Read Jeffrey Webber and Todd Gordon's excellent analysis of the current political situation in Honduras here. Also, consider taking a look at this collection of articles at Links that deals with a new political formation called Frente Amplio de Resistencia Popular (FARP) as well as the Cartegena Accord.
Showing posts with label coup. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coup. Show all posts
Saturday, July 23, 2011
What's Next for the Honduran Resistance?
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Attempted Coup in Ecuador
(via Lenin's Tomb) Democracy Now is reporting on it, but at present it appears that there is a blackout on the issue in the US media.
UPDATE: Read and watch here and here. The coup failed and Correa has been freed.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Newsmax lunatic calls for US Coup
Read about it here. Evidently Newsmax backed off the article and has since retracted it. Here's a nice chunk:
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic. [...]Yup. There you have it folks. This waco-type violent paranoia is definitely gaining ground with Obama in the White House, which is as painfully clear an indication as any that reactionary forms of racist hatred still animate substantial sectors of the United States.Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”
All McVeigh-type lunacy aside for a moment, what's most frustrating about this totally absurd narrative about Obama as a radical, 'Marxist', etc. is that it isn't even a recognizable exaggeration of what his presidency is about. If Obama were another FDR or LBJ, it would be an absurd exaggeration to say that he was a radical leftist. But at least it would be identifiable as an wild exaggeration of the character of some policies those presidents put forward (e.g. social security, Medicare, etc.).
I'm not even sure I'd want to say that calling Obama a 'radical' is a wild exaggeration in the above sense. For that to be true, it would have to be an exaggeration of something recognizably progressive that he's doing... but what is that?
What is it about Obama's policies that is pissing these lunatics off so much? What has he done that is so radical or 'fundamental' or 'irreversible'? I wish that he had even tried to do anything that fits the bills above, but it's not even clear that that's true. In so many ways, his presidency has been continuous with Bush, but the Fox News coterie of wackjobs certainly wasn't pulling this teabagging coup garbage while W was in office. What's going on here? What are they so angry about?
I suspect that much of this violent day-dreaming about the 'Obama Problem' has little to do with policies. Most of this is just racism pure and simple. No one needs any reminding about the 'birther' stuff and how much traction that got.
But there is a grain of truth to the conviction that something 'irreversible' has occurred with Obama, a black man, taking office: it was a massive blow (although hardly the final knockout) to the racism that this country was founded on and continues to be deeply infected with. And surely the paranoid bigots slurping up this sort of Newsmax tripe sense that their 'cause' is losing a long-term battle here.
Still, as someone staunchly on the Left, however, it's beyond frustrating for me to watch an emerging Right-wing backlash with no Left-wing stimulus that seems to be provoking it. It's like we're getting all of the bad reactionary baggage and none of the good that actually comes out of having a movement truly aiming to enact radical change. We get the teabagger backlash on the one hand, and a phantom "left" threat on the other. We get a Congress so tepid that it isn't even fair to call them paper-dragons, meanwhile the marginalized GOP has basically adopted Sen. Joe McCarthy's rhetorical playbook.
But why is it that in America it's as though you're always being made to navigate between reactionaries and tepid centrists? The only repose to this proto-fascist lunacy cannot just be a wholesale defense of Obama and the Democrats. But that's the either/or we're always been contorted to accept when politics only appears to us as the dialectic of lesser evils.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Obama, Washington and the Coup in Honduras
The Official US line on the coup is now one of condemnation. It became clear that all of the OAS countries, including the more conservative and neoliberal leaders such as Mexico's Right-Wing Felipe Calderon, unequivocally oppose the recent violent overthrow of a popular government elected by the people. The worldwide response, it must be said, is condemnatory.
But like everything that governments and their political spokespeople say in public, we should not take the US State dept's statement at face value. Moreover, the only real test of what the orientation of the US government is, will be to see what it actually does and not what it says at press conferences. This is particularly true for the Obama Adminsitration, who has made a rigorous science of making soaring rhetorical flourishes only to renege and opt for tepid alternatives to real reform.
The NYTimes published an article yesterday revealing that the Obama administration had been in contact with the coup plotters for several days before the coup. From the NYTimes:
Also, we read that:"The United States has a history of backing rival political factions and instigating coups in the region, and administration officials have found themselves on the defensive in recent days, dismissing repeated allegations by President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela that the C.I.A. may have had a hand in the president’s removal.
Obama administration officials said that they were surprised by the coup on Sunday. But they also said that they had been working for several weeks to try to head off a political crisis in Honduras as the confrontation between Mr. Zelaya and the military over his efforts to lift presidential term limits escalated."
The United States has long had strong ties to the Honduras military and helps train Honduran military forces. Those close ties have put the Obama administration in a difficult position, opening it up to accusations that it may have turned a blind eye to the pending coup.While many NYTimes readers may be surprised to read of the US involvement in violent repression, military dictatorships, coups and so forth throughout Latin American history, there is nothing abstract about this for people who came of age in the 20th century in Latin America. It is therefore totally legitimate for Hugo Chavez, of all people, to make public statements pressing the suspicion that the US may have had a hand in the latest right-wing reaction against a popular government in Latin America. Suspicion, of course, is not tantamount to proof. But it is hardly outlandish to say that the burden of proof is absolutely on the party who has traditionally funded, participated, incited, supported and praised just about every single violent Right-wing military coup in Latin America throughout the 20th century, from Vargas to Allende to the most recent attempt to violently suppress the Bolivarian Revolution and attempts to whack Evo Morales.
But the issue is too unclear to say for sure what the precise role of the US was in the run-up to the coup. Speculation, therefore, is not helpful. What we do have, is a series of facts ripe for critical reflection and analysis.
We know that the US opposed Zelaya and his bid to change the Constitution to enable a president to run for re-election more than once. We know that the US has traditionally (as late as the 1980s) had very close ties to the Honduran military, who have now taken the lead in undertaking this coup. We also know that the US hedged at first and refused to take a clear stand against the coup and in favor of Zelaya. That they have done so now, in light of widespread condemnation globally, is not to say that their position hasn't shifted.
We also know that the US loathes Chavez, Morales, Correa and Ortega. We know that Washington would love to see these pan-Latin American socialists just go away. We know that big multinationals, some of whom have been given the boot from the above countries, feel the same way.
So the US is not heading into this crisis with the best of intentions. And for me, that's all that's important here to understanding this situation. Washington may or may not have been directly involved, they may have protested, they may have been lukewarm in telling the coup-plotters not to go ahead. I must say, however, that it doesn't appear that the US government was ever ademant or united in any kind of support for the coup. Nonetheless, whatever the situation actually is, it doesn't change all sorts of uncontroversial and trivial political facts we know about Honduras, the region, and the relationship of the former with Washington.
Of course, you wont find any critical reflection in tripe written by an ultra-conservative hack like Vargas Llosa for the NYTimes. If you ask him, the coup is a good thing, and moreover it has widespread 'popular support'. We should expect nothing less from Vargas Llosa, though, who has proven so consistently over the years that he has no intention of stating what actually is the case.
The truth is that there is currently there is widespread popular unrest trying to stop the coup-backers. There have been huge mobilizations as well as a general strike demanding that Zelaya be allowed to return. All of this has occured in spite of threats of violent military repression. Over 7.3 million in Honduras live below the poverty line; some 70% of the population.
When Zelaya talked about taking on the sweatshop industry and substantially increasing the minimum wage in his country, its not difficult to see why the majority of Hondurans got behind these reforms. Of course, when he also said he would "force the business oligarchy to start paying what is fair" in terms of taxes, he wasn't making any friends with the forces who are trying to crush democracy in Honduras at present.
Of course, Zelaya is no saint. And, after all, he comes from the Liberal Party in Honduras, which is anything but unanimous in their support social justice or for Zelaya himself (on the contrary, there is a deep split, with many party elites opposing Zelaya's modest left turn). Only recently has he shifted toward more ALBA-centric policies and social reformism. While his populism is a welcomed alternative to the status quo in Honduran politics, it is clear that Zelaya is no Morales or Chavez. Nonetheless, for many in the country (particularly those in student organizations, trade unions and other social movements) the openings created by Zelaya's turn to the Left are likely worth fighting for, particularly when the oligarchs threaten to crush what modest headway Zelaya has attempted to make. I cannot say enough times: those empowered by he current configuration of politics in Honduras are frightened of losing their power. Their subsequent acts must be understood in light of this fact.
