Coup

Former Obama adviser and CAP dude blames Central America for refugee spike

In an interview with Fox News Latino, Dan Restrepo, President Barack Obama’s principal adviser on the Americas region from 2008 to 2012, made some pretty ignorant comments.

Responding to Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez’s accusation that the United States’ large-scale consumption of the drugs that flow through his country has fueled crime and violence in the region, and thus contributed to the increase in refugees heading northwards, Restrepo seemed to blamed the victim.

“It’s convenient when the president of Honduras blames the United States and our drug culture,” Restrepo said. “The Honduran economic and political elite have systematically and historically failed the people of Honduras.”

First, a little background on Hernandez. The current Honduran president was one of the generals who led the 2009 coup against the elected President José Manuel Zelaya, who was elected as a liberal but began to turn further left once in office.

According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, “the United States became the single loudest voice legitimating a [post-coup] election that was held in a context so problematic and laden with violence that respected election observers from the United Nations, Organization of American States, the European Union, and the Carter Center refused to monitor or support the elections.”

That election brought right-wing nationalist Porfirio “Pepe Lobo” Sosa to power. Lobo’s administration presided over cuts to social spending, declining economic growth rates and increasing poverty and unemployment. The country also maintained one of the world’s highest murder rates during that time.

In November 2013, another election was held, this time between Lobo’s man Hernandez and Xiomara Castro de Zelaya, the wife of the deposed president. The election was marred by allegations of vote-buying, intimidation and criminalization of Xiomara’s supporters.

The 2009 coup didn’t stop the flow of US security dollars, despite the US law that bars military and police assistance to governments established by coups, and the Obama administration was quick to congratulate Hernandez’s “victory” in 2013, despite the widespread concern over the legitimacy of the results.

Restrepo had left the Obama administration by the time Hernandez was elected, but he is currently a senior fellow at the Obama-friendly Center for American Progress, which basically defended the 2009 Honduran election and had nothing to say one way or the other about Hernandez’s questionable 2013 “victory” (neither did its blog, ThinkProgress).

In the interview with Fox, Restrepo continued: “The wealthy families, a small number of economic classes, have enjoyed success, and have significant political influence. But they haven’t gone about the hard work of working toward a state that functions.”

Restrepo pointed to “[t]he Colombian elite, the political and economic elite” as an example of good leaders who had “realized that for the long-term survival of their country, they needed to invest in the state, and create an environment where people wanted to invest.”

He did not mention the fact that after years of US assistance, Colombia still has the 10th-highest murder rate in the world, as well as persistently high poverty and inequality. Restrepo also failed to mention the numerous scandals that have swirled around the “Colombian elite,” from high-ranking officials ordering the extrajudicial killings of civilians by security forces to mining companies accused of funding paramilitary groups responsible for human rights violations.

There is an element of truth to Restrepo’s statement that the “Honduran economic and political elite have systematically and historically failed the people” of their country, but he ignores the United States’ role in supporting the very elites he criticizes. In fact, those elites have largely carried out US-dictated policies (or else they wouldn’t get billions of dollars per year in US funding).

This is not to say that Hernandez is entirely correct either, but at the end of the day, the blame game is unproductive and childish. It would be nice to see powerful folks like Hernandez and Restrepo eschew it for serious discussion.

I won’t hold my breath.

When is a Coup Not a “Coup”?

Today, Hondurans head to the polls for the first real elections since an illegal 2009 coup that ousted the democratically-elected president Manuel Zelaya after he began strengthening ties with Hugo Chavez’s ALBA alliance. This is a momentous event for the country, which is racked by drug trade-related violence, underemployment and a generally weak culture of democracy.

According to the LA Times, the leading candidates include the wife of the deposed president, Xiomara Castro de Zelaya of the Libertad y Refundación (LIBRE) party, and the general who helped orchestrate the coup, Juan Orlando Hernandez of the National Party, who is now the “all-powerful head of Congress.”

Regardless of who wins, said analyst Leticia Salomon of the National Autonomous University of Honduras, the [system of power-sharing between the Liberal and National Parties that has dominated Honduran politics for decades] will be shattered. And even if Castro doesn’t win the presidency, her party is expected to do well enough to put dozens of supporters in Congress.

Most Hondurans, however, have little faith that the election will be fair, Salomon said.

“The whole system is prepared for fraud,” she said, noting that Hernandez’s National Party dominates the electoral board and the court system that would be the venue for any appeal.

Truthout reported  allegations of vote-buying, voter intimidation, and assassinations of journalists. According to Helena Roux of Reporters Without Borders, Honduras is the most dangerous country for journalists in Latin America.

More than 30 journalists have been killed since the 2008 coup.  A Rights Action Report has documented the assassination of 18 members of the Libre Party in this election cycle, and aligned journalists have not escaped the violence.

The major media outlets have launched an all-out campaign against presidential candidate Xiomara, labeling her a communist and criminalizing members of indigenous and campesino organizations such as the Civil Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH.)

Despite this sad state of affairs, Honduras has been and remains a long-time US ally in the region, first as a partner in fighting communist and leftist governments and guerrilla forces during the 1980s, and today as a partner in the drug war.

According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, “the United States became the single loudest voice legitimating a November 2009 election that was held in a context so problematic and laden with violence that respected election observers from the United Nations, Organization of American States, the European Union, and the Carter Center refused to monitor or support the elections.” US security assistance to Honduras has continued (estimated at $8.5 million in FY2011 and $8.2 million in FY2012) despite the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, a US law stipulating that such assistance cannot be provided to governments established by coups.

The US record of ignoring its own law when it comes to coups is basically as old as the law itself. The Economist published a “non-exhaustive rundown” of some of the many instances of US continuing assistance after obvious coups back in July. While the article generally tries to rationalize the decisions to continue providing aid in contravention of the FAA, it doesn’t tackle the larger issue that I have highlighted in reference to the latest example of this kind of hypocrisy in Egypt.

Whatever you think about Lobo, Hernandez or Sisi or the geopolitical strategic merits of (dis)continuing aid to Honduras and Egypt, the point is that the nakedly self-interested decisions the US continues to make on the foreign policy front only serve to undermine the US’s credibility as a “city on a hill.” In other words, we’re setting an example that we probably wouldn’t want others to follow.