Also worth pondering is this commentary by Fareed Zakaria:

Secretary Clinton is even utilizing GWB rhetoric about not intending to “cut and run” from Afghanistan. Frankly, I’m disappointed in both Obama and Clinton for beating the war drums like this. This isn’t the change I voted for, but I also realize the grip that the military industrial complex has on both parties. The US has been geared for war since WWII, and unfortunately, despite peace movements, we haven’t been able to move away from this reality.

Finally, if you are unsure about the situation in Afghanistan, then I would urge you to not support it. There is no point in supporting something that you don’t wholeheartedly believe in, especially when lives are on the line. The people at Brave New Films have some great resources that are worth examining. Please check them out, and let us know what you think:

In the meantime, the de facto leaders of Honduras have waged a war at home against any opposition to its rule and one abroad with a successful public relations effort, led by Lanny Davis, a Clinton supporter in 2008 and pro-Israeli spinmeister. Lanny Davis has ties to the pro-Isreali lobby, is the treasurer of a pro-Lieberman PAC, and has even referred to himself as a “good friend” of George W. Bush. With credentials like these, it is no wonder that the current government in Honduras tapped Davis to run its PR effort. He is firmly planted in the neocon political establishment, and in doing so, he made it more plausible to connect Zelaya to South American, socialist boogeyman Chavez, even though evidence from the Millennium Challenge Scorecard, utilizing data from the World Bank, UNESCO and Heritage Foundation, shows that the country had relatively high scores for economic freedom. And if the connection of Zelaya to Chavez wasn’t enough to earn the minds of people on the fence in supporting the coup, Davis could also connect Zelaya to Ahmadinejad in Iran, citing Chavez’s support of the Iranian President in his own election woes this spring, which fits nicely with his pro-Israeli portfolio.

Back in Honduras, there have been mass arrests, illegal detentions, violations of women’s rights and the blocking of media that is not favorable to the de facto government. Groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented these abuses, which have yet to be investigated or prosecuted by the Honduran attorney general’s office. Furthermore, many candidates who are running for public office, including one presidential candidate, have removed their names from the ballots for tomorrow in protest against the existing government, likely producing lopsided results. And the current state is coercing workers into participating in the election by informing them that they must show documentation indicating that they have voted or else they may lose their jobs. So far only Panama, Costa Rica, and Peru have indicated that they will recognize the election results, along with the US, as signaled by State Department official Thomas Shannon earlier this month.

The US should reconsider recognizing tomorrow’s elections in Honduras not only because of the widespread abuses of the existing government but to show that things can be different in the region – that there can be full participation in elections by all factions, not just the elite or the usual suspects. Additionally, Secretary Clinton should pay closer attention to the situation and not merely assume that her pal Lanny Davis has it under control. Lanny Davis has credibility issues and is too tied to business interests and neocon factions. If the current government truly represents democracy, it would not abuse those who disagree with it and would allow freedom of the press. Last month a US polling firm surveyed Hondurans and found that 54 percent of the respondents favored a constitutional assembly to resolve the current crisis. This is what ousted President Zelaya was calling for: a constitutional assembly. The US could support dialogue that would lead to a constitutional assembly and not recognize the new government until they restore civil liberties and human rights, while promoting more transparency. Doing so could help restore the credibility and faith that many hoped would accompany the Obama administration, instead of the business as usual approach that the US has taken for decades, contributing to the distrust and skepticism that our neighbors have of US intentions. We wouldn’t tolerate elections under these oppressive conditions, why should we expect the Hondurans to do so?

Several prominent members of the de facto government in Honduras are members of the elitist, ultra-conservative Catholic Opus Dei movement, who were upset that ousted President Zelaya vetoed the ban the “morning-after” pill, which is essentially high dose birth control not to be confused with the Mifepristone “abortion pill.” The legislation was passed by the Honduran Congress under the leadership of now de facto executive Roberto Micheletti and was proposed by then Congresswoman Martha Lorena Alvarado, who today serves as the Deputy Secretary of State of the de facto regime. One day after the coup on June 29, a ban on emergency contraception was enacted, which just went into effect this month.

Honduras has the highest adolescent birthrate in Central America, and one half of women 20-24 give birth by the age of 20. Moreover, some 70% of the population lives in poverty and 40% of those live in extreme poverty. Early motherhood has been linked to extended poverty, higher infant mortality, and often perpetuates a lower standard of living as mothers have difficulty resuming school and focusing on occupational advancement. The availability of birth control and the morning after pill would help prevent unwanted pregnancies and allow Honduran women the opportunity to gain more education to better position themselves to provide for their families.

The new coup government has a documented history of violence against women. In August, an international human rights fact-finding mission found that over 400 cases of violations of human rights against women were registered. One of the first people to be killed was a transgender woman Vicky Hernandez Castillo, who was out on the night that the new government assumed power, and happened to be unaware of the imposed curfew. She was shot in the eye and strangled, and the state has refused to perform an autopsy on her.

There have been reported physical assaults, beatings that aim at women’s reproductive organs, breasts, and hips. And there have been reports of gang rapes carried out by the police to “punish” women for being involved in anti-coup demonstrations. These rapes appear to have been premeditated, as police used condoms. The victims, fearful of retaliation, have reported what has happened to human right’s organizations, but not with the current government Human Rights or Women’s Rights offices. Finally, women leaders who are opposed to the de facto government have received death threats from the police and military via e-mail and voicemail. Some women have received threats that name them specifically, along with their profession, to make them aware that the authorities are expressly tracking them.

The irony of the coup government cracking down on women’s rights is that it has sold itself as a defender of freedom. It certainly is a paradox for the de facto government to not allow women some privilege in exercising reproductive freedom and basic civil liberties, while presenting itself as democratic and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to top US lobbyist and PR firms to build them an image that purports to be respectful of the rule of law. Secretary Clinton should seriously explore these rights violations before blessing the results of the upcoming Honduran election.

This morning I heard this clip on YouTube, where a journalist even suggests that Obama should consider replacing Clinton as Secretary of State because of the mixed signals:

Seneca has offered this in response:

Obama is not going to boot Hillary out over the Honduras fiasco. But the cumulative unsettling evidence of this foreign policy team begins to define the Administration: actions (or pratfalls) in Latin America over the recent Colombian-US agreements on military cooperation have become muddled, the contradictions to 40 years of US policy on the Israeli settlements issue resulted in Hillary backtracking to recover, the Cuba policy was not seriously addressed before the President stumbled onto it at the US-Latin Summit last spring nor has the administration (nor the previous two administrations) ever defined Chavez as a national security threat if in fact he is, the Plan Merida to help Mexico appears to have fallen into the doldrums of policy fatigue, the corrosive effects of the Afghanistan war (“where empires go to die…”) are increasing, the Iraq pull-out has been turned over entirely to Secretary Gates. The most intriguing question is: How can an inspirational and uplifting leader on the world stage choose some of the best and the brightest of Americans to handle foreign policy fall so short too often by carelessness or lack of focus?

Since 1992 and the fall of the Soviet Union, US policy toward Latin America has been generally ‘insufficient’ or one of ‘benign neglect’.  In fact, many observers have concluded that both the Clinton and W. Bush administrations basically handed the lead on Latin policy to the Cuban American lobby in order to secure Florida, a swing state in the Presidential elections. The Summitry Process began by Clinton which some critics considered an every four year photo op and not much more. It did have two substantive themes: a hemispheric free trade area and strongly endorsing democracy by pointing out that Cuba was the only non-democratic country in the region.

After 9/11, Latin America was readily served up and all but forgotten so it seemed. At first, the Bush Administration catered to the fiercely anti-Castro sector which had strongly voted for him. In W’s second term, the policy was pretty much given to the bureaucracy to manage and handle. This disappointed many hardliners. The objective evolved to keep the region’s problems from distracting Secretary Rice from more serious and important areas of concern. The designated hitter for Latin Policy became a fourth level bureaucrat, an Assistant Secretary was left to fend for himself without much visible top cover. Obama reached the White House and Hillary Clinton was ensconced as Secretary of State after having successfully blocked Bill Richardson from the job. Admittedly, Gov. Richardson was in the midst of a brewing scandal in New Mexico. Several political and media wags noted that all the key Latin foreign policy slots have been given to Latinos. These included Dan Restrepo at the NSC, Arturo Valenzuela at State, Frank Mora at Defense and Carmen Lomellin as Ambassador to OAS. This has been applauded notably by the Latino constituency groups. The issue has become now one of policy. Does the Obama administration care about the Latin American region? Where does it stack up? The fact is that the region once again finds itself vis-a-vis the US on the back-burner. It is not on the cutting edge of foreign policy. Yet early on Obama found himself in a tussle on two issues: Cuba and Chavez.

When Obama attended the Summit of the Americas meeting in the spring in Trinidad Tobago, he ran into unexpected or unscripted situations: is the US now ready to re-admit Cuba to the OAS? The vast majority of the Hemisphere’s countries were angling to get Cuba back into the OAS. The Obama team seemed surprised and almost unprepared for this challenge. The other one was how to deal with Chavez. Obama showed class and engaged Chavez briefly but certainly in awkward photo ops. The Cuba question dogged Hillary in the June OAS ministerial in Honduras. At the eleventh hour the Obama team was able to scramble and cobble a mutually acceptable communiqué that did not re-admit Cuba but addressed the irregularity of Cuba being absent from the OAS family. Some labeled the new Administration’s performance “Bush Light.” At the same time the US Mexico relationship was steadily moving forward. Obama revealed his support of Plan Merida to enable Mexico to better take on the drug cartels which have created enormous instability. But the funding for Merida was largely held up because of bureaucratic lack of clarity and other requirements. The other US Mexico challenge is undocumented immigration. No political bravery has emanated from the White House to wrangle with this most sensitive political public policy issue. In fact, no one is able now to predict if immigration reform will be an agenda item in the first two years of the Administration. So far it seems like the Democrats have concluded that the immigration reform bill is a lose-lose situation. The post 9/11 anti-terrorist sentiment coupled with the global economic downturn has inflicted pain on the US body politic. The US public has become more reluctant if not hostile to new immigration flows. This has plainly put a crimp into Obama team’s outlook. The continuation of building the border wall and draconian Homeland Security illegal-immigrant raids on job sites have not been seen sympathetically in Latin America and among Latino audiences in this country.

The more defining moment for the Obama Administration has been the on-going Honduras ‘golpe’ or coup crisis. The Obama team initially sided with the ousted President Zelaya and declared that the sacred principles of democracy had to be adhered and respected. Hence, Zelaya’s restoration to power became the battle cry for US interests in the initial months. Five months later the Obama administration is backtracking on the defense of democratic principles. The Administration appears to have tired of the Honduran crisis. The de facto regime in Honduras dug in and used PR and propaganda cleverly. More interesting seemed to be the Administration’s inability to persuade the defacto regime to cede power. Honduras is small with no political influence, no economic power nor military might — only diplomacy is in its arsenal. The US having all these options thinks in exhausting the first three before employing diplomacy. Hence, the Hondurans readily resorted to the old small country approach to concerns: use diplomacy but follow the rules of not speaking first, do not get angry and finally if unable to resolve favorably the problem then tangle it more. In using these tactics, Honduras wore out the US. The Obama administration slowly began to show  impatience and wariness. They saw Honduras as a small pesky country becoming increasingly more annoying and troublesome on the international stage.

Finally, the US after having declared itself initially pro-restoration of Zelaya and passing the problem to the OAS and Nobel Laureate President Arias of Costa Rica to resolve saw itself being drawn back into the fray. The contentious process dragged out in the discussion of whether the ouster of the Honduran President was legal or not. It attracted Republican die-hearts who defended the coup (because of the Chavista factor against Zelaya) while the Administration and the whole international community condemned the coup as anti-democratic. Obama’s team began to see themselves politically caught between a rock and a hard place: do we support and restore a Chavista (enemy of the US ) while defending democracy? After five months, Secretary of State Clinton and her Assistant Secretary for Latin America (who was being denied confirmation as Ambassador to Brazil by the Republicans) sought to cut a deal and injected themselves finally into the process to basically extricate themselves from this tar-baby. This required an about face or a betrayal of the previous US position. This has now become most troubling in Latin America to see the young dynamic US Administration as less than gracious in this process. In fact, many pundits in and outside the US are remarking or noting that the Administration not only demonstrated confusion or ineptitude or at best a maladroit approach, but callously left most of the OAS membership holding the bag.

To shore up support and bring someone high-level from the US Administration, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis was chosen to be the senior US participant in a so-called Verification Commission to secure the recent signed accords now being hailed as the final solution. Solis, practically unwitting or unfamiliar with the situation, was carefully choreographed by the State Department to ensure that she would stick to the diplomatic script and not become a freelancer. Hilda had been initially hailed as the most liberal member of the Obama cabinet but by the time she left Tegucigalpa she was seen as apologist for the defacto ‘golpista’ government. She now takes the hit, not Hillary. Rather clever and cynical maneuvering it was indeed. As soon as Tom Shannon, the State Department’s overseer of this whole show announced that the Hondurans no longer had to restore Zelaya to get international recognition of the upcoming elections, the defacto government felt it was off the hook and home free.  The Brazilians, who are housing Zelaya in their Embassy and waiting for his restoration, feel the US has behaved at best negligently and indifferent. The problem could have been avoided or minimize by having initially forceful high-level US leadership on the issue. The OAS  had its Secretary General and all the countries in the region had their Presidents or Prime Minister through their Foreign Ministers decry this US perfidy. The US has had a fourth-rung bureaucrat (the Assistant Secretary) in the lead.  Obama’s team failed to recognized from the beginning the limitations of the State Department if not given top White House cover. Moreover, in handing over the volatile issue in this case to the bureaucracy, it plainly did not understand that ‘diplomats seek the path of least resistance, they believe in nothing and everything to everyone’ and as bureaucrats they adhere to: never get between a bureaucrat and his/her ambitions. They mow you down….the additional factor is that while the US behaved like a world power during the Cold War: it basically ordered everyone except the Soviets to do its bidding. In Spanish it was referred to as the ‘dedazo’…now in the post Cold War-era even the tiny insignificant powers have begun to lose their fear of the US. Yet this muddle and lack of focus produce the image of a Gulliver with Lilliputians throwing ropes over his back to bring him down. The US Latino community regardless of partisan bias will feel that if this is all the Obama Administration can provide in terms of moral leadership and support for democratic ideals and most of all the lack of consistency in policy toward Latin America then a closer  look at the expectations must be undertaken. Disappointment is the only word to describe the first real test of fortitude, skill and determination in dealing with Latin America. Arturo Valenzuela the new Assistant Secretary will now have to rectify, re-define as well as need to provide the real Obama vision of the region.

But now, the Cuban-American Congressional delegation of South Florida has taken it upon themselves to call for the US backing of elections to take place at the end of November. The problem with doing this is that the de facto president of Honduras, Micheletti, has taken to acting a bit like a dictator himself imposing curfews, cutting off power, blocking the media, etc. VivirLatino has a pretty good post up describing the current dictatorial conditions in Honduras here. How can you have legitimate elections in an environment where the citizens are on lock down? Real freedom loving, right?

Well, Reps. Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart have called for a recognition of scheduled elections, and Ros-Lehtinen went even further as she ”sat and caressed Roberto Micheletti’s arm while holding up a copy of the constitution that specifically prohibits forced exile.” Guess who was subjected to forced exile? You got it, ousted President Zelaya. The picture on Greg Weeks’ blog says a lot, but when I saw it, I immediately thought, “Your tax dollars at work.” These Congressional representatives, who should have their hands full with health care and other issues, are choosing to insert themselves in this Honduras situation recognizing a de facto leader that doesn’t even have the support of the majority of the Honduran citizenry according to this recent poll.

A new poll released from a Honduran polling company shows that “Hondurans widely (by a margin of 2.3 to 1) oppose the coup, oppose coup ‘president’ Micheletti by a margin of 3 to 1 and favor the reinstatement of their elected President Manuel Zelaya by a clear majority of 3 to 2.” I find it appalling that Congressional representatives would go to Honduras and suggest that the US support the coup government that apparently isn’t even that popular with its own citizenry.

What do you think? Should our congressional representatives be involving themselves in the Honduras fiasco?

1. Some feel that President Obama has a unique opportunity with the situation in Honduras to restore more credibility and make good on his desire for a “new” relationship with Latin America by condemning the removal of President Manuel Zelaya. In light of the recent restoration of diplomatic relations with Venezuela and Obama’s insistence that the coup in Honduras is illegal, do you think we are entering a new era in US-Latin American relations?

U.S. policy is indeed evolving, though there is so much continuity that I hesitate to call it too “new,” at least yet.  But it is important and notable that the U.S. government did not much like Zelaya, yet still is calling for his return, while also showing a willingness to pursue a multilateral solution.  The Bush administration tended to view Latin America in black and white terms, with no room for nuance, and it is nice to see the Obama administration moving away from that.

2. It has also been suggested that Zelaya is trying to stay in office indefinitely and therefore establish a dictatorship. If Zelaya’s popularity was in fact dropping as it has been suggested, why didn’t the opposition let the non-binding referendum take place? It seems that he would have lost it and been on his way out within a year, right?

The argument that he wanted to stay in power forever is not backed up by any empirical evidence that I have seen—in fact he made clear statements to the contrary.  The wording of his proposed vote did not mention the presidency (or any other specific part of the constitution) at all.  And indeed, even if he had the right to run again, he would have no chance of winning.  His approval rating was hovering around 30 percent.  I think his political opponents, including the military, saw his refusal to respect the Supreme Court’s orders as the straw that broke the camel’s back, and therefore decided to move against him.

3. Who do you think is behind this coup? Would you suspect that it is part of the military or most of the military? And any on the School of the America’s connection, which has a controversial history of producing graduates who have been accused of human rights violations and other criminal activities?

I think the School of the Americas is irrelevant to this crisis—the military (which, it seems, was mostly unified, though there are rumors of splits) found itself in an untenable position, stuck between two authorities.  Behind the coup is a political class that had tired of Zelaya, did not like his attitude or his reforms, yet was unwilling to resolve the crisis democratically. I should note, though, that I have talked to other people who argue that the military pushed for the coup even more so than civilians because they believed he was acting outside the constitution to the point that forced removal was necessary.  It will take time to sort out what the role was of each political actor.

4. I understand that both Zelaya and his replacement, Roberto Micheletti, both belong to the liberal party. Can you explain what some of the differences were between them?

The Liberal Party in Honduras dates back to the 19th century, and in part its strength has come from its willingness to allow internal dissent.  In the case of Zelaya and Micheletti, differences in policy positions, especially whether Zelaya was becoming too close to Hugo Chavez, transformed into personal dislike (Micheletti even called him mentally unstable).  It is not too common for a party to overthrow one of its own presidents, so this is yet another unusual aspect of this crisis.

5. If the US formally declares that this leadership shuffle is in fact an official military coup, and US aid to Honduras is cut off, what might we expect?

That would likely be the endgame for Micheletti, and the announcement of putting on the “hold button” until Monday (as one senior administration official put it) sends a clear signal that the U.S. is considering a formal cutoff.  Honduras has a very small and weak economy, and would suffer if the aid pipeline was shut off.  The U.S. has a tremendous amount of leverage with Honduras.  The World Bank has already “paused” its loans, so the government would quickly find itself strangled economically.

6. Finally, the de facto rulers of Honduras have imposed a media blackout. Do you think that we will see more reporting from Honduras via twitter, youtube, and blogs as we have seen in Iran?

Unfortunately, my guess is no.  Iran is a much wealthier country than Honduras.  It is estimated that only about 6 percent of Hondurans use the internet (compared to 35 percent in Iran), which is much too small to be a central part of a political movement.  There do not seem to be very many blogs written by Hondurans about the politics of the country.

In general, though, the coup government’s anti-democratic actions after Zelaya’s removal (such as the media blackout and suspending constitutional rights) are shifting international opinion even more.  It is difficult to claim the actions were intended to save democracy when you suspend democratic rights after the fact.

In other news, Gustavo Arellano, who sometimes visits and comments on this blog, has a great post up on the OC Weekly’s blog about Rep. Loretta Sanchez’s demeanor with one of Richard Nixon’s descendants. Read about it here, and note how comfortable she is telling mentiras to young constituents.

Finally, a talented 23 year old DREAM Activist, Walter Lara, faces deportation to Argentina, the country he left as a three year old with his family. Lara grew up speaking English, attending public schools, and graduated Miami-Dade Community College with a 3.7 grade point average. You can learn more about Walter here, and help him out by signing a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Every year we import educated H1B visa workers, which can be a costly process. Why not tap in to the young talent already here with young people like Walter?

Some people have suggested that Latinos are only interested in comprehensive immigration reform or domestic policy matters, but as Seneca has pointed out, we are sorely underrepresented in US foreign policy and aren’t readily perceived as players in that game. Hopefully, with the participation of scholars like Nathan Gonzalez in Middle East foreign policy, we can change that perception and learn more in the process. Check out some of the questions I was able to ask him, and feel free to add your own thoughts:

1. Why should Latinos here in the US be concerned with what is happening in Iran? Some in our community have argued that we should stay focused on the domestic issues at hand and foreign policy as it relates to the Americas.

Luckily, I have not heard anyone wonder aloud why we should care about what is happening in Iran. That would make as much sense as someone saying, “Why should I learn Spanish, I live in America!” However, something I have been asked is why I, as a Latino, spend so much time studying and commenting on Iran. But the beauty of your site, and the various efforts underway to increase Latino participation in politics and civil society, is that they provide avenues for Latinos to take part in the larger social fabric. You have Latino doctors, Latino lawyers, and now we’ll have a Latina Supreme Court justice. Why not have Latinos who study the Middle East?

2. You have been a proponent of engaging with Iran. Some have argued that engaging with the current regime would be like legitimizing the leadership, which is kind of like the arguments that have been tossed around for not engaging with Cuba or Venezuela. Do you think that the Obama administration should be more proactive in its approach with Iran?
 
I would be lying if I said that the current crackdown on protesters doesn’t complicate things politically for President Obama here at home. However, the Bush administration aligned our interests very closely to those of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is the country with the second greatest influence over Iraq, after the United States. This means that for our troops to come home safely, we need to coordinate closely with the Islamic Republic. The same goes for another one of Iran’s neighbor, Afghanistan. We have no choice but to work with whoever is in power in Iran, and that is one of the unfortunate and seldom-told legacies of the Bush presidency.

3. One of the things that comes to mind in watching the demonstrations is that the US has had problems in claiming the legitimacy of its own elections in recent years (2000 & 2004). Do we appear hypocritical if we start to attack Iran’s electoral process?

I don’t agree with those comparisons, which I’ve been hearing a lot. What we saw in Iran was the Interior Ministry proclaim a winner without even taking the time to count votes. It would be like George Bush convening the Electoral College to vote for him before the states even announced their vote tallies. We only mock the disenfranchisement that took place in Florida and Ohio when we make such a moral equivalence.

4. If the protests continue despite warnings from the Supreme Leader Khamenei, what does this say about his authority or power?

The minute the supreme leader took President Ahmadinejad’s side was the moment he lost his above-the-fray status. As the arrests of key political figures continue, such as those targeting the family members of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president and one of the country’s wealthiest individuals, it becomes more likely that a coup will be attempted through the Assembly of Experts. This is the body headed by Rafsanjani which has the constitutional authority to remove the supreme leader.

5. For me, watching the situation unfold in Iran has been a good reinforcement of why we have a separation of church and state here in the US. In light of recent events in the US that have been tinged with religious thought such as the killing of Dr. George Tiller and the gay marriage debate, do you think it is fair to draw parallels or comparisons of what could happen here if we inched toward more converging of religion with public policy?
 
I think it is a fair comparison. For example, there is nothing in Shia Islam, as traditionally practiced, that allows a mere cleric to take executive authority over the state. But this is exactly what Ayatollah Khomeini did following the Iranian Revolution (1978-79). In other words, just because we think we understand how the Bible or the Qur’an works, it doesn’t mean that popular religious figures can’t hijack those Holy texts to advance their narrow political ambitions, and in the process make life miserable for the rest of us. We can avoid this problem by keeping a sturdy wall separating church and state.

6. Finally, what are you thoughts about the use of social media in disseminating information about the situation in Iran?

I have personally learned a lot from what is happening in Iran. I only started using Twitter after seeing how powerful a communication tool it has been for Iranian protesters. At the same time, we should not exaggerate the role of social networking sites. The last time Iran had a revolution there was no Twitter, no Facebook, and no cell phones. Only courage and determination.