Michael
Jul 27th 2009, 02:00 PM
This particular coup is very notable and strikingly unusual.
What we have here is a coup in Central America that was NOT engineered in Washington. :eek:
Been a while since anyone has seen one of those... in Central America or anywhere else on the planet for that matter.
The Honduran affair suggests a sea change in American policy, regional experts argue
No sooner had Honduran President Manuel Zelaya been forced out of his country at gunpoint (and in pyjamas) than Hugo Chavez suggested the U.S. was involved in the June 28 coup.
"They will have to get to the bottom of how much of a hand the CIA ... had in this," said Venezuela's fiercely anti-American, leftist president.
Chavez knows a thing or two about coups. He staged an unsuccessful one himself in 1992, was elected in 1998, survived a coup attempt in 2002, and has since been re-elected.
And, after all, the U.S. has had a long, dark and complex history in Latin America.
Had this been the 1980s or the '70s, '60s, or '50s, not many jaws would have dropped at Chavez's reflexive reaction. But it isn't.
The White House moved quickly to scotch "any rumours that we were in any way involved in this."
Granted, says Christopher Sabatini, senior director at the Americas Society think-tank in New York, "the U.S.'s sinister hand has been behind many coups in the region in the past.
"But this was a Honduran coup of institutions, between its Supreme Court and its democratically elected leader."
Source (http://www.thestar.com/article/664415)
Now official US Administration denials of involvement aren't worth the breath used to spit them out with as they are standard operating procedure even when the US is heavily involved and calling all the shots.
What is different this time is that the White House and State Department are apparently NOT lying through their teeth here. That is newsworthy!
As for the merits of the coup, I see merits on both sides, with both the President and the Honduran coup plotters. Both are clearly trying to act unconstitutionally and for that reason, I have sympathy with neither faction.
I just think it is newsworthy to remark on the NON-involvement of the US Government in a coup. That's really, really shocking and a huge breath of fresh air.
Let us hope that this is an actual change in US foreign policy and not just a freakishly unique anomoly.
From the same article...
"Right now, the U.S. is hands-off in regard to Latin America," says Teichman. "But that wasn't the case for the last 100 years."
Indeed, on almost 20 occasions in the first 30 years of the 20th century, the U.S. sent troops into Caribbean and Central American countries, most often the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua and Mexico.
The Cold War led to U.S. intervention in various forms in Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1961), the Dominican Republic (1965), Chile (1973), and Grenada (1983), as well as active involvement in the insurgencies in El Salvador and Nicaragua in the 1980s. (Honduras was used as a base for American counter-insurgency operations in that decade and 600 troops are still stationed at its Soto Cano Air Base.)
In each case, the U.S. – via direct military force or covert CIA operations – either overthrew, or attempted to overthrow, left-wing regimes and replace them with pro-American dictatorial governments.
After the history of intervention, says Sabatini at the Americas Society, the default suspicion that the U.S. is always involved in Latin American coups will take time to lift.
Indeed, it took the US decades to earn the reputation as one the world's most powerful anti-democratic regime, number one coup-plotter and eternal friend of murderous tyrants. I suspect it will take just as long to unwind.
What we have here is a coup in Central America that was NOT engineered in Washington. :eek:
Been a while since anyone has seen one of those... in Central America or anywhere else on the planet for that matter.
The Honduran affair suggests a sea change in American policy, regional experts argue
No sooner had Honduran President Manuel Zelaya been forced out of his country at gunpoint (and in pyjamas) than Hugo Chavez suggested the U.S. was involved in the June 28 coup.
"They will have to get to the bottom of how much of a hand the CIA ... had in this," said Venezuela's fiercely anti-American, leftist president.
Chavez knows a thing or two about coups. He staged an unsuccessful one himself in 1992, was elected in 1998, survived a coup attempt in 2002, and has since been re-elected.
And, after all, the U.S. has had a long, dark and complex history in Latin America.
Had this been the 1980s or the '70s, '60s, or '50s, not many jaws would have dropped at Chavez's reflexive reaction. But it isn't.
The White House moved quickly to scotch "any rumours that we were in any way involved in this."
Granted, says Christopher Sabatini, senior director at the Americas Society think-tank in New York, "the U.S.'s sinister hand has been behind many coups in the region in the past.
"But this was a Honduran coup of institutions, between its Supreme Court and its democratically elected leader."
Source (http://www.thestar.com/article/664415)
Now official US Administration denials of involvement aren't worth the breath used to spit them out with as they are standard operating procedure even when the US is heavily involved and calling all the shots.
What is different this time is that the White House and State Department are apparently NOT lying through their teeth here. That is newsworthy!
As for the merits of the coup, I see merits on both sides, with both the President and the Honduran coup plotters. Both are clearly trying to act unconstitutionally and for that reason, I have sympathy with neither faction.
I just think it is newsworthy to remark on the NON-involvement of the US Government in a coup. That's really, really shocking and a huge breath of fresh air.
Let us hope that this is an actual change in US foreign policy and not just a freakishly unique anomoly.
From the same article...
"Right now, the U.S. is hands-off in regard to Latin America," says Teichman. "But that wasn't the case for the last 100 years."
Indeed, on almost 20 occasions in the first 30 years of the 20th century, the U.S. sent troops into Caribbean and Central American countries, most often the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua and Mexico.
The Cold War led to U.S. intervention in various forms in Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1961), the Dominican Republic (1965), Chile (1973), and Grenada (1983), as well as active involvement in the insurgencies in El Salvador and Nicaragua in the 1980s. (Honduras was used as a base for American counter-insurgency operations in that decade and 600 troops are still stationed at its Soto Cano Air Base.)
In each case, the U.S. – via direct military force or covert CIA operations – either overthrew, or attempted to overthrow, left-wing regimes and replace them with pro-American dictatorial governments.
After the history of intervention, says Sabatini at the Americas Society, the default suspicion that the U.S. is always involved in Latin American coups will take time to lift.
Indeed, it took the US decades to earn the reputation as one the world's most powerful anti-democratic regime, number one coup-plotter and eternal friend of murderous tyrants. I suspect it will take just as long to unwind.