Entradas etiquetadas como Hilary Clinton


«La lucha contra el poder es la lucha contra el olvido». Milan Kundera *** En la Convención Demócrata del pasado mes de julio que nominó oficialmente a Hillary Clinton como la primera mujer candidata a la presidencia de los Estados Unidos, de uno de los partidos mayoritarios, se presentó también al Senador de Virginia Tim […]

Origen: http://elpulso.hn/tim-kaine-y-las-tres-honduras/

, , ,

Deja un comentario

Report Details How US-Backed Coup Unleashed Wave of Abuses in Honduras

Origen: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/07/report-details-how-us-backed-coup-unleashed-wave-abuses-honduras

, ,

Deja un comentario

Hillary Clinton’s Emails and the Honduras Coup

Three batches of Hillary Clinton’s emails have now been released and, though many emails are heavily redacted, we’re starting to get a clearer picture of how Clinton handled major international developments during her tenure at the State Department. One of the first big issues to hit Clinton’s desk was the June 2009 coup d’etat in Honduras that forced democratically-elected president Manuel Zelaya into exile. Officially the U.S. joined the rest of the hemisphere in opposing the coup, but Zelaya—who had grown close to radical social movements at home and signed cooperation agreements with Venezuela—wasn’t in the administration’s good books.

The released emails provide a fascinating behind-the-scenes view of how Clinton pursued a contradictory policy of appearing to back the restoration of democracy in Honduras while actually undermining efforts to get Zelaya back into power. The Intercept and other outlets have provided useful analyses of these emails, but there are a number of revealing passages, some in the most recent batch of emails, that haven’t yet received the attention they deserve.

A number of Clinton emails show how, starting shortly after the coup, HRC and her team shifted the deliberations on Honduras from the Organization of American States (OAS)—where Zelaya could benefit from the strong support of left-wing allies throughout the region—to the San José negotiation process in Costa Rica. There, representatives of the coup regime were placed on an equal footing with representatives of Zelaya’s constitutional government, and Costa Rican president Oscar Arias (a close U.S. ally) as mediator. Unsurprisingly, the negotiation process only succeeded in one thing: keeping Zelaya out of office for the rest of his constitutional mandate.

From the outset, U.S. interests and policy goals in Honduras were clearly identified in the emails that darted back and forth between Clinton and her advisors. On the day of the coup (June 28, 2009), Tom Shannon, the outgoing Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, provided an update for Clinton and her close staff that noted that he was “calling the new SouthCom Commander to ensure a coordinated U.S. approach [since] we have big military equities in Honduras through Joint Task Force Bravo at Soto Cano airbase.” A later email, with talking points for a phone call between Clinton and the Spanish foreign minister, indicated that Clinton’s team was already focused on making sure that Honduras’ upcoming national elections would take place on schedule (in November of 2009):

We hope Spain will work with us and the OAS to ensure a restoration of democratic order that will allow Honduras to carry through with its electoral timetable (presidential vote scheduled for November).

This talking point would prove to be mostly false. In later emails we see how the OAS is removed from the U.S. agenda, and the “restoration of democratic order” takes a back seat to the State Department’s goal of going forward with Honduras’ November elections no matter what.

A little over a week after the coup, Shannon sent an email to Clinton, via her aide Huma Abedin, with background notes for a July 6 phone call to then President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia. In it he discusses a burgeoning plan to bypass the OAS—where many governments were growing increasingly impatient with the U.S. appearing to want to bolster the coup regime—and organize direct talks between the coup regime and the exiled Zelaya government in Costa Rica, where they would be closely supervised by president Arias and U.S. State Department officials. The coup regime agreed to the Arias mediation, while vehemently rejecting OAS mediation. Zelaya understandably balked at the idea at first. In his message, Shannon outlines a plan for getting Uribe to lobby Zelaya to accept Arias’ offer of mediation of direct talks:

[Uribe] like many other leaders with an interest in Central America, is worried that Honduras is slipping towards confrontation and violence. He probably does not think [OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel] Insulza is up to the task. [Secretary of State Clinton] should be aware that Arias is prepared to offer his services. I spoke with the Costa Rican [foreign minister], who said the de facto government has reached out to Arias, and that the Costa Ricans will be looking for a way to make the offer to Zelaya. Uribe knows Zelaya and has some influence. Uribe might want to talk with Arias and offer to help move Zelaya in the right direction. (Although Uribe and Zelaya come from different ends of the political spectrum, they are both ranchers and love horses, and this has created some comradeship.)

In addition to this lobbying by proxy, Zelaya was surely under direct pressure from Clinton, who he met with on July 7 in Washington. Following the meeting, Clinton announced to the press that Zelaya had accepted to have Arias mediate but that the U.S. also continued “to support regional efforts through the OAS to bring about a peaceful resolution that is consistent with the terms of the Inter-American Democratic Charter.”

The emails provide strong evidence that the State Department had in fact no intention of pursuing a resolution to the crisis at the OAS. In the weeks that followed, a regional tug-of-war took place, with various OAS member governments trying to keep Honduras on the agenda at the OAS, and get members to agree to stronger measures against the coup regime, and the U.S. only showing interest in the Costa Rica mediation.

On July 23, the Bolivian government introduced a draft OAS resolution that, among other things, called for the “immediate, secure and unconditional return of [Zelaya] to his constitutional functions,” the non-recognition of “any government that would emerge from the constitutional rupture” in Honduras, and for OAS member states to implement vigorous economic and trade sanctions so long as democracy was not restored.

Though there appeared to be broad support at the OAS for such measures, the U.S. wasn’t interested in seeing them discussed and worked to try to ensure that the San Jose negotiations would take precedence above all else. A July 31 email from Craig Kelly—deputy to Shannon and U.S. point person for the negotiations—couldn’t have expressed U.S. policy more clearly:

The OAS meeting today turned into a non-event [it was canceled]—just as we hoped. We want Arias out front. We will keep at it.

Predictably, the coup regime only seemed to be interested in making the negotiations drag on indefinitely. An August 18 email from Kelly acknowledged that the “de factos” were engaging in “a deliberate delaying tactic designed to move the country toward elections without Zelaya.”  But Clinton was reluctant to take more decisive measures, despite some of her closest advisors urging her to do so. Anne-Marie Slaughter, then director of Policy Planning at the State Department, sent an email to Clinton on August 16 strongly urging her to “take bold action” and to “find that [the] coup was a ‘military coup’ under U.S. law,” a move that would have immediately triggered the suspension of all non-humanitarian U.S. assistance to Honduras.

In her email, Slaughter correctly diagnosed the region’s deep disappointment with the administration’s handling of the Honduras crisis:

I got lots of signals last week that we are losing ground in Latin America every day the Honduras crisis continues; high level people from both the business and the NGO community say that even our friends are beginning to think we are not really committed to the norm of constitutional democracy we have worked so hard to build over the last 20 year [sic]. The current stalemate favors the status quo; the de facto regime has every incentive to run out the clock as long as they think we will have to accept any post-election government. I urge you to think about taking bold action now to breathe new life into the process and signal that regardless what happens on the Hill, you and the president are serious.

“Regardless what happens on the Hill,” was a reference to the aggressive maneuvers of a few Republican Congressional members who strongly supported the coup regime. With the help of arcane Senate procedural rules, Florida Senator George Lemieux and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint had been blocking two key State Department appointments—Shannon as ambassador to Brazil and Arturo Valenzuela as Shannon’s replacement at the helm of Western Hemisphere Affairs. An August 31 email from State’s legislative liaison described a conversation with DeMint’s foreign policy staffer that clearly laid out what DeMint was after:

Chris [Socha, DeMint’s staffer] warned that DeMint is monitoring closely the Administration’s position with regards to sanctions. He warned that if a coup determination is made and new sanctions levied, this could very well have an adverse impact on how Arturo’s nomination moves forward.

Meanwhile, many Democrats were pushing hard and publically for a “military coup” determination. In early August 15 House Democrats signed a letter asking the State Department to “fully acknowledge that a military coup has taken place.” On September 3, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills sent Clinton an LA Times op-ed by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman entitled “Honduras: Make it official—it’s a coup.”  Berman emphasized that it was critical for Clinton to make the determination quickly:

Honduras will hold presidential and parliamentary elections Nov. 29, and every passing day gives Micheletti and his associates the chance to tighten their illegitimate hold on the reins of power.

In the end, as we know, Clinton spurned the advice of Slaughter and fellow Democrats and never used the words “military” and “coup” together to describe what had happened in Honduras. Though some U.S. assistance was temporarily put on hold, other critical assistance, like a $205 million Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Honduras grant, continued to flow (while in other countries that experienced coups in 2009, namely Madagascar and Mauritania, MCC funds were suspended within 1–3 days, and MCC compacts were terminated).

On October 30, President Arias presided over the signing of an agreement between Honduras’ constitutional government and the coup regime that stipulated the return of Zelaya for the final weeks of his mandate, but with limited powers and with a “unity government” that would include coup supporters. Under the agreement, the national elections would take place on November 28. In addition to being a far cry from a complete restoration of democracy, the agreement text included a dangerous loophole:  Honduras’ congress would be called on to endorse Zelaya’s restitution. In an earlier email discussing the San José negotiations, Craig Kelly underlined that “the understanding is that [Zelaya] would resume limited functions with a national unity cabinet until he hands over power to an elected successor.”

But, four days after the agreement was signed, the U.S. official position grew much more flexible. On November 3, Shannon announced to CNN en español that the U.S. would be prepared to recognize the elections even if Zelaya wasn’t first reinstated. The rest of the region reacted with shock and anger. Major regional groups like the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) had already declared back in August that they wouldn’t recognize elections held under the de facto government. They then restated this position on the eve of the Honduran elections.

But, with the U.S. being by far the most powerful external actor in Honduras, the coup regime had little incentive to allow the restoration of democracy.  The congress voted against Zelaya’s reinstatement and the elections took place under a so-called “unity government” that included no one from the constitutional government, despite the fact that nearly every country in the region besides the U.S. considered them to be illegitimate. Shannon, in an email written the day after the elections, encouraged Clinton to portray the electoral process as deeply democratic:

The turnout (probably a record) and the clear rejection of the Liberal Party shows our approach was the right one, and puts Brazil and others who would not recognize the election in an impossible position. As we think about what to say, I would strongly recommend that we not be shy. We should congratulate the Honduran people, we should connect today’s vote to the deep democratic vocation of the Honduran people, and we should call on the community of democratic nations (and especially those of the Americas) to recognize, respect, and respond to this accomplishment of the Honduran people.