After all if, as cynical Right-wing hacks like Llosa would tell us, it is true that the coup has popular support and is backed up by a majority; why were the anti-referendum Oligarchs so deathly afraid of holding a vote designed to take a non-binding national poll over whether it would be a good idea to vote on reforming the Constitution? Why were they so afraid of letting people make their voices heard? Why were they blocking democracy through every institution and avenue available to them through the law (e.g. The Supreme Court, Congress, the Police and Military, etc. all of which the Right controlled in Honduras)? Why were those in power so scared that they eventually resorted to violence to forestall a democratic procedure from occuring?
Monday, June 29, 2009
Update on Honduras
The OAS (of which the US is a member) has condemned the coup unequivocally. The official US line on the coup, now, appears to be also unequivocal condemnation and a call for the return of Zelaya to his rightful post as President. This is good to see. But as Golinger reports:
"A New York Times article has just confirmed that the US Government has been "working for several days" with the coup planners in Honduras to halt the illegal overthrow of President Zelaya. While this may indicate nobility on behalf of the Obama Administration, had they merely told the coupsters that the US Government would CUT OFF all economic aid and blockade Honduras in the event of a coup, it's almost a 100% guarantee that the military and right wing parties and business groups involved in the coup would not have gone through with it.I agree. It is too strong to say that the above indicates that the US indirectly caused the coup through their communications with the coup-plotters, but I don't think its out of line to suggest that the US didn't do enough to prevent it. They should have unequivocally told the coup-plotters not to go through with it. The economic (and, historically, military) dominance of the US over Honduras makes this point even clearer. It is no stretch to say that this issue is, at least, quite complicated for the Washington foreign policy establishment. They would rather see (as is clear from the NGO investments in the country made by USAID and NED) a more business-friendly and pro-US regime than Zelaya's. But they hardly hate Zelaya enough that they would support a haphazard coup that the entire Latin American region deplored. It is instructive to recall here the behaviour of Washington and US corporate media during the attempted coup in Venezuela in 2002. Washington staunchly supported (and was implicated in) that violent affront to Venzuelan democracy. Also- it is hardly a question whether or not the NYTimes, for example, has a principled objection to coups; they flatly do not. In a now infamous editorial, they cheered on the oligarch-driven military coup against Chavez's popular government and immediately strove to legitimate the short-lived military dictatorship as a boon to democracy. (Incidentally, the always-reactionary-on-foreign-policy WSJ has published op/ed's enthusiastically supportive of the recent coup).
So, while many make excuses for the Obama Administration's "calculated" statements, had they been more firm with the coup leaders, instead of "negotiating", the coup may never have happened. Also, the State Department says they believed "dialogue" was the best way to resolve the situation, but their lack of clarity and firm position has caused multiple human rights violations to occur in Honduras and a lot of tension to take place in the region."
Nonetheless, it is a welcomed departure from the Bush years that the US is working through OAS, and in fact joining up with Venezuela and others to unequivocally condemn this violent power grab. The mistake, however, would be to take this modest improvement to be a principled step away from US imperialism in the region. There are conjunctural and political reasons why this coup is being condemned and others were not. We should not expect that some major change of heart as it regards Latin American self-determination from Washington. (e.g. see the continuity of policy in Colombia from Clinton-Bush-Obama).
Apparently there are major protests outside the presidential palace and unrest throughout the country. Unfortunately for the oligarchs backing the coup, Zelaya has a great deal of popular support throughout the country and the coup-backers will not be able to brush this aside without violent repression.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
COUP IN HONDURAS
Early this morning there was a Coup d'Etat against the democratically elected government of Manual Zelaya. Zelaya is a member of Honduras's Liberal Party and has been a growing ally of the countries in ALBA (e.g. Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc.). Right-wing elements of the opposition in the military have invaded the presidential palace, captured the president, and cut off power and telephone service throughout the country. The President and his cabinet (and also ambassadors from ALBA countries) have reportedly been beaten and threatened within an inch of their lives.
Despite the cynical hand-wringing coming from the Washington establishment over the brutal situation in Iran, their reaction to this violent effacement of democracy and human rights belies their opportunism and imperialistic aims.
