Honduras deal collapses, and Zelaya's backers blame U.S.

[wisteria]

Um, I guess I should have believed what Clinton said the other day about this deal.
Can anyone figure this out? It seems to me the Repubs (DeMint) won this one, Kerry seems to have done a lot of work on behalf of Zelaya that is now mute) and now we have to make nice to a coup leader we at one time recently said we would not recognize as the leader of Honduras.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3352889;_ylt=Apz_sU1nMg_Jb7sS9hrqtCqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNkN2QxMWhuBGFzc2V0A21jY2xhdGNoeS8yMDA5MTEwOS8zMzUyODg5BGNjb2RlA3JhbmRvbQRjcG9zAzUEcG9zAzIEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNob25kdXJhc2RlYWw-

[karynnj]

1. This really stinks

This was a case where Obama took a position that was timid compared to the rest of the world, while a major break from our position of the last several decades. From the beginning, Clinton and others spoke to the right of Obama - including the annoying memo to Republicans Senators that pulled away from the Obama position.

If this is true - and it seems to be, Clinton won out on this. It also appears that Obama is going to ask for 40,000 more soldiers for Afghanistan and in at least one report it is for the original mission. Together these are extremely disappointing. The fact that Clinton was pulling him right on each of those decisions means that, for all practical purposes, we did not have a better choice in the race once Kerry opted out - other than Obama still seems marginally better than Clinton.

Of the two disappointments, though the consequences of Afghanistan will likely be more, Honduras was more of a disappointment. There had we really stood with the world, a coup would have been called wrong by everyone and ended. Not creating a disaster in Afghanistan will be hard - this was much easier - and it seemed they traded it for expediency or, worse, they really believed it. If so, Kerry might be one of the few Americans who acted with any honor.

[wisteria]

2. Well, this is all very disappointing. And, if Obama is listening to Clinton on most matters now,

I would think it would be wise for Kerry not to get in the middle and assist them in any way. He might be the one that ends up with "egg" on his face.
The last I read regarding Kerry's position on Honduras it was in support of the ousted president. I found this article on Honduras from the NYT, which seems to claim that the US has a history of supporting coups there and then references the Contras.


"The United States has had a history of backing rival political factions and instigating coups in the region, and administration officials found themselves on the defensive, dismissing allegations by Mr. Chávez that the C.I.A. may have had a hand in the president's removal.

In the 1980s, Honduras was a huge base for C.I.A. operatives helping contra rebels fighting to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government in neighboring Nicaragua. The rebels received training from the United States and aid for their fight against the Sandinista government.

Mr. Zelaya, a rancher who often appears in cowboy boots and a western hat, has the support of labor unions and the poor. But the middle class and the wealthy business community fear he wants to introduce Mr. Chávez's brand of socialist populism into the country, long one of Latin America's poorest."






http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/honduras/index.html

But, if it is as you say about Obama's decision on the troops and the mission, than I am very disappointed in this administration and President Obama, to the point of not defending them any longer. It seems President Obama is not the true leader I thought he was. And, all this time he has taken to reach this decision seems like BS.

[karynnj]

3. Kerry did not white wash the President, but was 100% against coups

He was the only top politician I saw willing to speak out against the coup, putting an oped saying that in the Miami Herald. His position was and is honorable. The Clintons had no problems with the Contras in the 1980s and Bill Clinton did not close the school of Americas or really change it much. (I was proud that my daughter went with kids from her college last year to protest the school of Americas.) Kerry led in the 1980s, as a very new Senator, against this.

I think that he is speaking out on his own positions and giving the President his best advise. I assume that he will continue doing this. It is his job and what he has done since 1971. He has a far better platform now than ever before - though in 2004, we all hoped he would be President. More and more, I return to the thought that I had in 2004 that he was almost a stealth change agent - a patrician eloquent statesman on the surface with a hidden activist inside.

I don't think he will abandon his ideals or not do his job - I don't think he has done anything that he didn't believe in and nothing has left him with "egg on his face". The closest was his comments about Karzai's bother, where he was broadsided, but he quickly spoke out that Congress wasn't given the information they should have had. The fact is that the State Department should have informed him before he spoke to Karzai. As to his negotiations with Karzai, it was far better that Karzai agree and they be canceled, then Karzai refuse to hold them. The fact though is the only thing that will give Karzai any credibility is changing. (I suspect that Kerry now has a vested interest in monitoring this with hearings.)

[wisteria]

4. Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with everything you say. I was trying to suggest that he be careful

about this administration and Clinton. I don't think they are above using him and not backing him later. He has been out there praising Clinton on Honduras and dealing with DeMint, and it turns out Demint and his backers get what they set out to get and Clinton goes along with it. Maybe it was a practical decision on her part, but still, Kerry supported and defended the administration's position on this, now they have changed their mind. How frustrating.

[karynnj]

12. I agree completely with you

I assume that given the fact that he has known the Clintons for what they were for decades, he likely knows that they would use anyone then not back them if things don't work out. I wonder if Kerry's praise that this was a huge win for Clinton wasn't an attempt to frame it that way - making it harder for her to back away. There may have been a bit of game playing from Kerry here.(Had others followed, that might have worked. )

I also think Kerry at virtually all times was as much away from Obama's few statements as Hillary was - in the opposite direction. Kerry's position was consistent with his positions in the 1980s. I suspect that, now, just as in the 1980s, unfortunately more Americans agree with Oliver North and DeMint, than with Kerry. Internationally, Kerry's position is far more acceptable.

What I regret is that this means that not only has Obama apparently taken a position I really have a problem with, abandoning the chance to really change our behavior in Latin America, this really shows him as very weak and unwilling to stand up for his positions. That more than it shows that he really is listening more to Clinton and the people around her then to Kerry and people around him.

[wisteria]

15. For the first time, I am worried about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience.

That was a concern for me when he was running, but I thought he would consider Kerry's advise and he would be there to assist him. Now, it appears he is more concerned with image rather than good policy. And, if he is listening to Clinton more and more- who has no real experience either-then this is very upsetting.
I have read comments from several Clinton supporters who blame Pres. Obama for the inconsistent messages our SOS has made. They say Obama has no sure footing in this arena. Personally, I to am getting the feeling he does not want to be viewed as weak, and will go along with the hawk position to avoid this tag.
If after weeks of talks and supposedly thoughtful discussions he arrives at the same recommendations and the same troop levels as McChrystal, with no real new policies or goals, than this exposes his inexperience. And, you know, the right will use this against him saying he wasted much time arriving at the position they said he should have taken months ago.

I hope Pres. Obama gets his act together. I hate to even say this, but if things don't improve he is only going to have one term. And, I really want to support our Democratic president.

[beachmom]

6. "Egg on his face". Um, that was Al, talking about Kerry's original

statement about Zelaya prior to the coup. I think there was a report screw up which led Kerry to make that statement based on faulty legal reasoning. Kerry has tried to get it fixed.

I guess I am less upset about this because Al warned us. Plus, here is that al Jazeera article I posted in the other thread.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/11/20091141934390702.html

Zelaya seeks US clarity on return

Honduras' deposed president has sent a letter to the US secretary of state asking why US officials have said that they will recognise forthcoming Honduran elections even if he is not reinstated beforehand.

Manuel Zelaya on Wednesday asked Hillary Clinton "to clarify to the Honduran people if the position condemning the coup d'etat has been changed or modified".

The ousted leader's letter was sent after Thomas Shannon, the senior US envoy to Latin America, told CNN en Espanol that the US will recognise the November 29 elections even if the Honduran congress votes against Zelaya's return to power before the vote.

"Both leaders took a risk and put their trust in congress but, at the end of the day, the accord requires that both leaders accept its decision," Shannon said.

And here is a new article from AJ:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/11/200911693436635693.html

I find their reporting on Latin America quite even handed. Notice how there is NO mention of the United States. The truth is Honduran politics are a big mess, there are a lot of moving pieces. We like to think of ourselves as the most important thing in foreign disputes when we are involved. But I don't think that is always the case.

[karynnj]

13. That all makes more sense now

I wonder if the faulty legal reasoning was the report that he wanted corrected or removed from the Library of Congress. The fact that it seemed drafted by people related to the coup and essentially given credibility by being put in the Library of Congress is pretty bad.

Was the accord too complicated - leading Zelaya to see it a different way than the US?

[beachmom]

16. No, it just required too many steps. I mean Congress had to vote on it.

And Zelaya's lefty rival's supporters decided not to vote on it. So it wasn't even the coup President's people who screwed it up.

[beachmom]

7. Karynnj, the WH vehemently denies that report on Afghanistan policy:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/09/wh-denies-afghan-decision-made-as-tensions-flare-with-pentagon/

White House National Security Adviser Retired Gen. Jim Jones issued a rare public statement Monday vehemently denying media reports suggesting President Obama has privately decided to send close to 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, as tensions between the White House and Pentagon appear to be flaring up over exactly what the president will announce.

"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false," Jones, who generally keeps a low public profile, said in a prepared statement Monday night. "He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."

The statement was issued shortly after CBS News' veteran Pentagon Correspondent David Martin reported that Obama has "tentatively decided" to send four more combat brigades to Afghanistan and several thousand more support troops starting early next year. That would bring the total number of new troops to close to the 40,000 figure originally requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Two other senior administration officials flatly told CNN that the CBS report and other similar speculation is false. The Associated Press reported Monday that Obama is "nearing a decision to add tens of thousands more forces to Afghanistan, though not quite the 40,000 sought his top general there."

This is what I am doing: waiting for the real announcement before I believe it.

[wisteria]

9. Yes, we have waited for a thoughtful decision, now lets wait and see if Pres. Obama delivers one.

It is so easy to just jump on,and accept everything we read. I for one am going to remember that certain people would like to see something leaked and the Pres. pushed into making a decision right now.

[karynnj]

14. I hadn't seen that when I posted - and am happy for it.

As it was reported as fact on several stations, I thought it was - like you, I will wait for Obama himself to speak. (Obama needs to rein in his senior administration people if they really are speaking)

[beachmom]

17. Actually, I think it was the Pentagon. Just because there is a new President

doesn't mean the Pentagon is now an "Obama Pentagon". Hardly.

[beachmom]

5. I'm not surprised by this at all. I think I posted in the other thread

about what Shannon had said which led to Zelaya asking for "clarification" on America's position. It struck me that the Americans had thrown Zelaya under the bus at that point. They did not seem to be all that gung ho in defending Zelaya.

Kerry was trying to get a report changed that contained legal errors and was getting attacked big time by the Right for it (I think Kerry was in the right on what he was asking, but I am wondering why the error was made in the first place).

What is interesting is Al Giordano's last post on the matter dated Nov. 2nd:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3577/big-gun-us-labor-secretary-hilda-solis-heads-honduras-tuesday

He sounded hopeful. I'll be interested to hear what Al's take on the situation is. Thing is, he basically predicted what has happened. He never felt there was a deal in the first place.

I'm going to be blunt that this was Clinton's deal. Kerry helped out, but he wasn't going down to Honduras doing tough negotiations. In his Twitter post, he called it a "win for Clinton". You don't suppose he knew the thing was going to fall through, and decided she was going to get all the "credit"? I have no idea.

[wisteria]

8. Yes, let me know if you see his reaction first.

Also, do you have a link to the Al comment on Kerry? I don't recall seeing that.

As for all of this, I suppose we will just have to wait and see where things go from here.

[beachmom]

10. Here it is:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/7/2/0645/48131/236#c236

Al and JK go back a LONG WAY, so I admit I found his criticism amusing:

Egg on His Face (5+ / 0-)

This wouldn't be the first time my friend John overshot regarding events in Latin America. (Oh, the stories I could tell!)

But he kind of set a trap for himself by applauding the OAS, because now he's gonna have to follow its lead, which is what he and all US officials should do.

The Field.

by The Field on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 08:00:12 AM PST

Go to the link. I posted JK's statement, and Al responded to me.

[wisteria]

11. Thank you. I see now that Kerry did the right thing and the administration did too for a while.

Then, for some reason or another the administation must have changed it's position. But, apparently, Senator Kerry has not. Do I read this correctly? I don't know whether this is a good thing now or not at this point.

Oh, and thank you for locating and posting this.

[beachmom]

18. Well, this is not good. Library of Congress stands by their report:

http://www.miamiherald.com/692/story/1307368.html

This article is dated Oct. 29th:

Library of Congress stands by report on Honduras coup

WASHINGTON -- Congress's law library is rebuffing calls from the chairmen of the House and Senate foreign relations committees to retract a report on the military-backed coup in Honduras that the lawmakers charge is flawed.

The request, by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., has sparked cries of censorship from Republicans who say the Democrats don't like what the August report said: that the government of Honduras had the authority to remove deposed President Manuel Zelaya from office.

A spokeswoman for the Law Library of Congress - one of six Library of Congress agencies - said Thursday that the research agency stands by the report and that Librarian of Congress James Billington is preparing a response to the lawmakers.

Zelaya has been holed up at the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, for several weeks, and high-ranking U.S. officials were working Thursday to try to broker a resolution.

More at the link. Since this jives with what Al Giordano says (the legal interpretations), I think Kerry & Berman were right. But, since the report has been already filed there, I think it is too late to correct. The situation stinks.

And this is the last I have heard from Sen. Kerry on Honduras:

http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=319513

WASHINGTON, D.C. –Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released the following statement today in response to Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and Roberto Micheletti reaching an agreement to return President Zelaya to power:

“I welcome the agreement ending the crisis in Honduras. The restoration of democracy is an historic accomplishment for the Honduran people . The accord provides a roadmap for elections on November 29, but success will depend on rigorous international monitoring of the accord’s implementation.

“I also want to congratulate Costa Rican President Arias, OAS Secretary General Insulza, and Assistant Secretary Tom Shannon and his team. With this crisis resolved, I look forward to the speedy Senate confirmation of Mr. Shannon as our Ambassador to Brazil and Dr. Arturo Valenzuela as Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs.”

That was dated 10/30/09. No info since.

[wisteria]

20. Thanks for posting, I had forgotten about this statement from Kerry.

Now, Shannon is again on a senate hold and not confirmed, supposedly because a newly appointed Rep. Senate replacement wants to meet with him even though this new senator isn't even on the SFRC.

[beachmom]

19. Okay, if this Huff Po blogger is halfway right, it doesn't make Clinton look good:

Honduras is one of the smallest, poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. It has about the same population as New York City. It is the country where the term "banana republic" was coined. For one hundred years it has been dominated by agribusiness giants like United Fruit which grow bananas and compliantly corrupt governments there with equal success. In the political turmoil that engulfed Central America in the 1980s, with major civil wars in all of its neighboring countries, Honduras played the role of Washington's doormat in the region, with the U.S. training a proxy army along the Nicaraguan border, running secret air missions over El Salvador, and running enough spies and spooks to keep the internal politics of Honduras on complete lock-down.

This corrupt, compliant, inept doormat of an army is what hustled the country's elected president out of bed at gunpoint and on to a plane out of the country five months ago. And now the Obama administration is left as the only government in the western hemisphere that can't find the cajones to stand up to this doormat military?

Could the problem have something to do with the $400,000 the illegal Honduran government has paid to lobbyists with close ties to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton? Hey wait a minute, wasn't Obama the guy who was going to run the lobbyists out of Washington?

Two weeks ago, Clinton spent 30 minutes on the phone with the leader of the illegal government, and announced that she had secured a deal that would put the elected president back in office, a deal she called a "big step forward for the inter-American system and its commitment to democracy." But no sooner had the deal been announced than the Honduran regime reneged on it, with the apparent blessing of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Thomas A. Shannon Jr., while the rest of Latin America sputtered about the "mixed messages" coming from Washington that were undermining Honduran democracy.

Wait a minute. The U.S. is the only country in the hemisphere backing a military coup? Who is in the White House again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/the-worlds-original-banan_b_351516.html

And here is that NYT article about the $400,000 in lobbyist fees:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/world/americas/08honduras.html?_r=1

Leader Ousted, Honduras Hires U.S. Lobbyists

WASHINGTON — First, depose a president. Second, hire a lobbyist.

In the months since soldiers ousted the Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, the de facto government and its supporters have resisted demands from the United States that he be restored to power. Arguing that the left-leaning Mr. Zelaya posed a threat to their country’s fragile democracy by trying to extend his time in office illegally, they have made their case in Washington in the customary way: by starting a high-profile lobbying campaign.

The campaign has had the effect of forcing the administration to send mixed signals about its position to the de facto government, which reads them as signs of encouragement. It also has delayed two key State Department appointments in the region.

Costing at least $400,000 so far, according to lobbying registration records, the campaign has involved law firms and public relations agencies with close ties to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator John McCain, a leading Republican voice on foreign affairs.

It has also drawn support from several former high-ranking officials who were responsible for setting United States policy in Central America in the 1980s and ’90s, when the region was struggling to break with the military dictatorships and guerrilla insurgencies that defined the cold war. Two decades later, those former officials — including Otto Reich, Roger Noriega and Daniel W. Fisk — view Honduras as the principal battleground in a proxy fight with Cuba and Venezuela, which they characterize as threats to stability in the region in language similar to that once used to describe the designs of the Soviet Union.

“The current battle for political control of Honduras is not only about that small nation,” Mr. Reich testified in July before Congress. “What happens in Honduras may one day be seen as either the high-water mark of Hugo Chávez’s attempt to undermine democracy in this hemisphere or as a green light to the spread of Chavista authoritarianism,” he said, referring to the Venezuelan president.

[wisteria]

21. Interesting. These two pieces seem to explain why the Repubs have been slobbering all over this.

And, they do make it appear as though it is business as usually. I can see however, where the administration would not want to be associated to closely with Hugo Chávez and the Repubs would support a coup leader rather than the legal president. What dirty business. I do not like the $$$ angle here or the personal ties to Clinton.

I noticed that my original link was buried almost immediately and you have to google directly to even find it now even though it was prominently posted on Yahoo News. Maybe that is just a coincidence, but there would be good reason on the part of our administration to just bury what is transpiring now.

[karynnj]

23. The fact is that there are powerful forces that do not want change to our Latin American policy

You are right that opposing right wing thugs becomes defined as being associated with Hugo Chavez. The latter is more negative here than the former. That was obvious in the early articles where Kerry took the side of the OAS - the comments were brutal.

[blm]

22. The Clintons' foreign policy views are no different than Lieberman and other RWers.

I never wanted Lieberman as Sec of State, either.

Clintons are not above sabotaging honest efforts - in fact, sabotaging honest Dem lawmakers and their efforts is their calling card.

[karynnj]

24. Here the political proxy war is likely more relevant than the lobbying dollars

to people associated with Clinton, though I have a real problem with lobbying dollars from foreign entities being used to influence officials.

To me the most startling sentence in the NYT article is:

"“What happens in Honduras may one day be seen as either the high-water mark of Hugo Chávez’s attempt to undermine democracy in this hemisphere or as a green light to the spread of Chavista authoritarianism"

The fact is the RW had a coup and kicked out an elected official - yet it is the left undermining democracy?? I get the point being made, but the way they framed it is transparently not true - which is not surprising given the speaker - Reich.

[beachmom]

25. Well, a few things:

First of all, let's be clear that Hugo Chavez is very, very bad. I know from a friend who was in Central America (not Honduras) that Chavez has been heavily involved in getting his "friends" elected all over Latin America. I don't know about Zelaya, but definitely Ortega in Nicaragua. Basically, Chavez would bribe mayors and so forth with oil money (obviously, with oil prices down, that is not as possible now). I do not care for socialism (as in REAL socialism where whole industries are nationalized), but that is not of my concern if another country decides to do it as Chavez has. What is a concern to me is his anti-democratic tendencies and his bullying of media outlets in Venezuela. And the fact that he is an egomaniac who seems to be intent on building some kind of anti-American alliance throughout Latin America.

Zelaya was certainly supported by Chavez, and Zelaya himself did seem to be making moves that emulated Chavez, like getting the Constitution changed so that he could run for another term. Now apparently according to Al Giordano it was legal, but even if it was illegal, there is something called "Impeachment" that could have dealt with it. All legal and above board. Instead, Honduras had a military coup, which is absolutely unacceptable.

Here is my view of the Right and the old crowd who backed Reagan's policies in Central America in the '80s: they don't give a damn about democracy. What they care about is capitalism. It's all about M-O-N-E-Y for them. If Chavez was pulling all the stuff he was pulling, but instead of being a socialist he was an ubercapitalist, none of these characters on the Right would have a problem with him. All the arguments they use against Chavez are cynical. After all, I saw Jeb Bush PRAISE Colombia, a government that murdered union leaders, as a government that needs to be supported. Yeah, because Colombia is doing business with all of Jeb's pals, that is why he loves them so much.

All of these dynamics have complicated the job for Obama. Because he is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, is the lefty Chavez who is bad news and all his benefactors across Latin America. And on the other is the hard Right both in Latin America and the States who want military coups to solve the Chavez problem. Latin America is very poor, and socialist policies tend to at least at first help the poor. So the right wingers shouldn't be surprised that a lot of these people actually end up being elected.