As was later revealed, the election turnout numbers had actually been grossly inflated by Honduras’ electoral authority. And the elections themselves had been marred by violence and media censorship.

A few days later, Craig Kelly emailed Clinton—via Clinton’s deputy chief of staff—with a statement from Senator Lemieux announcing his “decision to allow the nomination of Tom Shannon to move forward.” In his statement, Lemieux said:

I have received sufficient commitments from Secretary Clinton that the Administration’s policy in Latin America, and specifically in Honduras and Cuba, will take a course that promotes democratic ideals and goals.

Were the holds on Shannon and Valenzuela’s nominations a major factor in Clinton’s decision to allow the Honduran coup regime to have its way? Did Clinton confidante Lanny Davis, who was paid by Honduran businesses to lobby in favor of the coup, also play an important role in influencing Clinton, as some have suggested?

Perhaps these factors did influence Clinton, but it’s pretty clear that another factor played a major role in her decision to allow the coup regime to prevail: long-standing U.S. policy to assert political control in the region. A careful reading of the Clinton emails and Wikileaked U.S. diplomatic cables from the beginning of her tenure, expose a Latin America policy that is often guided by efforts to isolate and remove left-wing governments in the region (see “Latin American and the Caribbean” and “Venezuela” in the new book The Wikileaks Files). The chapter on Latin America in Clinton’s memoir Hard Choices reaffirms this vision of U.S. Latin America policy, and one short passage from the chapter is particularly telling:

We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.

Needless to say, Honduras’ elections weren’t seen as legitimate by most of the rest of the Western Hemisphere, and the question of Zelaya was anything but moot. Despite heavy U.S. lobbying of “friendly” governments in Latin America—Valenzuela’s first big mission after taking over Shannon’s WHA job in December 2009—many countries would refuse to recognize the Honduran government until Zelaya was finally allowed to return to his country in May of 2011. Latin America also shifted further away from the U.S. In a context of growing frustration with U.S. policy, a new multilateral group was created—the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (with the initials CELAC in Spanish)—with the participation of every government in the region except the U.S., Canada (that had backed U.S. hemispheric policy all the way), and the de facto government of Honduras (only admitted after Zelaya’s return to Honduras in 2011).

The “hard choices” taken by Clinton and her team didn’t just damage U.S. relations with Latin America. They contributed to the enormous damage done to Honduras. In the years following the coup, economic growth has stalled, while poverty and income inequality have risen significantly. Violence has spiraled out of control. Meanwhile, the U.S. government has increased military assistance to Honduras, despite alarming reports of killings and human rights abuses by increasingly militarized Honduran security forces. Many Congressional Democrats have asked for a complete suspension of security assistance while human rights violations continue with impunity. But neither the Clinton nor Kerry State Departments have heeded their call.

Fuente: http://www.cepr.net/blogs/the-americas-blog/the-hillary-clinton-emails-and-honduras

, , ,

Deja un comentario

Congressional Democrats Voice Renewed Opposition to U.S. Security Assistance to Honduras – Will Kerry Finally Listen?

Members of Congress have once again called on the Obama administration to stop funding Honduras’ security forces. Alarmed at the rampant militarization of policing activities throughout the country and a rash of recent reports of human rights abuses involving Honduran security forces, 21 House Democrats sent a letter to Secretary of State Kerry on August 19 expressing their concern and making a series of specific requests, including “the suspension and re-evaluation of further training and support for Honduran police and military units until the Honduran government adequately addresses human rights abuses.”

For several years now U.S. legislators have been urging the administration to either suspend or overhaul its security assistance programs in Honduras. Back in March of 2012, 94 Democrats asked then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to suspend military and police assistance, noting “credible allegations of widespread, serious allegations of human rights abuses attributed to [Honduran] security forces” and the impunity surrounding targeted attacks against “human rights defenders, journalists, community leaders and opposition activists.” Two years later, 108 House Democrats sent a letter to Kerry expressing concern over the accelerated militarization of domestic law enforcement under current president Juan Orlando Hernández and calling for the State Department to review its security programs in Honduras. Similar letters have appeared in the U.S. Senate, with, for instance, 21 senators questioning Honduran government compliance with human rights conditions attached to U.S. security assistance.

The Congressional letter of August 19 – led by Representatives Hank Johnson (a leading opponent of militarized law enforcement in the U.S.) and Jan Schakowsky (who has led several previous letters regarding Honduras’ appalling human rights situation) – describes the steady militarization of policing that has taken place in Honduras since 2010: The massive deployment of army units to police Honduran streets, followed by the creation of a 3000-strong military police force under a military line of command and a new “super-ministry” of Security combining civilian and military security institutions under the direction of a recently retired general.

This militarization trend is troubling enough in a country that only emerged from military rule in the 1980s and was subjected to a military coup d’état in June of 2009, but there is also abundant documented evidence of widespread abuses perpetrated by military personnel and militarized police, some of which is described in the letter:

Over the last few months, military police agents have reportedly threatened and harassed journalists, community leaders, and members of the indigenous organization COPINH; forcibly evicted small farmers without a warrant; raided the home of a student leader involved in recent protests; and shot and killed an unarmed woman selling mangos, among other alleged crimes. As reported by Al-Jazeera, Defensores en Linea and Today Media Network, these forces have also allegedly conducted raids against the homes of opposition activists, and participated in the killing of land-rights activists and peaceful demonstrators.

The U.S. government’s response to these alarming developments has been to request more security assistance for Honduras, in particular through an increase in funding for the opaque Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI). There’s no indication that the administration is concerned about Honduras’ militarization or that it is seeking to leverage U.S. security assistance to try to reverse the trend. On the contrary, it has been providing direct support to militarization efforts, as the Johnson/Schakowsky letter notes:

We are concerned about Honduran media reports that in mid-May of this year, a team of 300 U.S. military and civilian personnel, including Marines and the FBI, conducted “rapid response” training with 500 [agents from] FUSINA [a militarized security task force combining personnel from police, military, intelligence and judicial agencies], using U.S. helicopters and planes, despite allegations regarding the agency’s repeated involvement in human-rights violations.

Similarly, U.S. green beret special forces have been training a militarized Honduran police unit called the TIGRES [which stands for Intelligence Troop and Special Security Response Groups], “instilling fundamental principles of close quarters battle and knowing how to execute them amidst the chaos that is combat”, according to a U.S. Army article published in March. Though touted as an exemplary, elite force, nearly two dozen TIGRES agents, trained and vetted by the U.S. government, were caught stealing over $1.3 million in drug money following a counter-narcotics operation late last year.

In addition to asking for security assistance to Honduras to be put on hold, the Johnson/Schakowsky letter makes a series of detailed requests which focus on getting the State Department to genuinely implement human rights safeguards required by law and to increase transparency around security aid programs in Honduras.

The letter asks for:

–        “The State Department’s strict evaluation of U.S. support and training for the Honduran police and military in accordance with human rights conditions placed in the FY2015 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act.” [A Senate Appropriations Committee report that accompanies the FY2015 SFOPS Act specifies that 50% of security assistance allocated to Honduras under International Narcotic Control and Law Enforcement and Foreign Military Funding headings be withheld pending State Department certification of Honduran government compliance with six human rights and rule of law conditions that include the investigation and prosecution of “army and police personnel who are credibly alleged to have violated human rights.” In the past, the State Department has generally certified the Honduran government as compliant with conditions set by the Committee, despite the strong misgivings expressed by 21 U.S. senators (i.e., 1/5th of the Senate). It’s worth noting that the Committee report attached to pending FY2016 appropriations legislation has conditioned 75% of all assistance under State and Foreign Operations appropriations to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, and includes, among its new set of conditions, State Department certification that the governments are taking “effective steps” to “create a professional, accountable civilian police force and end the role of the military in internal policing” and to “prosecute and punish in civilian courts members of security forces who violate human rights.”]

–        “Full implementation of the Leahy Law…” [which prohibits the departments of State and Defense from providing support to foreign military units that violate human rights with impunity.]

–        “A detailed description of how the Department of State is currently implementing these statutes [i.e., the conditioning of security assistance under Leahy Law and existing appropriations legislation], including what metrics the Department is using to assess whether the Honduran government has adequately addressed human rights abuses.” [The State Department hasn’t revealed the methodology it employs to enforce Leahy Law provisions or SFOPS appropriations human rights conditions on aid.]

–        “Urge the Honduran government to implement serious and concrete measures to address military and police abuses, and to halt the continued involvement of the military in domestic law enforcement.” [As mentioned above, these are among the aid conditionalities that the Honduran government would need to meet under the pending FY2016 appropriations legislation. There is little indication that the Honduran government is interested in implementing these measures. In early 2014, the ruling National Party eliminated a widely respected police reform commission and ignored its recommendations for cleaning up the country’s notoriously corrupt police. Under growing pressure from Congress and human rights groups, the government recently announced a series of reforms to the police – designed in tandem with U.S. advisors – that appear to amount to little more than an administrative reorganization. Given that Honduran officials still fail to acknowledge abuses by security forces, there is deep skepticism surrounding the announcement. Not to mention that there is no sign that the government is scaling back its militarization efforts].

–        “Finally, we request a full itemized report on the use of funds allocated for U.S. security assistance to Honduras in the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations law for FY2015 and for upcoming FY2106 appropriations legislation.” [Effective independent scrutiny of how U.S. security assistance is used is extremely difficult given the total lack of transparency surrounding the disbursement process. Tens of millions of dollars in security assistance have been funneled to Honduras through the State Department’s notoriously opaque Central America Regional Security Initiative.   As yet there is no public record of where and how the funds have been used, nor are there any clear metrics available on what sort of impact CARSI assistance has had].

Though largely ignored by the U.S. press (with the exception of one article in an inside-the-Beltway outlet and articles in the Spanish-language press), the Johnson/Schakowsky letter has received massive media attention in Honduras. The question is, will Secretary of State John Kerry pay attention to this new appeal from Congress?

Fuente: http://www.cepr.net/blogs/the-americas-blog/congressional-democrats-voice-renewed-opposition-to-u-s-security-assistance-to-honduras-will-kerry-finally-listen

, , , , , , ,

Deja un comentario

Newly Released Clinton Emails Reveal State Department’s Celebration Over Honduras’ Flawed Elections Following Military Coup

Newly released emails reaffirm that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked to help Honduras’ 2009 military coup succeed. Lee Fang writes for The Intercept:

The Hillary Clinton emails released last week include some telling exchanges about the June 2009 military coup that toppled democratically elected Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, a leftist who was seen as a threat by the Honduran establishment and U.S. business interests.

