Written by David Starr   

In the 20th century, U.S.-backed military coups in Latin America were an occasional happening, followed by military dictatorships. Honduras is no exception.

In October 1963, e.g., a violent military coup was orchestrated to overthrow elected president Ramon Villeda Morales, who implemented a progressive agenda for his country. Infrastructure development, school construction, and agrarian reform comprised his agenda.

A U.S. company named United Fruit, having a private monopoly on land in Honduras, wanted to prevent Morales' agenda to come to fruition. Anti-communist right-wingers in Honduras and the U.S. also wanted his agenda stopped.

The JFK administration at first praised the reforms. Afterwards, however, the administration pressured Morales to water down his agenda. This did not satisfy the Honduran military elite and the right-wingers. But JFK opposed having a coup. On October 3, 1963, over a month before JFK was assassinated, the coup was carried out.

History repeated itself in 2009, when Honduras' elected president Manuel Zelaya was overthrown in a military coup. Like Morales in 1963, Zelaya was forced into exile to Costa Rica. Zelaya's "crime" was pushing for a non-binding referendum to get the Honduran constitution changed. The Honduran Supreme Court accused Zelaya of violating the constitution, although the referendum was like an opinion poll to get feedback from the Honduran population on constitutional changes.

What the Supreme Court did-ordering the Honduran Army to go after Zelaya and forcing him from power-was condemned as illegal by the United Nations, the Organization of American States and the European Union. The Obama administration initially condemned it but backed off afterwards.

In his Article, "The Honduras Coup: Is Obama Innocent?," Michael Parenti goes through a list of factors relating to the Obama administration's behavior toward the 2009 coup:

1) "[A]lmost all senior military leaders active in the coup are graduates of the School of Americas [or School of Assassins]. These officers "would never have dared to move without the tacit consent from the White House, or the Pentagon and the CIA."

2) "[I]f Obama was not directly involved, then he should be faulted for having no firm command of those U.S. operatives who were. Why did Obama's people who had communicated with the coup leaders fail to blow the whistle on them? Instead, the U.S. kept quiet about it, a silence that in effect, if not intent, served as an act of complicity."

3) "Obama had nothing to say about the many other acts of repression attendant with the coup perpetrated by Honduran military and police: kidnappings, beatings, disappearances, attacks on demonstrators, shutting down the Internet and suppressing the few small critical media outlets that exist in Honduras."

4) "Obama refused to meet with President Zelaya." Obama, and other U.S. leaders, did not like Zelaya because of his close relationship with Hugo Chavez.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is especially culpable in the whole affair. Ben Norton, writing in Salon ("Hillary Is Being Misleading About Her Role in the Honduras Coup," 4/15/2016), said that the "state department under the leadership of Hillary Clinton, defended the coup. As a result, "the U.S. defied the Organization of American States and pushed for the world to recognize the coup government."

When journalist Juan Gonzalez asked Clinton about the coup, she responded that she didn't like the way it was done, but the perpetrators had a very strong case in following the rules of the constitution. Clinton also accepted the "election" that followed; an "election" held under the powerbrokers of a coup.

Clinton did say that the "election" didn't resolve the structural problems of Honduran society. Nevertheless, according to Greg Grandin, expert of U.S. policy on Latin America, "emails show that early on when there was a real chance of restoring [Zelaya] to power, she was working with the most retrograde elements in Honduras to consolidate the putsch."

In her memoir, "Hard Choices," Clinton wrote that the aftermath of the coup, i.e., the "elections," was a "victory for democracy," according to Norton. Norton quotes scholar Dana Frank, specializing in human rights and U.S. policy in Honduras: "[T]he post-coup governments, both of Micheletti, Lobo and Juan Orlando Hernandez have completely destroyed the rule of law, because they're in cahoots with organized crime and drug traffickers. against the Honduran people."

GOP members were more direct in supporting the coup. The Associated Press reported that U.S. reps IIeana Ros-Lehtinen and Connie Mack, and Sen. Jim DeMint, met with the post-coup regime. For Ros-Lehtinen-and brothers Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Belart, two other GOPers-it was called a "fact-finding mission." They judged Zelaya as guilty, and that the Honduran Supreme Court-along with the Honduran Army-provided a "legitimate response."

In an interview with Manuel Zelaya by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Zelaya clearly points the blame at "the right-wing of the United States." He also described his treatment by the Honduran Army: Rather than civility, "[T]hey threatened me with their rifles, M-16 machine guns. They said it was a military order. And they were shouting at me." They also kidnapped him with his pajamas on. Zelaya said that there were 200 to 300 military men outside of his home who were hooded.

Two former U.S. ambassadors to Honduras were opposites in their treatment of Zelaya. Hugo Llorens produced a cable entitled "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," released by Wikileaks. Llorens concluded that the coup was illegal and unconstitutional. Zelaya said Llorens helped him and his family after the coup.

Charles Ford, the ambassador before Llorens, wasn't so congenial. "[H]e said I could not have a friendship with Hugo Chavez. He wanted to name who my ministers of my cabinet of my government should be. He wanted his recommendations to become ministers of my government."

Once again, Democrats and Republicans, when it came down to it, supported another coup in Latin America, the first in 25 years. JFK was one of the few voices of sanity in opposing the 1963 coup. Hugo Llorens was one of the few voices of sanity in opposing the 2009 coup. It's too bad that sanity is the exception and not the rule within the United States' imperial foreign policy.