For those who suffer from a lapse of memory, it is relevant to recall that it was not so long ago that a Haitian president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was ousted by his country’s military; reinstated by one American president; and four years later, disposed by another. One of those presidents was Bill Clinton. George W. Bush was the name of the other one, who, in true Honduran style, kidnapped a half-dressed Aristide under the cloak of night, placing him at gunpoint in a plane and unloading him in the Central African Republic 10 thousand miles away.
In the 1990 elections, the first truly free and plural elections held in Haiti in 186 years, Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected after receiving more than 60 percent of the votes. In 1991, a coup d’etat, carried out by Colonel Raoul Cedras, overthrew him and forced him to seek exile in the United States.
In one of its first moves toward the left, the Organization of American States, just like the UN and the U.S., placed economic sanctions on the military regime. In October 1994, the U.S., which had occupied Haiti for 19 years between 1915 and 1934, did what it most wanted to do: deploy its marines and place Aristide back in power. For the first time, an action of this kind was hardly criticized. It was a bad action for a good cause. In any case, it set a precedent.
In 1996, Aristide was replaced through elections, returning to the presidency in 2000, when he was elected again - until the early morning of February 29, 2004, when, in the midst of uncontrollable violence and instability, a detachment of U.S. Special Forces (according to an envoy sent by the ineffable Colin Powell) appeared in the Presidential Palace, kidnapped the president and shipped him to the Central African Republic, the old fief of dictator Bokasas.
World public opinion, democratic governments, the great press and even some leftist elements looked the other way and perhaps breathed a sigh of relief, in the belief that Aristide was the problem and not the solution, and that, although there were some protests, few voices were raised to condemn an act so profusely praised in each and every official statement from the State Department and its French counterpart, Ouai d’Orsay.
After examining America’s ambiguous behavior toward Honduras, is it appropriate to wonder: Where’s the catch? And, although at times, it might seem that the U.S. is like the smug guy at the party, perhaps it is really a more elaborate maneuver designed to delay a solution, until it is clear that the administration of the Latin American left has failed, and then pressure the participants in the coup, until they are made to desist, and credit them with the reestablishment of democracy.
That soft solution could pass as an adjustment to suppress Micheleti, install a “national unity” government that includes Zelaya, carry out elections on a fixed date and create a scene of final happiness, in accordance with Obama’s smooth ways.
Or it could turn out worse. Due to America’s delaying tactics, the "coupists" could achieve a minimum of consolidation and overestimate their forces, giving rise to a situation which calls for a resort to Bush’s style, putting the matter in the hands of the Pentagon and promoting the creation of an Interamerican Peacekeeping Force in the OAS or moving the matter to the Security Council, which, under U.S. auspices, could invoke Chapter Seven of the UN charter and use force to throw out the coupists.
Personally, I do no think that will happen, because it is hardly likely that the coup's general will resist a call from the Chief of the Southern Command, asking him to restore order in the name of democracy.
Lately, some analysts have accused the U.S. of being tepid and ambiguous, crying out for the president to exhibit greater determination. Perhaps then, these same soothsayers will maintain that they wanted Yankee leadership, but not so much. Obama is preferable to Bush, but the empire is the same. No one can ask an elm tree to bear pears. This is the problem.
Para quienes padecen déficit de memoria es pertinente recordar que no hace mucho un mandatario haitiano, Jean-Bertrand Aristide fue depuesto por militares de su país, reinstalado en el poder por un presidente norteamericano, cuatro años después fue depuesto por otro. Uno fue Bill Clinton, George W. Bush se llamaba aquel que, en el mejor estilo hondureño, al amparo de la noche y a medio vestir lo secuestró y, a punta de pistola, lo subió a un avión desembarcándolo en la República Centroafricana a diez mil kilómetros de distancia.
En las elecciones de 1990, las primeras realmente libres y plurales celebradas en Haití en 186 años fue electo Jean-Bertrand Aristide que obtuvo más del 60 por ciento de los votos. En 1991 un golpe de estado conducido por el coronel Raoul Cédras lo depuso y lo obligó a exiliarse en Estados Unidos.
En uno de sus primeros giros a la izquierda la OEA, lo mismo que la ONU y los Estados Unidos impusieron sanciones económicas al régimen militar. En octubre de 1994, Estados Unidos que había ocupado Haití durante 19 años entre 1915 y 1934, hizo lo que mejor sabe hacer: desembarcó los marines y repuso a Aristide en el cargo. Por primera vez una acción de este tipo apenas fue criticada. Se trataba de una mala acción por una buena causa. De todos modos era un precedente.
En 1996 Aristide fue relevado por vía electoral, regresando a la presidencia cuando en el 2000 fue nuevamente electo hasta que en la madrugada del 29 de febrero de 2004, en medio de un clima de incontenible violencia e inestabilidad, un destacamento de fuerzas especiales norteamericanas, según se afirma enviado por el inefable Colin Powell, se personó en Palacio Presidencial, secuestró al presidente y lo desembarcó en la República Centroafricana, antiguo feudo del dictador Bokasas.
La opinión pública mundial, los gobiernos democráticos, la gran prensa e incluso algunos elementos de izquierda miraron para otro lado y tal vez respiraron aliviados en la creencia de que Aristidi era el problema y no la solución y, aunque hubo algunas protestas, pocas voces se levantaron para condenar un hecho profusamente elogiado en sendos comunicados oficiales del Departamento de Estado norteamericano y su homologo francés el Quai d’Orsay.
Al examinar el ambiguo comportamiento norteamericano respecto a Honduras, es pertinente preguntarse: ¿Dónde está la trampa? Y aunque por momentos pareciera que Estados Unidos esta como el curro en la fiesta, tal vez se trate de una maniobra más elaborada encaminada a dilatar la solución hasta hacer ver que las gestiones de la izquierda latinoamericana han fracasado y presionar luego a los golpistas hasta hacerlos desistir y acreditarse ellos el merito por el restablecimiento de la democracia.
Esa solución blanda pudiera pasar por un ajuste para suprimir a Micheleti, instalar un gobierno de “unidad nacional” que incluyera a Zelaya, realizar las elecciones en la fecha fijada y crear un escenario de final feliz, acorde con las maneras suaves de Obama.
Puede suceder peor y que, por culpa de las maniobras dilatorias norteamericanas, los golpistas logren un mínimo de consolidación y sobrestimen sus fuerzas, dando lugar a un escenario, que aconseje recurrir al estilo Bush, ponga el asunto en manos del Pentágono, promueva la creación de una Fuerza Interamericana de Paz en la OEA o traslade el asunto al Consejo de Seguridad que con el auspicio norteamericano pudiera invocar el capitulo siete de la carta de la ONU y usar la fuerza para echar a los golpistas.
Personalmente no creo que ocurra de la peor manera porque es poco probable que el generalato golpista resista una llamada telefónica del Jefe del Comando Sur pidiéndole, que en nombre de la democracia, ponga orden.
En estos días algunos analistas han acusado de tibio y ambiguo a Estados Unidos y claman porque el presidente exhiba mayor determinación. Tal vez luego esos mismos agoreros sostengan que querían protagonismo gringo pero no tanto. Obama es preferible a Bush pero el imperio es el mismo. Nadie puede pedir que el olmo produzca peras. Este es el caso.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
[I]n the same area where these great beasts live, someone had the primitive and perverse idea to build a prison ... for immigrants in the United States without documentation.
Right now, Japan faces challenges unprecedented in recent years. Its alliance with the U.S., which has been the measuring stick for diplomacy, has been shaken.
[T]he letter’s inconsistent capitalization, randomly emphasizing words like “TRADE,” “Great Honor,” “Tariff,” and “Non Tariff”, undermines the formality expected in high-level diplomatic correspondence.
Right now, Japan faces challenges unprecedented in recent years. Its alliance with the U.S., which has been the measuring stick for diplomacy, has been shaken.
Elon Musk’s recent push to launch a new nationwide party ... not only comes off as pretentious but also sets a fundamentally new trend in U.S. politics.
[T]he letter’s inconsistent capitalization, randomly emphasizing words like “TRADE,” “Great Honor,” “Tariff,” and “Non Tariff”, undermines the formality expected in high-level diplomatic correspondence.
If the Green Party or No Labels candidates steal enough votes from Biden, they will go down in history as the idiot narcissists who helped Trump return to power and possibly finish off U.S. democracy.