One of the most damning new emails, cited by Fang, is penned by veteran diplomat Thomas Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the time (and now Counselor of the Department). Shannon’s email makes clear something also detailed in the scores of State Department cables made available by WikiLeaks that we examined and analyzed for the forthcoming book, “The WikiLeaks Files”: Although the U.S. State Department claims to be a neutral observer of elections around the world, the U.S. government invariably has candidates and parties that it wants to win, often – if not routinely – channeling support to these candidates and parties, whether the support be political, material or otherwise.

Here’s then State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack in 2006, just prior to Nicaragua’s presidential elections, in a cable we cite in the book:

We do not … we are not trying to shade opinion or to try to take a position. This is a democratic election. If you look around the globe, we do not take positions. We do not try to influence these elections.

Here’s then Assistant Secretary Shannon in an email [PDF] to Clinton just after the results of Honduras’ November 2009 election were announced:

The turnout (probably a record) and the clear rejection of the Liberal Party shows our approach was the right one, and puts Brazil and others who would not recognize the election in an impossible position. As we think about what to say, I would strongly recommend that we not be shy. We should congratulate the Honduran people, we should connect today’s vote to the deep democratic vocation of the Honduran people, and we should call on the community of democratic nations (and especially those of the Americas) to recognize, respect, and respond to this accomplishment of the Honduran people.

Finally, this Administration, which worked so hard to manage and resolve this crisis, should be the one who defines the results and perceptions of today’s vote, and not our critics on the Hill (who had no clear pathway to elections) or our adversaries in the region (who never wanted this day to happen).

His statement is all the more blatant considering that by “Brazil and others who would not recognize the election” Shannon may well have meant most of Latin America, since an overwhelming majority of regional heads of state deemed the elections illegitimate.

Of course McCormack’s statement in 2006 was just as false as State official statements ahead of the November 29, 2009 election in Honduras that supported Zelaya’s restitution as president. In the book, we detail various ways in which McCormack’s statement was belied at the time by U.S. activities in Nicaragua supporting candidates running against Sandinista candidate Daniel Ortega:

Encourag[ing] support of democratic candidates by encouraging funds to flow in the right direction; promoting defections of salvageable individuals from the PLC camp; granting [Eduardo Montealegre of the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance] high-profile meetings in the United States; bringing internationally recognized speakers to discuss successful reform campaigns; and countering direct partisan support to the FSLN from external forces …

… among other methods, including the use of “rap sheets” to depict Ortega and other candidates the U.S. considered unacceptable in an unsavory light. Still, Shannon’s frank suggestions on framing the consolidation of the coup with the victory of the National Party and rejection of the Liberal Party (to which ousted president Manuel Zelaya then belonged) is revelatory in part because of Shannon’s reputation as one of the U.S.’ most effective diplomats in Latin America.

The emails’ release is especially timely, as Shannon is currently traveling to Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua. The Obama administration has been conspicuously silent about the corruption scandals rocking Honduras, with tens of thousands of protesters taking to the streets each week calling for President Juan Orlando Hernandez (also of the National Party) to step down. Shannon’s visit to Honduras will send a strong message of support to a president whose party may well have diverted funds from the national health system in order to support his campaign, who oversaw the “technical coup” that removed Supreme Court justices opposed to legislation that Hernandez championed, and who has responded to an ongoing human rights crisis – including routine murders of journalists and the targeting of minoritieswith more military police.

Fuente: http://www.cepr.net/blogs/the-americas-blog/newly-released-clinton-emails-reveal-state-department-s-celebration-over-honduras-flawed-elections-following-military-coup

, , ,

Deja un comentario

During Honduras Crisis, Clinton Suggested Back Channel With Lobbyist Lanny Davis

Featured photo - During Honduras Crisis, Clinton Suggested Back Channel With Lobbyist Lanny Davis

The Hillary Clinton emails released last week include some telling exchanges about the June 2009 military coup that toppled democratically elected Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, a leftist who was seen as a threat by the Honduran establishment and U.S. business interests.

At a time when the State Department strategized over how best to keep Zelaya out of power while not explicitly endorsing the coup, Clinton suggested using longtime Clinton confidant Lanny Davis as a back-channel to Roberto Micheletti, the interim president installed after the coup.

During that period, Davis was working as a consultant to a group of Honduran businessmen who had supported the coup.

In an email chain discussing a meeting between Davis and State Department officials, Clinton asked, “Can he help me talk w Micheletti?”

Davis rose to prominence as an adviser to the Clintons during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and has since served as a high-powered “crisis communications” adviser to a variety of people and organizations facing negative attention in the media, from scandal-plagued for-profit college companies to African dictators. His client list has elicited frequent accusations of hypocrisy.

Davis was not the only foreign agent with access to Clinton. As The Guardian and Politico have reported, other emails point to lobbyists with direct access to Clinton’s personal email.

The request to talk to Davis came on October 22, 2009, a crucial turning point for the “de facto” government that had ousted Zelaya.

A week later, Clinton and her top aides reportedly brokered a deal to bring Zelaya back to power through a national unity government. But the deal was no “breakthrough,” as some media outlets reported. Rather, there was a huge loophole, providing the pro-coup Honduran legislature with veto power over Zelaya’s return. The supposed plan fell apart, and the “de facto” government sponsored what many considered a fraudulent election while denying Zelaya’s return.

The election, on November 29, 2009, was beset by violence, with anti-coup organizers murdered before the election and the police violently suppressing an opposition rally in San Pedro Sula and shutting down left-leaning media outlets. Major international observers, including the United Nations and the Carter Center, as well as most major opposition candidates, boycotted the election. As journalist Jesse Freeston documented for the Real News Network, election officials provided wildly disparate estimates for election turnout. The election paved the way for coup-supporters from the National Party to solidify power.

Rather than seeing this as a failure, the Clinton emails released last week further confirm that the State Department had sought the permanent ouster of Zelaya all along.

State Department officials bucked the demands of most Latin American countries and rushed to recognize the election as “free, fair and transparent.”

In an email titled “Notes from the Peanut Gallery,” Thomas Shannon, the lead State Department negotiator for the Honduras talks, gushed over the election results in a message that was sent to Secretary Clinton.

“The turnout (probably a record) and the clear rejection of the Liberal Party shows our approach was the right one,” wrote Shannon, who recommended that the U.S. should “congratulate the Honduran people” and “connect today’s vote to the deep democratic vocation of the Honduran people.” Shannon, then the assistant secretary of state for Western hemisphere affairs, expressed gratitude that Zelaya was out of power, referring to the ousted president as a “failed” leader.

The Shannon emails “show what we knew all along: the U.S. wanted the elections to solidify the changes wrought by the coup,” said Dan Beeton, international communications director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

It was Shannon, notably, who signed the accord to bring Zelaya back to Honduras, and then shocked Latin American leaders by suggesting on CNN days later that the U.S. would recognize the results of the election even if Zelaya was not restored.

Despite claims to media outlets that they were working to restore the democratically elected Honduran government, the U.S. made other efforts to ensure the coup government’s grip on power. In October 2009, the United States blocked a resolution from the Organization of American States requiring Zelaya’s return as a precondition for elections. The U.S. also failed to officially determine that a “military coup” occured, and did not cut off aid to Honduras as is required by law following a coup.

An August 2009 email chain with Harold Koh, then the State Department legal adviser, discussed how to deal with the foreign aid issue, which in Honduras is largely administered through the Millenium Challenge Corporation. The email chain carried the subject line “Honduras Military Coup Decision,” includes an email from Koh noting that Honduras might fall under “specified legal prohibitions on assistance.” Koh wrote that Secretary Clinton, as chair of the MCC board, would have a considerable voice over the determination of Honduras as a coup country. Unfortunately, much of the memo Koh prepared is redacted and Clinton’s response is not revealed in the email chain.

In her 2014 book, Hard Choices, Clinton readily admits that in the days after the coup, she spoke with leaders in the Western hemisphere about “a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.” Mark Weisbrot, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, which has monitored the human rights situation in Honduras, refers to this line as a “bold confession.” Zelaya’s return was “anything but moot,” Weisbrot has argued, noting that Latin American leaders and the United Nations General Assembly demanded Zelaya’s return.

(This post is from our blog: Unofficial Sources.)

Photo: Ethan Miller/Getty 

Fuente: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/06/clinton-honduras-coup/

, , ,

Deja un comentario

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton sold out Honduras: Lanny Davis, corporate cash, and the real story about the death of a Latin American democracy


EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton sold out Honduras: Lanny Davis, corporate cash, and the real story about the death of a Latin American democracyHillary Clinton, Lanny Davis (Credit: AP/Jim Cole/Joseph Kaczmarek/Arnulfo Franco/Photo montage by Salon)

Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, considered by some to be the only real threat to Hillary Clinton, has joined Sen. Bernie Sanders to be the only two challengers to the former secretary of state. Republicans, whose seemingly limitless field seems poised for a “Hunger Games”-esque cage match, worry that a Clinton cakewalk through the primaries will leave her relatively unscathed in the general election against a beaten and beleaguered GOP nominee whose every foible will have been exposed.

And yet for some reason, GOP candidates lob tired Benghazi charges at the presumptive Democratic nominee during the short breaks in infighting. The issue only really excites the GOP base, and it’s highly unlikely that after almost three years of pounding the issue the tactic will work. Plus, House Republicans’ own two-year investigation into the attack absolved Clinton’s State Department of the worst GOP allegations, giving her something of her own “please proceed, Governor” arrow in the quiver if she is attacked from that angle.

It’s the SCUD missile of political attacks when there are laser-guided Tomahawks in the arsenal.

Republicans really hit on something when they started making noise about the Clintons’ relationship with foreign governments, CEOs and corporations, following the lead set by Peter Schweizer’s bestselling “Clinton Cash.” Cross-ideological ears perked up to rumored quid pro quos arranged while Hillary was atop State and Bill was out glad-handing global elites. Even liberals and progressives paid attention when the discussion turned to the Clintons and international elites making backroom, under-the-table deals at what Schweizer calls “the ‘wild west’ fringe of the global economy.”

