Skip to content

Secretary Clinton on N. Korea and Honduras

July 20, 2009

INDIA-US/CLINTONSecretary Clinton continues with a jam-packed schedule in India but while she is there, she has made clear that that is not her sole focus, as other foreign policy issues around the world continue to demand her attention.

With respect to the ongoing deadlock in Honduras:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called de factor Honduran leader Roberto Micheletto to warn him about the consequences for his country if it does not permit ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya to return to power, the State Department said Monday.

Clinton called Micheletti on Sunday from New Delhi, where she is meeting with Indian officials on climate change.

It is the first call from Clinton since she met with Zelaya in Washington two weeks ago following his removal from power for trying to hold a referendum in defiance of an order by the nation’s Supreme Court. The United States supports Zelaya’s return to office.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley described Clinton’s conversation with Micheletti as “tough,” and said that Clinton warned him the longterm relationship between the U.S. and Honduras could suffer. She explicitly mentioned U.S. aid, Crowley said.

The European Union already has suspended $90 million in aid to Honduras.

Talks between Zelaya and Micheletti have been suspended for 72 hours, U.S. officials said, downplaying reports that negotiations to return Zelaya to his home country have irrevocably collapsed.

The talks broke down amid disagreement over whether Zelaya can return to his position but with limited powers, or whether he would have to stand trial for his alleged crimes.

And of course, who can forget the The Paranoid Kingdom (ie. North Korea). kimjongil I’ve blogged about Kim Jong Il’s tendency to act out (in addition to my wondering who is actually running The Paranoid KingdomN. Korea) when he feels like he’s being ignored and I am so glad that Secretary Clinton came out and bluntly referred to his attention-seeking behavior, because that’s what it is:

…“What we’ve seen is this constant demand for attention,” said Mrs. Clinton, in an interview that aired on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Monday morning. “And maybe it’s the mother in me or the experience that I’ve had with small children and unruly teenagers and people who are demanding attention — don’t give it to them, they don’t deserve it, they are acting out,” she said….

Also regarding North Korea (from CNN’s Jill Dougherty):


The State Department on Monday continued to publicly downplay the threat North Korea presents to the United States with spokesman P.J. Crowley telling reporters North Korea “represents an infinitesimal threat to the United States directly.”

The spokesman’s statement followed comments from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an interview with ABC, broadcast Monday, in which she said the reason for the United States’ low-key reaction to North Korea’s recent missile test was that the United States wasn’t “going to give the North Koreans the satisfaction they were looking for, which was to elevate them to center stage.”

In that interview, Clinton said North Korea has a “constant demand for attention,” and she added, “maybe it’s the mother in me, the experience I’ve had with small children and teenagers and people who are demanding attention: Don’t give it to them.”

After calling the direct threat to the U.S. “infinitesimal,” Crowley went on to say that “North Korea, and its provocative actions, does represent a significant threat to the region and its actions recently have been unhelpful and potentially destabilizing…”

Share

6 Comments leave one →
  1. jillforhill permalink
    July 20, 2009 9:51 pm

    Ilove this woman. Love what she told GMA how she is handling Kim Jong-Il.

    • ollda97 permalink
      July 21, 2009 4:33 pm

      This is an excellent post and informative regarding US relations. The stance on what is taking place in Honduras is critical, especially given light to what other countries have decided. It is important to think of the ways in which leaders who are ousted by military regimes frame the leaders which they oust, especially given the history of military coups in Latin America.
      Re: North Korea’s leader, What are the implications of comparing a country’s leader to a child?

      • July 21, 2009 4:39 pm

        Ollda97- with respect to comparing N. Korea’s leader as a child- some are saying that wasn’t too smart but at the same time, it certainly made a point, didn’t it? It almost seems like every time the US news is focused on another country (like Honduras, Afghanistan, India), North Korea does something provocative *just to get our attention*- if Clinton doesn’t respond at all (which is almost impossible given she’ll be asked about by a reporter, regardless) she’ll be criticized, if she gives N. Korea the type of attention it wants, she runs the risk of rewarding the behavior.

        I guess reasonable people could disagree with respect to whether or not she should have explicitly used the child reference, but given that N. Korea refuses to play by ANYONE’s rules, I don’t think it was out of line.

  2. Lander permalink
    July 21, 2009 2:05 am

    A few things I don’t understand:

    If Honduras was suspended from OAS on the basis that current government overthrew Mr Zelaya (provided that this is true as said), is it that suspension is not enough punishment?

    Is the US government aware that after previous impeachment by the Supreme Court, Mr Zelaya was taken completely unharmed to neighboring Costa Rica in order to avoid turmoil?

    How can we ever believe that the State of Department is not acquainted with Zelaya’s felonies and crimes, which involves drug dealing and actions against the interest of the people of the USA?

    Does the government realize that voicing these ultimatums fits perfectly with Castro and gang’s attitude and interests?

    I think we are all waiting to hear a specific warning to all parties stating that the US will not endorse any violent act or threat to peace in Honduras, whatever the results of current talks led by Mr Arias.

  3. July 21, 2009 6:46 am

    Lander- I’m going to respond with something I have already written elsewhere:

    Essentially the US is a bit concerned about the fact that the military went to the home of a democratically elected President in the middle of the night, pointed their guns at him and flew him off to another country against his will.

    The US may not *like* Zelaya and we may not *like* nutty ‘ole Chavez and his leftist leanings, but that’s not the issue despite the fact that the media and some folks in the US (including some members of Congress) want to make that the issue. The democracy knife cuts both ways- sometimes when the US tells countries they should utilize democratic methods for picking leaders, we end up with leaders we can’t stand (ie. Chavez, Hamas, etc).

    If Zelaya broke the law, and it appears he likely did, then he should be held to account for that via a legal process PRIOR TO THE GUNS COMING OUT. The fact that the Honduran Supreme Court said what he was doing was illegal, still isn’t enough [in the opinion of most who advocate democracy] to forcibly remove a democratically elected leader- generally, something like a full investigation with Zelaya and the opposition *present* is preferred. And don’t the people who voted for Zelaya have a right to that?

    Also, keep in mind that [as you know] the US has a long, controversial past history in Latin America (like trying to forcibly (and secretly) remove leaders we didn’t like and supporting groups, no matter how atrocious, in removing those leaders)and that makes this even more of a political hot-button issue than it is in and of itself. Also, Latin America has a long, controversial history of using coups to remove leaders and that’s something the modern OAS and the US frown upon, despite our history there.

    Many people believe that if the US did NOT condemn Zelaya’s ouster, it would set a very bad precedent and might encourage other states to do the same- the problem is, what do we do when there is a president we like, say, in Argentina or Colombia, who is accused of wrongdoing and forcibly removed at gunpoint and the opposition takes control of the govt? Who do we support in THAT instance? For me, that’s a big part of the problem.

  4. July 21, 2009 7:39 am

    Jill- I think our SOS is right on the money w/ respect to Kim Jong Il!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 158 other followers