Majikthise

Micheletti adviser says Zelaya's not coming back

Yesterday, I expressed skepticism that the so-called breakthrough agreement to end coup-induced constitutional crisis in Honduras would actually bring deposed President Mel Zelaya back to power. 

An adviser to the leader of the coup regime basically admitted to Bloomberg that the prospect of a power-sharing government is just a public relations ploy.

Oct. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya won’t be restored to office under an accord that leaves the decision on his return to lawmakers, a vice-president of the Congress said.

“Zelaya won’t be restored,” Marcia Facusse de Villeda, an adviser to acting President Roberto Micheletti, said in a phone interview today, “But just by signing this agreement we already have the recognition of the international community for the elections.” [Bloomberg]

Via Greg Grandin in the Nation.

Honduras deal: Breakthrough or fig leaf?

Real Eyes Realize Real Lies, originally uploaded by Lindsay Beyerstein.

The media are jubilant because the State Department has finally brokered a deal to "resolve" the standoff in Honduras between the ruling junta and ousted President Mel Zelaya. The accord between Zelaya and self-proclaimed president Roberto Micheletti is supposed to end the standoff in the capital city of Tegucigalpa where Zelaya has been holed up in the Brazilian embassy since sneaking back into the country last month.

To read the English language media, you'd swear that Zelaya's triumphant return is imminent. That seems highly unlikely. If congress ratifies the deal, the accord would create something called a power sharing government. But according to Democracy Now! the document doesn't spell out how the power would be shared. 

I predict that congress will not reinstate Zelaya. The real purpose of the vote is to allow the U.S. to gracefully back off from its earlier observation that the Micheletti regime is illegitimate. Realistically, it looks like Washington cajoled the self-satisfied Micheletti and the desperate Zelaya into signing a deal to provide a fig leaf for the coup.

Why does it seem unlikely that congress will reinstate Zelaya? Recall that Micheletti's last real job before proclaiming himself president was as the leader of the Honduran congress. As he himself noted in an Wall Street Journal op/ed, congress voted overwhelmingly to back Micheletti's putsch and remove Zelaya in the first place. 

It's possible that congress will want to ratify the power-sharing deal in order to legitimize the upcoming elections in the eyes of the world, but they didn't care about world opinion when they backed the coup in the first place. Furthermore, the U.S. has already show itself unwilling to impose real consequences on the junta. 

Media reports stress that Zelaya preferred to let congress decide. The other option was to give the Supreme Court the final say. Zelaya seems to think he has a better chance than Congress than he would if the matter were left up to the Supreme Court, which also colluded in his ouster. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Zelaya forfeited his presidency by backing a non-binding referendum on reforming the constitution. (Cf. Prof. Gary Weeks, the Juan Cole of Latin America, for more details about why that argument is transparently bogus.) 

Note that under the deal, the Supreme Court would still have some input into whether Zelaya wold actually be reinstated--a body that has already ruled that Zelaya forfeited his presidency. 

Why would Zelaya agree to such a deal? Keep in mind that he's not exactly negotiating from  position of strength. Actually, he's trapped in an embassy surrounded by armed guards. His only hope of regaining power was to provoke a standoff that would focus international pressure on the Micheletti regime. Now, the U.S. is losing patience with the embassy circus in Tegucigalpa and it doesn't seem prepared to back up its pro-democracy rhetoric with any real consequences that might induce Micheletti to relinquish power. The U.S. has immense sway with Honduras through millions of dollars worth of trade and aid. Honduras is one of the poorer countries in the Western Hemisphere and the U.S. is its best customer.

When the junta seized power, the world immediately and forcefully condemned the coup, the first military takeover of its kind in Latin America in years. The United States, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States denounced the ouster. President Obama called the overthrow "illegal" and said it set a "terrible precedent."

Under the circumstances, the world couldn't very well acknowledge as legitimate the upcoming presidential elections, set for Nov 29, unless Zelaya were restored to power.

How could an illegitimate regime hold legitimate elections? The even coup prompted the UN to withdraw promised election aid to Honduras on the grounds that to oversee a vote under Micheletti would legitimize a farce.

Elections under Micheletti can not be legitimate because, in addition to taking power illegally, the regime has been condemned by independent human rights monitors for media censorship, arbitrary detention, torture, and murder. This week, eight members of Congress urged President Obama to break the silence on human rights abuses in Honduras.

No date has been set for the reinstatement vote. In theory, the opposition could filibuster the vote to delay it until after the elections.

One way or another Hondurans will likely go to the polls with the brutal and repressive Micheletti regime firmly in place.

The state department is patting itself on the back and praising the negotiators as "heroes of democracy." Heroes of hypocrisy is more like it. Obama's top envoy to Honduras, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon wants to be confirmed as Ambassador to Brazil already--but jet-setting coup-booster Sen Jim DeMint (R-SC) has a hold on Shannon's nomination. Perhaps Shannon's desire to sip caipirinhas in Rio eclipsed his love of democracy.

Off to CAF's New Economy Conference

I'm off to the Building the New Economy conference, which kicks off tomorrow in DC.

Scott Paul, the president of the American Alliance for Manufacturing summarizes some of the issues on his mind ahead of the conference:

Ahead of the Oct. 29 'Building the New Economy' conference in Washington, one can state the obvious: something has gone terribly wrong with the U.S. economy. But chalking up the blame to a few bad apples on Wall Street and their risky financial instruments, and responding by simply providing appropriate regulation in the financial services sector, will ultimately be unsatisfying. There are much deeper, structural issues which must be urgently addressed. 

It stands to reason that America needs to produce things of value in order to assure its continued prosperity and security. I'm still weighing the arguments about what role manufacturing should play in that equation. 

Obviously, we shouldn't fall into the trap of propping up heavy manufacturing for heavy manufacturing's sake. But it's impossible to deny that manufacturing has historically been a source of good, skilled jobs.

I'm excited to learn more about green manufacturing jobs. We're going to have to spend a lot of money to become more fuel efficient and less polluting. Someone will have to make the solar panels and wind turbines. Why not Americans?

Lobbyist indicted for violating Sudan sanctions

A former State Department official who forged a lucrative career lobbying for African regimes with dismal human rights records has been indicted for violating sanctions against the government of Sudan.

Federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment against a Washington, D.C. lobbyist today for allegedly violating sanctions against the government of Sudan.

According to the Justice Department, Robert Cabelly, a former state department official and managing director of C/R International, did work for the Sudanese without permission from the U.S. government. The firm allegedly brokered business contracts for the country, and gave it “sensitive” U.S. government information.

The Justice Department says Cabelly was also involved with the Sudanese oil industry, and was being paid by both the country’s government and by a foreign oil company. He allegedly directed the company to deposit a $180,000 payment in an offshore account in the Cook Islands in an attempt to launder the funds. [Blog of the Legal Times]

Cabelly's main job was to diffuse global outrage over the genocide in Darfur.

As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did grant Cabelly a special waiver to lobby for Sudan, despite the sanctions. However the state alleges that he lobbied without permission between 2005 and 2007 and committed other serious infractions in his business with government and business interests in Sudan.

Who's making it to Making it in America?

The Institute for America's Future and the Alliance for American Manufacturing are co-sponsoring a one-day conference on alternatives to the bubble economy on Thursday, Oct 29. 

Making it In America is a symposium on how the U.S. might move from a speculation and service economy to a more just and sustainable alternative. Featured speakers include AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), US Steelworkers President Lou Gerard, Prof. Suzanne Berger of MIT, and Kate Gordon of the Apollo Alliance. Registration is free.

As part of their outreach, they're covering the travel expenses of several out-of-town bloggers to attend the conference and write about it. I'll be one of them. 

Shorter Douthat: It's embarassing to be such a bigot

Self-styled social conservative columnist Ross Douthat admits that he's uncomfortable discussing gay marriage in public because he opposes it for no good reason:

The question came from Christopher Glazek, a fact-checker at The New Yorker, who wanted to know whether Mr. Douthat and Mr. Salam believed that former RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, who has apologized on behalf of his party for the Southern Strategy, should also apologize for the Republican party's gay politics.

At first Mr. Douthat seemed unable to get a sentence out without interrupting himself and starting over. Then he explained: "I am someone opposed to gay marriage who is deeply uncomfortable arguing the issue in public."

Mr. Douthat indicated that he opposes gay marriage because of his religious beliefs, but that he does not like debating the issue in those terms. At one point he said that, sometimes, he feels like he should either change his mind, or simply resolve never to address the question in public. [NY Obs]

It's understandable that Douthat doesn't like debating the issue in terms of his religious beliefs. Because he always loses to the opponent who says: "Who cares about your religion, Ross? We're talking about the criteria for civil marriage, here."

Ross said he doesn't even bother with the standard secular argument against gay marriage because nobody ever takes takes it seriously:

He added: "The secular arguments against gay marriage, when they aren't just based on bigotry or custom, tend to be abstract in ways that don't find purchase in American political discourse. I say, ‘Institutional support for reproduction,' you say, ‘I love my boyfriend and I want to marry him.' Who wins that debate? You win that debate." [NY Obs]

Ross says the notion doesn't "get traction" because it's too "abstract." Actually, nobody takes this argument seriously because any undergraduate can debunk it with concrete counterexamples from everyday life. Even Ross thinks that sterile opposite-sex couples should be allowed to get married and I'm sure he's aware that some same-sex couples raise children.

It's understandable that Ross is uncomfortable talking about gay marriage in public. He wants the state to impose his religion on other people, but he doesn't want to look like a theocrat in front of the liberal cultural elite.

