Two Zelayas

Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya

Ousted Nicaraguan President José Santos Zelaya López
With the ouster of President Zelaya from Honduras, the Wall Street Journal looks at the phenomenon of Latin American strongmen:
"Some argue that Latin America's single most - and colorful - contribution to political science is the caudillo."
...
Tied to wealthy business interests and brought to power by the military, the provisional government brings back memories of the coup in which Chilean Augusto Pinochet tore down the Socialist project of Salvador Allende in 1973. On the streets of Tegucigalpa nowadays, some protesters have scrawled graffiti that merges the names of Mr. Pinochet and their new, unelected leader: "Pinocheletti."
...
To understand what is happening in Honduras today, it helps to know a bit more about Latin America's long love affair with caudillos, how these larger-than-life but power-hungry men damaged their countries, and why so many people are terrified that they are making a comeback.
In current MSM style, "Some argue" absolves the reporter from actually providing a reference for their premise, but my first instinct was to see whether the WSJ acknowledged an American role in creating Latin American strongmen for their own purposes. They mention the US role in two paragraphs:
As far as the U.S. was concerned, the cause of democracy in Latin America often took a back seat to fighting Communism during the Cold War. For years, the U.S. either looked the other way or supported coups with the aim of preventing the spread of Communism in the hemisphere. Military coups became almost ritual. In the 1970s, Honduras endured so many coups that the capital was jokingly called Tegucigolpe, for the Spanish word golpe, or coup.
The end of the Cold War radically changed politics in Latin America. As civil wars and guerrilla insurrections in Central America ran out of steam, pampered military establishments suffered deep budget cuts. The U.S. and the rest of the world made it clear that coups would not be tolerated anymore. The Organization of American States, which represents 34 countries throughout the hemisphere, adopted a democracy clause in its charter in 2001. By that point, Cuba remained as the only non-democracy.
But the US did far more than just "look the other way" or support coups to suppress Communism.
Under William Howard Taft, another Zelaya, Nicaraguan President José Santos Zelaya was forced to resign after US warships seized several of Nicaragua's seaports and US Marines landed from the Caribbean. The US installed Adolfo Díaz, former treasurer of American owned, La Luz y Los Angeles Mining Company. Diaz had used the mining company to fund the revolt against Zelaya. Marines occupied Nicaragua in 1910 and again in 1912. For the 1912 election, there were only 4000 eligible voters, and Díaz was the only candidate. Troops and advisors stayed until 1925.
Meanwhile, Zelaya's friend President Miguel Dávila of Honduras was toppled and replaced by former president Manuel Bonilla, aided by American banana tycoon Sam Zemurray and an American mercenary who became commander-in-chief of the Honduran army.
While Woodrow Wilson tried to keep us out of the impending European conflict, he allowed US intervention in four Latin American countries before WWI. Troops including my grandfather occupied Vera Cruz, Mexico, forcing out caudillo President (and former general) Victoriano Huerta. We occupied Haiti and stayed until 1934, setting the stage for the Duvalier regime. We occupied the Dominican Republic (which Pres. Grant had tried to annex), establishing a puppet administration in which Dominicans refused to serve, and staying until 1924, setting the stage for Trujillo. We intervened in Cuba over sugar exports, and in Panama, probably to protect the Canal.
One intervention was probably unavoidable. The US had supported former bandido (and self-styled Robin Hood) Pancho Villa against Huerta, but under Wilson, US policy turned against Villa, who retaliated by attacking US forces across the border. Wilson again sent troops to pursue Villa. They didn't catch him, but forced his retirement.













