Oops, we did it again. The opportunity presented to hit the reboot button on friendship with Latin America by the Honduran coup which ousted democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya was a gift to our newly elected President. If he had made all the right moves, he would have created a blue print for a new relationship with Latin America and thus furthering our national interest in the region.
To state the obvious,when playing the game of international politics you need to know where you want to end up and then create the road map to getting there. The US needed to end up looking like it would oppose military coups against democratically elected leaders and thus fostering a new more benevolent image. We needed to clean up the mess we have created in US/Latin America relations by backing right wing death squads, overthrowing democratic governments and general meddling in their affairs with impunity. Let's not forget President Bush's hostile reception in Argentina.
Still, it is not easy being a likable empire; only FDR was able to pull that off. President Obama with his skin color and international pedigree was given a golden opportunity to do the same. Not only was he given the benefit of the doubt by once hostile leaders Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro and Evo Morales, he was given an opportunity to make Brazilian President Lula da Silva the go to man in the region.
President Lula da Silva offered time and time again his guidance and insight into the Honduran crisis and the region. Instead of listening to President Lula da Silva, Obama chose the counsel of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.
Perhaps the missed opportunity in Latin America can be traced back to Obama's misunderstanding of a basic tenet of politics in the Big League. In politics, there are winners and losers. Almost winning counts for nothing. Clinton lost and she has no business in Obama's White House. It is she who has the business-as-usual worldview of Latin America. Rather than following the recommendations of the Organization of American States, she muddled things with her unofficial ragtag team of advisors and opportunists like Lanny Davis. Moreover, she misperceives US interests as premised on undermining the clout of leftist leaders such as Chavez whom Zelaya had declared a friend, missing the point that the Honduran move has played directly into the hands of Chavez. Denouncing the elections without a previous reinstatement of Zelaya would have undercut Chavez talking points against the US. Obama has with his handling of the Honduras coup inadvertently handed Chavez the gift that will keep on giving and thus squandered the promise of a new relationship with Latin America, one where Lula da Silva in friendship with the US, and not Chavez, sets the agenda for Latin America in the years to come.
Thanks
Democracy and liberty is subjective!!
That popular phrase that's being thrown around at the moment, this a teachable moment!
The implications of this are a further eroding of national credibility and another political destabilization in region which has already suffered under corrupt governments for centuries.
"We can do the same-old same-old, yes we can! We can believe that change we can't, yes we can! My second term is the one I was waiting for, pursuing the same old failed policies of my predecessor - now isn't that 'reaching across the aisle'? We are not the red states or the blue states, we are just the same old global bullies we've always been! Wall St. is MY Main St., yes it is!"
The point of the article is right on. The moment has been squandered. The hearts and minds of millions of latin Americans who read the news have been set in stone and reconfirmed. They know what we are.
This is what happens when you have a sellout as Secretary of State.
This government is pro coup in violation of the OAS Charter.
The US did the right thing when the military kicked Zelaya out. There was a strong US reaction against this act. This was different behavior from the past. (Zelaya had not been very friendly to the US--so the knee-jerk reaction would have been to get rid of him).
Then when both Honduran sides made mistakes, constiutionally and otherwise, the US supporting the elections as constiutionally mandated was the right thing to do.
The folks running these action steps have been doing it for a long time--Shannon, Llorens, Valenzuela, Kelly and they know the area intimately. The Obama administration, and especially Sec. Clinton supported the folks who were close to the situation. If anything, the US response has been very respectful of the multinational organizations also involved--OAS, UNASUR, and even, for a while, the ALBA.
This is a new way to get things done in Latin America--All countries are now part of the community. The Dep't of State has acted in a superior manner.
You cut too broad a swathe by saying that "Bush Peeps," especially the ones mentioned--Llorens, Shannon, Valenzuela and Kelly are all, by definition, incompetent and ideologically oriented. Shannon, Valenzuela and Kelly have been recently promoted by the Obama administration. At what point do they become Obama peeps?
I am aware that the int'l organizations mentioned (though Brazil, from UNASUR and the OAS, is now beginning to waver, a bit), believe the elections to have been unconstitutional.
Lastly, there have been 16 constitutions in Honduras. The 1982 (not 1984 as you state) had many of the features of the 1957, and 1965 constitution, some new ones, including t strengthening of the legislative branch and judicial branch to become coequal with the executive branch ( this last one, traditionally, had been dominant). Getting used to this is what got Zelaya into trouble. This constitution, as the one in 1965, was promulgated during a military dictatorship.
Again, sorry for confusing you.
My only point was that the Dep't of State acted well in this situation. It respected the constitution, tattered as it is by the actions of both Zelaya and the opposition; it supported the elections which had been constitutionally mandated; and the decisions were made by the Hondurans. It still made its point of view clearly known, though.
Has he spoken out about the ban on minarets in Switzerland, because god forbid we should blow a chance to meddle in a democratic European country too.
J