Foreign Policy publishes post by pro-coup lobbyist without identifying his affiliation

BoRev notices that Foreign Policy ran a post by its new contributor Jose R. Cardenas wherein the former USAID official laments progress in negotiations to restore the democratically elected president of Honduras to power. 

Cardenas is entitled to his opinion.

That said, if he's going to write for Foreign Policy, he should disclose the fact that he's a paid lobbyist for a pro-coup faction in Honduras. Cardenas' bio on the Foreign Policy website mentions that he works for the consulting firm Vision Americas--but we don't learn that one of the coup's largest corporate backers hired Vision Americas to sell the junta.

PR Watch reported Cardenas' pro-coup lobbying gig back in July:

The Honduran industry group Asociacion Hondurena de Maquiladores has hired two U.S. lobbying firms, Cormac Group and Vison Americas. Its lobbyists include former Bush administration officials, Jose Cardenas and Roger Noriega, who are "support[ing] the efforts of the Honduran private sector to consolidate the democratic transition in their country," according to lobbying disclosure forms.

Health reform: More details emerge on White House-DSCC-industry alliance

Ben Smith has an interesting story in Politico about the alliance between the White House, high-ranking senate Dems, and health care industry lobbyists; a pact that launched a thousand TV spots:

At a meeting last April with corporate lobbyists, aides to President Barack Obama and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) helped set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.

The role Baucus’s chief of staff, Jon Selib, and deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina played in launching the groups was part of a successful effort by Democrats to enlist traditional enemies of health care reform to their side. No quid pro quo was involved, they insist, as do the lobbyists themselves.

Two groups were created in that meeting: Americans for Quality Stable Health Care and Healthy Economy Now. These groups have since run millions of dollars worth of ads advancing the president's health care reform agenda. The pharmaceutical trade group PhRMA is the largest single contributor to the $24 million project, according to Smith.

A lot of people wondered why the White House gave the Senate Finance Committee the lead role in crafting health care reform legislation. The Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) would have been a more obvious choice.

I doubt it's a coincidence that Finance Chair Max Baucus's chief of staff, Jon Selib, played a key role in creating the coalition that steered millions of industry dollars into the push for reform. The White House swears there was no quid pro quo. But it goes without saying that if industry is paying to pass reform, industry expects a say in what kind of reform we get. Nobody every has to say "I'll pay for your ads if you kill the pubic option" or anything blunt like that. 

GOP-linked PR flack charged under the PATRIOT Act for air rage

Politico reports that veteran PR flack David Bass, a protege of notorious strategist Frank Luntz, has been charged under the PATRIOT Act for running amok on an aircraft in an altered state of consciousness:

David Bass – the Washington P.R. executive charged with a federal felony for alleged drunken behavior on a flight into Washington Reagan National Airport – says he was “out of it” on allergy medication and did nothing more than demand a glass of wine.

“They refused to serve me wine because they said I appeared drunk,” Bass told POLITICO Thursday morning as news that he’d been charged under the U.S. Patriot Act rolled through Washington.

Bass told Politico he was out of his mind on Benadryl. Bad luck. Also bad luck that he acted out in front of an FBI agent: 

Police met Bass’s flight when it landed at Reagan. In a sworn affidavit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, FBI Agent David Wiegand said that Bass had appeared drunk and abusive on the flight, demanding alcohol and refusing flight attendants’ orders to sit down.

According to Wiegand, a flight attended “stated that Bass refused to obey the instructions issued by the flight attendants and ‘disrupted everyone’ in as much as he entered the aircraft's galley several times and crawled over the person seated next to him in order to access the overhead storage compartments and the aircraft's lavatory. [The flight attendant] said that Bass’s behavior was so disruptive that [she] moved the passenger seated next to Bass to a different seat.”

Among other things, the affidavit stated that Bass made “mean faces” at flight attendants.

It's not easy not being Bush

It's already a truism that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for being not-George W. Bush. This talking point gets repeated as if it's a witty put down. It's supposed to trivialize the win. The implication is that Obama won just for showing up. On closer examination, winning for not being Bush is a pretty substantial distinction in its own right.

Most commentators implicitly assume Obama won just for what he's done as president or what he promises to do in office. In fact, Obama earned the prize for waging a successful campaign to unseat a ruling party that rejected the rule of law at home and abroad.

Much has been made of the fact that nominations for the prize closed in February, just after Obama was sworn in. Obama did take some bold steps towards peace in his first days in office. One of his first acts was to order the closure of prison at Guantanamo Bay. That was an courageous act of profound national and international significance. He also quickly repudiated the Bush administration's torture policies and shut down its secret prisons. But there's more to the committee's decision than that.

If the 2008 election happened in Africa or the Middle East it would seem obvious that an opposition leader who restored the rule of law and set about reintegrating his country into the family of nations would be racking up points towards a Nobel Peace Prize before he even took the oath of office.