So there's one standard for Iran, and quite 
another for Honduras (and, at that, the US).

MCM

US leaves Honduras to its fate

Washington is unwilling to take the side of 
democracy in Honduras by opposing the coup 
leaders it helped to train

Mark Weisbrot

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/08/honduras-coup-washington-zelaya>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/08/honduras-coup-washington-zelaya

The military coup that overthrew President Manuel 
Zelaya of Honduras took a new turn when he 
attempted to return home on Sunday. The military 
closed the airport and blocked runways to prevent 
his plane from landing. They also shot several 
protesters, killing at least one and injuring 
others. The violence and the enormous crowd - 
estimated in the tens of thousands and reported 
as the largest since the coup on 28 June - put 
additional pressure on the Obama administration 
to seek a resolution to the crisis. On Tuesday, 
secretary of state Hillary Clinton met Zelaya for 
the first time.

In many ways this is similar to the 2002 coup in 
Venezuela, which was supported by the US. After 
it became clear that no government other than the 
US would recognise the coup government there, and 
hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans poured into 
the streets to demand the return of their elected 
president, the military switched sides and 
brought Hugo Chávez back to the presidential 
palace.

In Honduras, we have the entire world refusing to 
recognise the coup government, and equally large 
demonstrations (in a country of only seven 
million people, with the military preventing 
movement for many of them) demanding Zelaya's 
return. The problem in Honduras is that the 
military - unlike Venezuela's - is experienced in 
organised repression, including selective 
assassinations carried out during the 1980s, when 
the country was known as a military base for US 
operations in El Salvador and Nicaragua. The 
Honduran military is also much closer to the US 
military and state department, more closely 
allied with the country's oligarchy and more 
ideologically committed to the cause of keeping 
the elected president out of power. Colonel 
Herberth Bayardo Inestroza, a Honduran army 
lawyer who admitted that the military broke the 
law when it kidnapped Zelaya, told the Miami 
Herald: "It would be difficult for us, with our 
training, to have a relationship with a leftist 
government. That's impossible." Inestroza, like 
the coup leader and army chief General Romeo 
Vasquez, was trained at Washington's infamous 
School of the Americas (now renamed Whinsec).

This puts a heavy burden on the people of 
Honduras, who have been risking their lives, 
confronting the army's bullets, beatings and 
arbitrary arrests and detentions. The US media 
has reported on this repressiononly minimally, 
with the major print media sometimes failing even 
to mention the censorship there. But the Honduran 
pro-democracy movement has in the last few days 
managed to change the course of events. It is 
likely that Clinton's decision to finally meet 
with Zelaya was the result of the large and 
growing protests, and Washington's fear that such 
resistance could reach the point at which it 
would topple the coup government.

The Obama administration's behaviour over the 
last eight days suggests that if not for this 
threat from below, the administration would have 
been content to let the coup government remain 
for the rest of Zelaya's term. This was made 
clear again on Monday, at a press briefing held 
by the state department spokesman Ian Kelly. 
Under prodding from a reporter, Kelly became the 
first on-the-record state department official to 
say that the US government supported the return 
of Zelaya. This was eight days after the coup, 
and after the United Nations general assembly, 
the Organisation of American States, the Rio 
Group and many individual governments had all 
called for the "immediate and unconditional" 
return of Zelaya - something that Washington 
still does not talk about.

Meanwhile, on the far right, there has been a 
pushback against worldwide support for Zelaya and 
an attempt to paint him as the aggressor in 
Honduras, or at least equally as bad as the 
people who carried out the coup. Unfortunately 
much of the major media's reporting has aided 
this effort by reporting such statements as 
"Critics feared he intended to extend his rule 
past January, when he would have been required to 
step down."

In fact, there was no way for Zelaya to "extend 
his rule" even if the referendum had been held 
and passed, and even if he had then gone on to 
win a binding referendum on the November ballot. 
The 28 June referendum was nothing more than a 
non-binding poll of the electorate, asking 
whether the voters wanted to place a binding 
referendum on the November ballot to approve a 
redrafting of the country's constitution. If it 
had passed, and if the November referendum had 
been held (which was not very likely) and also 
passed, the same ballot would have elected a new 
president and Zelaya would have stepped down in 
January. So, the belief that Zelaya was fighting 
to extend his term in office has no factual 
basis. The most that could be said is that if a 
new constitution were eventually approved, Zelaya 
might have been able to run for a second term at 
some future date.

Another major rightwing theme in the media and 
public perception of the Honduran situation is 
that this is a battle against Chávez (and some 
collection of "anti-US" leftist allies: 
Nicaragua, Cuba, take your pick). This is a 
common subterfuge that has surfaced in most of 
the Latin American elections of the last few 
years. In Mexico, Peru, Nicaragua and El 
Salvador, for example, the conservative 
candidates all acted as if they were running 
against Chávez - the first two with success, and 
the second pair losing. It is true that under 
Zelaya Honduras joined Alba, a grouping of 
countries that was started by Venezuela as an 
alternative to "free trade" agreements with the 
US. But Zelaya is nowhere near as close to Chávez 
as any number of other Latin American presidents, 
including those of Brazil and Argentina. So it is 
not clear why this is relevant, unless the 
argument is that only bigger countries or those 
located further south have the right to have a 
co-operative relationship with Venezuela.

Clinton has just announced that she has arranged 
for the Costa Rican president Oscar Arias to 
serve as a mediator between the coup government 
and Zelaya. According to Clinton, both parties 
have accepted this arrangement. This is a good 
move for the state department, as it will make it 
easier for it to maintain a more "neutral" 
position - as opposed to the rest of the 
hemisphere, which has taken the side of the 
deposed president and the Honduran pro-democracy 
movement. "I don't want to prejudge what the 
parties themselves will agree to," said Clinton 
in response to a question as to whether Zelaya 
should be restored to his position.

It is difficult to see how this mediation will 
succeed, so long as the coup government knows 
that it can sit out the rest of Zelaya's term. 
The only thing that can remove it from office, in 
conjunction with massive protests, is real 
economic sanctions of the kind that Honduras's 
neighbours (Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala) 
imposed for 48 hours after the coup. These 
countries account for about a third of Honduras's 
trade, but they would need economic aid from 
other countries to carry the burden of a trade 
cut-off for a longer time. It would be a great 
thing if other countries would step forward to 
support such sanctions and to cut off their own 
trade and capital flows with Honduras as well.

So it is up to the rest of the world to help 
Honduras; it is clear that Hondurans won't be 
getting any help from the US. The rest of the 
world will have to scream bloody murder about the 
violence and repression there, too, because 
Washington will not make much of an issue about 
it.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to Mark Crispin Miller's 
"News From Underground" newsgroup.

To unsubscribe, send a blank email to 
newsfromunderground-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com OR go to 
http://groups.google.com/group/newsfromunderground and click on the 
"Unsubscribe or change membership" link in the yellow bar at the top of the 
page, then click the "Unsubscribe" button on the next page. 

For more News From Underground, visit http://markcrispinmiller.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to