In contradistinction to the unflinching, staunch condemnation of the coup by Latin American leaders, Obama and the U.S. government are hedging their bets. They've made vague statements about respecting 'democratic norms' but have made no specific statements about condemning the coup or supporting President Zelaya.
Given the frightening similarities between this coup and the attempted coup against Chavez in 2002 backed by the US Government, Eva Golinger is suspicious that there may be US involvement in this violent attack on the people of Honduras. It seems to me that she isn't unjustified in suspecting this at all: the Honduran military was trained by the US under Reagan when the US Government was training death squads to murder and terrorize Hondurans who supported Leftist political movements. Moreover, USAID gives over $50 million anually to Honduran NGO's who are pro-US and sufficiently cozy with ruling elites. Here's what one of the NGO's said on CNN this morning (via Eva Golinger @ Venezuelanalysis):
"Opposition forces in Honduras, led by a US-funded NGO Grupo Paz y Democracia, have stated via CNN that a coup has not ocurred, but rather a "transition" to democracy. Martha Diaz, coordinator of the NGO, which receives USAID funding, has just declared minutes ago on CNN that "civil society" does not support President Zelaya nor his "illegal quest" to hold a non-binding referendum on a potential future constitutional reform. She justified his kidnapping, beating and removal from power as a "democratic transition". Again, this is eerily reminiscent of the coup d'etat in Venezuela in April 2002, when so-called "civil society" along with dissident military forces kidnapped President Chávez and installed a "transition government". The goups involved also received funding from the U.S. government, primarily via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and later from USAID as well."A couple of hours ago, Obama's czar for Latin American politics had the following to say on CNN en Espanol:
"He has just stated that Obama's government is communicating with the coup forces in Honduras, trying to "feel out" the situation. He also responded to the reporter's question regarding whether Washington would recognize a government in Honduras other than President Zelaya's elected government, by saying that the Obama Administration "is waiting to see how things play out" and so long as democratic norms are respected, will work with all sectors."It seems to me that Golinger is basically right to say that this response is tantamount to "a confirmation practically of support for the coup leaders". If the FARC took power in Bogota, you can bet Obama et. al wouldn't be 'waiting to work with all sectors'. In Honduras, it is totally unambiguous what has recently occured. There is nothing to 'feel out': a band of military reactionaries barged into the hondureño equivalent of the White House with guns and threatened to kill people. Washington's lacklustre response to this violent power grab is classic US imperialism in Latin America, vintage 2002 in Venezuela. This is the "Change we can all believe in", evidently.
From what we've seen so far, Obama's reaction parallels what the Bush Administration did in 2002 with Venezuela, although the latter was more brazenly supportive of the opposition than the Obama Administration has been of the Honduran opposition. This is for obvious reasons. Honduras is no Venezuela. It is a relatively small country with little power or economic independence from the US and it poses little threat in itself, although its clear why Washington would much, much prefer that did not integrate with ALBA or attempt to become economically self-sufficient.
I'm getting really sick of the right-wing cynicism motivating the complaints (this includes Obama) about the brutal State violence and the atrocities occuring in Iran. I'm not saying we shouldn't condemn State violence; I'm saying we should be principled opponents of it. The Washington-centric cynics I have in mind whine and make such a fuss about Iran, simply because they want a neoliberal pro-US government...but if a neoliberal pro-US regime cropped up without democracy or basic freedoms these cynics would be fully satisfied. They care nothing about freedom as such. See, forstance, Obama's support for violent and authoritarian regimes in, for example, Egypt (a country which receives massive amounts of military aid from the US every year)? Why isn't it abundantly obvious to everyone that if atrocities are bad in Iran, then they are also bad in Honduras, Egypt, Colombia and other places as well? Why doesn't it count when the US either sanctions or directly commits atrocities?
It will be interesting to see how this develops. More on this later.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Thai elite stage coup via High Court
The Thai royalists, elites and urban middle classes have ousted the democratically-elected government of Somchai Wongsawat, dissolving his party (The People's Power Party) and banning the PM from politics. This time, the military wasn't involved directly; a high court ruling decided the matter following large protests against the government by the oddly-named "People's Alliance for Democracy", which will move to limit the franchise and remove voting rights from the country's majority (rural poor) in an attempt to halt the reemergence of a populist government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
