Cinco Héroes cubanos rehenes del imperio
(Mientras prosigue la impunidad a los terroristas…)
-Nancy Valiño
Cuando el pasado 15 de junio la Corte Suprema de Justicia de los EEUU rechazó considerar el caso de nuestros Cinco Héroes, no hacía más que actuar en concordancia con lo que ha sido la actitud hacia Cuba de los diferentes gobiernos del imperio yanqui y sus múltiples instancias de poder durante ya más de cincuenta años.Unos días antes, otra dependencia del poder judicial estadounidense, había otorgado generosamente al terrorista Luis Posada Carriles un nuevo plazo para que este prepare su “defensa” con todas las garantías del caso.Ambos hechos, indisolublemente relacionados, grafican claramente los dos polos del tratamiento que se ha mantenido hacia Cuba y constituyen asimismo una especie de barómetro que permite constatar el actual nivel en la persistente obsesión por doblegar y rendir a la isla.Mientras el sistema de Justicia y el gobierno de los EEUU prosiguen en su empeño de proteger entre algodones de impudicia a uno de los terroristas más prolíficos en muerte y dolor existentes sobre la faz del planeta, desprecian revisar el caso de nuestros Cinco Héroes, avalando con el silencio de la Corte Suprema todas las irregularidades de orden judicial, político y ético cometidas, advertidas incluso por la o­nU. Sin duda pretenden castigar en ellos la resistencia y dignidad de todo un pueblo; de esta forma, nuestros Cinco Héroes son verdaderos rehenes.

El imperio le teme a la Verdad y la Justicia
Unas semanas antes de la inmoral determinación de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de los EEUU, había sido el propio Departamento de Estado quien incluyera nuevamente a Cuba en la lista de países que “patrocinan el terrorismo”, reafirmando con ello una vez más, el peligroso antecedente de mantener a Cuba en la mira de sus postulados de Seguridad Nacional. Ese mismo Departamento de Estado que acaba de negar una vez más la visa a Adriana Pérez , esposa de nuestro Héroe Gerardo Hernández Nordelo…Pero, efectivamente existen países que fomentan al terrorismo como política de estado y amparan terroristas a contrapelo de todas las convenciones internacionales que advierten y sancionan al respecto.Así, mientras desde las redes del poder imperial sus voceros llegan a quedar afónicos de tanto pregonar sobre la “democracia y los derechos humanos” -en tanto califican a otros como “ejes del mal”-, se implementan tras bambalinas multifacéticos planes para apoderarse de todo cuanto constituya un interés “estratégico” para el sistema, o para destruir aquello que vean como un estorbo a lo mismo. Golpes de estado, guerras de rapiña, asesinato de opositores, tortura, desaparición, acompañan la implementación de la ideología de la Doctrina de Seguridad Nacional como política terrorista del imperio desde su génesis. Hoy mismo testimonian dolorosamente sobre esta realidad, la ignominia de Guantánamo, los bombardeos a poblaciones civiles indefensas, el apoyo a regímenes que masacran a sus pueblos y el patrocinio a cualquier gérmen de contrarrevolución en Nuestramérica o cualquier otro “oscuro rincón” planetario.En este mismo contexto, nunca será demasiado referirse al ejemplo histórico de la guerra terrorista desarrollada sistemáticamente contra Cuba como política de estado, desde los albores de la revolución.Porque no se ha tratado solo del Bloqueo, con todas sus inhumanas consecuencias, lo que se ha implementado contra Cuba. Todas las diferentes administraciones de la Casa Blanca, junto a sus agencias e instituciones como la CIA, la USAID y el Pentágono entre otros, han tenido en mira la destrucción de la revolución y no han vacilado en utilizar para ello todos los medios de una guerra sucia terrorista.Esta verdadera obsesión, amplificada dialécticamente ante el fracaso del empeño, ha llevado hasta límites rayanos en el ridículo a más de algún inquilino de la Casa Blanca, o director de la CIA, o general del Pentágono. Por supuesto, ha ocasionado también inconmensurable dolor y daños materiales al pueblo cubano.Nunca se han resignado a considerar a Cuba como un pueblo Libre y Soberano al que no pueden dictarle condiciones; continúan delirando con estrujarle y fundirle dócilmente a su ideología fascistoide del “Destino Manifiesto”, a constreñirle con una neoversión de la Enmienda Platt o la Doctrina Monroe. Sin ir más lejos, y por lo mismo, todavía continúa vigente el llamado “Plan Bush” incluyendo su famoso “capítulo secreto”.

