Obama administration needs to maintain tough stance against Honduran coup

By Teo Ballve, July 2, 2009

The Obama administration deserves praise for its response to the coup in Honduras. It sends a hopeful signal that Washington’s traditional support for such undemocratic power grabs has ended.

Masked soldiers stormed the Honduran presidential palace in the early morning hours of June 28 and violently seized President Manuel Zelaya. Still in his pajamas, the president was forced at gunpoint onto a plane and flown to Costa Rica.

President Obama condemned the coup, saying: “I think it would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections.”

In past decades, Democratic and Republican administrations alike have tolerated — and in some cases supported — violent coups against democratically elected governments in Latin America. In 2002, when a similar coup was hatched in Venezuela, the Bush administration initially welcomed the short-lived illegitimate government.

Obama’s stance is a welcome change and marks a positive step toward mending the open wounds left by past U.S. policies in Honduras and other Latin American countries. But the Obama team still has some housecleaning to do.

Some of the generals behind the putsch are graduates of the infamous U.S. Army training academy for Latin American militaries, formerly called the School of the Americas, in Fort Benning, Ga. With at least 11 dictators among its alumni, former Rep. Joseph Kennedy famously claimed the training academy has produced “more dictators than any other school in the history of the world.”

The military coup thwarted Zelaya’s move to introduce a voters’ referendum on whether to rewrite the country’s constitution. The military brass is partial to the current constitution because it was drafted in the early 1980s under the military dictatorship of Gen. Policarpo Paz García, another graduate of the School of the Americas.

After the passage of the constitution in 1982, the military cemented its dominion over Honduran political affairs. The generals kept a tight rein on the population through a military death squad unit known as “Battalion 316,” which was trained by the CIA and killed hundreds of Hondurans. (Former members of this battalion also took part in the recent coup.)

In the early 1980s, CIA station chiefs and the U.S. Embassy led by then-Ambassador John Negroponte called the shots in Honduras. (Negroponte went on to hold various senior posts in the George W. Bush administration, including director of national intelligence.) The country became the staging ground for the Reagan administration’s covert wars against rebels in El Salvador and the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Deep U.S. involvement endures to this day. Honduras maintains a large U.S. military base that is one of the Pentagon’s last remaining footholds in Latin America, while the Honduran military still receives millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars. This same military has brutally repressed massive street demonstrations clamoring for the return of the country’s democratically elected leader.

The funding bill for this assistance plainly states that U.S. military aid will be cut for “any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup or decree.”

The White House should swiftly follow through on this stipulation. Obama should also continue to work with Latin American leaders and with multilateral bodies such as the United Nations and the Organization of American States for Zelaya’s return.

To do anything less would be to sneer at democracy. And the United States has done that long enough in Latin America.

Teo Ballve is a freelance journalist based in Colombia. His website is http://teoballve.com. He can be reached at pmproj [at] progressive [dot] org.

Share: Facebook   Reddit   del.icio.us   ma.gnolia.com   stumbleupon   Technorati   Google   YahooMyWeb   Email   Disqus  

Comments

Well Jon,

I asked if you read because I find that reading helps me refrain from framing my arguments in meaningless generalizations. You seem to think that because, in your opinion, Obama is a member of something called the "left" and has acted in a way you seem to find inconsistent that the thing you call the "left" is somehow also inconsistent. Perhaps if we define terms here we could have a rational discussion. I find, perhaps it is the reading, that when people can agree on the definitions of their terms they can have a more meaningful discussion. The terms "left" and "right" are far to abstracted to use in any meaningful way. I do not see Obama as a member of the "left" and you seem to so the words are useless to in our discussion. If we cannot agree on the term lets abandon it.

If you take the trouble to read the post I first made and to which you responded, you will see that I quoted from the State department's press release. Their response to the question was equivocated and too me that raised suspicions because (and here the reading thing has contributed again) I have found, in my study of history, a similar set of circumstances. Jean Bertrand Aristide was also kidnapped and eventually dumped in South Africa. The United States later negotiated his return to Haiti. The agreement left Aristide powerless and the coup plotters were never really punished. The policies proscribed by the IMF(undemocratically) as part of the agreement have been devastating to the people of Haiti. All this was arranged under Clinton's Presidency and now Hillary Clinton is running the State department, and this, to me, looks very similar.

I am not applauding Obama's "tough stance." I, in fact, paraphrased his response in a way I found makes clear that his "stance" is not "tough." I find his statement juvenile and obvious. In fact, I find "stances" are things that should be ignored as there are to many facts to try and gather before trying to act rationally and political posturing is rarely a place to find facts.

Perhaps if you read Emanuel Kant's "Perpetual Peace" you will find the philosophical underpinnings of why it is important to have constitutions and perhaps even grow to respect them. He argues that we live in a state of law (under a constitution agreed on by those who bound by the document) or a state of nature: and that there is no moral argument which compels a person to obey the law in a state of nature. Because he is long dead I am not sure if Kant is "left" or "right" to you but if you can overcome those ignorant generalizations you might find that you will be able to grow in your appreciation of the state of law. You will also find you are more able to understand ideas and communicate them if you avoid the use of abstractions and generalizations.

Submitted by Jeffe Verde on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 4:26pm.