Though it’s less sexy than Benghazi, the crisis following a coup in Honduras in 2009 has Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints all over it, and her alleged cooperation with oligarchic elites during the affair does much to expose Clinton’s newfound, campaign-season progressive rhetoric as hollow. Moreover, the Honduran coup is something of a radioactive issue with fallout that touches many on Team Clinton, including husband Bill, once put into a full context.

In the 5 a.m. darkness of June 28, 2009, more than two hundred armed, masked soldiers stormed the house of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya. Within minutes Zelaya, still in his pajamas, was thrown into a van and taken to a military base used by the U.S., where he was flown out of the country.

It was a military coup, said the UN General Assembly and the Organization of American States (OAS). The entire EU recalled its countries’ ambassadors, as did Latin American nations. The United States did not, making it virtually the only nation of note to maintain diplomatic relations with the coup government. Though the White House and the Clinton State Department denounced only the second such coup in the Western Hemisphere since the Cold War, Washington hedged in a way that other governments did not. It began to feel like lip service being paid, not real concern.

Washington was dragging its feet, but even within the Obama administration a distinction was seen very early seen between the White House and Secretary Clinton’s State Department. Obama called Zelaya’s removal an illegal “coup” the next day, while Secretary Clinton’s response was described as “holding off on formally branding it a coup.” President Obama carefully avoided calling it a military coup, despite that being the international consensus, because the “military” modifier would have abruptly suspended US military aid to Honduras, an integral site for the US Southern Command, but Obama called for the reinstatementof the elected president of Honduras removed from his country by the military.

Clinton was far more circumspect, suspiciously so. In an evasive press corps appearance, Secretary Clinton responded with tortured answers on the situation in Honduras and said that State was “withholding any formal legal determination.” She did offer that the situation had “evolved into a coup,” as if an elected president removed in his pajamas at gunpoint and exiled to another country was not the subject of a coup at the moment armed soldiers enter his home.

It’s hard to see those early evasions by Clinton, though, as a Benghazi-like confusion in the fog of the moment. Nearly a month later, Secretary Clinton would call President Zelaya’s defiance of the coup government and return to Honduras “reckless” and damaging to “the broader effort to restore democratic and constitutional order in the Honduras crisis.” Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know from a cable from the Honduran embassy sent just the day prior how certain the State Department was that Zelaya’s removal was a cut-and-dried military coup: “The Embassy perspective is that there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch,” wrote Ambassador Hugo Llorens, reporting from on the ground in Tegucigalpa.

And even months later, with the increasingly violent and basic rights-denying coup government still in place, State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley would incredulously maintain, “We aren’t taking sides against the de facto regime versus Zelaya.”

It was becoming widely believed that the Clinton State Department, along with the right-wing in Washington, was working behind the scenes to make sure that President Zelaya would not return to office. This U.S. cabal was coordinating with those behind the coup, it was being rumored, to bring new elections to Honduras, conducted by an illegal coup government, which would effectively terminate the term of Zelaya, who was illegally deposed in the final year of his constitutionally mandated single term. All this as Honduras was “descending deeper into a human rights and security abyss,” as the coup government was seen to be actually committing crimes worthy of removal from power. Professor Dana Frank, an expert in recent Honduran history at UC Santa Cruz, would charge in the New York Times that the resulting “abyss” in Honduras was “in good part the State Department’s making.”

Though the case has been made, it’s impossible to accuse Clinton of foreknowledge of the coup. Likewise, no smoking gun exists to definitively conclude that Clinton and her associates actively and willfully acted to maintain the coup government in league with the elite and corporate interests, but an abundance of evidence, combined with what we know about Clintonite ideals in foreign policy and global trade, makes a case deserving of a response from one of two or three people expected to become the most powerful person on earth.

Clinton herself even gets dangerously close to confessing a role in keeping Zelaya out of office in her book “Hard Choices,” in which she discussed the hard choice to ignore the most basic tenets of democracy and international norms:

“In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere…We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”

One of those strategic partners appears to have been Clinton family legal pitbull, Lanny Davis, deployed as an auxiliary weapon against the rightful, legal, democratically elected president of Honduras. Davis famously defended President Bill Clinton during his impeachment proceedings, and he’s been on Team Clinton for decades, most recently serving as a booster for Hillary’s campaign in its early days.

Davis, along with another close Clinton associate Bennett Ratcliff, launched a Washington lobbying offensive in support of the coup government and its oligarchic backers, penning a Wall Street Journal op-edtestifying before a Congressional committee, and undoubtedly knocking on office doors on Capitol Hill, where he enjoys bipartisan connections, which valuable asset he demonstrated during his committee hearing.

“If you want to understand who the real power behind the [Honduran] coup is, you need to find out who’s paying Lanny Davis,” said Robert White, former ambassador to El Salvador, just a month after the coup. Speaking to Roberto Lovato for the American Prospect, Davis revealed who that was: “My clients represent the CEAL, the [Honduras Chapter of] Business Council of Latin America.” In other words, the oligarchs who preside over a country with a 65 percent poverty rate. The emerging understanding, that the powerful oligarchs were behind the coup, began to solidify, and the Clinton clique’s allegiances were becoming pretty clear. If you can believe it, Clinton’s team sided with the wealthy elite.

NYU history professor Greg Grandin, author of a number of books about Central and South America, boiled the coup down to a simple economic calculation by the Honduran elite: “Zelaya was overthrown because the business community didn’t like that he increased the minimum wage. We’re talking about an elite that treats Honduras as if it was its own private plantation.”

Grandin was echoed by a Honduran Catholic bishop, Luis Santos Villeda of Santa Rosa de Copan, who told the Catholic News Service, “Some say Manuel Zelaya threatened democracy by proposing a constitutional assembly. But the poor of Honduras know that Zelaya raised the minimum salary. That’s what they understand.”

One doesn’t have to believe professors and bishops, though; one of the central members of the oligarchic elite, Adolfo Facussé, admitted to Al Jazeera’s Avi Lewis two months after the coup that Zelaya’s reforms for the poor had angered the ruling economic cabal: “Zelaya wanted to do some changes, and to do that, instead of convincing us that what he was trying to do was good, he tried to force us to accept his changes.”

Facussé was, of course, describing democracy. The so-called “Diez Familias” of Honduras, the country’s 1 percent, were unhappy that the Honduran people—the families’ subjects, essentially—backed a leader who worked on behalf of the vast majority of Hondurans. Also known as, how representative democracy works.

Facussé’s family is one of, if not the, most powerful families in Honduras, with the family patriarch Miguel Facussé being described in a Wikileaked State Department cable as “the wealthiest, most powerful businessman in the country.” The elder Facussé was even vice president of the infamous Association for the Progress of Honduras (APROH) in the early 1980s, a time during which the right-wing, pro-Washington, ultra-capitalist business group had strong ties with the infamous US-trained death squads of Battalion 3-16.

The School of the Americas-trained death squads no longer terrorize Honduras and Central America at the behest of business interests, but the legacy and power remains in a more refined, technocratic, you might say “Clintonite,” means of effecting a good climate for the oligarchs and corporations who remain in control in the region. The coup leader, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, is a two-time graduate of the Pentagon’s School of the Americas (SOA, now called WHINSEC), and he was able to enact a coup without the widespread ’80s-era bloodshed brought by the death squads.

Another SOA-trained Honduran military lawyer, Colonel Herberth Bayardo Inestroza, confessed to the Miami Herald just days after the coup that the Honduran military broke the law in kidnapping and exiling the president. But Inestroza still bore the ideological training he’d received under President Reagan’s pro-capitalist crusades in the region: “It would be difficult for us, with our training, to have a relationship with a leftist government. That’s impossible.”

The coup was cleaner, replacing Reagan-era death squads with high-priced PR and attorneys from Clinton’s world, but it still accomplished what the other, bloodier conflicts had aimed for in earlier decades: keeping Central America free of leftist leadership—or even progressive leadership, in Zelaya’s case—and keeping the region business-friendly. A post-coup government a couple years later would announce that Honduras is “open for business,” if not open for human rights and democracy. Foreign policy Clintonism may be more technocratic than the Republican model, but its goals are effectively the same. Clintonite mercenaries wear Brooks Brothers suits, not military fatigues.

Lanny Davis’ role as PR guerrilla is reminiscent of fellow Clinton team member James Carville, who worked in the 2002 campaign of multimillionaire Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada (“Goni”) in Bolivia, another pro-globalization, pro-Washington, hyper-capitalist candidate running against socialist Evo Morales.

Detailed in the documentary “Our Brand is Crisis,” Carville’s role in Bolivia, along with other Clintonite luminaries, was much the same as the coup defenders nearly a decade later in Honduras, in that the expertise of Clinton team members were put in service of business elites. In 2002, Bolivia was convulsing after hyper-capitalist, neoliberal reforms had sold off the country’s state-owned resources at the order of international financial institutions. Goni had been a central figure in the neoliberal reforms during his first term as president. Losing office after his first term, Goni was trying to grab the reins again four years later.

The effects of his privatization plan—called “capitalization” in Bolivia—had come to be felt in the intervening years, especially in Bolivia’s third-largest city, Cochabamba, where even water service was sold off to multinational corporations, principally San Francisco-based Bechtel. The country’s majority indigenous population, mostly poor (Goni, called “El Gringo,” is rich, fairer-skinned and grew up in the U.S.), began to revolt as water prices suddenly rose by 50 percent after the corporation took control. Due to the giveaway Goni had initiated, residents even had to obtain a permit to collect rainwater. “Even rainwater was privatized,” said one of the principal activists. “Water sources were converted into property that could be bought and sold by international corporations.” Campesinos began to charge that the dystopian Bechtel, one of the largest contractors in the world, was “leasing the rain.”

Moreover, Bolivia’s long-suffering and indigenous poor majority was calling for constitutional reform, the same sort of  measure Zelaya was floating in Honduras. The insurgent indigenous candidate Evo Morales, a lowly coca farmer, nearly defeated the Washington-backed and -assisted Goni on a platform that demanded constitutional reform. Throughout the past few decades as Latin American governments have begun to shed the vestiges of colonialism and Monroe Doctrine-based U.S. control, countries have democratically written new constitutions to replace former national doctrines in which racism, sexism, and radical inequity were constitutionally permitted in many cases.

