[Peace-discuss] State Department Terminates Aid to Honduras Coup Regime

[Robert Naiman]

Well, first of all I should make clear that I don't think it will be
documented that Karzai stole the election, because I don't yet think
that he stole it, although there is still outstanding information. It
seems clear that Karzai's people tried to steal a bunch of votes, but
so did Abdullah's people. The official returns are close to the
pre-election polling.

But, in any event, in Afghanistan I think that the U.S. should, in the
short run:

- allow the election process to play out, including the international
process for verifying the vote count
- support the formation of a national unity government
- not escalate militarily
- announce a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops
- support the proposal of the UN for a broad process of national
reconcilation, including the Taliban.
- as part of "support," be willing to make concessions as part of
negotiations, including agreeing to a timetable for total withdrawal,
the release of prisoners, ending military operations, accepting that
reforms of the Afghan constitution be considered.

with respect to Honduras, I think the U.S. should:

- continue to support the OAS consensus for the restoration of
democracy in Honduras, including the return of President Zelaya
- continue to pressure the coup regime with sanctions targeted at the
coup leaders
- say that it will not recognize elections that take place under the
coup regime (they've already said a version of this.)



On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 2:09 PM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
> Bob--
>
> The more I think about your example, the more puzzled I become.
>
> "Suppose that it's documented that Karzai stole the Afghan election. And
> people in Afghanistan say to the U.S., what are you going to do about that?"
>
> What in fact should the US do?
>
> Finish your thought experiment. What would would be consistent in re
> Honduras and Afghanistan?  --CGE
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>
>> ... Suppose that it were documented that Karzai stole the Afghan election.
>> And people in Afghanistan say to the U.S., what are you going to do about
>> that? And Holbrooke were to say, well, we can't interfere in the internal
>> affairs of Afghanistan. Karzai is the president.
>>
>> Would anyone take that seriously? It wouldn't pass the laugh test.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:57 AM, C. G. Estabrook<galliher at illinois.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If this argument is valid, why doesn't it work for Iraq and Afghanistan,
>>> where "the U.S. is very deeply entangled"?  --CGE
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As for the cessation of U.S. military activity in the region, including
>>>> removing the base in Honduras, and stopping the basing agreement in
>>>> Colombia, I'm all for it.
>>>>
>>>> "Non-intervention," as you describe it, is not an item on the menu in
>>>> this restaurant at this time. The U.S. is very deeply entangled in Honduras.
>>>> It has trained and supplied the Honduran military. The choices before the
>>>> U.S. are to support the coup or oppose it. The "non-intervention" you
>>>> advocate, if implemented, would equal support for the coup. That's how it
>>>> will be perceived - indeed, is already being perceived - in Honduras and
>>>> throughout Latin America.
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Senator Feingold Calls for Timetable for U.S. Troop Withdrawal from Afghanistan
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/exit-afghanistan