Nice historical roundup of American interventionism in Central America and the Caribbean.
July 12, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the first time in Latin America, the people revolted without bloodshed and violence against a constitutional and democratically elected President for violating laws in their country. For more on this topic read the article titled "Obama Manifesto" posted at http://www.cliffyworld.com
July 12, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
WARNING: Cliffy world is not reality based, but a fantasy editorial with cleverly crafted GOP talking points. It's world only Cliffy sees. Enter at your own risk.
July 13, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2009/06/ftas-destabilization.html
for a different point of view
July 13, 2009 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good link IMO, GC. I think if we were all narratologists objectively analyzing the discourse on Honduras, this would be the "parametric element" (that part of the narrative which informs all of its aspects).
I remember seeing a video clip of that wild and crazy guy Dennis Kucinich standing in front of the great wall of America saying the root cause of illegal immigration is NAFTA. Oh, yeah, we think he's a nut, right?
July 13, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the diversity of "explanations" for Zelaya's ouster points out another interesting fact: people seem to see in this Honduran unrest that which they already believe about the region. Fair traders see the insidious hand of free trade agreements (modern day Birchism?), leftists see a genuine uprising of the poor (led by a wealthy magnate?), interventionists see a democratic response to an attempted power grab and general lawlessness by Zelaya (carried out by exile at the point of a gun?), etc.
I can see elements of all of these - but don't think any are truly accurate at describing the situation or dynamics. But all things together, I think Honduras is better off without Zelaya. I hope the judiciary rules they can hold early elections. That is the best outcome for this situation in my opinion.
And as long as we're flogging WSJ pieces, this one has some assertions regarding Zelaya's behavior I had not seen before. (BTW: anyone know of a detailed description of exactly what happened when the ballot boxes were seized from the military? That incident intrigues me - it's alluded to often, but never actually "reported" on).
July 13, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one you could try:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/06/honduras-prepares-sundays-controversial-opinion-poll
July 13, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no such thing as unbiased news these days, it seems. But this really doesn't give any actual information either; it's just as vague as other reports that simply mention the incident in passing.
Although, I thought framing a physical assault on a military installation as "rescuing" the ballots was a laugh riot.
July 13, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you about the bias, kgb, but it's one of those "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king" sort of things. I heard Lanny Davis testify to the House the other day that there was no repression of the press in Honduras - as laughable as rescuing ballots as far as I am concerned.
Al Giradano does us a good service, since he is networked in Latin America and often Narconews is the only source of articles translated from the Spanish language originals. Of course he and his staff have a bias, and it is quite visible. From time to time "interpretations" are absurd, or unsupported. But it's relatively easy to distinguish evaluative reporting from objective reporting, so it's a matter of baby/bathwater, especially where it is the ONLY source of information. One can triangulate on things that appear factual and verify them or reject them.
But what kind of information are you looking for, exactly, about the ballot box? Briker's article seems pretty straightforward to me. What do you mean by "actual information."
July 13, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the nature of the world I guess. The bias reference was as much to the WSJ article as the NarcoNews one (somehow, the amusement factor of WSJ's characterizations has worn off on me and the moniker speaks for itself - sort of like Fox) ... everyone's selling something.
I was just curious for a detailed narrative of the actual incident vs. a one or two sentence characterization in the context of a larger point. Following some of the links on narconews and using an online translator, I got to a site that had a picture that I *think* was from the incident; it looked like an orderly line with soldiers standing along it. I'm just really intrigued how that went down. In America those people would be beat-to-shit facing mega charges or dead. Whatever else is said about them, the military really does (or at least did) seem to be bending over backwards to avoid sparking violent conflict ... or were tacitly supporting ... or what? The whole thing puzzles me.
The one thing I *did* get out of that link was the date it occurred, June 25th. That was something else I was wondering - how all these events timed with each other. One of the spanish-only sites mentioned the original court ruling that the referendum was illegal occurred on the 19th. IMO, how quickly events unfolded is important to really understanding what's happening.
I just want a fucking fact-filled no bullshit data dump of WTF led up to this; no vilifying or championing - just some info. We know in detail Palin's every move but can't just get a good account of what the hell happened in a national government that exists in our hemisphere?!?! In fact, now that I think about it .... I wouldn't even care if it's totally biased if the hard fact to descriptive characterization ratio were decent.
July 13, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's sort of funny, but a commentor on Narconews raised the same request for a time-line, and Giordano's response was
"Charles - I feel as if I've already offered the timeline, albeit not in chronological order, in all my posts here over the past two weeks. If there's a librarian that wants to index it, be my guest. But I'm not that kind of reporter. I'm too interested in what comes next and chronologies are simply a format that others can do much better than I."
Too bad. If you were around TPM during the "Yellowcake" controversy, Josh Marshall did outsanding work with time-lines to help understand that complex issue.
And I think there are some holes that need to be filled in. The "Zelaya seeking term extension" argument is a case in point: I have found zero evidence to support this - the allegation seems to rest on an assumption that since Chavez has done this, Zelaya must be doing it also. I suspect that there is no evidence to support this allegation, and that's very important because it is the basis of the Golpistas claim that Zelaya automatically fired himself as president by violating the draconian Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution. At some point early in our imaginary time line Zelaya stated that he would retire after the coming election, and also the proposed provisions of a new constitution were strengthening the national labor code, re-nationalizing Honduran power-plants and telephone system, and another minimum wage increase. http://ww4report.com/node/7498 (I don't think this is properly sourced, unfortunately - it just seem plausible that Zelaya and his cronies would have other issues with the 1982 Constition other than term limits.)
Another "hole" is the level of repression going on right now in Honduras. When a government sprays protestors with red dye it's certain that the follow-up is door to door searches and arrests, but we're hearing nothing about this.
July 13, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink