Update on Honduras: Just Words, Just Speeches?
Yesterday, I questioned whether the Obama/Clinton quick, one-sided condemnation of the “coup” in Honduras was a low risk way for the administration to earn instant “street cred” with its leftist base. Sure enough, a headline in the New York Times this morning likely caught the attention of liberal/progressive readers: “In a Coup in Honduras, Ghosts of Past U.S. Policies.” In the first few paragraphs, President Obama is quoted as saying that “we do not want to go back to a dark period” in Latin American history. Obama was delivering a coded message to leftists: “I’m not like those former U.S. Presidents who sent the CIA or other covert military forces to try to take out peace loving Marxists like Castro, Allende, Ortega, and Chavez.” After all, these popular leaders are/were only trying to improve the lives of their people, who were impoverished as a result of capitalist exploitation, U.S. meddling, etc.
In his first five months in office, Obama has moved the country abruptly to the left and yet his policies are not even in the ballpark of where they would have to be to satisfy leftists. Thus he has to rely on style and code words, which lose their resonance over time, especially when they’re not backed up by “progressive” actions.
On that note, Robert Lovato delivers a call to action in this morning’s Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roberto-lovato/obama-has-the-power-and-r_b_222170.html. Lovato’s analysis of the Honduran situation is straight out of the leftist playbook. First, he suggests that the court-ordered removal of Zelaya is equivalent to the brutal crackdown in Iran (I’m not aware of any reports that the Honduran military has been murdering protestors). In fact, Lovato writes that the situation in Honduras should be considered an even more serious concern to the United States government, compared to Iran, because the Honduran military is supported by American tax dollars. In the minds of leftists, something is not truly evil unless Uncle Sam has his fingers on it. Plus, according to Lovato, the Obama administration “can actually do something” about Honduras, but we can do nothing about Iran murdering its own people and developing a nuclear weapon. Last but not least, according to Lovato – wait for it – it’s our fault that Zelaya had moved hard left and was in bed with Chavez because we callously disregarded the plight of poor Hondurans dealing with rising food prices and “deepening poverty.” It’s also telling, however, that the subtext of Lovato’s post is a veiled threat to Obama: “take actions that send a rapid and unequivocal denunciation of the coup,” or else I can no longer defend your bona fides.
The problem is, if Obama goes too far left, he’ll be gone after one term in office. The remainder of the above mentioned NYT article also begins to moderate the administration’s position on Honduras. The State Department admits that Zelaya’s plan for a referendum was not in line with the Constitution, but that the military action was not justified (for all we know, if the Honduran government had let things go much further, its options might have been reduced; also, where was the State Department when Chavez was taking over Venezuela?) The U.S. gives military and economic aid to Honduras – a good trading partner and a bulwark against the Chavez axis. Thus while condemning the Honduran government is easy (words, speeches), taking action against the Honduran government poses more serious strategic and political risks for Obama/Clinton. The attempt to straddle both sides of this issue is more explicit in the following Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062904239_2.html?sid=ST2009062902805
If I were a leftist, though, I’d argue for patience. Obama probably still believes in most items on the hard leftist agenda, he just has a better appreciation of what it takes to get there than most leftists. When his administration takes both sides of an issue, his leftist tendencies are still evident:
-
Who cares what Chavez says? One of Barrack Obama’s biggest fears is being called a “sell out,” which in this context means a neo-colonialist ugly American posing as a progressive.
-
Why should the United States be sensitive about possible accusations from the Iranian regime (it’s a British-American-Zionist plot) or the Marxist-dominated Organization of American States (it’s a Yankee plot)? For the same reasons that Obama thinks it is necessary to go on apology tours.
-
The one thing that might have annoyed Obama/Clinton most about the Honduran “coup” was that the Hondurans had the gall to rescue their own country from the Chavez axis without getting permission from these two philosopher kings, which might never have been forthcoming.
Obviously, it is not unusual for diplomats and especially politicians to come down on both sides of an issue, and Obama has a gift for being most things to most people. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen how much more mileage he will get out of style, code words, and other window dressing.
” After all, these popular leaders are/were only trying to improve the lives of their people, who were impoverished as a result of capitalist exploitation, U.S. meddling, etc.”
