Click here to visit the mobile version of winnipegfreepress.com

Winnipeg Free Press > Opinion > The View from the West > Obama's response to Honduran election disappoints

The View from the West

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Obama's response to Honduran election disappoints

By: Ana C. Perez

4/12/2009 1:00 AM | Comments: 5

THE U.S. response to the recent presidential election in Honduras shows that not much has changed under President Barack Obama.

When military leaders overthrew the democratically elected government of President Manuel Zelaya back in June, the Obama administration responded ambivalently. Obama himself denounced it as coup, but the State Department refused to do so.

As a result, Washington continued to send development and military aid to the country weeks after the military installed the dictatorship.

Then the Obama administration appeared to have brokered a deal to reinstate Zelaya, but when the de facto government declined to follow through, Obama let it slide.

Zelaya and his supporters boycotted the presidential election on Nov. 29. When Porfirio Lobo, one of the wealthiest men in the country, was declared the winner, many Latin American countries refused to recognize the results. And with good reason: There were massive reports of human rights violations before and on election day, in a country under a state of emergency and with the ousted president under siege in the Brazilian Embassy in the Honduran capital.

But the Obama administration called the election "a step forward."

This looks and smells like traditional U.S. policy toward Latin America. It is a policy that traditionally supports power-hungry elites that control most of the wealth at the expense of the majority of the population.

For decades, Washington has carried out this policy by supporting repressive governments, taking the side of the wealthy in civil wars and rubber-stamping elections marred by rampant civil and human rights violations, repression of the press and military intimidation.

The administration's approach to the Honduran crisis is not the only disappointing policy direction Obama has taken when it comes to Latin America.

He has maintained the draconian embargo on Cuba, criticized progressive governments in Latin America and cemented ties with the repressive government in Colombia.

But his weak response to the Honduran coup is his worst move yet in the hemisphere, and the Honduran people are paying the price.

The day before the elections, more than 50 heavily armed soldiers and police officers ransacked the office of COMAL (Alternative Community Marketing Network). That's a network of women who are small farmers. Their crime? Educating local peasants about the current political crisis in Honduras.

On the day of the election, more than 500 unarmed protesters staged a peaceful sit-in in front of tanks and troops -- and were attacked with water cannons and gas.

Rule by gunpoint is not democracy -- nor is it a step forward.

Ana C. Perez is executive director of the San Francisco-based Central American Resources Center. She wrote this for Progressive Media Project, a source of liberal commentary on domestic and international issues.

--McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition December 4, 2009 A15

  • Rate this Rate This Star Icon
  • This article has not yet been rated.

    • We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high. If you thought it was well written, do the same. If it doesn’t meet your standards, mark it accordingly.

    You can also register and/or login to the site and join the conversation by leaving a comment.

    Rate it yourself by rolling over the stars and clicking when you reach your desired rating. We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high.

5 Commentscomment icon

Really Ana? Have you taken the time to actually talk to read any Honduran newspapers, or interview a statistically significant number of Honduran citizens on these issues? Your facts are fictitious, and your reporting irresponsible.
You should be embarrassed, but if you are not, I am embarrassed for you.

Is this a Real Newspaper in Canada? And if it is why would they print an article or opinion like this that is full of Lies?
I feel sorry for anyone who reads this stuff and believes it without learning the FACTS! I'll just correct a couple of these Willfull miss-statements or LIES in this article:

This is NOT TRUE: "When military leaders overthrew the democratically elected government of President Manuel Zelaya back in June, the Obama administration responded ambivalently." The TRUTH is that the HONDURAN Supreme Court issued an ORDER SUSPENDING Zelaya's 'encuesta' because the Honduran Constitution DOES NOT GIVE the Honduran President the Power to conduct a Polling of the citizenry. Zelaya then DISOBEYED THE HONDURAN Supreme Court ORDER not Once but Twice which FORCED their Supreme Court to issue an ARREST WARRANT for him! What would happen to your Prime Minister if he disobeyed your Court Orders?

