Honduras and ‘twin-track’ policy of United States
Hugo Morliz Mercado
Until Honduran President Manuel Zelaya is returned to Tegucigalpa
with all of the powers established in that Central American nation’s
Constitution, we must be wary of the “twin-track” policy. There is too
much experience in “Our America” of clever “diplomatic” moves by the
White House and the ability of its intelligence agencies to generate
confusion and get away with it in the end.
Twin-track policy
|
Honduran
President Manuel Zelaya |
The “twin-track policy” was developed by the United States in the
1980s to be used against the Nicaraguan revolution. Two different
tactics with one single strategy (defeating the Sandinista movement)
were translated into a combination of war, whose military base was in
Honduras, and the promotion of dialogue demanded by sectors opposed to
military intervention but also opposed to the then-president Daniel
Ortega. Both the organization and financing of the “Contras” and the
creation of spaces for dialogue served to wear down the revolutionary
government. In 1989, the FSLN lost the power it had won militarily in
1979.
But if the above example could be disqualified because of the time
gone by or justified on account of having occurred in the middle of the
Cold War, the Haiti case is quite demonstrative of the double standards
used by the imperialist bourgeoisie. On Sunday, February 29, 2004, a
coup d’‚tat deposed President Jean Bertrand Aristide.
The United States and the OAS harshly condemned that interruption of
democratic institutionalism. A resignation letter from the Haitian
President was later released without any previous confirmation.
The expectations of those who thought as a result of the U.S.
position that they would witness the deposed President’s return to
Port-au-Prince began to evaporate as the days went by and as the empire
worked to open up a transition that would take into account the sectors
in conflict.
The statement this past June 28 of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton would seem to confirm the data of historical experience.
Step back
“When I talk about supporting the work of the OAS, it is a question
of working with the parties in Honduras, so that all of the parties
involved take a step back and look at how their democratic institutions
should be working,” the high-ranking U.S. official said. What could
Clinton have meant when she said: “It should be understood that there is
a lot at stake for maintaining democracy; we don’t want to go backwards,
and we want all parties to play a responsible role in that aspect.”
Fresh start
Hopefully the “not go backwards” does not mean backing the removal
from office of Zelaya, who does not have the support of parties in the
National Congress-including the Liberal Party, with which he won the
2005 presidential election-because he has taken Latin Americanist
positions, or making a fresh start in such a way that the organizers of
the coup d’‚tat the first in the Obama era-are not tried and sentenced.
Neither Dan Restrepo nor Clinton condemned the kidnapping of Zelaya
or the coup d’‚tat in terms that one would expect from an administration
that claims to be interested in rebuilding its links with Latin America.
Moreover, it is striking that Marcia Villeda, vice president of the
Honduran Congress, told CNN that a solution was being sought for more
than a week to prevent the referendum going ahead, and it is also
striking that Hugo Llorens, the U.S. ambassador to that country,
participated in those talks.
Exaggerated
Other interpretations of the Honduras events, such as that of
researcher Eva Golinger, lead one to think about the participation of
the Pentagon and the CIA, which, in any case, raises many questions as
to the real information available to the Obama administration before and
during the military coup, although it may seem exaggerated to suggest
that the cause of the coup could have been the expulsion of U.S.
soldiers from Honduras.
The United States-which in the early 20th century had the United
Fruit Company and Rosario Mining controlling almost 100% of banana and
mineral exports-now has a military base in Soto Cano, 97 km from the
capital, and the Honduran military does little or virtually nothing
without the consent of its U.S. counterpart.
Unquestionable
In fact, it is unlikely that the Honduran military would have carried
out the coup without the consent of high-ranking U.S. officials based in
the country, or without the U.S. intelligence services, very active in
that Central American country, having been aware of the anti-democratic
plot.
One thing that is unquestionable is that the reaction of the White
House gradually changed as the Honduran and international scenario
reflected overwhelming condemnation of the cowardly coup perpetrated by
the country’s bourgeoisie, strongly tied to U.S. companies, and
supported by the media silence against democracy and the legitimately
constituted government.
Initially Obama, in the voice of Dan Restrepo, expressed his concern
(he did not use the word condemnation) over events, and urged that “the
Honduran people should solve their problems without the participation of
any foreign interference.” In the afternoon, the Latin America advisor
to the Democratic administration reiterated virtually the same words.
Rapid reaction
The United States has ended up yielding to the international
condemnation led by the member countries of the ALBA-TCP. It couldn’t
have done otherwise; the cost would have been too high. But that does
not mean that the imperial bourgeoisie is not going to replay its
“twin-track policy.” Renouncing subversion and counterinsurgency would
be to deny its very nature.
“Our America” is not the same as it was in the 1970s. The rapid
reaction of progressive and revolutionary governments has been-despite
the conduct of the transnational corporate media-decisive in terms of
preventing the consolidation of the de facto regime.
Moreover, with respect to the media, Telesur has demonstrated, as if
there was any doubt, how correct it was to create that network.
That is why, in order for Honduras not to become the Nicaragua of the
1980s and the Haiti of 2004, it is necessary for the peoples and
governments of “Our America” to increase the pressure and to maintain
their guard as to what the United States is going to do. Honduras could
be a trial balloon.
(Taken from Rebeli˘n)
|