Confirmation Hold on Valenzuela Ensured “Clean Hands” in His New Job

[Downwinder]

http://hondurasoye.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/confirmation-hold-on-valenzuela-ensured-clean-hands-in-his-new-job/

[Peace Patriot]

1. This is an interesting pair of articles, Magbana's and the one she is commenting on...

I am quoting the entire linked article, because it is so complex--reflective of the Byzantine nature of our anti-democratic, corpo-fascist run government. I'm also boldfacing the "players" listed, because we need to identify and dig deeper into the actions of these foreground "players" if we are ever to understand this situation and effectively strategize to support real democracy in Honduras (and throughout Latin America).

----

U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT SELLS OUT HONDURAN DEMOCRACY FOR SENATE CONFIRMATIONS
Written by Laura Carlsen
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Source: Americas Mexico Blog

• Policy change to recognize elections without reinstatement of Zelaya torpedoes peace agreement, mollifies Republicans and alienates Latin America

• President Zelaya pronounces Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord a “dead letter”

• Anti-coup organizations call for elections boycott on Nov. 29

In one of the lowest points in U.S. diplomatic history, the State Department announced a turnabout in its Honduran policy and stated it will recognize the results of Nov. 29 elections even if held under the military coup.

The new strategy to promote elections without first assuring a return to constitutional order torpedoes the accord that the State Department itself brokered and was signed by President Manuel Zelaya and coup leader Roberto Micheletti on Oct. 29.

On Nov. 4, just days after Secretary of State Clinton anounced a major breakthrough in resolving the Honduran political crisis, Asst. Secretary of State Thomas Shannon stated in an interview with CNN that “the formation of the National Unity Government is apart from the reinstatement of President Zelaya” and that the Honduran Congress will decide when and if Zelaya is reinstated. His surprise declaration scuttled the point of reinstatement in the agreement, leaving the matter up in the air while confirming that the U.S. government will recognize elections anyway.

U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States, Lewis Anselem and Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens confirmed this new position. At the OAS meeting, Anselem, whose disparaging remarks toward Latin American countries have alienated many southern diplomats, criticized the other nations’ refusal to recognize elections staged by a coup regime, “I’ve heard many in this room say that they will not recognize the elections in Honduras… I’m not trying to be a wiseguy, but what does that mean? What does that mean in the real world, not in the world of magical realism?”

Llorens also portrayed the new policy as pragmatism, stating on Nov. 8, “The elections will be part of the reality and will return Honduras to the path of democracy.”

The repeated use of "reality" as the justification for the policy change shows an attempt on the part of the State Department to unilaterally impose a definition of Honduran reality—contrary to its own previous definition and that of the international community. This unilateral diplomacy harks back to Bush foreign policies that many Americans and Latin Americans believed had been thrown out with the incoming Obama administration

The Diplomacy of Deceit

As analysts piece together the events of the past few days that took us from breakthrough to breakdown in international efforts to restore rule of law in Honduras, the real story emerges.

As former ambassador Robert White writes today, Tom Shannon met with Republican Senator Jim DeMint on Oct. 20 and DeMint urged him to recognize the Honduran elections without the reinstatement of Zelaya. DeMint offered to release his holds on Shannon's nomination to the ambassadorship of Brazil and the nomination of Arturo Valenzuela to fill Shannon's shoes as Asst. Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs.

DeMint, who traveled to Honduras to meet with the coup regime last month, had blocked these two key State Department nominations ostensibly in protest of the administration’s policies to reinstate Zelaya.

White reports that there is every indication that Shannon had already formulated this critical change in policy to abandon the demand for reinstatement when he flew down to Tegucigalpa on Oct. 28, and that coup leader Roberto Micheletti knew this. That left only President Zelaya and the rest of the world in the dark as to the real goal of the negotiations.

What will surely go down in the books as one of the worst diplomatic agreements ever, was hammered out by the State Department team—Shannon, joined by Obama advisor Dan Restrepo and the man who has now been sent in to try to clean up the mess, Craig Kelly. It was signed by the two parties on Oct. 29.

