Senator Levin responds to Military Coup in Honduras
It has been some two months since a military coup in Honduras ousted the democratically elected government of Manuel Zelaya. The global diplomatic community unanimously denounced the coup and called for the restoration of democracy in that Central American country.
Initially the Obama administration spoke out against the coup but since mid-July they have stopped calling for the reinstatement of Zelaya. In fact, as Eva Gollinger reports, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now referring to the coup leaders as the “interim government.” In addition, Gollinger writes, “The State Department has refused to certify legally the events in Honduras as a “coup”, it has not suspended nor frozen financial support or trade with the country, nor has it taken steps to pressure effectively the de facto regime.”
The lack of any serious action to defend democracy in the hemisphere and the tacit acceptance of the coup leaders suggests that the US is not interested in the rule of law in international affairs.
When asked recently about what his position on this matter is, Michigan Senator Carl Levin said,
“In July, Secretary Clinton announced that President Manuel Zelaya and Honduran National Congress President, Roberto Micheletti, agreed to engage in negotiations mediated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. These negotiations are ongoing and have done little to resolve this matter so far. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to lead the Obama administration’s effort to urge both sides to find a negotiated diplomatic resolution to the crisis.”
Seems that Levin is in agreement with the administration’s inaction and acceptance of the coup government.
The positions of the Democratic administration and Democratic Senator Levin raise questions about the US motives on the Honduran Coup. Some writers have suggested that since Zelaya is a member of the regional alliance known as the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), the US administration wants to marginalize him. Some US media reports on the Honduran coup have suggested that Zelaya was ousted because he wanted to change the constitution to be President for life, which isn’t what Zelaya was advocating. In fact, as independent journalist Ben Dangl has reported,
“Nations across Latin America, including Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, have recently re-written their constitutions. In many aspects the changes to these documents enshrined new rights for marginalized people and protected the nations’ economies from the destabilizing effects of free trade and corporate looting.”
The proposal to rewrite the constitution in Honduras had significant support, especially from popular sectors.
What the US media has not reported on is that many of the coup instigators in Honduras are graduates of the infamous US Army School of the Americas. There has also not been much reporting of the popular resistance to the coup, nor the increasing repression that targets those who oppose the military coup.
US Coverage of the popular opposition to the coup in Honduras pales in comparison to that of the popular electoral opposition in Iran a few months ago. This comparison, which reflects a double standard, should be cause enough for people in the US to question the US government position on Honduras.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 
Are there any members of the U.S. House or Senate who have made statements in support of Zelaya or condemning the coup?
(The day after it happened, on PBS News Hour a former Bush administration official even denied it was a coup!)
Peter, I am unaware of any US member of Congress who has condemned the coup or made statements in support of Zelaya. I have not done an exhaustive investigation, but even progressive members of Congress like Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich have not made any formal statements on this issue.
Thanks for mentioning the PBS News Hour, which tends to rely on many of the same sources as the networks. People often think that the News Hour is better journalism, but author William Hoynes shows in his book “By Invitation Only” that the News Hour tends to rely on many of the same guests and sources for their show as the networks and cable news programs.
Thanks, Jeff, for the book recommendation. I recall a few years ago when PBS News Hour presented “opposing viewpoints” on Hugo Chavez: one person arguing that Chavez was crazy, bad for Venezuela and a threat to the U.S., and the other arguing that he was just crazy and bad for Venezuela.
Peter, that tends to be the spectrum of opinion on official state enemies of the US. Patrick Ireland had an interesting response to the PBS Frontline slam of Chavez that you might find interesting.
http://www.counterpunch.org/irelan11252008.html