Finally, Clinton’s State Department’s role in attempting to block a minimum wage increase in Haiti allows us to triangulate (so to speak) and speculate with some confidence on Clinton’s wishes vis-à-vis poor nations under the rule of oligarchs and corporate elites. State Department cables exposed by Wikileaks reveal that, according to The Nation, “[c]ontractors for Fruit of the Loom, Hanes and Levi’s worked in close concert with the US Embassy when they aggressively moved to block a minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest-paid in the hemisphere.”

(The Haitian assembly zones are free trade enclaves of the sort the Clintons advocate, where corporations are permitted to take advantage of the hemisphere’s cheapest labor without paying high tariffs—tiny versions of President Clinton’s NAFTA.)

Just weeks before the coup in Honduras, the State Department acted on behalf of a “tiny assembly zone elite” and intervened in the Haitian government’s plan to raise the wage. This was after President Clinton had already ravaged the island nation and enriched U.S. agricultural companies with a devastating trade deal that led to Haitians eating dirt cakes to survive.

This sort of engineering of regional politics in the service of the economic elite appears to be something of a hallmark of the Clinton camp. A case is being built that it’s the family business to cater to the global elite, despite the Clinton campaign’s salt-of-the-earth optics in Iowa and New Hampshire, which appears disingenuous in light of virtually everything else we know about Clinton. And with a growing list of Clinton associates being complicit, concerns about a President Clinton’s criteria for cabinet and agency appointments grow, as well.

Keeping wages down in places like Honduras and Haiti virtually ensure that those formerly decently paying, often unionized, jobs will never return to the U.S. Going to bat by proxy for Bechtel, a conglomerate with close ties to the GOP and the military industrial complex, doesn’t seem like the best use of the political talent of members of the Clintons’ braintrust. It becomes fair to ask, “Who do the Clintons work for?”

Fuente: http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/exclusive_hillary_clinton_sold_out_honduras_lanny_davis_corporate_cash_and_the_real_story_about_the_death_of_a_latin_america_democracy/

, , , ,

Deja un comentario

En enero se instala en Honduras fábrica para distribuir y vender “Eco-Fogones”

21 Nov 2014 / 04:40 PM /

Juan Orlando Hernández hizo el anuncio hoy en New York al partiticipar de la “Alianza Global de Cocinas Limpias” donde compartió con Hillary Clinton.

El mandatario Juan O. Hernández junto a la ex secretaria de Estados Unidos, Hillary Clinton hoy en New York.
El mandatario Juan O. Hernández junto a la ex secretaria de Estados Unidos, Hillary Clinton hoy en New York.

San Pedro Sula, Honduras.

En Honduras será instalada una fábrica para distribuir Eco-Fogones y para vender en Centroamérica y el Caribe; ese fue el anuncio que el ‘presidente Juan Orlando Hernández realizó este viernes en la ciudad de Nueva York, Estados Unidos, durante la “Alianza Global de Cocinas Limpias”.

“Mi Gobierno destinará veinte millones de dólares anuales para construir Eco-Fogones. Es un gran desafío, pero nuestra meta es que para el 2018, las 800 mil familias más pobres de Honduras tengan un Eco-Fogón como parte del programa social Vida Mejor”, indicó.

El mandatario junto con su esposa Ana de Hernández participaron de ese encuentro hoy y detalló el programa que han desarrollado.
“Desde hace siete, mi esposa y yo venimos impulsando la construcción de Eco-Fogones. Hasta la fecha hemos instalado un total de 55 mil estufas limpias, con un enorme impacto en las vidas de las familias más pobres de Honduras”, señaló.

Los Eco-Fogones –dijo el Mandatario hondureño-, contribuyen a mejorar la economía de los hogares al disminuir el consumo de leña; reduce los efectos del cambio climático por la reducción de emisiones de dióxido de carbono y evita el corte de 15 árboles de tamaño medio al año.
Y agregó: “Además, tiene un impacto positivo en la salud de las familias, ya que las enfermedades respiratorias se reducen hasta en un cincuenta por ciento gracias al Eco-Fogón”.

“Por esa razón, en enero instalaremos una fábrica de Eco Fogones para distribuir masivamente un prototipo que hemos creado. Será una jornada extraordinaria no solo para honduras, sino para otros países, ya que venderemos esto Eco-Fogones en Centroamérica y en el Caribe”, anunció.

La primera dama de Honduras, Ana de Hernández y el presidente Juan O. Hernández, expusieron el alcance del programa de Eco-Fogones.

Hernández explicó que el Eco-Fogón es parte del programa social “Vida Mejor”, que incluye la construcción de una vivienda digna, la instalación de un techo digno, piso de cemento, letrina saludable y un filtro de purificación de agua, así como los huertos familiares. En el marco de esa cumbre el mandatario hondureño se reunió en esa ciudad con la ex secretaria de Estados Unidos, Hillary Clinton, quien fue expositora de ese evento quien ofreció apoyo para la masificación de los Eco-fogones en Honduras.

“Estoy muy contenta que usted, Señor Presidente, y su esposa, la Primera Dama de Honduras, nos acompañen en este evento tan importante. Usted es propulsor de proyectos de cultura de salud que están teniendo un gran impacto en la calidad de vida de miles de personas”, dijo la esposa del ex presidente Bill Clinton.

Fuente: http://www.laprensa.hn/honduras/769960-410/en-enero-se-instala-en-honduras-f%C3%A1brica-para-distribuir-y-vender-eco-fogones?utm_source=laprensa.hn&utm_medium=Direct&utm_campaign=desktop_modulo_masnoticias

, , , ,

Deja un comentario

Hillary Clinton admite su papel en el golpe de Honduras



‘Decisiones Difíciles’:

Mark Weisbrot

Clasificado en: Politica, DerechosHumanos, Internacional,
Disponible en:   Español



Clinton intervino para que Zelaya no volviera a la presidencia de Honduras

En un reciente artículo de opinión en el Washington Post, la ex-secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton utilizó una reseña del último libro de Henry Kissinger, “Orden Mundial,” para dar a conocer su visión de “mantener el liderazgo de Estados Unidos en el mundo”. En medio de numerosas crisis a escala mundial, Clinton pidió volver a una política exterior con propósito, estrategia y pragmatismo. También destacó algunas de estas opciones de política en su autobiografía, “Decisiones Difíciles”, y la manera en que han contribuido a los retos que la administración de Obama enfrenta ahora.


El capítulo sobre América Latina, en particular la sección sobre Honduras, una de las principales fuentes de los niños y niñas migrantes que están actualmente cruzando la frontera, ha pasado en gran parte desapercibido. En las cartas a Clinton y a su sucesor John Kerry, más de 100 miembros del congreso han advertido en varias ocasiones sobre el deterioro de la situación de seguridad en Honduras, especialmente después del golpe militar en el 2009 que derrocó al presidente democráticamente elegido, Manuel Zelaya.


Dana Frank, experta en Honduras, escribió en Foreign Affairs que el gobierno posterior al golpe “recompensó a los partidarios del golpe con puestos altos en ministerios. Ellos abrieron la puerta, a su vez, para el agravamiento de la violencia y la anarquía… como las Naciones Unidas, Amnistía Internacional, la Organización de los Estados Americanos, y Human Rights Watch han documentado…” La tasa de homicidios, ya las más altas del mundo, aumentó en un 50 por ciento de 2008 a 2011; la represión política y los asesinatos de los candidatos políticos de la oposición, organizadores campesinos, y activistas LGBT aumentaron y continúan hasta el día de hoy. Los feminicidios se dispararon. La violencia e inseguridad fueron exacerbados por un colapso institucional general. La violencia relacionada con las drogas ha empeorado en medio de denuncias de corrupción en los servicios de la policía y el gobierno de Honduras. Mientras las pandillas son responsables de gran parte de la violencia, las fuerzas de seguridad en Honduras también han participado en una ola de asesinatos y otros crímenes contra los derechos humanos, con impunidad.


 Violencia y violación de derechos humanos: silencio de Estados Unidos

Sin embargo, a pesar de esto, tanto bajo el liderazgo de Clinton como el de Kerry, la respuesta del Departamento de Estado respecto a la violencia y a la constante impunidad de la policía y el ejército  ha sido en gran medida solo silencio, junto con la ayuda continua de los Estados Unidos a las fuerzas de seguridad de Honduras. En “Decisiones Difíciles”, Clinton describe su papel en el periodo posterior al golpe de estado que ha llevado a Honduras a esta situación. Su cuenta de primera mano es significativa no solo porque contiene una confesión verdadera de un hecho importante, pero también porque contiene un falso testimonio crucial. No vamos a acusar a nadie de mentir; al igual que los houyhnhnms en “Los viajes de Gulliver” de Jonathan Swift, quienes no tenían una palabra para mentir, solo digamos que ella ha dicho “lo que no es”.


En primer lugar, la confesión: Clinton admite que ella utilizó el poder de su oficina para asegurarse de que Zelaya no volviera a la presidencia. “En los días siguientes [después del golpe] hablé con mis homólogos de todo el hemisferio, incluida la Secretaria [Patricia Espinosa] en México,” Clinton escribió. “Nosotros establecimos las estrategias de un plan para restaurar el orden en Honduras y garantizar que elecciones libres y limpias se celebren rápidamente y de manera legítima, lo que haría que la cuestión de Zelaya sea irrelevante.”


 Esto tal vez no sea una sorpresa para aquellos que han seguido de cerca el drama después del golpe (ver mi comentario de 2009 sobre el papel que jugó Washington ayudando a que el golpe tenga éxito aquí, aquí y aquí). Pero la historia oficial, la cual fue debidamente aceptada por la mayoría de los medios de comunicación, era que la administración de Obama en realidad estaba en contra del golpe y quería que Zelaya retornara a la presidencia.


La cuestión de Zelaya era cualquier cosa menos irrelevante. Líderes de América Latina, la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas y otros organismos internacionales reclamaron vehementemente su regreso inmediato a la oficina. La posición desafiante y antidemocrática de Clinton provocó un descenso en las relaciones de Estados Unidos con varios países de América Latina, algo que ha continuado hasta la fecha. Se ha erosionado la cálida bienvenida y el beneficio de la duda que incluso los gobiernos izquierdistas de la región le habían ofrecido a la recién instalada administración de Obama unos meses antes.


Ahora sobre la “cosa que no es”: Clinton informa de que Zelaya fue arrestado en medio de “temores de que se estaba preparando para burlar la constitución y prorrogar su mandato.” Esto simplemente no es verdad. Como Clinton debe saber, cuando Zelaya fue secuestrado por los militares y fue transportado fuera del país en pijamas el 28 de junio de 2009, él estaba de hecho tratando de poner una votación consultiva en la boleta electoral, no una votación vinculante. La encuesta iba a preguntar a los electores si querían tener un verdadero referéndum sobre una reforma de la constitución durante las elecciones previstas para noviembre. Es importante tener en cuenta que Zelaya no era elegible para candidatear en esa elección. Incluso si él hubiera conseguido todo lo que quería, era cronológicamente imposible que Zelaya prorrogara su mandato.  Pero esto no impidió a la extrema derecha en Honduras y los Estados Unidos de utilizar acusaciones falsas de manipulación de la constitución para justificar el golpe.


El presidente derrocado Manuel Zelaya

Además de su audaz confesión y aceptación de la narrativa de la extrema derecha en el episodio Hondureño, el capítulo sobre América Latina está considerablemente a la derecha de su propia trayectoria en la región como secretaria de Estado. Esto parece ser un cálculo político. Clinton corre poco riesgo de perder votos al admitir su papel en hacer que la mayoría de los gobiernos del hemisferio estén indignados frente a los Estados Unidos. Por otro lado, hay grupos de interés influyentes y bastante dinero de campaña para recaudar de grupos de presión derechista con enfoque en latinoamericana, como los cubano-americanos de Florida y sus recaudadores de fondos.


Al igual que los 54 años del fallido embargo contra Cuba, la posición de Clinton sobre América Latina en su candidatura a la presidencia es otro ejemplo de cómo la derecha ejerce una influencia desproporcionada en la política exterior de los Estados Unidos. Como también hemos visto en el caso de la lucha continua de la República Argentina contra los fondos buitres, estas influencias pueden ser sustanciales en ciertos momentos en los cuales incluso la mayoría de la clase política preferiría dejar que prevalezca la razón. Ni qué decir del electorado, si es que tuviera una voz en estos asuntos.


Mark Weisbrotes codirector del Center for Economic and Policy Research, en Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net ).También es presidente de la organización de política exterior, Just Foreign Policy (www.justforeignpolicy.org ).”


Fuente: http://alainet.org/active/78755&lang=es

, , ,

Deja un comentario

EE.UU. reconoce participación en golpe de Honduras

Fecha de publicación 12 noviembre 2014
En su libro Decisiones Difíciles, la exsecretaria de Estado del Gobierno de Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton confiesa que influyó en el hemisferio para que Manuel Zelaya no regresara a la presidencia luego del golpe militar de 2009.

La exsecretaria del Departamento de Estado del gobierno de los Estados Unidos, Hillary Clinton, reveló que influyó en Honduras para impedir que Manuel Zelaya regresara a la presidencia, luego del derrocamiento en junio de 2009.

Hillary admitió que “en los días siguientes del golpe hablé con mis homólogos de todo el hemisferio, incluida la secretaria Patricia Espinosa en México con el objetivo de organizar “rápidamente” unas elecciones que tuvieran como resultado hacer irrelevante la cuestión de Zelaya”, de acuerdo con las confesiones plasmadas en su libro Decisiones Difíciles publicado este año.

Esta revelación de Clinton fue objeto de análisis para el politólogo, Mark Weisbrot, quien publicó un artículo en el que menciona que la exsecretaria del gobierno de EE.UU. reconoció que utilizó el poder para asegurarse que Zelaya no volviera a la Presidencia”.

“La cuestión de Zelaya era cualquier cosa menos irrelevante, pues líderes de América Latina, la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas y otros organismos internacionales reclamaron vehementemente su regreso inmediato a la oficina. Se ha erosionado la cálida bienvenida y el beneficio de la duda que incluso los gobiernos de izquierda de la región le habían ofrecido a la recién instalada Administración de Obama unos meses antes”, destacó el también presidente de la organización diplomática Just Foreing Policy.

“La tasa de homicidios, ya la más alta del mundo, aumentó en un 50 por ciento de 2008 a 2011; la represión política y los asesinatos de los candidatos políticos de la oposición, organizadores campesinos, y activistas de la comunidad homosexual aumentaron y continúan (…) las fuerzas de seguridad en Honduras también han participado en una ola de asesinatos y otros crímenes contra los derechos humanos con impunidad”, sentencia Mark en su artículo.


El 28 de junio de 2009, un comando de militares desalojó a Zelaya de su vivienda con bombas lacrimógenas y lo secuestró y trasladó en un avión a la vecina Costa Rica.
Aunque muchos expertos de América Latina dijeron que el autor intelectual del golpe era Estados Unidos, el Gobierno entrante utilizó acusaciones falsas de manipulación de la Constitución para justificar  la salida de Zelaya, quien fue expulsado del país. 

, , ,

Deja un comentario

Hard choices: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath

Clinton’s embrace of far-right narrative on Latin America is part of electoral strategy

September 29, 2014 6:00AM ET

In a recent op-ed in The Washington Post, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a review of Henry Kissinger’s latest book, “World Order,” to lay out her vision for “sustaining America’s leadership in the world.” In the midst of numerous global crises, she called for return to a foreign policy with purpose, strategy and pragmatism. She also highlighted some of these policy choices in her memoir “Hard Choices” and how they contributed to the challenges that Barack Obama’s administration now faces.

The chapter on Latin America, particularly the section on Honduras, a major source of the child migrants currently pouring into the United States, has gone largely unnoticed. In letters to Clinton and her successor, John Kerry, more than 100 members of Congress have repeatedly warned about the deteriorating security situation in Honduras, especially since the 2009 military coup that ousted the country’s democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. As Honduran scholar Dana Frank points out in Foreign Affairs, the U.S.-backed post-coup government “rewarded coup loyalists with top ministries,” opening the door for further “violence and anarchy.”

The homicide rate in Honduras, already the highest in the world, increased by 50 percent from 2008 to 2011; political repression, the murder of opposition political candidates, peasant organizers and LGBT activists increased and continue to this day. Femicides skyrocketed. The violence and insecurity were exacerbated by a generalized institutional collapse. Drug-related violence has worsened amid allegations of rampant corruption in Honduras’ police and government. While the gangs are responsible for much of the violence, Honduran security forces have engaged in a wave of killings and other human rights crimes with impunity.

Despite this, however, both under Clinton and Kerry, the State Department’s response to the violence and military and police impunity has largely been silence, along with continued U.S. aid to Honduran security forces. In “Hard Choices,” Clinton describes her role in the aftermath of the coup that brought about this dire situation. Her firsthand account is significant both for the confession of an important truth and for a crucial false testimony.

First, the confession: Clinton admits that she used the power of her office to make sure that Zelaya would not return to office. “In the subsequent days [after the coup] I spoke with my counterparts around the hemisphere, including Secretary [Patricia] Espinosa in Mexico,” Clinton writes. “We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”

This may not come as a surprise to those who followed the post-coup drama closely. (See my commentary from 2009 on Washington’s role in helping the coup succeed here, here and here.) But the official storyline, which was dutifully accepted by most in the media, was that the Obama administration actually opposed the coup and wanted Zelaya to return to office.

Clinton’s position on Latin America in her bid for the presidency is another example of how the far right exerts disproportionate influence on US foreign policy in the hemisphere.

The question of Zelaya was anything but moot. Latin American leaders, the United Nations General Assembly and other international bodies vehemently demanded his immediate return to office. Clinton’s defiant and anti-democratic stance spurred a downward slide in U.S. relations with several Latin American countries, which has continued. It eroded the warm welcome and benefit of the doubt that even the leftist governments in region offered to the newly installed Obama administration a few months earlier.

Clinton’s false testimony is even more revealing. She reports that Zelaya was arrested amid “fears that he was preparing to circumvent the constitution and extend his term in office.” This is simply not true. As Clinton must know, when Zelaya was kidnapped by the military and flown out of the country in his pajamas on June 28, 2009, he was trying to put a consultative, nonbinding poll on the ballot to ask voters whether they wanted to have a real referendum on reforming the constitution during the scheduled election in November. It is important to note that Zelaya was not eligible to run in that election. Even if he had gotten everything he wanted, it was impossible for Zelaya to extend his term in office. But this did not stop the extreme right in Honduras and the United States from using false charges of tampering with the constitution to justify the coup.

In addition to her bold confession and Clinton’s embrace of the far-right narrative in the Honduran episode, the Latin America chapter is considerably to the right of even her own record on the region as secretary of state. This appears to be a political calculation. There is little risk of losing votes for admitting her role in making most of the hemisphere’s governments disgusted with the United States. On the other side of the equation, there are influential interest groups and significant campaign money to be raised from the right-wing Latin American lobby, including Floridian Cuban-Americans and their political fundraisers.

Like the 54-year-old failed embargo against Cuba, Clinton’s position on Latin America in her bid for the presidency is another example of how the far right exerts disproportionate influence on U.S. foreign policy in the hemisphere.

Mark Weisbrot is a co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is also the president of Just Foreign Policy.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera America’s editorial policy.

Fuente: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html?utm_content=opinion&utm_campaign=ajam&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow

, , ,

Deja un comentario

Hillary Clinton’s Real Scandal Is Honduras, Not Benghazi

July 23, 2014 Column, 636 words

Her Central American foreign policy blunder ought to darken her presidential prospects.

Emily Schwartz GrecoIs it too soon to predict who will be the next president of the United States?

Without officially declaring her intention to run again, Hillary Clinton has cornered Democratic frontrunner status. Given the weak and crowded Republican field, that makes her the presumptive next occupant of a prestigious office lacking — as comedian Jon Stewart observes — any corners.


Clinton’s apparent unbeatability this time around helps explain the right-wing hysteria over the Benghazi tragedy. The conspiracy theories about the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya amount to a desperate effort to discredit the Democratic Party’s strong centrist candidate. It’s no surprise that this ploy isn’t making a dent on her popularity.

What beats me is why more Democrats aren’t deeply troubled by the legacy of Clinton’s foreign policy blunder in Honduras.

Maybe you’ve forgotten what happened in that small country in the first year of the Obama administration — more on that in a moment. But surely you’ve noticed the ugly wave of xenophobia greeting a growing number of Central American child refugees arriving on our southern border.

Some of President Barack Obama’s supporters are trying to blame this immigration crisis on the Bush administration because of an anti-trafficking law George W. signed in 2008 specifically written to protect Central American children that preceded an uptick in their arrivals. But which country is the top source of kids crossing the border? Honduras, home to the world’s highest murder rate, Latin America’s worst economic inequality, and a repressive U.S.-backed government.

When Honduran military forces allied with rightist lawmakers ousted democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in 2009, then-Secretary of State Clinton sided with the armed forces and fought global pressure to reinstate him.

Washington wields great influence over Honduras, thanks to the numerous military bases built with U.S. funds where training and joint military and anti-drug operations take place. Since the coup, nearly $350 million in U.S. assistance, including more than $50 million in military aid has poured into the country.

That’s a lot of investment in a nation where the police, the military, and private security forces are killing people with alarming frequency and impunity, according to Human Rights Watch.

In short, desperate Honduran children are seeking refuge from a human rights nightmare that would cast a dark cloud over Clinton’s presidential bid right now if the media were paying any attention.

That wouldn’t give Republicans a big advantage, of course. Until they stop alienating a majority of female voters and communities of color, I find it hard to see the party of Mitt Romney and John McCain winning the White House.

Given the Democratic Party’s demographic edge, progressives have nothing to lose by seizing on the GOP field’s weakness and pressing for a viable alternative to another Clinton administration. Senator Elizabeth Warren could prove a contender. Unfortunately, the consumer-rights firebrand and Massachusetts Democrat lacks any foreign policy experience.

And foreign policy is no afterthought these days. Israel — the recipient of $3.1 billion a year in U.S. military aid — is waging a ground war in Gaza, and the stakes in the Russia-Ukraine conflict just grew following the downing of that Malaysia Airlines jet. Plus, Iraq is growing more violent and unstable once more. On all these issues, Clinton is more hawkish than most of the Democratic base.

But other Democrats with a wide range of liberal credentials and foreign policy expertise are signaling some interest in running, especially if Clinton ultimately sits out the race.

Even if Clinton does win in 2016, a serious progressive primary challenge could help shape her presidency. As more and more Honduran kids cross our border in search of a safe haven, voters should take a good look at her track record at the State Department and reconsider the inevitability of another Clinton administration.

Emily Schwartz Greco is the managing editor of OtherWords, a non-profit national editorial service run by the Institute for Policy Studies @ESGreco. OtherWords.org

Fuente: http://otherwords.org/honduras-is-the-real-benghazi/

, , ,

Deja un comentario

Clinton quiere lavarse las manos

11 de Junio de 2014

09:54PM  –  Redacción   

El expresidente interino recordó que Clinton mandó a varios funcionarios para tratar de presionarlo para que él entregara el poder a Zelaya.

Roberto Micheletti rechaza sentarse a negociar con “Mel” Zelaya.
Roberto Micheletti rechaza sentarse a negociar con “Mel” Zelaya.

Tegucigalpa, Honduras

El expresidente interino, Roberto Micheletti, cuestionó el libro de la ex primera dama y exsecretaria de Estado norteamericana, Hillary Clinton.

Clinton incluyó la crisis de Honduras en su reciente libro en el que se refiere a varios aspectos de las negociaciones hechas por su persona para restablecer el gobierno del derrocado Manuel Zelaya.

En entrevista al programa “Críticas con Café”, de HRN, Micheletti dijo que “de nada sirve ahora a los hondureños que ella haga reflexiones de lo que pasó aquí en Honduras durante la crisis política, si ellos nos dieron la espalda, nos persiguieron, nos trataron de sacar del poder para entregárselo de nuevo a Zelaya para que continuara gobernando, ellos hicieron presiones enormes”, argumentó Micheletti.

El expresidente interino recordó que Clinton mandó a varios funcionarios para tratar de presionarlo para que él entregara el poder a Zelaya.

Entre esos personajes se refirió despectivamente al expresidente de Costa Rica, Óscar Arias, a quien calificó de soberbio” y “lame platos” de Estados Unidos.

Indicó que la exsecretaria de Estado, Hillary Clinton, ahora se está “lavando las manos” con su libro.

Al ser consultado sobre una posible reunión entre miembros del Partido Liberal con el expresidente Manuel Zelaya para tratar sobre el retorno del derrocado ex mandatario al liberalismo, Micheletti advirtió “que no se atreva ninguno del Partido Liberal a tratar de acercarme a este señor”.

Añadió que “Zelaya es la persona que más daño le ha hecho a Honduras y al liberalismo, así que por ninguna circunstancia o situación quiero sentarme con ese señor a negociar cualquier cosa que se refiera al Partido Liberal o sobre Honduras”.

Fuente: http://www.elheraldo.hn/pais/718556-331/clinton-quiere-lavarse-las-manos

, , ,

Deja un comentario

Exjefa de diplomacia estadounidense critica a Zelaya en su Libro “Decisiones Difíciles”

Redacción Central / EL LIBERTADOR

Tegucigalpa. La exsecretaria de Estado de EEUU, Hilary Clinton, cuestiona en su libro “Decisiones Difíciles” al expresidente de Honduras, Manuel Zelaya y lo califica de “demagogo”.

En el texto que ha sido publicado en la nación del norte, la exjefa de la diplomacia estadounidense, califica a Zelaya como “reminiscencia a la caricatura del hombre fuerte centroamericano, con su sombrero de cowboy blanco, su bigote negro azabache y su cariño por Hugo Chávez y Fidel Castro”.

Asimismo, dice que se opuso de forma activa al reingreso de Cuba a la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), en la asamblea realizada en San Pedro Sula en abril de 2009 y que advirtió a Zelaya sobre las consecuencias de la acción que emprendió para que la nación caribeña formara parte del organismo, a pesar de la expulsión dictada por EEUU en 1962.

A pesar de esa postura que asumió –dice–, le pidió al presidente Barack Obama que quitara el bloqueo impuesto a La Habana luego de la llegada al poder del expresidente Fidel Castro en 1959.

En cuanto a su relación con Manuel Zelaya, afirma que temió que el golpe de Estado del 28 de junio de 2009 se propagara por la región, sin que eso significara que simpatizara con el derrocado gobernante.

Ante los señalamientos hechos por la exsecretaria de Estado, Manuel Zelaya criticó la postura de esta y anunció que escribirá un ensayo sobre los errores y fracasos de la diplomacia estadounidense en la región.

Por su parte, la excandidata presidencial de Libre, Xiomara Castro, también se sumó a los señalamientos contra la otrora alta funcionaria y valoró sus memorias con respecto a Honduras y el golpe de Estado de amorales.

“Doble Moral: Antes Hilary felicitaba a Pte. Zelaya por su posición de estadista ante la crisis, y su respaldo para restitución (SIC)”, escribió Castro en su cuenta de Twitter.

También comentó a través de la red social, que queda “Al Descubierto la verdadera participación de USA en el golpe de Estado en Honduras”.

Cabe recordar que Zelaya se abocó a Hillary Clinton para que apoyara el proceso de restitución, sin embargo, la exfuncionaria le pidió que negociara con la dictadura de Roberto Micheletti para llegar a consensos y que el mediador sería el expresidente de Costa Rica, Óscar Arias.

Tras el proceso denominado “Acuerdo Tegucigalpa-San José”, que no logró la vuelta de Zelaya a la presidencia, Clinton y su delegado para asuntos latinoamericanos, Thomas Shannon, dijeron que reconocerían al ganador de las elecciones, pasando por alto el punto principal que era que Zelaya entregara el mando el 27 de enero de 2010.

Fuente: http://www.ellibertador.hn/?q=article/exjefa-de-diplomacia-estadounidense-critica-zelaya-en-su-libro-%E2%80%9Cdecisiones-dif%C3%ADciles%E2%80%9D

, , ,

Deja un comentario

Mel Zelaya: “Hillary Clinton manipula los hechos a su favor”

10 de Junio de 2014

11:24AM   – Redacción:  redaccion@laprensa.hn

El exmandatario Manuel Zelaya Rosales dijo que Hillary Clinton “solo simuló estar en contra del golpe de estado”.

El expresidente de Honduras y el actual diputado al Congreso Nacional, Manuel Zelaya.
El expresidente de Honduras y el actual diputado al Congreso Nacional, Manuel Zelaya.

Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

El expresidente hondureño Manuel Zelaya Rosales reacciona ante las críticas que le hace la ex secretaria de Estado de EUA, Hillary Clinton, quien hace referencia del exgobernante como un “demogogo”.

“La Hilary Clinton manipula los hechos como de costumbre a su favor”, escribió Zelaya en su Twitter. El expresidente siguió comentando.

“La Hillary Clinton confiesa; solo simuló estar en contra del golpe de estado en Honduras..”. “Miente cuando dice que Cuba quería regresar a OEA solo oculta su fracaso en esa asamblea”.

Zelaya, quien acompañó los tuit de una foto donde aparece él, Evo Morales, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chávez y Rafael Correa, escribió: “Estoy obligado a escribir ensayo de los errores y fracasos de EEUU en América Latina en tiempo de la Hillary Clinton; Hoy empiezo…”.

Hillary Clinton dedicó un capítulo completo de sus memorias a sus experiencias con América Latina, aunque el grueso de la narrativa se concentró en la cumbre de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) en 2009 en Honduras, que abrió las puertas para el retorno de Cuba a la entidad.

En su libro, Clinton habla de “demagogos” como el fallecido presidente venezolano o el derrocado hondureño Manuel Zelaya, una “reminiscencia a la caricatura del hombre fuerte centroamericano, con su sombrero de cowboy blanco, su bigote negro azabache y su cariño por Hugo Chávez y Fidel Castro”.


Fuente: http://www.laprensa.hn/honduras/tegucigalpa/717876-96/mel-zelaya-hillary-clinton-manipula-los-hechos-a-su-favor

, , ,

Deja un comentario

Clinton confiesa que no quería condenar la salida de Zelaya

Martes, 10 Junio 2014 23:21

“Decisiones Difíciles


 La ex secretaria de Estado, Hillary Rodhman Clinton, durante su encuentro con el presidente depuesto de Honduras, José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, en el Departamento de Estado, el 3 de septiembre de 2009.

La ex secretaria de Estado, Hillary Rodhman Clinton, durante su encuentro con el presidente depuesto de Honduras, José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, en el Departamento de Estado, el 3 de septiembre de 2009.
Tegucigalpa, Honduras

La ex secretaria de Estado norteamericana, Hillary Clinton –que estaba en el cargo cuando ocurrió la crisis política de Honduras en 2009– publicó ayer un libro sobre sus años conduciendo la diplomacia de Estados Unidos, en el que se refiere a su participación en aquellos acontecimientos y retrata al depuesto presidente José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, como  “una caricatura del pasado, de la era de los caudillos centroamericanos”.