Están atragantados con Cuba.
“En silencio ha tenido que ser” (José Martí)
Frente a la constante agresión imperial Cuba ha ejercido el derecho a defender su Soberanía y Libertad.Desde los inicios de la revolución, los servicios de Seguridad junto al pueblo cubano han dedicado esfuerzos para prevenir y neutralizar el terrorismo promovido desde los EEUU. Su accionar constituye sobretodo un ejemplo de proceder ético ante este tipo de situaciones extremas, cuyo enfrentamiento se realiza sin el recurso a los métodos tradicionalmente empleados por otros servicios similares del autodenominado mundo “libre y democrático”: el amedrentamiento, la tortura, la desaparición, el asesinato. Nuestros Cinco Héroes, desde su injusta prisión, testimonian dignamente acerca de esta lucha antiterrorista. Mediante el monitoreo de los grupos terroristas se ha logrado impedir numerosos intentos de sabotajes, planes de asesinato de dirigentes, así como desmantelar diversas provocaciones, etc. Pero no siempre ha sido posible detener a tiempo la artera maquinaria del terror: miles de víctimas, junto a sus familiares y todo un pueblo testimonian la dolorosa realidad de esta guerra sucia desatada contra Cuba.En reiteradas ocasiones, la información obtenida mediante el monitoreo antiterrorista ha sido compartida con diferentes gobiernos de EEUU (entre ellos el de Clinton, en 1997 y 1998), el Comité Especial de la Cámara de Representantes (acerca del asesinato de John F. Kennedy, 1978), el FBI (1998), etc. en un esfuerzo de desenmascaramiento preventivo; a modo de abortar empeños obsesivos; por ética.Y toda esta información coloca en evidencia un patrón común que dista mucho de ser casual. Los mismos terroristas que han sido utilizados profusamente en la guerra sucia contra Cuba, aparecen también operando relacionados con otros escenarios de la política interna y externa del propio EEUU, comprometiendo en ello hasta el tuétano a más de alguna agencia imperial, empresarios del enorme complejo militar-industrial, la mafia, generales del Pentágono…Esto es lo que sucede por ejemplo en el caso de Luis Posada Carriles, el “terrorista predilecto” de los EEUU, quien aparece involucrado reiteradamente en brutales acciones desde la temprana era de asesinatos de los hermanos Kennedy (1963 y 1968); caso Watergate (1972); el crimen del canciller chileno Orlando Letelier y su asistente en Washington (1976); la voladura del avión de Cubana con sus 73 ocupantes sobre Barbados (1976); la Operación Cóndor en Nuestramérica (décadas de los 70-80 del siglo pasado); caso Irán-Contras (década de los 80, siglo pasado); bombas y asesinato de Fabio di Celmo en La Habana (1997); intento de magnicidio de Fidel en Panamá (2000)…Todo indica que la impunidad y protección que terroristas como Luis Posada Carriles y otros gozan en los EEUU responde simplemente a que este y sus compinches “saben demasiado”. Por esto, cualquier investigación y juicio serio que se decidiera efectuar contra ellos plantearía el peligro de sacar a luz muchos trapos sucios de la compleja red del poder imperial, siniestramente ocultos hasta hoy al pueblo estadounidense y que exceden en mucho al tema “Cuba”.También la impermeabilidad de Posada Carriles frente a la Verdad y la Justicia trasciende ampliamente su desempeño terrorista comprometiendo otros aspectos de la política imperial. El caso de este “paradigma” de terrorista -pero sin embargo impune y protegido en medio del imperio-, representa una firme prueba del cinismo e hipocresía de la cacareada “guerra al terrorismo” y desnuda a esta tal como lo que es: solo la fase actual de la Doctrina de Seguridad Nacional de los EEUU para extender su garra hacia los “rincones oscuros” de su interés.Valdría la pena recordarle a Obama que: “O se está contra el terrorismo, o se protege a Posada Carriles…”

¿De cuáles cambios hablaba usted, Mr. Obama?
Muchos continúan haciéndose la pregunta de si Obama se atreverá a marcar la diferencia frente a Cuba respecto a lo que han sido las anteriores administraciones de gobierno estadounidenses.Generalmente, estos tratan de no perder ocasión de golpear a la revolución cubana. Cada cosa que se dice o hace en relación al tema “Cuba” está enmarcada en la obsesiva determinación de rendir y destruir la revolución.Evidentemente en este contexto, el caso de nuestros Cinco Héroes, así como lo de Luis Posada Carriles, colocan a prueba el gigantesco edificio de retórica de “cambios” levantado por Obama. Hasta ahora -maquillajes más, maquillajes menos-, este ha optado por plegarse como uno más a la inmoral política de sus antecesores, lo que ha resultado chocante para muchos que creían honestamente en la posibilidad de un cambio.Siendo partes estructurales de la compleja trama del poder imperial, ni una Corte Suprema de Justicia va a ir en contra de los “intereses estratégicos” de la Seguridad Nacional del sistema puestos en “peligro supremo” por el accionar consecuentemente antiterrorista y ético de nuestros Cinco Héroes. Tampoco algún Tribunal de Justicia cualquiera va osar ir en contra del “guerrero por la libertad” Luis Posada Carriles, quien, guerreando por los caminos del mundo no ha hecho otra cosa sino servir a esos “intereses estratégicos” del sistema.Y por lo que se ve hasta ahora, mucho menos un presidente del imperio se atreve a marcar la diferencia, cuánto más los casos de nuestros Cinco Héroes y el de Luis Posada Carriles colocan en jaque toda su retórica de “cambios”, amenazándolo con confrontar ineludiblemente la Verdad y la Justicia frente a su pueblo, el mundo y el pueblo cubano.Es cierto que en lo que respecta a Cuba, Obama recibe la herencia de lo que han sido más de cincuenta años de política imperial y contubernios de la conexión CIA-mafia cubano-estadounidense; esos son lazos firmes y poderosos construídos en base al terror y la guerra sucia. Pero Obama posee los medios para hacer efectiva en este terreno su propuesta de cambios. Pudiera, por una parte, entender que nuestros Cinco Héroes demuestran en todo su accionar que sí se puede ser verdaderamente antiterrorista, y gestionar su Libertad. Por otra parte, el actual presidente pudiera consultar la información existente o la todavía clasificada acerca de Posada Carriles y facilitar su enjuiciamiento como lo que ha sido hasta hoy: un verdadero terrorista.¿Tendrá Obama, en algún espacio y tiempo de su abultada agenda imperial, el valor ético y político de aplicar frente a estos temas tan sensibles a los pueblos de Cuba y los EEUU, simplemente esta Verdad y Justicia?

You have the Choice, Mr. President!
Mientras nuestros Cinco Héroes continúen encarcelados en las mazmorras del imperio, seguirán siendo ejemplo y banderas para el pueblo cubano y los honestos del mundo; cuando sean liberados, retornarán junto a su pueblo a continuar construyendo y defendiendo esta obra “de todos y por el bien de todos”, como Martí quería.“Nosotros cinco nos debemos a nuestros pueblos y a pesar de todos los reveses, continuaremos luchando contra el terrorismo, contra la guerra, en defensa de Cuba y de todos los pueblos del mundo, incluso del propio pueblo de Estados Unidos, aún en contra de la voluntad de su gobierno, para el cual, su primera misión debería ser precisamente esta que nosotros defendemos”. (Ramón Labañino Salazar)

Referencias:- “La guerra secreta”, Fabián Escalante Font. Editorial Ciencias Sociales, Cuba.- “Imperio del terror”, Alejandro Castro Espín. Editorial Capitán San Luis, 2009, Cuba.- “Paraninfo, un magnicidio frustrado”, Ivón Deulofeu. Editorial Capitán San Luis, 2007, Cuba.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20071115/index.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB202/index.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB218/index.htmhttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/index.htmhttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB157/index.htmhttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB199/index.htmhttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB125/http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htmhttp://www.terrorfileonline.org/es/index.php/Operaci%C3%B3n_40http://www.antiterroristas.cuhttp://www.freethefive.org http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/miami5/index.htmlhttp://5heroes.cujae.edu.cu http://www.thecuban5.orghttp://www.cubainformacion.tvhttp://www.aporrea.org/ddhh/a58375.html(“Posada Carriles, un asesino en serie”)


