FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama’s Betrayal of Honduras

by MARK WEISBROT

Do the people of Honduras have the right to elect their own president and congress?  That depends on whom you talk to.  In 2009, the country’s left-of-center President Mel Zelaya was overthrown in a military coup that was heavily supported (andaccording to Zelaya, organized) by the United States government.  After six months and a lot of political repression, the coup government was re-established with an election that almost the entire hemisphere – except, you guessed it, the United States – rejected as illegitimate.

Four years later – on November 24 – Honduran voters will go to the polls again in a contest between the pro-democracy LIBRE party, formed by people who opposed the coup; and the ruling National Party, whose standard-bearer will be Juan Orlando Hernández, the president of the National   Congress who supported the 2009 military coup.

If it were a fair fight, it is very likely that LIBRE, whose presidential candidate is Xiomara Castro, the wife of Mel Zelaya, would win.  The economy plays a large role in most elections, and a government   that has presided over a deterioration in living standards for the majority is generally not returned to office.  Polling data shows that 80 percent of Hondurans think they are worse off than they were four years ago, and the data backs them up.  The top 10 percent got over 100 percent of all income gains in the two years after Zelaya was overthrown, sharply reversing a strong trend toward more equality during the Zelaya years.  The number of people involuntarily working part time has increased by 176 percent.  Poverty has also increased, whereas it had been reduced significantly under Zelaya, who raised the minimum wage by nearly 100 percent in real terms during his 3.5 years in office.  Even private investment, despite the complaints of businesspeople who supported the coup, grew much faster under Zelaya than under the current regime.

But as you can imagine, this election will not be contested on a level playing field.  In the past six months both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives have sent letters to Secretary of State John Kerry expressing deep concerns about political repression and its implications for next   month’s election in Honduras.   The Senate letter called attention to a “pattern of violence and threats against journalists, human rights defenders, members of the clergy, union leaders, opposition figures, students, small farmers, and LGBT activists …” as well as “extrajudicial killings.”

The October 15 House of Representatives letter noted that “at least sixteen activists and candidates from LIBRE have been assassinated since June of 2012” and that “the Honduras government has failed to effectively investigate and prosecute those responsible for these assassinations…”

 “[H]uman rights abuses under the existing government continue to threaten basic civil liberties, opposition candidates do not enjoy a level playing field, and state security forces are taking on an increasingly central, and ominous role in context of the election.

We are particularly alarmed to learn that the ruling party, and its presidential candidate Mr. Juan Orlando Hernandez, now dominates all the key institutions of the government, including the country’s electoral authority and the military, which distributes the ballots–leaving scarce recourse for Honduran citizens should fraud be committed in the electoral process, or human rights violations continue to threaten open debate.”

The problem is that the Obama administration does not respect either the right to free elections or basic human rights in Honduras.  They went through a lot of trouble in 2009 to get rid of a democratically elected president, and paid a significant political cost in the hemisphere: at the time, all of South America’s governments were hoping that Obama would be different from his predecessor and took his word that Washington would not back the coup.  They were more than disappointed; the Obama administration’s support for the coup and its manipulation of the Organization of American States for this purpose led to the formation of a new hemispheric organization, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which excludes the U.S. and Canada.

What then can be done?  The governments of South America need to speak out forcefully on behalf of free elections and human rights in Honduras. Because the Latin American left has a deeply-rooted   concern for national sovereignty, progressive governments have been reluctant to take any actions that look like interference in other countries’ internal affairs.  This puts them at a disadvantage against Washington, which has no such scruples and is intervening with millions of dollars in the current election.

But South America has often rallied behind governments threatened or harassed by the United States: most recently Venezuela after the April presidential elections and Bolivia when Evo Morales’ plane was forced down in Europe this past July.  And they intervened in 2009 to stop Washington from expanding its military presence in Colombia, which they saw as a threat to the region.