This is NOT TRUE: "Then the Obama administration appeared to have brokered a deal to reinstate Zelaya, but when the de facto government declined to follow through," Anyone who has been following this story knows that it was Zelaya who DID NOT FOLLOW THROUGH since he realized after signing the ACCORD that there was NO TIMETABLE in it stating that the Honduran Congress was to RE-Instate him before the elections. After signing the Accord, both men were to appoint people to the Unity government-Micheletti DID and Zelaya DIDN'T.....Read the Accord!



This report disappoints.

The point of view expressed by yourself is unsubstantiated, and in all sincerity, is a pretty blind reflection of the talking points of the more repressive regimes in our Hemisphere. The Honduran government, not the military, ousted Zelaya. The Supreme Court ordered his removal and the army was required to respond. Zelaya's Liberal Party supported his ouster, along with all the major parties and the Congress. Zelaya was rightly or wrongly seen as a threat to the constitutional order of the country, but more importantly, he broke fundamental principles of the division of power set up by the constitution, and was duly booted out.

What you call 'progressive' governments is startling. Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua do not have 'progressive' governments, they have repressive and authoritarian Socialist governments hell bent on expanding their power and influence with petro-dolloars. The overthrow of Zelaya was a rebuke

As for the issue of the recognition of the new government, what other choice is there? Honduras held free and fair elections. Lobo was the legitimate winner of a legitimate electoral process that began well before Zelaya's ouster. Furthermore, to return Zelaya would deny the right of Honduran's to govern themselves with their own laws. The Honduran government is sovereign and answers only to itself not to the desires of external forces. It is admirable that regardless of all the pressure placed upon them they have chosen their own path.

This report disappoints.

The point of view expressed by yourself is unsubstantiated, and in all sincerity, is a pretty blind reflection of the talking points of the more repressive regimes in our Hemisphere. The Honduran government, not the military, ousted Zelaya. The Supreme Court ordered his removal and the army was required to respond. Zelaya's Liberal Party supported his ouster, along with all the major parties and the Congress. Zelaya was rightly or wrongly seen as a threat to the constitutional order of the country, but more importantly, he broke fundamental principles of the division of power set up by the constitution, and was duly booted out.

What you call 'progressive' governments is startling. Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua do not have 'progressive' governments, they have repressive and authoritarian Socialist governments hell bent on expanding their power and influence with petro-dolloars. The overthrow of Zelaya was a rebuke

As for the issue of the recognition of the new government, what other choice is there? Honduras held free and fair elections. Lobo was the legitimate winner of a legitimate electoral process that began well before Zelaya's ouster. Furthermore, to return Zelaya would deny the right of Honduran's to govern themselves with their own laws. The Honduran government is sovereign and answers only to itself not to the desires of external forces. It is admirable that regardless of all the pressure placed upon them they have chosen their own path.

I'm pretty sure you will not post this becusae my opoinion is different from yours. It will only show ythat ou do not have freedom of speech:
It's a shame that your report contains several misconceptions.
1. President elect Lobo is not even close to being one of the wealthiest persons in Honduras. Sr Zelaya, in turn is much richer.

2. The only repression that occurred on election day in San Pedro Sula's central park is because the "resistance movement" decided to stage a march on election day; this is prohibited by electoral law.

ExPresident Zelaya is in the Brazilian embassy because he chose to sneak in.

He has been miscalculating his support for a long time now:

1. He thought that the military and police would obey his illegal order to stage an illegal referendum ( deemed illegal by supreme court and attorney general)

2. He thought that when he tried to fly into Tegucigalpe he would be met by a human shield of hundreds of thousand who would carry him to he presidential palace.

3. He thought that when he sneaked into the Brazilian embassy the same would occur.

4. He signed his acceptance to the Arias accord that the Congress would decide upon his restitution or not; unappealable.
The vote was 111 to 14, against his restitution.

He did not have to be impeached; Honduran constitution clearly states that any government official proposing violation of term limits automatically ceases in his duty.

Contrary to much repeated concepts, voter turnout was about 60%/

The comment period for this story has ended.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

Special coverage

Our Communities

Poll

Should the province spend $3.1 million to keep Greyhound inter-city bus service in Manitoba?

View Results

View Related Story