Honduras: The Nonviolent Battle for the Zelaya Home in Catacamas

Al have you seen anything in the last week indicating what Obama or any of his foreign policy advisors are observing or saying about this? If his main focus continues to be on health care and he cannot rely on his Sec of State to see this coup for what it is, then how does his administration form it's views and plans for this crisis?

Googling "susan rice" all I can find is amazing garbage like this older article that poses a hypothetical situation based on an unnamed (and obviously biased) source to imply a Zelaya-Chavez drug cartel. Really hilarious and a particularly amazing example of psychological projection. But it was written by Investor's Business Daily which is interesting in itself.

Obama faces a serious loss of support if he fails on the Honduran crisis.

It seems to be rather complicated for Obama, especially when you consider that some of Bush's rather rascist/imperialist appointees are still in power (as FC points out in the article excerpted below). The left hand doesn't seem to be fully aware of what the right hand is doing. Also, Hilary Clinton doesn't seem to be very tuned in to the need for change. Seems to me that she is very supportive of the status-quo/old order.

It's interesting to note that the Granma web site where this article was published is down right now. Perhaps because the truth that can be found there is very inconvenient for some people.

------------------------------------

"...The coup was conceived of and organized by unscrupulous
individuals on the extreme right, dependable officials of George W.
Bush and promoted by him.

All of them, without exception, have a bulky file of anti-Cuba
activities. Hugo Llorens, the ambassador in Honduras since mid-2008,
is a Cuban-American. He is part of a group of aggressive U.S.
ambassadors in Central America comprising Robert Blau, ambassador in El Salvador; Stephen McFarland in Guatemala; and Robert Callahan in Nicaragua, all appointed by Bush in the months of July and August of 2008.

The four are continuing the line of Otto Reich and John Negroponte
who, together with Oliver North, were responsible for the dirty war in
Nicaragua and the death squads in Central America, which cost the
peoples of the region tens of thousands of lives.

Negroponte was Bush's representative at the United Nations, czar of
U.S. intelligence and finally assistant secretary of state. In
distinct ways, both of them were behind the Honduras coup.

The Soto Cano base in that country, headquarters of the Joint Task
Force Bravo belonging to the Armed Forces of the United States, is the
central support point of the coup d'état in Honduras.

The United States has the sinister plan of creating five further
military bases around Venezuela, on the pretext of replacing the Manta one in Ecuador. 

The ridiculous adventure of the coup d'état in Honduras has created a really complicated situation in Central America, which will not be
resolved by traps, deceptions and lies.

Every day, new details are emerging of the implication of the United
States in that action, which will also have serious repercussions in
all of Latin America.

The idea of a peace initiative based in Costa Rica was transmitted to
the president of that country from the State Department, when Obama was in Moscow and when he stated, in a Russian university, that the only president of Honduras was Manuel Zelaya.

The coup perpetrators were in a difficult situation..."

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2009/julio/vier17/Reflections-16july.html

Power to the people! To hell with oligarchy!

Four days ago, Immanuel Wallerstein had this interesting analysis of Honduras:  http://fbc.binghamton.edu/261en.htm 

Key quotes:

"It seems quite clear that the last thing the Obama administration wanted was this coup. The coup has been an attempt to force Obama's hand...as of now the Honduran and U.S. right are far from satisfied that they have succeeded in turning U.S. policy around. Witness some of their outrageous statements. The Foreign Minister of the coup government, Enrique Ortez, said that Obama was 'un negrito que sabe nada de nada.'...I would translate this myself as saying that Obama was 'a nigger who knows absolutely nothing'."

"Can the United States do something more about the coup? Well, of course it can. First of all, Obama can officially label the coup a coup. This would trigger a U.S. law, cutting off all U.S. assistance to Honduras. He can sever the Pentagon's continuing relations with the Honduran military. He can withdraw the U.S. ambassador..."

"Why doesn't he do all that?...He's got at least four other super-urgent items on his agenda: confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court; a continuing mess in the Middle East; his need to pass health legislation this year (if not by August, then by December); and suddenly enormous pressure to open investigations of the illegal acts of the Bush administration. I'm sorry, but Honduras is fifth in line..."

I'm not sure that Obama's attention span isn't considerably larger than that.  And I think there's a bad-cop/good-cop strategy with Hillary trying to coax the coup leaders to back down.  Late last night they rejected an Arias deal accepted by Zelaya, in which the latter would have returned to the presidency.  If that remains their final answer, and if Arias openly tells Clinton that the coup leaders won't be reasonable, don't be surprised if the Administrations turns a screw or two tighter on the Honduras government.

 

A court representing majority of the people should seriously consider sentencing Michelletti and his colleagues to a few years of hard labour at the banana plantations for all of the trouble that they have caused the Honduran people with their coup. That would be good for both their physical and mental health.  It would be good for them to walk a few miles in the shoes of those who they have selfishly ruled.

The people should be allowed to vote on whether or not to change the constitution enabling any popular president to run for multiple terms. There is obviously nothing undemocratic about that.

Once again, the military is being used against the people. Honduras should follow the lead of Costa Rica and shut down the military down for good. It is being used to hinder Democracy.  It's time for government for the people, for a change.

 

====

"Without sharing there can be no justice; 
without justice there can be no peace; 
without peace there can be no future... 
Man must change or die. 
There is no other course." 
The World Teacher

 

 

I think the issue should be raised even if only to reject it as a negotiable option. Or safe passage out of the country.

