Kerry comments on Costa Rica's Honduran negotiations

[karynnj]

A senior US senator on Monday urged all parties in the political crisis shaking Honduras to pursue talks that could pave the way for the return of ousted President Manuel Zelaya.

Democratic Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, praised Costa Rican President Oscar Arias "for the progress he has made" in laying out principles of the negotiations.

Arias, who is mediating talks between representatives dispatched by Zelaya and de facto Honduran head of state Roberto Micheletti, has laid out a seven-point proposal for ending the political crisis.

The plan includes Zelaya's return, a ban on constitutional amendments for the rest of his term, and the creation of a national unity government.

But talks hosted by Arias in San Jose, Costa Rica collapsed over the weekend with Zelaya and Micheletti's delegates failing to agree on the ousted leader's return to Honduras.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hPGBtTjNdTaJX3flXSoszg2F9oVA

Here's another account that covers the US policy - this really is a 180 degree turn for the US from the time of our School for Americas/Contra policies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE56G60U20090717?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

They mention a Kerry op-ed in the Maimi Times. Interesting choice as Maimi is the center of the right wingers from Central America and Cuba, who Kerry has fought for years.




It would be a very good precedent if talks resumed and the coup was not allowed to change the government.

[karynnj]

1. Here is the Maimi Herald Kerry op-ed

"Early on Sunday, June 28, soldiers burst into Honduran President Manuel Zelaya's residence and dragged him into exile in his pajamas. An old-fashioned Latin American coup thrust upon our leaders a familiar dilemma: How to respond to the overthrow of a democratically elected leader often at odds with America and critical of our policies?

Although Zelaya has been no friend to America and engaged in petty anti-American sloganeering, our president stood on principle and demanded his reinstatement ``not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders.''

That was the right thing to do, as was enlisting the assistance of the OAS and Costa Rican statesman Oscar Arias to help resolve the crisis. We should now use our immense influence to help the mediation achieve a negotiated deal that strikes a blow for democracy in Honduras and across Latin America. "

http://www.miamiherald.com/honduras/story/1141973.html

[beachmom]

2. Interesting. Kerry is criticizing the Obama Admin., specifically the State Dept:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4006598

Sen. Kerry frets over Obama letter to GOP
Ginger Thompson, New York Times

Saturday, August 8, 2009

(08-08) 04:00 PDT Washington - --

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is concerned that the Obama administration's efforts to placate Republican critics of its policy in Honduras were giving the impression that U.S. support for the restoration of the ousted president, Manuel Zelaya, had begun to weaken.

Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the committee chairman, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said Friday that the senator was worried that a State Department letter to Republican legislators "risks sending a confusing signal" about the United States' support for negotiations aimed at restoring Zelaya to power.

The State Department sent a letter this week to Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee. In the letter to Lugar on Wednesday, the State Department seemed to distance itself from Zelaya, criticizing his "insistence on taking provocative actions" that contributed to the crisis and saying that the administration's policy "is not based on supporting any politician or individual."

[karynnj]

3. It is interesting to me

The fact is that Kerry has back door channels, if this were intended just to weigh in with his opinion or to disagree. This likely means the split here is sufficient that he needs to get the disagreement on record.

Nowhere in the world has it been clearer that Kerry's foreign policy was not centrist. The Clintons were for the Contras. He did not close down the School of Americas or reject his heritage. I know it was heretical to say that because it was under Clark at one point. It is possible that HRC did not agree with BC, but I have no reason to think that. Latin America was not an issue in 2008 and I really did not know Obama's position. In fact, any clarity his foreign policy seemed to have came from things John Kerry said as his surrogate. He was vague.

There was an early NYT article that spoke of Obama's reaction as a shift from the last 50 years. He did not just welcome the coup. There is clearly a struggle for controlling this policy. Unfortunately, I suspect that had Obama continued to let Kerry and others on that side pervail, there wouldn't be this letter. For the same reason, I suspect that Obama did cave to the Clinton people here and approved that letter. Otherwise, there would have been a Kerry/Obama conversation and Obama would have corrected the interpretation. It means something when an ally publicly criticizes - even as politely ashere.

(It also means the left if they could face facts might realize that on foreign policy, no one would have been as much change as John Kerry.)

[beachmom]

4. Yup, I am nearly 100% sure:

I suspect that Obama did cave to the Clinton people here and approved that letter.