Hypocrisy and the Honduran Coup
SAUL LANDAU and NELSON VALDÉS
"Why haven't there been attempted coups in Washington DC? Because
there's no US Embassy there."
(Joke told by Chilean journalist to President Obama during President
Michelle Bachelet's White House visit.)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a conversation with
President Manuel Zelaya. courtesy Google images. |
In 1954, conservative Dwight Eisenhower authorized the CIA to
overthrow Guatemala's Government, a coup modeled on a 1953 'regime
change' in Iran. In 1964-65, liberal Lyndon Johnson authorized coup
d'etats in Brazil and the Dominican Republic. When Dominicans revolted,
Johnson sent in troops.
In mid September 1970, conservative National Security Adviser Henry
Kissinger and President Richard Nixon concluded Chileans had elected the
wrong Government; so they decided to alter Chilean destiny by replacing
Dr. Salvador Allende's democratic Government with 17 years of military
fascism, 1973-90.
In the post-Cold War world, such flummery became laughable.
Washington could direct policy toward law and human rights or continue
collaborating with military thugs. This apparent dilemma got finessed
with a blueprint to perpetuate Latin American oligarchs and satisfy US
corporations and banks linked to local elites.
In 2002, the US Government tested the new plan. US-backed military
officers kidnapped Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. But unforeseen
opposition arose inside the Venezuelan military; masses of Venezuelans
took to the streets. The coup failed.
Washington continued ranting against the 'undemocratic' Chavez
without mentioning his five successive victories, since 1998, in
internationally supervised elections. Chavez' Government directed its
energy toward meeting basic needs, despite middle and upper class
opposition.
In 2004, in test two, the State Department "to protect" Haitian
President Jean Bertrand Aristide, helped his kidnappers. Following the
Venezuela model, the Haitian plotters fabricated a "resignation letter."
In June, the third coup test began when military thugs kidnapped
President Manuel Zelaya. Then, civilian plotters penned a fake letter of
resignation. The legal "reason": the Honduran Supreme Court ordered
Zelaya's arrest for violating the Constitution. The State Department's
2009 Human Rights Report had already characterized that Court as issuing
"politicized rulings" and contributing "to corruption in public and
private institutions." (U.S. Department of State, 2008 Human Rights
Report: Honduras. February 25, 2009.)
Initially, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton feigned concern about
what looked like a coup. She couldn't quite call it a coup. After all,
she cooed, Zelaya, whom she still recognized as President, might have
violated the Constitution. No US official or mainstream reporter
questioned the "logic" of the Honduran Supreme Court's postdated ruling
that attempting an open and non-binding consultation with the people
violated supreme law. In fact, Article 80 of Honduras' constitution
specifies that Toda persona o asociación de personas tiene el derecho de
presentar peticiones a las autoridades ya sea por motivos de interés
particular o general y de obtener pronta respuesta en el plazo legal.
Coup d'etat "interim President" Roberto Micheletti also raged. How
dare Zelaya consult the people about changing the document they had
little voice in passing! In 1985, however, Micheletti led just such a
constitutional change to re-elect then President Roberto Suazo.
Re-election becomes constitutional when aspiring Latin American
candidates serve local ruling class and Washington interests. Otherwise,
Constitutions stand as sacred, no matter what they actually say about
participatory democracy.
Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Connie Mack (R-FL) and other Republicans
indignantly defended the kidnapping of Zelaya as 'protecting the
Constitution and democracy'. They cited the Honduran Constitution, but
did not refer to any clause allowing military goons to kidnap the
elected President in pajamas at dawn, and fly him to Costa Rica in a
military plane.
The mind-numbing discussion of 'legally authorized behavior' has
omitted reference to conditions in Honduras. In 2006, the United Nations
Development Program described Honduras as suffering 'profound social
inequalities, with very high levels of poverty, and with an insufficient
economic growth where the population had a relative dissatisfaction with
the results of democracy'. The Report claimed 15 percent of rural
Hondurans have a 40 years or less life expectancy and 20.4 percent of
the adult population remain illiterate. The UNDP concluded that 'the
time for change is now'. (pg. 5, 21).
A 2003 report showed the richest 10 percent still netted 50 times
more than the poorest 10th. 86.3 percent of the Honduran rural
population lived in poverty; 71.3 percent of urban dwellers qualified as
poverty-stricken. 67.2 percent of the children under the age of five
were malnourished. (J. MacDonald, Expresión de la pobreza en la ciudad,
Reunión Grupo de Expertos sobre Pobreza Urbana en America Latina y el
Caribe, 27-28 de Enero 2003, p 4-5,).
In 2006, Manuel Zelaya won the presidency. He made the UNDP Report a
central part of his agenda for change. His social program, not an
ambiguous Constitutional interpretation, became the root of his 'issue'
with the governing oligarchy, a dozen families who control economics and
social, cultural and political institutions. They also dominate the
media.
A 2008 State Department Human Rights Report acknowledged, ' small
number of powerful business magnates with intersecting commercial,
political, and family ties owned most of the country's news media.
Powerful magnates strongly influenced the news agenda and thereby
elections and political decisions'. (U.S. Department of State, 2008
Human Rights Report: Honduras. February 25, 2009.)
Until Zelaya tried to bring real democracy into the governing
equation, Honduras' elite with US banking and corporate backing had
found a seemingly perfect recipe: people vote but don't change anything.
Congress and Courts belong to the educated (rich and powerful) who also
control the military in cooperation with the US Government. Washington
provided aid; the School of the Americas trains Honduran officers in
proper conduct, torturing enemies and making coups. "Since the 1980s,
the Honduran army breathes through the noses of its US advisers". (ALAI
AMLATINA, July 10, 2009)
For Zelaya, the UNDP Report coincided with a brutal fact. Switzerland
and Honduras each have seven million people. Swiss yearly average income
is $53 thousand, Hondurans $2K. This upper class President saw an
obligation to meet peoples' needs. Uttering such a subversive thought
provoked panic among the rich in Tegucigalpa and the powerful of
Washington. They reverted to a historical pattern.
In the 1980s, the CIA and US military used Honduras to attack
Nicaragua's leftist Government. The CIA had Honduran officers selling
drugs, to support the surrogate Contras, which Congress forbade. In
1988, Rev. Joe Eldridge, the husband of Maria Otero, Obama's
Undersecretary of State for Democracy, wrote about this drug link, then
the Honduran military issued death threats against the family. The
Honduran army also repressed internal opposition. The local elite
supplied officers with perks and status, but Central American armies
have spent little time defending their country and much time attacking
their citizens.
The Honduran invented a "reason" to oust Zelaya, his unconstitutional
intent to consult the people in a non-binding vote. Yet, the
Constitution allows for referenda and plebiscites. Washington
representatives now claim they advised against a coup. But, reasoned the
oligarchs and officers, encouraged by some well-known anti-Castro Cuban
Americans, how could Washington abandon its friends and clients? So,
they kidnapped Zelaya, and flew him to Costa Rica under a justification
thinner than the most undernourished model.
One hundred and ninety two countries rejected this equivalent of a
political "Brooklyn Bridge for sale". The coup's defenders, Canada's
conservative Government, the US mass media, the Honduran Catholic and
Protestant hierarchy and right wing anti-Castroites of Miami, approved
of previous Latin American coups, in the name of democracy,
anti-communism or whatever. This time the coup makers were "rescuing
Honduras from the claws of Chavism."
The drama descended toward farce, however, when Zelaya's abductors
ditched him in Costa Rica. President Oscar Arias received him, and the
snatchers. No high official or mainstream reporter has suggested Arias
aided and abetted a kidnapping and coup. Shouldn't he have arrested the
kidnappers, impounded their plane and demanded the illegitimate thugs in
Tegucigalpa surrender?
Instead, collaborator Arias became mediator Arias. Twenty years ago,
Arias refused to allow US bases in Costa Rica for its illicit war
against Nicaragua. Today, he stars in the good cop/bad cop show. His one
act of 'disobedience' won him a Nobel Prize. Since then, he has shown
loyalty to Washington's economic consensus, meaning free trade and
corporate well being.
After Arias served as President (1986-1990), he changed the
constitution in order to run for a second term (2006-2010). In June,
another US ally, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe changed his
Constitution to allow for his third re-election. Neither Washington nor
the mass media objected. Anti-Castro Miami moguls hailed this
'democratic' move.
Double standard? No. Arias and Uribe followed US dictates, don't
befriend Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro or any serious 'change' talker.
Zelaya disobedience, to his own class and to Washington, got him
kidnapped.
In Washington, the response was "new elections". US Presidents hail
democratic elections, when they benefit the United States. When elected
Governments help the poor and reduce US interests, however, Washington
officials plot coups, insist on term limits and enforcement of
Constitutions they have not read.
Saul Landau is an Institute for Policy Studies fellow whose films are
on DVD (roundworldproductions@gmailcom).
Nelson Valdés is Emeritus Professor, Sociology, University of New
Mexico.
|