En el capítulo “Demócratas y Demagogos,  Clinton se dedica a analizar los liderazgos políticos de Latinoamérica y ahí hace referencia a Honduras y más concretamente a Zelaya Rosales, con quien tuvo que conversar en varias ocasiones en Washington, después del 28 de junio de 2009, cuando fue sacado del poder mediante golpe de Estado.

La esposa del ex presidente demócrata de EEUU, Bill Clinton, cuenta que en junio 2009, cuando estalló la crisis política hondureña, ordenó a la Embajada americana en Honduras hacer todo lo posible para proteger a la esposa de Mel Zelaya y su familia y también les manifestó a todos los actores de la región, que la estrategia para salir de la crisis eran las elecciones de noviembre de 2009.

La ex candidata presidencial detalla que el ex presidente de facto, Roberto Micheletti, que tomó el poder del Ejecutivo tras el golpe de Estado, y la Corte Suprema de Honduras, que ordenó la captura del exgobernante por supuestos delitos, sostenían que habían actuado protegiendo la democracia hondureña ante el abuso de poder de Zelaya, y advertían que él quería convertirse en otro Hugo Chávez u otro Fidel Castro.

 “Ciertamente la región no necesitaba otro dictador. Muchos conocían a Zelaya lo suficiente como para creer dichas acusaciones de parte del gobierno de Micheletti”, escribe Clinton, hablando de las intenciones de Zelaya, ahora diputado ante el Congreso Nacional por el partido Libertad y Refundación (Libre).

“Pero el problema era que Mel Zelaya había sido electo por el pueblo de Honduras, y exiliándolo secretamente en la madrugada, enviaba un mensaje negativo a la región… Nadie quería ver el retorno de los viejos días de gobiernos inestables y frecuentes golpes de Estado”, añade la abogada Clinton.

Así pues, la ex jefa de la diplomacia norteamericana afirma que “a pesar de que no quería, no tuve otra alternativa que condenar la salida de Mel Zelaya”.

Sobre la reunión que sostuvo con Zelaya en el Departamento de Estado en Washington, días después de la ruptura constitucional, Clinton recuerda que Zelaya “bromeó que Honduras le había enseñado a los líderes de Latinoamérica que deberían de dormir vestidos con su ropa y una maleta ya hecha”, haciendo alusión a la forma en la que fue sacado del país por militares.

Durante esa reunión asegura que le planteó al derrocado mandatario que para que los Estados Unidos apoyaran una solución a la crisis hondureña él debía aceptar al presidente costarricense  Oscar Arias, como mediador y participar de buena voluntad en el proceso de negociación que se estaba estableciendo, lo cual Zelaya aceptó.

También explica que después de la reunión con Zelaya no quiso hacer el anuncio de que Arias iba a ser mediador entre las dos partes para encontrar una solución a la crisis porque temía que el gobierno de Micheletti se pudiera resentir, por lo que ella optó por mandar a Zelaya a otro cuarto en el Departamento de Estado.

En pláticas para buscar una solución a la crisis, Oscar Arias le dijo a Hillary Clinton: “Estoy haciendo esto, a favor de Zelaya, para que sea reintegrado como presidente, por principios señora Clinton, no porque me agrada Zelaya y su gente”, explica el libro.

“Si permitimos que un gobierno de facto continúe sería un efecto dominó por toda Latinoamérica”, afirma Clinton que le comentó Arias, premio nobel de la paz.

Sobre sus conversaciones con Roberto Micheletti,  Clinton confiesa que éste le dijo que estaban haciendo todo lo posible para llegar a un acuerdo con Mel Zelaya.

Hillary Clinton también considera en el libro que Zelaya sobrestimó el apoyo que recibió por parte de los hondureños a su causa y que ella siempre le urgió que él hiciera todo lo que fuera posible para que no hubiera derramamiento de sangre en Honduras.

Al mismo tiempo explica, como lo hizo saber en público en aquel momento, que la llegada de Zelaya en secreto a la Embajada de Brasil en Tegucigalpa, el 21 de septiembre de 2009, complicó las negociaciones. Escribe que “la irresponsabilidad de las acciones de Zelaya los había dejado sumamente preocupados.”

Para finalizar detalla que esta fue la primera vez en la historia de Centroamérica que un país que había sufrido un golpe de Estado y estaba a punto de estallar en una guerra civil, fue capaz de restablecer el orden constitucional y el proceso democrático a través de la negociación, sin injerencia extranjera”.

“La solución a la crisis siempre fueron las elecciones generales del 2009, donde fue electo Porfirio Lobo, del Partido Nacional de Honduras”, apunta.

Clinton relata en el libro que en la Asamblea de la OEA, que fue celebrada en San Pedro Sula en junio del 2009, Venezuela y sus aliados intentaban reintegrar a la isla de Cuba a ese organismo. Recuerda que le tuvo que decir a Manuel Zelaya que si seguía tratando de reintegrar a Cuba de la manera que lo estaban haciendo, iba a ser responsable del colapso del órgano regional.

Fuente: http://www.tiempo.hn/color-pol%C3%ADtico/noticias/clinton-confiesa-que-no-queria-condenar-la-salida-de-zelaya?utm_source=color-pol%C3%ADticoTab&utm_medium=page&utm_campaign=tabs

, , , ,

Deja un comentario

Hillary Clinton llama demagogo a Manuel Zelaya en su libro

10 de Junio de 2014

12:56PM   – Redacción:  redaccion@laprensa.hn

En sus memorias, la ex secretaria de Estados de Estados Unidos coloca como ejemplo democrático a Dilma Rousseff y critica a Hugo Chávez.

Tegucigalpa, Honduras

Hillary Clinton, ex secretaria de Estado de Estados Unidos, presentó hoy sus memorias “Hard choices” (Decisiones difíciles), en la cual alaba y critíca a varios gobernantes de Latinoamérica.

Clinton dedicó un capítulo completo de sus memorias a sus experiencias con América Latina, aunque el grueso de la narrativa se concentró en la cumbre de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) en 2009 en Honduras, que abrió las puertas para el retorno de Cuba a la entidad.

En su libro, Clinton habla de “demagogos” como el fallecido presidente venezolano o el derrocado hondureño Manuel Zelaya, una “reminiscencia a la caricatura del hombre fuerte centroamericano, con su sombrero de cowboy blanco, su bigote negro azabache y su cariño por Hugo Chávez y Fidel Castro”.

También hace reseña especialmente en los acontecimientos que siguieron al golpe de Estado que acabó con Zelaya, y a los esfuerzos conjuntos en el marco de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) que se realizaron para superar la crisis. Pero subraya, citando al mediador propuesto por ella misma, el ex presidente costarricense Óscar Arias, que fue un esfuerzo que se hizo “por principios” y por el miedo a que el golpe en Honduras tuviera un “efecto dominó” en América Latina, no por simpatía hacia el derrocado gobernante.

En general, el capítulo latinoamericano de las memorias de Clinton tiene como eje central la convicción de que Estados Unidos precisa dejar atrás la idea de la región como “la tierra de los golpes militares y el crimen”.

Su petición a Obama

Cuando se aproximaba el fin de sus funciones como Secretaria de Estado, Hillary Clinton pidió al presidente Barack Obama una “nueva mirada” sobre el bloqueo a Cuba, según narró en sus memorias en referencia a un tema que dominó su gestión.

“Casi al fin de mis funciones, recomendé al presidente Obama que diera una nueva mirada a nuestro embargo (a Cuba). No estaba alcanzando sus objetivos y estaba retrasando nuestra agenda general en la región”, escribió Clinton en la página 265 de sus memorias “Hard choices” (Decisiones difíciles).

La ex senadora y posible candidata presidencial demócrata en 2016 recordó que Obama, al llegar a la Casa Blanca, había prometido un nuevo diálogo con Cuba, y desde ese punto de vista el embargo económico vigente desde la década de 1960 era un obstáculo para ese recomienzo.

Desde que fue implementado, apuntó Clinton, el bloqueo económico “apenas tuvo éxito en darle (al gobierno cubano) elementos a quien culpar por sus problemas económicos”.

De acuerdo con la ex secretaria de Estado, esa reunión, y la decisión de diversos países de reincorporar a Cuba sin condiciones, fueron “un test inicial” para la política del entonces recientemente electo Obama hacia América Latina.

Clinton narró cómo su equipo, encabezado por el diplomático Thomas Shannon, negoció la inclusión en la declaración de un párrafo estipulando que Cuba debía solicitar su reincorporación a la OEA.

Como el gobierno de La Habana se negó a solicitar el retorno del país a la entidad, “a todos los efectos, la suspensión permaneció en su lugar”, apuntó Clinton.

Elogios y críticas

Clinton pasó revista a su relación con los jefes de Estado con quienes tuvo que trabajar durante su desempeño como Secretaria de Estado, y reservó palabras especialmente elogiosas para la brasileña Dilma Rousseff y la chilena Michelle Bachelet, así como para el costarricense Óscar Arias.

Rousseff, escribió Clinton, es “una líder formidable”. “Posiblemente no tenga la colorida expresividad de Lula (da Silva) ni la experiencia técnica de (Fernando Henrique) Cardoso, pero tiene un fuerte intelecto y verdadero coraje”, añadió.

En tanto, sobre Bachelet apuntó que “ella y yo nos convertimos en aliadas y amigas”.

En sentido opuesto, Clinton no ahorró comentarios ácidos sobre el ex presidente hondureño Manuel Zelaya, al que describió como “la reminiscencia de una caricatura del hombre fuerte centroamericano, con su sombrero blanco de vaquero y sus bigotes negros”.

Con el ya fallecido presidente venezolano Hugo Chávez fue todavía más dura: “un dictador fanfarrón que era más un estorbo que una amenaza real”, describió.

“Tenemos una imagen desactualizada de lo que está ocurriendo en nuestro continente”, escribió, para añadir que “muchos de nuestros prejuicios tienen su raíz en un siglo de una historia difícil”.

En la visión de Clinton, aún “hay grandes problemas”, pero destacó que “si hay una región donde debemos mirar más allá de los titulares de los diarios, es América Latina”.

Fuente: AFP y elpais.com


Fuente: http://www.laprensa.hn/mundo/estadosunidos/717851-96/hillary-clinton-llama-demagogo-a-manuel-zelaya-en-su-libro

, , , ,

Deja un comentario