Cold War, when nuclear weapons policy was produced, speed was seen as essential to deterrence, according to Jon Wolfsthal, the director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists, who wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last year that makes a similar argument to Markey and Lieu.
"There is no reason today to rely on speedy decision-making during situations in which the United States might launch first. Even as relations with Moscow are at historic lows, we are worlds removed from the Cold War's dominant knife's-edge logic," he wrote.
While nuclear tensions today may not be quite as high as they were during the apex of the Cold War, fears of nuclear confrontation have been heightened due to poor relations between the United States and Russia over the ongoing war in Ukraine, among other issues. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree lowering the threshold for potential nuclear weapons use not long after the U.S. greenlit Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied long range weapons in its fight against Russia.
This is not the first time Markey and Lieu have pushed for greater guardrails on nuclear first-use. The two are the authors of the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, a proposed bill first introduced in 2017 that would bar a U.S. president from launching a nuclear first strike without the consent of Congress.
"We first introduced this act during the Obama administration not as a partisan effort, but to make the larger point that current U.S. policy, which gives the president sole authority to launch nuclear weapons without any input from Congress, is dangerous," they wrote.
In their letter, Markey and Lieu also recount an episode from the first Trump presidency when, shortly after the January 6 insurrection, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley ordered his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from Trump.
But Milley's ability to intervene was limited, according to Lieu and Markey, because his role is advisory and "the president can unilaterally make a launch decision and implement it directly without informing senior leaders." They argue this episode is a sign that the rules themselves must change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular