Press Incredulous Over Ian Kelly Pronouncement On Restoral

Ian Kelly stepped in it today in revealing to the press just how shallow the State Department's respect of democracy is. In today's daily press briefing, Ian Kelly was asked to talk about Congress considering Zelaya's restitution after the November elections.

QUESTION: Ian, on Honduras, the parliament seems to have put off until after the election a decision on whether Zelaya will be restored. What does that do for the possible credibility of these elections?

Ian Kelly gave a rather long reply in which he talked about Craig Kelly's mission in Honduras, and then he said,

MR. KELLY: But since the accord never actually gave any kind of deadline by – to have this vote by the national congress, scheduling the vote on December 2nd doesn’t necessarily – isn’t necessarily inconsistent with the accord.

This made the questioner apoplectic. He can't believe he's hearing Ian Kelly say what Ian Kelly is saying....

QUESTION: What – I’m sorry. That’s – you’ve just opened your – this is – they’re going to have a field day with this. So it’s okay with you if five years from now, they go and come back and say, all right, yeah, Zelaya can go – he’s restored, when you can’t – you can’t be restored after you’re voted out of office if you’re not – he’s not even running.

MR. KELLY: That’s right. I mean, he – his term ends the end of January.

QUESTION: Yeah. And so it’s okay – so it’s okay with you, and you’ll – it will be all right and you’ll accept the results of the election, if they – even if they don’t put him back in when you --

MR. KELLY: Well, he’s not running. He’s not running for the election.

QUESTION: Yeah, but he’s going to be out – he’s effectively out of office. I mean, talk about – that’s the lamest of lame ducks. He’s not – he is – I’m confused. You no longer think that he has to be restored before he is voted out of office?

MR. KELLY: Well, it has been a very strong principle of ours that in order for the country to be reconciled, there has to be a restoration of the democratically elected president. That implies that he has to be restored before the end of his term, okay?

QUESTION: So basically --

QUESTION: All right. So 10 minutes – 10 minutes before the end of his term?

QUESTION: December – until the end of January it can be.

MR. KELLY: Look, I mean, clearly, he has to be restored in a timely way. And I don’t think we’ve ever said anything but that.

So, democracy can be restored any time up to the last second of Zelaya's term and that will be "in a timely way" and is officially blessed by the US State Department. Can their commitment to democracy get any shallower?

But wait, it gets better, because although Ian Kelly maintains its a Honduran crisis which requires a Honduran solution, he admits that the US has inserted itself into the middle of it.

MR. KELLY: It’s a Honduran crisis. And we want to make sure that --

QUESTION: Well --

MR. KELLY: -- the Hondurans are able to sit down --

QUESTION: -- you inserted yourself into it --

MR. KELLY: We have.

QUESTION: -- quite – so it’s no longer just a Honduran crisis. You’re involved.

MR. KELLY: Of course, we’re involved. We are involved because we want to be involved, because it’s important for us to be involved. We’re involved because they want us to be involved.

So we're involved, but not responsible. Its a Honduran crisis that demands a Honduran solution that we imposed in the form of first the San Jose Accords and when those didn't take, the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accords. We give lip service to democracy by considering any restoral of Zelaya up to seconds before the end of his term as "timely".

When asked what the US reaction will be if the Congress doesn't vote to restore Zelaya, even after the election, Kelly responds, "Well, we'll -- lets see then."

The US solution is to whitewash the coup as quickly as possible in order to restore the illusion of democracy on relations with Honduras.

Craig Kelly's only expressed concern in Honduras is with possible violence, whereas many, including Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle, feel that the only result of this farce being perpetrated by the State Department will be violence. Neither Zelaya nor the Frente want violence but if there is violence, it will be as much because of decisions made in Washington, DC as it will be because of decisions made in Honduras.

No Formal Response Response to Zelaya's Letter to Clinton

It just wasn't Ian Kelly's day at the State Department daily press briefing today. The press asked him, in light of Zelaya's letter to Obama from over the weekend, if the State Department had ever responded to his first letter, the one to Secretary of State Clinton.

QUESTION: No, no, no. Did Zelaya ever get a response to the letter he sent to the Secretary?

MR. KELLY: We have not sent a formal response back to President Zelaya.

Lets see; its been two weeks since Zelaya sent the letter to Clinton, two weeks of a tense standoff in Honduras. You've sent Thomas Shannon, and Craig Kelly to the country, but haven't answered the letter from Zelaya? What's taking so long?

QUESTION: So you just – so what is – well, what is he supposed to think? I mean, you guys are – you’re ignoring him now.

MR. KELLY: No, we’re not ignoring him. In fact --

QUESTION: Yeah, you are. He sent --

MR. KELLY: No, we’re not ignoring him.

QUESTION: He sent a letter to Secretary Clinton asking what the U.S. position was and you just said – and that was like, two weeks ago.

MR. KELLY: Yeah. That doesn’t mean we’re ignoring him, though.

QUESTION: And he has not gotten a response.

MR. KELLY: I mean, we do talk to him. I know that senior American officials do talk to him. Just because we haven’t sent a formal response yet doesn’t mean we’re ignoring him.