Since you and the Narco News authentic journalists are my only source of information about Honduras, perhaps these things are already being discussed.

If not they should be so the coupistas begin to realize the seriousness of the trouble they are in.

Oaxaca, Mexico, Sunday 19 July 2009
Dear Jeff Larson,
Coming from a position that until very recently was similar to yours (condemnatory of Obama's failure to act directly in support of life with dignity for all peoples--Americans and those under attack by the empire), I suggest you rethink your stance, and perhaps cut some slack for him. Begin, if you're willing, with an article Obama Lynching Party at http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Lynch.htm by an ardently pro-Palestinian Israeli friend, Israel Adam Shamir. He speaks, I believe with reason, of Obama as a potential target for assassination by virulent right wing elements within the U.S. government (and the Israeli government) if he tries to abruptly alter policies you and I see as abominable. Shamir discusses first Israel-Palestine and then Honduras. I suggest also Immanuel Wallerstein's analysis "The Right Strikes Back!" at http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm which focuses on Latin America.
If, as now appears not impossible, the Honduran Coup can be defeated by the large majority of ordinary people largely independently of the actions of the governments, that would be a greater victory for popular struggles than any other sequence of events. This is not to say that we should not push everywhere, including on corrupt governments (i.e. all governments) for needed changes, but my belief is that our major efforts are better focussed on the wide dissemination of truth, elimination of all censorship, and direct support for struggle at the ground level.

Sincerely, george.salzman@umb.edu
http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/

why do they include Hugo Llorens, the US ambassador to Honduras, on the list?

 

"This is what Democracy looks like"

Repeat many times as a chant.

''If, as now appears not impossible, the Honduran Coup can be defeated by the large majority of ordinary people largely independently of the actions of the governments, that would be a greater victory for popular struggles than any other sequence of events.''   George Salzman, Submitted July 19, 2009 - 12:45 pm

''Bis'', berpin

I believe I hijacked this thread by going to a different topic than the writeup. Sorry Al. But now I have to respond to at least two folks answering my comment.

@John ONeill - I read that before you posted it in a previous thread. This article includes some of that too. I don't think those ambassadors have much impact in this situation. I think Obama and his inner circle of foreign policy advisors are in the driver's seat. They are certainly the ones with the larger share of moral responsibility. In any case I wish I could be a fly on Susan Rice's wall. I discount Clinton and any of her team for reasons I share in previous threads.

@ George Salzman - I think you have an inaccurate reading of my position. None of my comment is a condemnation. To put it plain here is my position:

I have waited rather patiently for events to play out and I am perfectly content with Obama's response to date. But this is a crisis for which the clock is not on our side. I happen to agree with one of the assertions of your second linked article:

The Honduran right is playing for time, until Zelaya's term ends. If they reach that goal, they will have won.

I think the time has come when Obama should insist on imposing some punative measures similar to what Al outlined in the Lanny Davis thread. I'm for hurting the coup leaders in their pocketbooks. To me withdrawing the ambassador and other measures are purely symbolic. And more pure symbolism isn't what is needed now.

And IF the coup can be defeated by the people on their own, I will be delighted. BUT if a little substantive escalation of pressure right now by Pres. Obama encourages the coup leaders to back down sooner and with less violence toward Honduran people, then I think that it is time for him to apply that pressure.

In my opinion this is a major test for Obama and if he fails it he loses some support among some of his strongest supporters.

A Constitution is the organized will of the people and forces the government to be in submission to the people, as the Constitution and government may be changed at will by the people. Whereas a manifesto is the organized will of those who have a monopoly on the use of force and violence, and it forces the people to be in submission to violence, as the manifesto and government may be changed at will by those who control violence. And so in Honduras, does a Constitution give the people absolute power over the government, or does a manifesto give the government absolute power over the people?

Jorge, The article isn't specific, just suspicious about Llorens. I want to state my appreciation to Al for the great reporting of the situation on the ground there and the media.

Also, I read that Wallerstein article the other day and it's a joke...

His statement "(in the opinion of Raul Zibechi) The weak economic policies of Presidents Lula, Vazquez, Kirchner, and Bachelet (of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, and Chile) have strengthened the right (which [Zibechi] sees adopting a Berlusconi style) and split the left.

"Myself, I think there's a more straightforward explanation. The left came to power in Latin America because of U.S. distraction and good economic times. Now it faces continued distraction but bad economic times. And it's getting blamed because it's in power, even though in fact there's little the left-of-center governments can do about the world-economy."

Though he's not considered neo-liberal, he's playing off them, and distributing without rebuttal the fallacy that Lula et al have not managed their economies well and, more inaccurately, that a global downturn will hurt the right. The US is more conservative because people make a lot more money and are less dependent on national health, etc... that's a basic principle of politics that Wallerstein is distorting for whatever reason.

and "I'm sorry, but Honduras is fifth in line" ... huh? This perpetuates the fiction that siding with the united view of Latin America is not the path of least resistence, first of all, that if you don't want a problem let the mafia handle this. Second, there are concrete actions, as he states, that a popular president can enact without legislation. If he doesn't do what Otto Reich says, Mike Huckabee will beat him?

I meant to say that Wallerstein inaccurately implied that a global downturn would hurt the Latin American LEFT, not the right, sorry for that confusing typo.

There's also, I meant to add, no clear signs that right-wing politics have been strengthened in those countries to the point that the incumbant parties, or left center-left coalitions are not in the clear advantage.  In Uruguay, for instance, there may be some internal party conflict but not an ideological shift. His perception on this point appears to be a fantasy.