Information

academic site


e-mail
c.v.
columns
legal
rss .92
2.0
The Collective
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
By Steven L. Taylor

Writes Roger L. Simon at Pajamas Media: Iran, Honduras: Is Obama “objectively pro-fascist”?

I don’t know much about Honduras, but I do know something about Iran. And Obama’s bizarre behavior, taking days to come to the conclusion any decent person knew immediately, indeed other world leaders like Merkel and Sarkozy had demonstrated as much - that there were very clear good and evil sides in the Iranian election, even though the good wasn’t perfect. (Is it ever?) So when I heard that our President had joined Chavez and Castro in condemnation of the supposed coup in Honduras, this time with immediacy, I felt a tightening in the gut. Chavez particularly was on the side of Ahmadinejad in the recent Iranian brutality.

This was a side I didn’t want to be on, didn’t want our country on. I heard many suspicious things about Zelaya, the booted Honduran president, including allegations of drug ties. Also, he was running for succor to the UN, the very organization just weeks ago I had personally seen embrace Ahmadinejad in Geneva.

I think, in fact, this is the mistake (a two-pronged one) that many are making in regards to Honduras.

1. Being opposed to the coup isn’t the same thing as as being pro-Zelaya. Why this is apparently difficult to grasp is beyond me.

2. And this is the really important point: being opposed to the coup is not “join[ing] Chavez and Castro” as if the White House called up Caracas to coordinate statements. Indeed, it is increasingly clear to me that a lot of people who “don’t know much about Honduras” are basing their opinions almost exclusively on the fact that Zelaya was pro-Chávez. Nothing else really matters and whatever rationalizing is necessary to justify the coup is requisite.

Beyond that, it isn’t the case that the axis of anti-coup support is Obama-Chávez-Castro, but it is rather the whole of the Western Hemisphere versus the Michelletti government in Honduras, including objectively anti-Chávez heads of state.

For example, Mexican President expressed his strongest condemnation of the Coup d´État in Honduras

In Nicaragua, the President said: “On behalf of the people and government of Mexico, and also of the Rio Group, I would like to express our forceful condemnation of the coup d´état carried out in Honduras yesterday and of course, repeat our demand for respect for the institutional order, the constitutional order, the constitutionally elected authorities and specifically, President Manuel Zelaya.”

Now, those who are not well versed in Mexican politics, it should be noted that Calderon is of the center-right and is no ally to Hugo Chávez.

Also, the government of Colombia whose President, Álvaro Uribe, is both the most pro-US and anti-Chávez leader in the region, has stated the following in a communique from the Foreign Ministry (via El Tiempo):

Colombia reafirma su reconocimiento a José Manuel Zelaya Rosales como Presidente constitucional de la República de Honduras y, de acuerdo con la Resolución sobre la Crisis Política en ese país, aprobada en sesión extraordinaria de la OEA en el día de hoy, exige la restauración inmediata, segura e incondicional del Presidente Zelaya a sus funciones constitucionales.

Translation:

Colombia reaffirms its recognition of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales as the constitutional President of the Republic of Hondruas and is in agreement with the Resolution on the Political Crisis in that country approved during the extraordinary session of the OAS today that requires the immediate, secure and unconditional restoration of President Zelaya to his constitutional role.

So, casting Zelaya as simply a Chávez ally supported by Castro and friends is to be missing quite a bit of the story.

Oh, and to Simon’s bizarre headline question about fascism, he offer this non sequitur:

Obama has strange friends. He equivocates and equalizes in disturbing ways. Is he “objectively pro-fascist” as George Orwell memorably wrote in his famous essay “Pacifism and the War“?

I give you Eric Arthur Blair. Make of it what you will. For me, the word “pacifism” could be replaced by some coinage (it’s too late here in LA for me to come up with one, if I could anyway) that encapsulates Obamaism in its supposedly even-handed international policy: “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other.”

Italics his.

Personally, I am not even sure what his point is.

See also: Hugo Chávez Shouldn’t be the Issue.

Sphere: Related Content

Filed under: Latin America, US Politics | |
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.

2 Responses to “Again: Chávez Shouldn’t be the Focus”

  1. Vladimir Says:

    You have some good points and I acknowledge them. Zeayala is not simply an ally of Chavez and Castro. But he is an ally of Chavez and Castro.
    Can you deny that Chavez was supporting the ilegal actions of Zeyala? The ballots for the infamous referendum were made by Chavez government in defiance of the Supreme Court of Honduras. He even called the Supreme Court President a “buffon”. And now he is making not so veiled threats of military intervention in Honduras.
    That is why people in Honduras are focusing in Chavez. It is clear as the day that Chavez was trying to export his “Bolivarian Revolution” to Honduras, as he did in other countries.

  2. PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » More Thoughts on Honduras Says:

    [...] in regards to left/right or Chávez, I will note yet again what I noted yesterday: the governments of the western hemisphere (left and right, pro- and anti-Chávez) all have [...]


blog advertising is good for you

Take a Look At This!
Inquiries
Blogroll

Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Politics
---


Advertisement

Advertisement



Visitors Since 2/15/03

Powered by WordPress