QUESTION: Well, it seems – well, you know, talk is one thing, but something put down on paper is quite another. And it just seems to me that you’re kind of still floundering around for a policy here --

MR. KELLY: Well --

QUESTION: -- and you’re not willing to put anything down on paper.

MR. KELLY: I don’t agree.

QUESTION: You don’t?

MR. KELLY: I don’t agree we’re floundering. I mean, we haven’t changed our policy. We have senior officials still involved in trying to get the two sides to – not to agree, but to implement something they’ve already agreed to, all right? I think we’re very – we remain very much involved in the process.

QUESTION: Can you explain why you have not replied to a letter from someone you consider to be the democratic --

MR. KELLY: I don’t think I have to. I don’t think I have to respond, Matt. We haven’t respond --

QUESTION: Well, I guess you don’t, because your silence to him says it all.

At this point in the transcript, Ian Kelly took a question that changed the subject to North Korea, and never returned to the topic of Honduras. Mr. Kelly did not say the US State Department would not respond to the letter, just that they hadn't gotten around to it. Apparently the State Department moves with the speed of a slug in times of crisis.

The State Department has also been given Zelaya's letter to Obama to answer. If I were Manuel Zelaya, I wouldn't expect a reply any time soon, at least, not in writing.

Ian Kelly "There's been No Change In US Policy"

Ian Kelly is in deep denial. The press are calling him out on the State Department's duplicitous change of response to the coup in Honduras, and he has no credible answers, except to repeat over and over again that there's been no change.

QUESTION: On Honduras, Senator Kerry’s – one of his spokespersons recently said that when Thomas Shannon said that the U.S. would recognize the winner of the November 29th elections, even if Zelaya was not to be put back into power beforehand, that that was undermining the deal that had been reached? Can you respond to that?

MR. KELLY: Well, on Honduras, we, of course, are continuing to call on both sides to begin implementing the Tegucigalpa-San Jose Accord. One of the key parts of that is setting up a government of unity and reconciliation, and we feel that once that is set up and the other elements of the accord are implemented, that it will be easier for the international community to recognize the elections. And I think that’s the point that Tom Shannon was trying to stress in his remarks that are referred to there.

Really? Shannon said that it didn't matter if Zelaya was returned or not, that the US would recognize the elections anyway, and Craig Kelly repeated this in Tegucigalpa just last week in his failed mission to try to get both sides back on track with setting up a Government of National Unity and Reconciliation. He specifically reassured Micheletti on this point. Both Shannon and Craig Kelly were quite clear on this point.

QUESTION: But doesn’t it sort of allow Micheletti to – kind of a backseat way, to still be part of the process when the U.S. has been pretty explicit that it recognizes Zelaya as the president?

MR. KELLY: We have been very explicit that we recognize the – Zelaya as the democratically elected leader of Honduras. We think that there is a good way forward that the two sides agreed to in principle, and that right now, we need to concentrate on implementing it. It establishes a solid foundation not only for a way forward with the elections on November 29, but it establishes a foundation for a reconciliation in Honduras between the two sides.
And so that’s – that is what our energies and efforts are focused on. We continue to remain in daily contact with the two sides, both through our Ambassador in Tegucigalpa, and I know that Craig Kelly is – and also in constant telephone contact with the two sides. And we just remain committed to the implementation of this accord, and we’re sticking to that.

Notice how Kelly doesn't really answer the question. He just repeats the same points. Why do they matter? Because the US is not actually working towards a solution here. Its decided on the solution and its trying now to impose it from without. The State Department is like someone in a fairy tale closing their eyes and wishing hard that something will come true.

QUESTION: Why do you think that Zelaya doesn’t understand this? He sent a letter to President Obama. It seems to me, or it seems that he – he’s waiting for, from the U.S. – U.S., like a message or a solution of the problem. He doesn’t understand that maybe the problem is in Honduras. How do you feel on that? Is there any sensation of the U.S. Government with this why he continues to – not to solve the problem inside instead of waiting and sending a letter to Obama?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, I’m not going to try and interpret why President Zelaya sent this letter. I’ll just say that we all along have been committed to this reconciliation process, to the restoration of the democratically and constitutionally elected leadership. And we have put a lot of effort into restoring democracy to Honduras. And we condemn the June 28 coup. We supported strong UN and OAS resolutions. We implemented tough measures, including suspension of economic and military assistance. And we have been very actively and very directly involved in a negotiated solution. So, I mean, we have been committed from the very start to this process.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat. In a courtroom this would be called a "nonresponsive" answer.

MR. KELLY: There hasn’t been any --

QUESTION: So the U.S. --

MR. KELLY: -- hasn’t been any change of policy.

Yes there has, Mr. Kelly. When Thomas Shannon said we would recognize the elections no matter what; that empowered Roberto Micheletti Bain to ignore the agreement. It allowed him to make a mockery of it, and of the State Department, by unilaterally establishing a National Government of Unity and Reconciliation. When Craig Kelly repeated the reassurances on this key point to Roberto Micheletti last week, it put the nail in the coffin on the agreement, because there was no longer any reason for Micheletti to carry it out; there's no penalty. The State Department is complicit in letting the coup stand. Letting the coup stand is a change in US policy.