As President Rafael Correa of Ecuador pointed out in 2009, Washington’s coup in Honduras was also a threat to the region, and so is its collaboration with the resulting government to prevent democratic elections.  And so is the militarization of Honduras, with the U.S. expanding its bases there.  This is part of Washington’s response to the election of left governments throughout most of the hemisphere: to increase its military presence and solidify its control in the few places where, thanks to the snuffing out of democracy, it still reigns supreme.

South American leaders need to remind the world that this is a struggle for self-determination – that Hondurans do not forfeit their national and civil rights just because the U.S. has military bases in their country and thinks that this is more important than free elections.

Mark Weisbrot is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.

This essay originally ran in the Guardian.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of  Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

More articles by:
May 30, 2016
Ron Jacobs
The State of the Left: Many Movements, Too Many Goals?
James Abourezk
The Intricacies of Language
Porfirio Quintano
Hillary, Honduras, and the Murder of My Friend Berta
Patrick Cockburn
Airstrikes on ISIS are Reducing Their Cities to Ruins
Uri Avnery
The Center Doesn’t Hold
Raouf Halaby
The Sailors of the USS Liberty: They, Too, Deserve to Be Honored
Rodrigue Tremblay
Barack Obama’s Legacy: What Happened?
Matt Peppe
Just the Facts: The Speech Obama Should Have Given at Hiroshima
Deborah James
Trade Pacts and Deregulation: Latest Leaks Reveal Core Problem with TISA
Michael Donnelly
Still Wavy After All These Years: Flower Geezer Turns 80
Ralph Nader
The Funny Business of Farm Credit
Paul Craig Roberts
Memorial Day and the Glorification of Past Wars
Colin Todhunter
From Albrecht to Monsanto: A System Not Run for the Public Good Can Never Serve the Public Good
Rivera Sun
White Rose Begins Leaflet Campaigns June 1942
Tom H. Hastings
Field Report from the Dick Cheney Hunting Instruction Manual
Weekend Edition
May 27, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Silencing America as It Prepares for War
Rob Urie
By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates
Paul Street
Feel the Hate
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe
Andrew Levine
Hillary’s Gun Gambit
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hand Jobs: Heidegger, Hitler and Trump
S. Brian Willson
Remembering All the Deaths From All of Our Wars
Dave Lindorff
With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers
Pete Dolack
Millions for the Boss, Cuts for You!
Peter Lee
To Hell and Back: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Gunnar Westberg
Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew
Karl Grossman
Long Island as a Nuclear Park
Binoy Kampmark
Sweden’s Assange Problem: The District Court Ruling
Robert Fisk
Why the US Dropped Its Demand That Assad Must Go
Martha Rosenberg – Ronnie Cummins
Bayer and Monsanto: a Marriage Made in Hell
Brian Cloughley
Pivoting to War
Stavros Mavroudeas
Blatant Hypocrisy: the Latest Late-Night Bailout of Greece
Arun Gupta
A War of All Against All
Dan Kovalik
NPR, Yemen & the Downplaying of U.S. War Crimes
Randy Blazak
Thugs, Bullies, and Donald J. Trump: The Perils of Wounded Masculinity
Murray Dobbin
Are We Witnessing the Beginning of the End of Globalization?
Daniel Falcone
Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen, an Interview with David Hilfiker
Gloria Jimenez
In Honduras, USAID Was in Bed with Berta Cáceres’ Accused Killers
Kent Paterson
The Old Braceros Fight On
Lawrence Reichard
The Seemingly Endless Indignities of Air Travel: Report from the Losing Side of Class Warfare
Peter Berllios
Bernie and Utopia
Stan Cox – Paul Cox
Indonesia’s Unnatural Mud Disaster Turns Ten
Linda Pentz Gunter
Obama in Hiroshima: Time to Say “Sorry” and “Ban the Bomb”
George Souvlis
How the West Came to Rule: an Interview with Alexander Anievas
Julian Vigo
The Government and Your i-Phone: the Latest Threat to Privacy
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail