Who's in Charge of US Foreign Policy?

by: Mark Weisbrot  |  The Guardian UK

Who's in Charge of US Foreign Policy?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton holds a press conference following a meeting with ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. (Photo: AP)

    The coup in Honduras has exposed divisions between Barack Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.

    The current stand-off in Honduras, in which the coup government headed by Roberto Micheletti is refusing to allow the return of elected president Manuel Zelaya, is raising questions about who is in charge of US foreign policy for the hemisphere.

    Divisions have been noticeable from early on in this administration, for example at the summit of the Americas in Trinidad last April. Obama went to the summit with the idea of presenting a new face to the rest of the hemisphere and was immediately undermined by his adviser and director for the summit, Jeffrey Davidow. Fortunately, Obama ignored his advisers and proceeded along a diplomatic path.

    When the coup occurred on 28 June, the first statement that came out of the White House was a major blunder. Although the US and international press gave Obama a pass, the diplomatic community could hardly help noticing that the White House issued the only official statement in the world that didn't have a bad word to say about the coup when it happened.

    This position shifted as events moved forward, and Obama himself even went so far as to say: "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras." But then his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, seemed to contradict him. Twice she was asked by the press whether restoring the democratic order in Honduras meant restoring the elected president, and twice she declined to answer.

    There appear to be others in the administration who would be content to let the coup government stall out the remaining months of Zelaya's term.

    Obama needs to lay down the law and make it clear that this coup will not stand. He could start by firing the adviser wrote that initial statement in response to the coup. It's not like they were taken by surprise. Everyone saw this coming, and the Obama administration was talking to the Honduran military right up to the day before the coup.

    Of course, if Obama really wanted to get rid of the coup government he could freeze the bank accounts of those who seized power, and their supporters in the Honduran oligarchy. This was recommended on Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times editorial board. Such a move would most likely do the job. These people may have a cause, but they are probably more dedicated to their life savings. It would also have the advantage of not hurting poor people in Honduras.

    If Obama has qualms about acting unilaterally, he could easily get approval for such sanctions in the Organisation of American States, which condemned the coup and called for the "immediate and unconditional" return of Zelaya. (The OAS doesn't have the authority to require binding sanctions on its members, but it could approve sanctions for those members who want to implement them.)

    It should not be surprising that Clinton and Obama have some daylight between them on foreign policy. Their differences over the Iraq war are one of the main reasons why Obama rather than Clinton is president today. But there appears to be some old-fashioned influence peddling involved as well.

    It turns out that two of the Honduran coup government's top advisers have close ties to the US secretary of state. One is Lanny Davis, an influential lobbyist who was a personal lawyer for President Bill Clinton and also campaigned for Hillary. G Gordon Liddy, the man who organised the infamous Watergate break-in in 1972, once said of his friend Davis: "He can defend the indefensible." Davis is doing that quite well lately, testifying for the coup government at a congressional hearing last week, and spinning the media on their behalf.

    The other hired gun for the coup government that has deep Clinton ties is Bennett Ratcliff. "Every proposal that Micheletti's group presented was written or approved by [Ratcliff]," a witness told the New York Times on Sunday. Who is Ratcliff? He was a senior executive for Bob Squier, known as the father of the modern political campaign. At his funeral in 2000, which was attended by some of the most powerful Democrats in the country, Squier was eulogised by Bill Clinton. Speaking on behalf of himself and vice-president Al Gore, also at the funeral, Clinton said: "But for [Squier], we might not have been here today." And not only them. In 1992, Squier's firm represented about a third of the Senate's Democrats.

    It's all part of the "permanent government" that Obama will have to confront if he really wants to change US foreign policy. These people are pitting him not only against the region but the entire world, which has refused to recognise the coup government in Honduras. He is going to have to be tough and make a clean break with the past.

    Perhaps most disturbing of all is that Obama has remained silent in the face of repression by the coup government. They have shot and killed demonstrators, closed down radio and TV stations and arrested journalists. This week a trade union leader and a political activist were murdered.

    Violence and the control of information are their main weapons of the dictatorship. They will use them much more freely if Obama maintains his silence. This is not Iran, where denunciations from the US serve to discredit the opposition. This is a government that is highly dependent on the US for aid, commerce and moral support - and that the whole world has condemned.

    The cynics will say it doesn't matter, that even if Zelaya returns to Honduras with the coup government still holding power, and the military responds with murder and mayhem, Washington can avoid responsibility. But given the long-standing and close ties between the US and Honduran military, Hillary Clinton's relationship with their advocates, the ugly history of the US in Central America and its long support for death squads and anti-democratic forces there and the mixed signals that have come from the Obama administration since the coup, Washington will be blamed for the mess and potential bloodshed that could result.

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.





     

»



Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, DC. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of "Social Security: The Phony Crisis," and has written numerous research papers on economic policy. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.


Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



It is not clear to me that

It is not clear to me that the current Honduran government has acted illegally - as I understand it the Congress has approved. It would seem to me that the most positive thing the US Government could do would be to encourage elections ASAP


I need to educate myself

I need to educate myself about this as well. I've heard reports that the President there tried to do something illegal- make a ballot to extend his term as President(?)- which was stricken down by the Supreme court there. I've also heard that 95% of the people in Honduras support the "coup". If this is the case, I'm not sure why the USA would support a President who was pretty much shot down by his own legal system over a DEMOCRATIC process.


To talk of a cup when the

To talk of a cup when the other 2 constitutional bodies, the supreme court and the parliament, decided that the president is unfit for office is a direct interference in another country's democratic process. Instead of trying to solve Honduras' problems Zelaya hasn't produced a budged for ages. Honduras is a financial mess but they are not the only ones. Zelaya wanted to change the constitution to help him to more terms. There is a reason why presidencies are limited to only one term. Changing the constitution to make it look more like the one of Venezuela is in nobodies interest. Chavez started his dictatorship the same way and we don't need another Chavez clone in Central America. If Bush had been removed the same way the US would be in a better position today! New elections ASAP under the Honduran constitution are the best solution, and this means that Zelaya can not run again!


If 'Phillip' doesn't believe

If 'Phillip' doesn't believe the coup was illegal he hasn't been paying attention. The chief lawyer for the Honduran military admitted (and it was reported here) that the military acted illegally, but 'had to', because it could not take orders from a 'leftist'. So much for the sacred 'constitution' they are defending.' Maybe the Honduran coup apologists - out in horde on other sites - are now posting here?


Inter-American foreign

Inter-American foreign relations between the US and Honduras has always concealed a need for fascism in Latin America. Honduras is seen by the right wing conservatives (the Republican Party) as a tool to keep the "neighbor hood's" back yard in turmoil at the expense of the US Tax Payers by offering inspiring wanna-be fascist thugs readily available to sell their country to the highest bidder. To begin with, the US doesn't have much credibility in it's "back doors" except to furnish them military so they can destroy each other. For the USA Congress, it's business as usual. But make no mistake about it, it is the US that will lose again in the long run.


As an excellent piece from

As an excellent piece from New Zealand states, "In every country in the region, the US government has placed very senior, very experienced, deeply ideologically motivated diplomatic clones. Every one of them has a thorough grounding in destabilization. None of this is new and is common knowledge in Latin America." http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0907/S00173.htm I have long said that the US ruling class tasked Obama with dealing with the Latin America rebellion. The nature of the team around him, further spelled out in the New Zealand article, makes that clear. Beyond the U.S. advisors to the rightwing Honduran coup leaders, another important part of this story is the team of well-credentialed "coup-making" U.S. ambassadors in Central America. 1) Nicaragua: Robert Callahan -- formerly in Bolivia and Costa Rica, U.S. National War College professor, press attaché in Iraq, and established the press office at the new Office of the Director of National Intelligence in Wash, D.C. before becoming public diplomacy fellow at the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. 2) Guatemala: Stephen McFarland -- US Air War College, US Marine-embed in Iraq with a combat group, served in Venezuela under Amb. Brownfield, helped construct the US military base in Paraguay, and considered an expert on "democratic transitions." 3) Honduras: Cuban-American Hugo Llorens -- terrorism expert and Bush NSC adviser on Venezuela during failed coup of 2002. 4) El Salvador: charge d'affaires Robert Blau -- previously Deputy Director for Cuban Affairs in the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, following 2-year assignment at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana as Counselor for Political and Economic Affairs where he focused on support for the "Cuban democratic opposition.


Let's hope President Obama

Let's hope President Obama can get up the courage to break with the past when Latin American dictatorships were supported by the U.S. and their military personnel were trained at the School of the Americas. That was done to protect U.S. business interests and it was a sin against democracy. Obama has so many problems to deal with right now that he has little time for thoughtful reappraisal. We should all be grateful to Truthout researchers who help us with our homework.


The US continues to train

The US continues to train Honduras soldiers, even after the coup, according to the National Catholic Reporter: http://ncronline.org/news/global/us-continues-train-honduran-soldiers US business interests very much want Zelaya gone - democracy is anathema to corporatism. Despite what Obama may say, it's pretty clear this coup is sanctioned by the US.


Good point about the

Good point about the "permanent government" that Obama needs to confront. If he's smart he"ll cover his back with the American people and take on the bureaucracy. Clean it out thoroughly; this means the military too.


As usual the right is wrong.

As usual the right is wrong. It simply isn't true that Zelaya was trying a power grab. The proposed referendum in question was simply asking whether the electorate wanted to convene a commission to examine amending the constitution in several ways. In other words, it was asking about asking to think about change. Typically, the USG and coup apologists' hostility to any Central or South American leader who isn't a right wing US puppet manifests itself into ranting and raving about 'dictators.' Doesn't make much sense that the entire rest of the world condemning the coup would have much sympathy for dictatorial leaders, does it? Sadly, Mr. Obama apparently shares this hostility which makes it unlikely for US policy toward the South to change.


Bernard Lammers' point is

Bernard Lammers' point is exactly right: this would be an excellent opportunity for Obama to show real courage & break with the less-than-honorable past way of dealing with Latin America.