The agreement includes a commitment to form a Government of National Reconciliation by Nov. 5. It calls for the Honduran Congress to vote on returning presidential powers with no deadline whatsoever. It includes a non-binding opinion from the Supreme Court, again with no deadline.

In retrospect the trap is clear. The agreement left open the absurd but possible solution of having the coup form the unity government without a legitimate president, with non-compliance made to seem the fault of Zelaya if he refused to participate. So why did Zelaya sign?

Many of us believed at that point that the State Department was negotiating in good faith to reinstate the president and that the Congressional vote was merely a face-saving measure for the coup. Zelaya had laid out a position in negotiations that it should be the Congress, and not the Court, that made the decision to revoke the destitution decree. In the context of unspoken agreements with members of the Honduran Congress and the U.S. State Department, the understanding was that the need to hold recognized elections and the threat of more sanctions had finally broken the intransigence of the coup and paved the way for a return to constitutional rule.

Lest there be any doubt about the deal, DeMint released a press statement bragging “Senator secures commitment for U.S. to back Nov. 29 elections even if Zelaya is not reinstated.”

The statement reads, “I am happy to report the Obama Administration has finally reversed its misguided Honduran policy and will fully recognize the November 29th elections... Secretary Clinton and Assistant Secretary Shannon have assured me that the U.S. will recognize the outcome of the Honduran elections regardless of whether Manuel Zelaya is reinstated. I take our administration at their word that they will now side with the Honduran people and end their focus on the disgraced Zelaya.”

He goes on to lay out his scenario for the anachronism of the first elections staged by a military coup in the 21st century.

“Now, thanks to the Obama Administration’s welcome reversal, the new government sworn into office next January can expect the full support of the United States and I hope the entire international community. I trust Secretary Clinton and Mr. Shannon to keep their word, but this is the beginning of the process, not the end. I will eagerly watch the elections, and continue closely monitoring our administration’s future actions with respect to Honduras and Latin America.”

The Washington script played out. On Nov. 9, the Senate confirmed Valenzuela. DeMint lifted his hold on Shannon's confirmation, although another Republican stepped up to protest, this time over Cuba policy. With Shannon's confirmation still blocked, it seems the Republicans repaid the diplomat in his own coin.

DeMint's crowing is understandable. The recent machinations mean that a rightwing coup could remain in power to preside over elections in which only pro-coup candidates are likely to participate. It means a setback—not defeat—of the popular movement to hold a constitutional assembly and push forward with policies to relieve the suffering of the poor and build greater equality.

But DeMint cannot take full credit for the reversal. The Clinton State Department had been signalling a reversal on the commitment to restore Zelaya for months. Statements became more and more ambivalent, sometimes saying it supported Zelaya's return and others calling only for a "return to constitutional order" without mentioning Zelaya even when pressed. This past week was the first time that it marked a clear "no-Zelaya" strategy option.

In Whites's words, "As Shannon well knew, this change of policy would give away the principal leverage the U.S. could bring to bear to persuade the de facto government to permit the prompt return of President Zelaya." By going back on the commitment to withhold recognition of elections held under a coup regime, the U.S. government has given coup leaders and the armed forces a green light to remain in power until a new president is sworn in on Jan. 27.

That president, if indeed the crisis doesn't explode into even greater proportions before then, will likely not be recognized by most of the countries in the hemisphere or a huge percentage of the Honduran population. Governance in these conditions will be impossible. Unless Zelaya is restored immediately, the groundwork has been laid for a prolonged and severe period of violence and unrest in Central America.

Move Producces Anger and Distrust in Latin America

The Honduran Congress has set no date for voting on reinstatement of President Zelaya and indicated he will not be reinstated before the elecitons.

Recall that Zelaya’s reinstatement was the key point of the San José Accords that the State Department organized under the auspices of Costa Rican president Oscar Arias, and the center of resolutions in the United Nations and the Organization of American States, both supported by the U.S. government.

The UN declaration resolves, “To reaffirm that President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales is the constitutional President of Honduras and to demand the immediate, safe, and unconditional return of the President to his constitutional functions.”

The July 1 resolution of the OAS, “Demands the immediate and unconditional restoration of the legitimate and Constitutional Government of the President of the Republic, Mr. José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, and of the legally established authority in Honduras;” Honduras was suspended from the OAS as a result of the failure to reinstate President Zelaya, amid ongoing diplomatic efforts to achieve that end.

The new U.S. position has raised the ire of other Latin American countries. At a meeting of the OAS Nov. 10, many expressed a commitment not to recognize coup-held electons. Secretary General Jose Insulza stated that the organization would not send elections observers to Honduras.

The Rio Group, which includes the U.S.’s most powerful allies in the region, Mexico and Brazil, issued an unequivocal statement Nov. 6 calling for the immediate reinstatement of Zelaya. It was signed on to by the meeting of Latin American and Caribbean (foreign) ministers held simultaneously in Montego Bay.

The 24 Latin American nations stated, “The immediate reinstatement of president Jose Manuel Zelaya in the office to which he was elected by the Honduran people constitutes an indispensable prerequisite to re-establish constitutional order, rule of law and democracy in Honduras, as well as for the normalization of relations between the Republic of Honduras and the Rio Group and for it to be possible to recognize the results of elections scheduled to take place on Nov. 29.”

Craig Kelly, one of the architects of the diplomacy of deceit revealed in the Oct. 29 agreement, has now been dispatched to patch things up. He did not receive a warm welcome from President Zelaya and unless he carries a mandate for repentence in his briefcase, he will have very little room to maneuver.

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2210/68/

------

Magbana replies to all this:

------

In an article yesterday, Laura Carlsen, suggests that the State Department sold out Honduran democracy in order to unfreeze the hold Sen. DeMint put on diplomatic post confirmations. I doubt this. I think the US had little to sell in that regard since Honduran democracy was never a priority.

But, here is another angle you might want to consider. The hold on Valenzuela’s confirmation prevented him from being in Honduras when Tom Shannon put the screws to President Zelaya last week and from being anywhere near the US’ decision to recognize the November 29th election without reinstatement of Zelaya. Valenzuela’s lack of involvement in the questionable US role in Honduras allows him to come to his new job with clean hands. More importantly, should there be any congressional inquiry in the future about the US’ shenanigans in Honduras, Valenzuela will have “plausible deniability.”

As of now, there is still a hold on Shannon’s confirmation to be ambassador to Brazil and maybe that will be lifted after the Honduran election takes place. DeMint lifted his hold on Shannon’s confirmation at the same time he lifted the hold on Valenzuela. But, retiring Florida Sen. Mel Martinez’ replacement, Sen. George Lemieux, placed a hold on it immediately thereafter. This leaves Shannon in limbo as Valenzuela is in Shannon’s job now and Shannon has yet to hit the beaches of Ipanema.

For the State Department, the more daylight between Shannon’s duplicitous deeds in Honduras and his diplomatic post in the powerhouse of Latin America, the better. I am sure that the Brazilian diplomats in Tegucigalpa have received an earful from Zelaya about what went down with Shannon.

http://hondurasoye.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/confirmation-hold-on-valenzuela-ensured-clean-hands-in-his-new-job/

-------------------------------------------

I don't think either of these articles is very enlightening as to what really went down in Honduras. I think that what really went down happened at the Obama-Clinton-Pentagon (top brass)-James Baker (Bush Cartel) level, not at the Shannon-Valenzuela-DeMint-Lemieux level (the foreground theater). And I fear that it is very, very, VERY bad, and basically has to do with Rumsfeld's oil war plan for South America and some hold that the Bush Cartel has on Obama. This may go way back to a deal that I think Daddy Bush engineered, in circa late 2006, to rescue Junior from Cheney/Rumsfeld's plan to nuke Iran. The deal offered Bush/Cheney immunity from impeachment/prosecution in exchange for their not nuking Iran (an action that may have brought nuclear powers China and Russia into the fray, on Iran's side--a potential Armageddon). The deal also required Rumsfeld's resignation, although he was probably also given immunity.

