In preparing for her article “WikiLeaks, Honduras and the U.S.”, published today by The Wall Street Journal, WSJ editorial board member and patron saint of the Latin American far right Mary Anastasia O’Grady presumably had a number of approaches to choose him.
One option was to announce that Julian Assange is an agent of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and that confirmation has been obtained from the laptops impounded during the 2008 Colombian raid on a FARC camp in Ecuador, which coincidentally appear to contain incriminating evidence about all of O’Grady’s regional enemies.
Another option was to use the cable from the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa following last year’s coup against President Mel Zelaya, which states that “there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch”, to further her argument that U.S. Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens is a communist sympathizer who deserves relocation to a diplomatic post in Cuba. This may be the gist of a forthcoming article.
For now, O’Grady has chosen a third route: to pretend that the WikiLeaks cables validate her pretend version of reality, which is that the U.S. State Department knew that Zelaya was a threat to Honduran democracy but nonetheless labored obsessively to have him reinstated in order to score points with Hugo Chávez.
What is really revealed by the cable from Llorens, of course, is that, despite knowing that the coup was illegal and unconstitutional, the State Dept. continued to hem and haw over the issue, thus avoiding required cut-offs in aid and permitting the consolidation of the coup regime, the holding of illegitimate elections, and the general subversion of democracy—all with the U.S. stamp of approval in the form of recognition of the end product of the coup: the regime of Pepe Lobo. In O’Grady-land, however, a perfunctory expression of U.S. support for a deposed leader constitutes going to extremes to reinstall him.
Proof that Zelaya was a threat to Honduran democracy is meanwhile mostly gleaned from a leaked cable from Llorens’ predecessor Charles Ford, whose patronizing assessment of Zelaya earns him the rank of “insightful diplomat” from O’Grady. It appears from the cable that the greatest threat to Honduran democracy in Ford’s opinion was that Zelaya suffered from an “old-fashioned nationalism” which caused him to do things like “hold… the United States accountable for Honduras’ current state of poverty and dependency” and publicly oppose U.S.-funded wars on Nicaragua and the conversion of Honduras into a U.S. military base.
None of the cables released thus far has answered the question of what prevented the U.S. from fulfilling its manic need to restore Zelaya to the presidency. It must have been Honduran democracy.