American foreign policy duplicity and deception reaches new lows in Honduras
Posted on July 12th, 2009

Ajit Randeniya

AmericaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s ruling elite, under the spell of the neocons and other special interest groups, have traditionally based their foreign policy on the triple strategies of interference in the domestic political affairs of other countries, implementing regime change through lackeys when necessary, and as in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, bombing and invading when other plots do not work.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ These strategies or their calamitous impact on the public perception of the US rarely receive significant public scrutiny due to the ignorance, and disinterest, of the great majority of the American population in international affairs; they believe that America is the centre of the universe, and affairs elsewhere really donƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t matter! This situation was slightly changed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks, prompting even the usually non-thinking Americans to question as to why the world resents America so much.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The neocons who have hijacked American foreign affairs to achieve their Zionist aims however, beat foxes for cunning: their advice to the administration (headed by Bush ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”the idiotƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ at the time) was to introduce new, more elaborate methods of deception, rather than undertaking a fundamental re-think of their uncivilised and criminal behaviour in the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”global villageƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢: the three major international events within the span of the last month, in Iran, China and Honduras, reveal the essential features of the new model in relation to heightened levels of duplicity and deception.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”enhancedƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ deception of course, is built on the traditional underlying bedrock of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”bogus ideologiesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ such as US commitment to Democracy the world over, protection of Human Rights, fighting for freedom of the press, and concepts such as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”failed statesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ and ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”global extremismƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, designed to mislead their own population and the global population at large. Such ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”idealsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ are used cynically to justify acts of surreptitious US intervention, and invasion, in order to administer the US prescriptions of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”state-buildingƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ and promises of a final dream of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”legitimate, accountable governanceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, as they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ These ideologies are aimed at exploiting the deep-rooted, racially-based psychological fears of white Americans who also harbour the illusive ambition of ruling the world. They also appeal to the sense of moral obligation, and other patronising attitudes fuelled by Christian fundamentalism that is rampant in rural America. This belief system makes failure unacceptable, and alternatives inconceivable, needless to say, without recognising the cultural inappropriateness of the remedies involved. The neocons usually conceal the lack of necessary knowledge and legitimacy of their construct, the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”international communityƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, to implement such remedies.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The above scenario provided the backdrop to the 28 June 2009 coup d’ƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚©tat in Honduras, in which soldiers of the Honduran military seized President Manuel Zelaya and forcibly dispatched him to Costa Rica. Following the military takeover, the Honduran Congress installed the wealthy businessman from ZelayaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s own Liberal Party, Roberto Micheletti as President.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The coup attracted immediate condemnation from regional leaders and more widely: the Organisation of American States, the Rio Group (most of Latin America), and the United Nations General Assembly have all called for the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”immediate and unconditional returnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ of President Zelaya. President Lula da Silva of Brazil and President Cristina Fernandez of Argentina denounced the coup and called for the re-instatement of President Zelaya. Fidel Castro wrote in Cuba’s state media that there was no room for negotiations with the coup’s leaders and their resignation should be demanded and younger military officers not beholden to the oligarchy. The EU, due to pressure from the former colonial ruler Spain, issued a similar response.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In a display similar to the response to the Iranian and Chinese events a few weeks earlier, America failed to denounce the coup and the violence that followed, but called upon ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic CharterƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not answer media questions as to whether the US will support returning Zelaya to power.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Washington’s ambivalence in condemning the coup gave credibility to President ChƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚¡vezƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s early observation that ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-The Yankee empire has much to do with this troglodyte coup.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ US Claims that they were ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”surprisedƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ by the coup lacked credibility in view of the strong US ties with the Honduras military, and the US history of instigating coups against progressive leaders in the region: during the 1980’s, the US used its bases in Honduras to train and arm the Contras, the reactionary Nicaraguan paramilitaries, in their war against the Sandinista government; it is recorded history that the US State Department (under the Bush administration) admitted that it had ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-given financial and other support to individuals and organisationsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ actively involved in the 2002 military coup against President Chavez in Venezuela.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The Honduran coup clearly exposed the levels to which the US will stoop, when pushed by the desperation over their loss of control over the emerging political trends, in Latin America in this particular case. The events also exposed the ugly confluence of the hypocrisy of AmericaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s avowed commitment to Democracy globally, and the new strategy of deception in the aftermath of such subterfuge.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The US vested interest in this case is crystal clear: the hemisphere has changed substantially since the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and since the 2002 April Venezuelan coup in particular: eleven more left-wing governments have been elected on waves of popular discontent at US-backed economic and trade policies. Despite Barack ObamaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”north-south bonhomieƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ established at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad, the US currently faces a group of neighbours devoted to regional integration through organisations such as the nine member ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”ALBA coalition of leftist governmentsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢, and most importantly, enfranchisement of the poor against neocon machinations.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In his three years of power, Zelaya typified this trend by taking on powerful vested interests in Honduras, the group of 10 families that controlled the entire Honduran economy. The Zelaya government maintained a 7% rate of economic growth, reduced poverty by 10%, sharply increased minimum wage, provided free school lunches, and lowered the cost of public transport, contradicting the capitalist prescription for developing countries. He had also become one of the fiercest critics of Washington in the region; the US would have liked a change!

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The US found its opportunity in Zelaya’s plan to, to hold an informal, nonbinding plebiscite on reforming the constitution, written in 1982 at the height of the brutal repression of leftists, to preserve the country for the most powerful families and interests. The US concerns over Zelaya intensified due to this democratic move, fearing that such reform would cause loss of influence of their lackeys permanently: earlier this year, ChƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚¡vez won a referendum that amended the colonial constitution, allowing him to seek re-election indefinitely. Others, like Ecuador’s Rafael Correa and Bolivia’s Evo Morales, have implemented similar constitutional changes democratically, allowing them to seek additional terms. The US acted to safeguard the interests of its corrupt lackeys in Honduras. Later, Honduras’s Congress formally removed Mr. Zelaya from the presidency and named congressional leader Roberto Micheletti who had opposed his plans for a referendum as his successor.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ America and all the champions of Human Rights were oddly silent on reports of political repression, the closing of TV and radio stations, the detention of journalists, and assaults on the ambassadors of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and other leftist Latin governments that followed the coup. The president of the National Commission of Human Rights in Nicaragua defended the replacement of Mr. Zelaya as ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”constitutionalƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢. The newly ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”chosenƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ President of Honduras, Micheletti stated that Taiwan and Israel supported his government.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ The events speak for themselves: the emperor has no clothes!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2022 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress