Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Honduras: Dictatorships and Double Standards Revisited

Neoconservatives’ support for the recent military coup against Honduran President Manuel Zelaya is a reminder of their history as apologists for dictatorial regimes in Latin America.

(Inter Press Service)

When the Honduran military deposed President Manuel Zelaya on June 28, in an incident that stirred memories of Cold War military coups in Latin America, it also seems to have caused at least some foreign policy commentators to revert to positions reminiscent of the Cold War.

While the Organization of American States (OAS), the U.N. General Assembly, and the U.S. government all condemned Zelaya’s detention and forced exile, the coup makers found supporters among neoconservatives and other right-wing U.S. hawks, who defended the military’s action as a justified reaction to Zelaya’s allegedly unconstitutional power grab.

The hawks’ support for the coup, which came as media reports from Honduras described a violent police crackdown against demonstrators and a government-imposed media blackout throughout the country, may have been surprising to many observers.

After all, only days before many of the same commentators were fiercely decrying similar scenes coming out of Tehran, and calling for U.S. President Barack Obama to stand up for democracy in Iran against what was frequently described as a coup by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

But to those with longer memories, this apparent discrepancy was anything but surprising.

For although neoconservatism has in recent years become identified with former President George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda,” and aggressive U.S. support for so-called democracy promotion in the Middle East and beyond, the ideology has a very different history in Latin America.

During the Cold War, neoconservatives were known as staunch defenders of right-wing authoritarians as counterweights to leftist movements in the region. These autocrats and dictators included Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Jose Efrain Rios Montt in Guatemala, and the military junta in Argentina—not to mention the former Honduran Chief of Staff, Gen. Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, who was so brutal and imperious that his fellow officers threw him out of the country in 1984.

Support for right-wing authoritarianism in Latin America and Iran, and blistering criticism of Jimmy Carter’s human rights policy comprised the core of the movement’s early manifesto, “Dictatorships and Double Standards,” Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s famous 1979 essay in Commentary magazine. Ronald Reagan was so impressed with the article that he made Kirkpatrick his ambassador to the United Nations.

The current debate over Honduras serves as a reminder that the simple polarities of recent foreign policy discussions, in which a “neoconservatism” identified with “democracy promotion” is contrasted with a “realism” identified with acceptance of authoritarian governments, disguise a more complex history.

After all, as neoconservatives claimed to be championing democratic “transformation” in the Middle East during the Bush administration, they simultaneously applauded the attempted coup in 2002 against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and were deeply disappointed by its failure.

Two years later, they welcomed the forcible exile of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide aboard a U.S. Air Force jet in the face of an uprising by former military officers and their paramilitary allies.

At the time, the neocons argued that the two presidents were dangerous, power-hungry —albeit democratically elected—demagogues who, if left unchecked, would wreck the constitutional order and threaten U.S. interests.

These neoconservatives have made similar claims against Honduran president Zelaya, who had clearly managed to antagonize other branches of government, including the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that his effort to hold a non-binding referendum  that could amend the constitution was unconstitutional, precipitating a series of events that culminated in his ouster.

“Yes, Zelaya was elected, but Hitler was as well, and Chavez also was,” said influential Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer. “A coup isn’t a nice thing, but it’s preferable to having Zelaya dismantle the democracy.”

Similarly, the right-wing National Review editorialized that “[t]he Honduran soldiers who escorted Pres. Manuel Zelaya from his home on Sunday were acting to protect their country’s democracy, not to trample it.”

But the actual means by which Zelaya was ousted—specifically the military’s decision to intervene in what was essentially a political dispute by arresting the president and dispatching him to Costa Rica—bore all the hallmarks of a conventional coup d’état, even if it was ratified by the Congress immediately afterward.

The OAS has already resolved “to condemn vehemently the coup d’état” against Zelaya, called for his “immediate, safe, and unconditional return” to office by a July 3 deadline, and vowed that “no government arising from this unconstitutional eruption will be recognized.” After some hesitation, on June 29 Obama also condemned the military’s actions as “not legal” and called for Zelaya’s restoration. In addition to arguing that Zelaya had himself acted in an unconstitutional manner, neoconservatives also stressed his ties to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other Latin American leftist leaders—and the alleged threat they pose to democracy in the region—as a justification for deposing him, whatever the means.

“Look, a rule of thumb here is whenever you find yourself on the side of Hugo Chavez, [Nicaraguan president] Daniel Ortega, and the Castro twins [Raul and Fidel Castro of Cuba], you ought to reexamine your assumptions,” Krauthammer noted.

Others depicted Zelaya as one more pawn in Chavez’s efforts to expand his influence, in much the same way that Kirkpatrick described Ortega and the Sandinistas as puppets of Moscow and Havana 30 years ago.

Kirkpatrick criticized Carter for allegedly taking a harder line against right-wing but pro-U.S. dictators than against their left-wing, Soviet-backed counterparts. As brutal as they may be, she argued, “traditional authoritarian governments are less repressive than revolutionary autocracies” and generally “more compatible with U.S. interests.”

In an echo of Kirkpatrick’s criticism of Carter’s human rights policy, former Bush speechwriter Peter Wehner complained about Obama’s alleged double standard, in denouncing the Honduran coup but failing to strongly condemn election fraud in Iran.

“[T]here doesn’t seem to be any consistency on when Obama decides to meddle, beyond his tendency to take actions that make life easier for those who do not wish America well,” Wehner, who now heads the neoconservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote on the Commentary website.

“As a general matter, I’m not in favor of military coups,” he added, in another echo of decades-old rhetoric. “On the other hand, I’m not in favor of Zelaya doing to Honduras what Chavez has done in Venezuela.”

Although the Reagan administration was fiercely criticized by human rights advocates for its support of military dictators against leftist movements that frequently enjoyed widespread popular support, neoconservatives argued that the larger threat to freedom posed by Soviet influence outweighed any injustice involved in suppressing opposition to “friendly authoritarians,” as they were sometimes called.

If this argument seems jarring, it is likely because the popular image of neoconservative doctrine has undergone a marked change in recent years. This was in large part because of the neocons’ deliberate efforts to depict themselves as “idealists” dedicated to universal democratization, as laid out in Bush’s 2005 second inaugural address and his so-called “freedom agenda.”

On closer examination, however, the neocons’ zeal for democratization appears to depend significantly on whether the target is considered friendly or hostile to U.S. interests. In that respect, not much has changed.

Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe write for the Inter Press Service and are regular contributors to PRA’s Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org). Lobe blogs on U.S. foreign policy at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share