Responses to the Coup d'etat in Honduras on Sunday June 28, with special emphasis on producing English-language versions of commentaries by Honduran scholars and editorial writers and addressing the confusion encouraged by lack of basic knowledge about Honduras.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Anselem's Statement Creates Problems for Llorens

If the State Department apologist Phil Crowley needs the proof that the rest of us see as obvious, that backup ambassador to the OAS Lew Anselem's ridiculous statements in the OAS have caused damage, one only needs to look at the Honduran newspapers this morning. Many of them are running a story like this one in La Tribuna, quoting the de facto government's Minister of Government, Oscar Matute, saying Anselem is not saying the same thing as our ambassador Hugo Llorens is.

Hugo Llorens held a damage control meeting with business leaders yesterday morning in which he said the US message has been consistant, "we support democracy in Honduras, and in any other country," he told them. He would not have had to say that without idiot Anselem's statement.

Oscar Matute not only noted that what Llorens said, and what Anselem said, aren't the same message, but he specificially noted that Anselem said the way out was the November 29 elections, the same claim as the de facto government. ANSELEM'S STATEMENTS DIRECTLY ECHOED THE DE FACTO GOVERNMENT'S STATEMENTS.

Matute said, what Anselem said in the OAS "differs totally and absolutely with what Mr. Llorens said, such that today there was no consensus in the OAS, because the United States is one of the countries that would not pronounce to not recognize a priori the results of the electoral process."

Matutue also indicated he believes the words of Anselem over Llorens because Anselem operated with the thinking of the US government. "Llorens does not coincide with the official expression of the representative of the United States in the OAS," he insisted.

Here's the question and part of the answer Phillip Crowley gave to reporters yesterday in the State Department daily briefing.

Q: And so is there any comment? Is there any change in the U.S. policy on this matter?

Mr. Crowley: Not at all. Not at all.

So why is it that Hondurans can see the difference, and Mr. Crowley cannot? Damage Control?

3 comments:

Nell said...

It is the complete silence of the President, the Secretary of State, and the rest of the State Department about the repressive acts of the coup regime that gave Amb. Amselem the green light. His characterization of Zelaya's return as reckless was no different than Sec. Clinton's in early July except in degree -- Amselem accompanied it with more personal insults.

Amselem has actively worked since August to prevent an OAS declaration against recognition of the Nov. 29 elections. He was not doing so on his own, and (after publication of Mark Weisbrot's article on Aug. 21) was not doing so in secret.

Yet there are those who want us to believe that he's some kind of rogue operative out of this administration's control. I'm not buying. He is clearly a problem, but the Secretary of State has allowed him to be one, as has the White House generally -- having spent no political capital whatsoever for any of the appointees whose confirmations are being held up by the party of No.

phoenixwoman said...

I have a name for what the State Department is doing: dope-plomacy.

Tiempo is reporting that the OAS met for 10 hours to argue over whether the expulsion of their own representatives should be "regretted" or "condemned." And Anselem insulted the Nicaraguan ambassador.

This is beyond stupidity.

--Charles of MercuryRising

rns said...

Thats why I've concluded they don't want the restoral of "democracy". They want the restoral of the status quo. A representative democracy of the type Honduras has now is not threatening to them; the kind Zelaya was proposing, with actual accountability to the population, is threatening.