This morning, Honduras' El Heraldo published that "it has leaked out that the US ambassador, Hugo Llorens, will not return to the country by order of the State Department."
The same language was then echoed by Radío América.
But Mexico's El Financiero begs to differ: their article cites an unnamed "spokesperson" for the US State Department saying
The US has not recalled its ambassador in Honduras. We continue to believe that the presence of our ambassador in Honduras in these moments can contribute more to the final result that we are all seeking.
Estados Unidos no ha retirado a su embajador en Honduras. Continuamos creyendo que la presencia de nuestro embajador en Honduras en estos momentos puede contribuir más al resultado final que todos buscamos.
Oh really? like what? Has there been any evidence of any progress in persuading the regime to back down?
With Micheletti telling the Honduran press that Honduras doesn't need the world community, and that they will hold an election even if the world community declares it illegitimate, what possible good effect can the US ambassador have?
Especially when it is quite possible that these Honduran press reports are part of a smear campaign seeking to diminish his influence?
Remember-- Micheletti has said he hopes Llorens will never return to Honduras.
And the Radío América article doesn't describe the possible recall as a US sanction on Honduras. Instead, it ends its report with the following:
El diplomático ha sido criticado por el gobierno hondureño que consideró como intromisiva la reunión que tuvo en la embajada de Honduras en Nicaragua con el ex presidente, Manuel Zelaya Rosales, a finales del mes de julio.As the reference to President Zelaya as the ex-president and to the coup regime as the Honduran government indicate, this paragraph is written from the pro-coup perspective. This was the way his departure for the US was originally characterized on August 14 by the pro-coup El Heraldo, which wrote that
The diplomat has been criticized by the [de facto] Honduran government that considers as meddling the meeting that he had in the Honduran embassay in Nicaragua with the ex-president, Manuel Zelaya Rosales, at the end of the month of July.
It leaked out that the diplomatic visit to the ex president of Honduras in Nicaragua, had generated discomfort in the government of his country... The actions of the ambassador caused critiques by the Honduran authorities, that considered the meeting meddling... Unofficial sources reported that the ambassador was called to consultations in Washington.[In diplomatic lingo, being called to consultation is polite wording for being called on the carpet.]
It cannot be accidental that two less-common Spanish words are repeated in these reports: intromisiva (meddling) and trascender with the meaning of "leak out". This is how you follow the traces of a talking points memo, or a propaganda campaign: watch for the same language being repeated.
The spin coup media would like to put on Llorens' continued absence from Honduras is that this is not just welcome, but in some way a punishment for the diplomat. The State Department needs to do more than have an unnamed spokesperson comment.