Honduras: America's great foreign policy disgrace

Honduras: America's great foreign policy disgrace
First, the US backed a coup that deposed the elected president. Now, it's backing the return of death-squad government
Mark Weisbrot guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 November 2011 16.02 EST

Imagine that an opposition organiser were murdered in broad daylight in Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador or Venezuela by masked gunmen, or kidnapped and murdered by armed guards of a well-known supporter of the government. It would be front page news in the New York Times, and all over the TV news. The US State Department would issue a strong statement of concern over grave human rights abuses. If this were ever to happen.

Now imagine that 59 of these kinds of political killings had taken place so far this year, and 61 the previous year. Long before the number of victims reached this level, this would become a major foreign policy issue for the United States, and Washington would be calling for international sanctions.

~snip~
Of course, President Obama refused to even meet with the democratically elected president who was overthrown in the coup that he mentioned, even though that president came to Washington three times seeking help after the coup. That was Manuel Zelaya, a left-of-center president who was overthrown by the military and conservative segments of society in Honduras after instituting a number of reforms that people had voted for, such as raising the minimum wage and laws promoting land reform.

But what angered Washington most was that Zelaya was close to the left governments of South America, including Venezuela. He wasn't any closer to Venezuela than Brazil or Argentina was, but this was a crime of opportunity. So, when the Honduran military overthrew Zelaya in June of 2009, the Obama administration did everything it could for the next six months to make sure that the coup succeeded. The "pressure from the international community" that Obama referred to in the above statement came from other countries, mainly the left-of-center governments in South America. The United States was on the other side, fighting – ultimately successfully – to legitimise the coup government through an "election" that the rest of the hemisphere refused to recognise.

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/18/honduras-america-foreign-policy-disgrace

disgraces in Latin America.

It is all the more appalling, however, that our top Democrats have been complicit in this particular disgrace, which I blame specifically on holding over too many Bush II-era hirees in DOS, DOD and related "intelligence" agencies, as well as being too considerate of Rethugs (as opposed to the few thinking Republicans who still exist) generally.

Getting rid of the Bush II holdovers sprinkled throughout the civil service is literally like trying to clean out the Augean stables, but it should have been done right away and must be done ASAP. More than any previous era, Bush II-era appointees who later were "regularized" were those whose ideology met the Rove-Cheney-Bolton criteria, so those policies are still in force, in many ways.

Too many key senior level career civil service personnel who were actually qualified for their jobs and who were able to perform in a non-partisan way were either encouraged to leave or forced out altogether during the Bush II era.

It's not as sexy a topic as some, but it is very important to keep a spotlight on US foreign policy and the damage it does to those (and other) parts of the world.

US foreign policy has been consistently anti-left just about forever, but particularly since the end of WWII and the breaking up of the European hegemony. We have demonstrated time and time again that we'd rather support a vicious, right-wing tyrannical thug than any fairly-elected individual with the slightest tinge of red in his complexion. I have to disagree with the contention that Bush holdovers are a primary cause, because the policy has been unchanging for generations.

-- Mal

And that's why they cannot take credit for them--they are disgraceful and illegal under international and US law.

Also, these kind of efforts are Standard Operating Procedure.

This is what OWS has to work on ending...among other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Zelaya - is well worth the long read. Not that it makes a bad situation there sound any better, but if you know something about the person, the country, and its internal politics, then you are less prone to the "its all about the US" perspective.

The US policy that most of Latin America has strenuously demanded over the last couple of decades is "hands off"; in Honduras any US meddling would have been opposed as colonialism or imperialism, regardless of the intentions or results...The OP may be accurate in its facts, the few that it offers, but it makes it sound the most important thing to people everywhere is what Obama or the state department are thinking.

Ironically, the opposition to Zelaya in Honduras applied many of the same tools that the anti-Obama factions here take...