Reply #92: Kerry/Obama/Clinton/DeMint.

[Nicolas]

It's true that Kerry took an honourable stance for a while. The waters muddied for me when he apparently then gave in to one of DeMint's demands, (use of state funds to finance a trip to visit the golpistas if I remember right).

There is a question as to what degree there was disagreement within the US government, at least as concerns how to deal with the coup aftermath.

It is clear that DeMint and other Reps such as Ros-Lehtinen applied public, vocal pressure (such as vetoing the appointment of Arturo Valenzuela or Tom Shannon -the latter to the US embassy in Brazil) in exchange for recognition of the golpistas and the 'elected' government they spawned.

(These people now have a firmer hold on congress, and have signalled their will to further worsen US policy towards Latin America -mentioned here by Eva Gollinger: http://www.chavezcode.com/2010/11/venezuela-firm-rejection-of-us.html).

Concerning the illegitimate Lobo regime, Clinton also ran a fervently pro-golpista campaign, as EFerrari has mentioned. Her tour of Latin America in an attempt to pressure governments was anything but secret (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqnqrJlx9HE).

As to participation in the coup itself, if there is anything to be taken at face value in US government statements, it appears the US was advising the golpistas before the coup, and according to US declarations in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/world/americas/30honduras.html) had discussed "legal maneuvers to remove the president, not a coup.". If so, then the golpistas were too cack-handed to make their coup look like anything but, and Obama's admin was 'forced' to distance itself in words from the event, while providing all the necessary support to ensure the golpistas' plans to keep President Zelaya away from government came to fruition.

(To name one thing the US could have done: Honduras' state funds are kept in US banks. In recognizing the Micheletti regime as illegitimate, an order could have been given to deny said regime access to Honduran state funds (the way a bank won't let you access someone else's account perhaps), preventing them from ruling.)

The contrast between Obama's original condemnatory statement and the way the US facilitated the golpistas' aims shows full continuity with the last 200 years or so of US policy on Latin America coupled with a preoccupation with an image of legality and/or democracy (also a recurring feature of US foreign policy).

One interesting thing would be to read the US actual view of the November 2009 "elections", considering the official US stance was to accept the fraudulent 62% participation figure invented by and temporarily sustained by the Honduran Electoral Tribunal (I recommend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O_0uJqoVtI) as a basis for pushing for international recognition of the coup's fait accompli.

An admission that the US was aware at the time that the elections were not only illegitimate (not rocket science) but also fraudulent would have been useful for anyone misinformed enough to retain a shred of belief in the credibility of such a position.