If this is what occurred in late 2006, then several things follow. One is that the next president of the US had to agree to "the deal." And, with the US voting system now entirely in the discretionary control of a handful of far rightwing voting machine corporations, the global corporate predators and warmongers who rule over us are in a position to easily--EASILY!--determine election outcomes. The candidates were vetted on this "deal," and only those who agreed to abide by it were allowed to go forward. Obama has certainly acted like he agreed to immunity from prosecution for the Bush Junta principles. (His stated reason for not investigating/prosecuting these rancid war criminals--that "we must look forward, not backward"--is absurd on its face, and, from a Constitutional scholar, disgraceful.)

Secondly (given an "Iran is off the table" scenario): If the US military's huge war machine was not to get its next oil supply from Iran, where would it get it?

What I'm getting at is just about the worst thing that I was hoping against hope was not true--that Obama has agreed to the war plan, or, at the least, has agreed to not blocking the war preparations--the Honduran coup (securing the US military base in Honduras), the SEVEN new US military bases in Colombia, the $6 BILLION in military aid to Colombia, the re-activation of the US 4th Fleet in the Caribbean, the continued, virulent psyops-disinformation campaign against Chavez and other leftist leaders--perhaps in the hope (Obama's) that they will not block his re-election in 2012 (and give him an even worse Puke/'Blue Dog' controlled Congress in 2010). Then he will at some point have to decide what his response to the next "Gulf of Tonkin" will be (Colombian/Venezuelan border, or their coastal waters) when the Pentagon springs it on him.

The corrupt, failed, murderous US "war on drugs" is both a huge war profiteer boondoggle, and cover for war preparations. Obama has thus far done nothing to stop the war profiteering OR the use of the "war on drugs" to surround Venezuela's main oil reserves and operations (north Venezuela/Caribbean coast) with US war assets (in Colombia, Honduras, Panama and the Caribbean).

I thought there was a "hawks vs doves" struggle going on within our government over this war plan that Rumsfeld left on the desk, maybe with Obama on the right side (the "dove" side) of the struggle. I thought I saw, in the Honduran situation as it developed, his increasing awareness of the war planning and his increasing control of the Pentagon, the Bushwhack diplomatic corps in Latin America and other deep insurrectionist elements in our government and national political establishment. It may be true that Obama was NOT lying when he stated his policy for Latin America (peace, respect and cooperation), but he has lost the "hawks vs doves" struggle, for whatever reason (deals he made that are now tying his hands; other ways they've tied him down--Diebolding a Puke/'Blue Dog' Congress into place). OR, he has been a war stalking horse all along--a thing I would hate to believe about him. My gut feeling is that his hands are very tied by deals or election blackmail--that his inclination is peaceful but he doesn't have the power to establish a peaceful policy.

What we are seeing in these two articles are the operatives in the foreground, as Obama (or "dove" proponents in his circle of advisers) lost the "hawks vs doves" struggle. This would explain the confusion, ambivalence and reversals of US policy. The Pentagon intends to get its next oil supply from South America--by toppling the Chavez government (and probably the Correa government in Ecuador), likely through a civil war/invasion scenario, no matter what Obama thinks about it. If he tries to stop it, he will be Diebolded out of office in 2012. If he doesn't (or can't), we are likely going to see South Vietnam all over again, as Colombia is prepped as the main proxy army and puppet government for an attempted US assault on Venezuela/Ecuador and takeover of their oil resources. The main beneficiary of this yet more genocidal quest for oil will be Exxon Mobil and brethren, who will get the contracts (as they just did in Iraq) and charge US taxpayers $500/barrel, or whatever the fuck they are currently charging the US military. (I read $500/barrel somewhere this week, but it wasn't documented--I think it was for oil to Afghanistan.)

OIL! That is the deep background for the struggle in Honduras. And, while it's important to identify the foreground "players," and understand what they have done and hold them accountable (however we can), and, while I am grateful to the writers of these two articles for doing so, and for trying to analyze the foreground "play," I do think it's rather useless, as to a strategy for the left, merely to blame Shannon, or DeMint--or even Obama and Clinton-- and not see James Baker in the background.

Rumsfeld signaled the war plan by his op-ed in the Washington Psst, in Dec 2007. Baker signaled one of the war preliminaries in his op-ed in the same CIA rag of a few weeks ago--the reversal of Obama policy on recognizing the coup elections in Honduras. Both of these op-eds went by unnoticed by leftist commentators. But both are absolutely crucial to understanding what the REAL rulers of the U.S. intend.

Rumsfeld's op-ed was directly related (in its very first paragraph) to the effort to lure Hugo Chavez into negotiating with the FARC for hostage releases, and then pulling the rug out from under him and later accusing him of being a "terrorist lover." This was the leadup to the US/Colombian bombing/raid on Ecuador (March 2008), in which ten 500 lb US "smart bombs" blew away the FARC hostage negotiator and all hopes for peace in Colombia's 40+ year civil war. After his preface--that Chavez's help with FARC hostage negotiations is "not welcome in Colombia" (though it had been days before)--Rumsfeld then suggests bombarding the internet with anti-Chavez propaganda and urges "swift action" by the US in support of "friends and allies" in Latin America.

Baker, in his op-ed of a few weeks ago, lays out the plan that US diplomats in fact carried out this week--an ugly backstabbing of Zelaya and abandonment of Obama's explicitly stated policy of no recognition of the Honduran election without Zelaya's reinstatement. James Baker--the engineer of the election coup d'etat here in 2000--is, in my opinion, orchestrating this coup and its election absurdity in Honduras, on behalf of the Bush Cartel. James Baker does not weigh in for no reason. Nor does Donald Rumsfeld (who had resigned from the Pentagon a year before his op-ed on Chavez/Latin America). These deep background power players have ONE OVERRIDING OBSESSION and it is OIL!

There is really no other good explanation for this sudden reversal of an EXPLICITLY STATED Obama policy. You have to believe that Obama is a goddamned liar and a complicit Bush Cartel tool to explain this reversal, and I don't buy either of those things. The US war machine has been in motion all along on this coup, but they only exercised whatever vulture clutch they have on Obama this week, following James Baker's op-ed. It is not Shannon. It is not Clinton. It is not DeMint. It is the same people who hijacked the US military to invade Iraq--at the cost of a million innocent lives--to steal their OIL.

[Downwinder]

2. It is all so idicative of "People be Damned" attitude of the US government,

At home and abroad.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Former ambassador Robert White's article, which is quoted in the article by Laura Carlsen...

I tracked down White's full article. Here is part of it:

----

It is legitimate to infer that at this point (circa Oct 28-Shannon delegation) de facto
president Roberto Micheletti knew that the State Department had made a
commitment to Senator DeMint that the United States would recognize the
November 29 elections as valid regardless of whether Zelaya had been
returned to office.

Under these circumstances any journeyman diplomat would immediately
recognize that the only chance to achieve a lasting agreement would be
to inform President Zelaya of the change in U.S. policy. Armed with
this information, Zelaya could have insisted on a date certain for his
return. With the backing of the U.S. delegation, there would have been
a fighting chance that Micheletti would have agreed because time was
running out.

It was, of course, possible, even probable, that negotiations would
have failed, but that result would have been infinitely preferable to
the charade where Zelaya signed an agreement under the illusion the
United States would ensure his prompt reinstatement to power.

The result of this cynical and amateurish diplomacy could hardly have been worse.

The secretary of state triumphantly announces a breakthrough in
Honduras. Micheletti responds that he has not yet agreed to the
restitution of the elected president, and a deceived Zelaya states the
agreement is dead. The diplomatic fiasco is complete.

(my emphases)

http://www.mediaisland.org/en/honduras-revisited-robert-white-november-11-2009

--------

White thinks there is still a way out for Obama to save some face--by supporting the OAS in not sending election observers to Honduras. But he concludes: "It is sad to contemplate how the Obama administration has botched a challenge in which it had the support of the entire hemisphere. No wonder President Lula of Brazil has accused President Obama of going back on his promise of a new relationship with Latin America."

That is something I had not heard--that Lulu has accused Obama of reversing his "peace, respect and cooperation" promises. But it does reinforce my analysis that something very big has been going on behind the scenes in this Honduran situation--something as big as a pre-war "hawks vs doves" struggle, regarding an oil war in the region. WHAT would cause Obama to sacrifice all the good will that he had, by backstabbing not only Zelaya and the people of Honduras, but a potentially great ally like Lulu, and all the other more "centrist" leftist leaders like Batchelet in Chile? HOW could he do this? WHY would he do this? It is inexplicable without the Bush Cartel war plan as the context. White calls it "cynical and amateurish diplomacy" and a complete "diplomatic fiasco." But why? Why? He doesn't address why.

White's article states something that I suspected--that Shannon LIED to Zelaya, gave his assurances of restitution, and Zelaya, poor man, imprisoned in the Brazilian embassy--which the Honduran military has been hitting with sound weapons to prevent those inside from sleeping--tired, worried, beset--didn't catch it, believed him, trusted his good faith. I was wondering why Zelaya signed an agreement without the one stipulation that he has made all along, and that the Honduran people overwhelmingly support--and everybody else in the world supports--his reinstatement as president. That Shannon DECEIVED him--as White states--seems a quite probable answer.

But also--as White points out--in deceiving Zelaya, he was deceiving Lulu, and the OAS and the whole world. WHAT can the stakes have been for Obama to have agreed to such blatant, obvious backstabbing? It doesn't make sense. Shannon is no "amateur." Nor is Clinton. And while Obama is relatively inexperienced, he was born with diplomatic skills--that is his most notable characteristic. This was much more, and far worse, than "cynical and amateurish diplomacy." The foreground "players" in this debacle acted just like puppets on a stick. This was either outright, traitorous sabotage of a sitting president, or blackmail of some kind--by people who are a lot more powerful than Clinton or Shannon. And it reminds me--more than anything else--of the "Bay of Pigs," with a president, in this case, unable to control the virulent, warmongering undercurrents of a government that he is supposed to be commander in chief of.

As for DeMint and Congress, I think the real issue is the seven new US military bases in Colombia, which now has to go to Congress for approval--but that, too, is more than war profiteering. It is war profiteering in service to a war plan.

[Downwinder]

4. Another thought, if Afghanistan falls apart with its heroin production,

where is the US cartel going to get products? South America becomes a central interest with established production.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Good point! I didn't even mention the motive of controlling the drug trade--Colombia and Honduras

are strategic locations for that as well, and with governments like Venezuela and Bolivia kicking the US "war on drugs" out of their countries and actually engaging in real police work against criminal drug networks, all the more reason to topple those governments. They may actually put a crimp in a major revenue source for the Bush Cartel and the CIA. I think oil is the biggest motive, though. The Iraqis have been a bit more difficult than they expected (though they did just sign with Exxon Mobil), and with Iran denied to them--for several reasons, among them that China and Russia threatened to come into it (my guess), and Daddy Bush prevailed in judging that they were serious (Junior was in deep doo-doo)--they need another big oil reserve to sell to the Pentagon at mindboggingly inflated prices. Also, Exxon Mobil--the main driver of the oil war--has a particular grudge against Chavez, who wouldn't cave to their bullying in negotiations for Venezuela's oil. They walked out of those talks--though others remained (including BP, France's Total, Norway's Statoil and Chevron)--and went into 'first world' courts and tried to grab $12 billion of Venezuela's international assets, a suit that they lost the first round of. In asserting Venezuela's sovereignty and its right to the majority share of the profits and control of their own oil, Chavez earned Exxon Mobil's vicious animosity. It's one of the reasons I like Chavez--for his courage against one of the darkest of the Dark Powers on earth--corporate executives for whom slaughtering a million people to steal their oil is no more bothersome to them than killing flies.

[Downwinder]

6. Under Geneva, nothing an occupation government does is

lasting or binding. All of those contracts are as valid as the amnesty in Argentina.