I don’t think you can imply that was the message Obama was trying to send. Is the president not supposed to recognize that the US is not allowed to take out heads of state/dictators/democratically elected leaders just because it wants to? Perhaps America was also talking about the terrorism employed by the US against the people of Cuba and Nicaragua, or the support of the Contras etc. There are nuanced positions between that of Reagan and someone who calls thugs like Castro “peace-loving”. I’m very glad that Obama is willing to recognize the ambiguous record America has in the region.
Do you think the CIA should have moved on Chavez and would you have applauded their success?
“In his first five months in office, Obama has moved the country abruptly to the left”
So by now it should be back in the center? I’m not saying any ideological vices of this administration can be forgiven by those of the previous one, but the left-ward turn would not have been if it weren’t for the pendulum-swing of the US voters. A left-wing turn from a starting point well to the right of the center is not as sinister as a left-wing turn from a central starting point, no?
I have greater misgivings against Lovato though. He really doesn’t come as anyone who knows what he is talking about. Zelaya has pushed his luck and never extended any good faith against those who reminded him off his duties towards the constitution. Despite the unpleasant ring the phrase “left-wing head of state in South America ousted in coup” has for people with democratic concerns, I don’t think anyone can ignore Zelaya’s flaws while at the same time complaining about the incremental nabbing of power under the last administration (and this one). The coup is no doubt flawed but it is largely legit. I do wonder why Zelaya’s chief political rival was given charge in Honduras once he was flown out, but maybe that, too, is legal praxis in this case. All the apparent facts suggest Zelaya had it coming.
“Why should the United States be sensitive about possible accusations from the Iranian regime?”
Because of Operation Ajax, the Iraq-Iran war and other hardships and slights against the people in the middle east engineered by the US (and Germany, France and the UK).
“or the Marxist-dominated Organization of American States (it’s a Yankee plot)?”
Because of the thousands of left-wingers in South America who were tortured into shades of human beings by people the US supported in words or more directly. Because of Operation Black Christmas and the pesticides dumped on crops and farmers in Cuba etc. Because of the incredible hypocrisy of the US as it used the very real flaws of socialism to cheer for breaches against human rights and liberties under fascists. The US doesn’t have much credibility in and regarding the region, and with good reason. (If anyone is interested in the guidelines of US policy towards South America post-WWII, read “U.S. Policy Toward Latin America” (NSC 5432)). People who called themselves marxists have visited much suffering and death on humanity, as has the people who excused their own flaws with their struggle against marxism. Sooner or later people will have to accept that South Americans deserve to choose their own politics and do what they will with their resources.
Myself, I have some misgivings with Obama’s approach, which he shares with governments all over the world. It lacks nuance and acceptance of the fact that a coup can be perfectly justified. I don’t like the idea of him making pro forma gestures without historical anchorage in order to play the role of some parody of a left-winger. This coup in Honduras seems wholly separate than the coup attempt against Chavez.
Kastanj, thanks for your comments:
“I don’t think you can imply that was the message Obama was trying to send.”
Suggesting that Obama is sending a coded message to the Left necessarily requires me to take certain liberties, I admit, but I do believe that’s how Obama would like for leftists to process his statement. Obama is fond of making statements that can be interepreted in different ways, depending on what the audience needs to hear, and that provide denialability. I appreciate the value of nuance, but will the Obama administration risk alienating Latin American leaders and/or its leftist base by being perceived as too nuanced toward Honduras? Besides, the administration will probably have to break one way or another on Honduras – that’s just the way these things go.
If someone could have mitigated the Chavez problem without anything being traced back to the U.S. government, I would not have shed a tear.
” . . . but the left-ward turn would not have been if it weren’t for the pendulum-swing of the US voters. A left-wing turn from a starting point well to the right of the center is not as sinister as a left-wing turn from a central starting point, no?”
I actually agree with you that the country has gradually moved to the left over many decades – with some interuptions – but that direction can reverse rather quickly, at least in the short-term if not the long-term. A goodly portion of the centrist “swing” voters, as well as the center-right and center-left voters, are apt to reverse course at times, depending on the historical circumstances. Obama/Clinton are both acutely aware of that possibility and will push things only so far as is feasible. I disagree with you, though, on the other point: only a leftist would think that American policy, prior to Obama’s election, was situated well on the right side on the spectrum. After all, government officials are at least occasionally beholden to those voters who have been moving left.
I am heartened that you do not automatically accept the New New Left take on Zelaya, the history of socialism and its relation to American foreign policy, and Latin American affairs in general. But I think you underestimate the past threats to free nations of the world during the Cold War. I do not suggest that the realities of the Cold War justify every previous example of U.S. real politik, but you seem to abandon nuance yourself when it comes to interpreting Cold War-era U.S. interventions in Latin America.
“I appreciate the value of nuance, but will the Obama administration risk alienating Latin American leaders and/or its leftist base by being perceived as too nuanced toward Honduras?”
If this leftist base is dumb enough to demand an erroneous perspective on the coup simply because of historical concerns then Obama should not be beholden to them. Zelaya acted unacceptably and Obama should not conflate the Honduras coup with far graver violations against democratically elected left-wingers in South America’s past. At the very least he should not create a false dichotomy between dictating the coup as unacceptable and going back to the very real “dark period” of past decades.
“If someone could have mitigated the Chavez problem without anything being traced back to the U.S. government, I would not have shed a tear.”
He is a problem today in the sense that he abuses power and uses blunt anti-US and anti-capitalism demagoguery instead of bothering with more precise and justified criticism of the two phenomena. He also shows a lack of humility, and disrespect for those who do not think he has earned all of his power. However, even today having him ousted would be unconscionable. Back when the coup was engineered he was chosen by his voters in a perfectly acceptable election. Having him ousted by the CIA would be just as morally acceptable as having Bush ousted by the equivalent of another foreign nation. The Venezuelans might have made the wrong choice but they have just as much right to see their leaders remain safe from ideologically motivated attacks from abroad as the US voters.
If the US can feel free to oust Chavez then there’s no telling which other head of state on the globe might be next.
“But I think you underestimate the past threats to free nations of the world during the Cold War. ”
Not at all, but I will never extend lenience towards those who de-prioritize democracy and human rights simply because the enemy/threat they face is great. The US denied people in South America basic human dignity and freedoms in its desire to either improve its standing in the conflict between freedom and communism or to let its corporations get free reign over markets and resources in the region. It basically adopted the strategies and propagandism of its nemesis. To destroy liberties and lives under the guise of defending liberty and life is pretty much the original hypocrisy in human history. There is no excuse, and most of all no “nuance”. The US wasn’t good, in the basic sense of the world. If I’m not good then I go to jail, so I don’t see why the US can complain about any hostility and suspicion in South America considering it never had to take actual responsibility for its actions.
“It [the U.S.] basically adopted the strategies and propagandism of its nemesis.”
Again, it’s not my intention to justify every example of real politik comitted by the U.S. government during the Cold War. However, I’m not sure you have a realistic conception of the options that were available at the time.
For example, I think some leftists contradict themselves: on the one hand, they celebrate the diversity of Latin American cultures, political systems, social structures, etc. But, then they turn around and imply that captialism and neo-imperialism are responsible for seemingly every alleged non-leftist dysfunction in Latin America history – social injustices, state repression, etc. Either Latin American societies are passive creatures of imperialistic masters, or they are vibrant societies capable of independence and self-reliance – can’t be both.
It’s almost like they think that the U.S. government said, “Okay, we need to get rid of this Marxist, USSR puppet government in country X. We can either support the liberal opposition, which exemplifies the best aspects of tolerance, freedom, and excellence, and that is very committed to the rule of law, representative government, etc. Or, we can support the opposition headed by the Generallismo, who will install himself at the head of a military government, and who will probably pay scant respect to tolerance, liberties, etc. I say we go with the Generallismo because he’ll let us drill for oil and he throws great cocktail parties.” In reality, there was usually only one opposition to deal with and thus the choice was between the lesser of two evils. Were bad actions committed in the process of making hard choices and acting on them? Absolutely. But let’s keep things in perspective, whether we’re talking about now or the past.