MEDIATOR ARIAS CALLS FOR "AMNESTY" FOR COUP REGIME; EARLY ELECTIONS AND GOVERNMENT OF "RECONCILIATION"
UPDATE AGAIN, 10:15PM: The talks are done for today with no agreement. Zelaya's delegation confirmed they are accepting considering the proposal set out by Oscar Arias (see below), beginning with President Zelaya's return to power by July 24th (by continuing to push back the date, the coup regime consolidates and represses the people even more). The coup regime led by Roberto Micheletti has stated it will "study" the proposal overnight, though it has already had 15 hours to do so today, without arriving at a final decision. Several of the spokespeople for the coup regime have said they will not agree to President Zelaya's return to power, which makes things difficult because that is the principle issue at stake here. The talks will be resumed tomorrow morning at 11am, Costa Rica time. See below for my analysis...

UPDATE: President Zelaya has accepted Arias' offer - with all its massive, dangerous flaws - but, so far, it will not proceed because the coup dictator, Roberto Micheletti, has refused the terms set forth today in the negotiation meeting in Costa Rica. The coup regime stands firm on its refusal to allow President Zelaya to return to power. Supporters of Zelaya and popular resistance forces are still in the streets in Honduras. Zelaya says his return to Honduras - by any means and way - is imminent.

Eva Golinger

The "dialogue" meetings on the Honduras crisis are taking place today in Costa Rica, mediated by the president of that nation, Oscar Arias, who was designed by the Department of State to assume this role. Arias has presented a "document" to both parties, which include representatives from the coup regime and the constitutional government that was ousted in the coup 21 days ago on June 28th. The document, is calling on all parties to accept the following seven terms in order to resolve the political crisis:
1. Allow President Manuel Zelaya to return to his post as president until the end of his term on January 29, 2010.
2. Conform a new government (with Zelaya as president) based on "unity" and "reconciliation", composed on representatives from all political parties in the country to govern through the end of Zelaya's term.
3. Declare a general amnesty to those actors involved in the coup d'etat.
4. President Zelaya will have to renounce any effort to convene a referendum or consultation with the people of Honduras regarding future constitutional reform.
5. Hold early elections during the last weekend of October instead of November 29th, 2009.
6. The military will be commanded by the Supreme Court of Honduras as of September 2009 in order to "ensure" a smooth electoral process.
7. Creation of a truth commission composed of renowned Hondurans and members from the international community, particularly the Organization of American States (OEA) to supervise the correct return of constitutional order and the implementation of the above terms.

President Zelaya has apparently accepted these terms, despite the fact that he would be completely castrated politically, and would be allowing for the same criminals that executed the coup against him to remain in power and in fact, have even more power since they would be part of a "government of unity and reconciliation". If this is true, Zelaya will be strongly disappointing a large majority of those Honduran people who have resisted and struggled against the coup government now for over 21 days. Also, many of us in the international community will also be severely bothered by Zelaya's giving in to such absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable terms!!Personally, I believe the only issue to be considered is the first one, and it should involve the unconditional, immediate return of President Zelaya to power - that is the only matter at hand here. Also, the OAS resolution on the Honduran coup specifically called for the immediate, UNCONDITIONAL, restitution of President Zelaya to power. What Arias (via Washington) is proposing involves a series of conditions that would render Zelaya absolutely powerless.Obviously, this is what many of us have been expected from Arias (via Washington) since he assumed this role as "mediator". This is precisely the outcome the Obama administration has been pushing for since day one of the coup. And it is absolutely unacceptable! First of all, the issue of a government of "unity" and "reconciliation" is ridiculous. That means Zelaya does not name his cabinet members, and all those who previously held positions in his government would be forced to step down. This measure ties Zelaya's hands completely and is just outrageous.The renouncing of considering a possible future constitutional reform is also unacceptable, since that is not an issue to be decided by a small elite in Honduras, but rather the people of Honduras. And then the amnesty for the coup leaders sets a dangerous precedent for other actors seeking to overthrow their governments via illegal means, because they will see that it can be done, and you get off the hook for all the crimes and human rights violations committed!!This is all just really awful. The worst part will be if Zelaya actually does accept this proposal as is being reported right now.I believe the only viable solution is for the people of Honduras to immediately convene a constitutional assembly and to not only rewrite their constitution as they see fit, but also to depose the congress, supreme court and high military command, since they have all been principal participants in a violent, criminal coup d'etat. Once the new constitution is ratified, elections will be held to fill all offices as specified by law. The power resides in the sovereign people to determine the type and model of government they wish to have. If Honduras allows this coup to be legitimated by Arias' (via Washington's) proposal, it will be a dark day for the peoples of Latin America.

Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University - Commentary No. 261, July 15, 2009
"The Right Strikes Back!"
The presidency of George W. Bush was the moment of the greatest electoral sweep of left-of-center political parties in Latin America in the last two centuries. The presidency of Barack Obama risks being the moment of the revenge of the right in Latin America.The reason may well be the same - the combination of the decline of American power with the continuing centrality of the United States in world politics. At one and the same time, the United States is unable to impose itself and is nonetheless expected by everyone to enter the playing field on their side.What happened in Honduras? Honduras has long been one of the surest pillars of Latin American oligarchies - an arrogant and unrepentant ruling class, with close ties to the United States and site of a major American military base. Its own military was carefully recruited to avoid any taint of officers with populist sympathies.In the last elections, Manuel ("Mel") Zelaya was elected president. A product of the ruling classes, he was expected to continue to play the game the way Honduran presidents always play it. Instead, he edged leftward in his policies. He undertook internal programs that actually did something for the vast majority of the population - building schools in remote rural areas, increasing the minimum wage, opening health clinics. He started his term supporting the free trade agreement with the United States. But then, after two years, he joined ALBA, the interstate organization started by President Hugo Chavez, and Honduras received as a result low-cost oil coming from Venezuela.Then he proposed to hold an advisory referendum as to whether the population thought it a good idea to convene a body to revise the constitution. The oligarchy shouted that this was an attempt by Zelaya to change the constitution to make it possible for him to have a second term. But since the referendum was to occur on the day his successor would have been elected, this was clearly a phony reason.Why then did the army stage a coup d'état, with the support of the Supreme Court, the Honduran legislature, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy? Two factors entered here: their view of Zelaya and their view of the United States. In the 1930s, the U.S. right attacked Franklin Roosevelt as "a traitor to his class." For the Honduran oligarchy, that's Zelaya - "a traitor to his class" - someone who had to be punished as an example to others.What about the United States? When the coup occurred, some of the raucous left commentators in the blogosphere called it "Obama's coup." That misses the point of what happened. Neither Zelaya nor his supporters on the street, nor indeed Chavez or Fidel Castro, have such a simplistic view. They all note the difference between Obama and the U.S. right (political leaders or military figures) and have expressed repeatedly a far more nuanced analysis.It seems quite clear that the last thing the Obama administration wanted was this coup. The coup has been an attempt to force Obama's hand. This was undoubtedly encouraged by key figures in the U.S. right like Otto Reich, the Cuban-American ex-counselor of Bush, and the International Republican Institute. This was akin to Saakashvili's attempt to force the U.S. hand in Georgia when he invaded South Ossetia. That too was done in connivance with the U.S. right. That one didn't work because Russian troops stopped it.Obama has been wiggling ever since the Honduran coup. And as of now the Honduran and U.S. right are far from satisfied that they have succeeded in turning U.S. policy around. Witness some of their outrageous statements. The Foreign Minister of the coup government, Enrique Ortez, said that Obama was "un negrito que sabe nada de nada." There is some controversy about how pejorative "negrito" is in Spanish. I would translate this myself as saying that Obama was "a nigger who knows absolutely nothing." In any case, the U.S. Ambassador sharply protested the insult. Ortez apologized for his "unfortunate expression" and he was shifted to another job in the government. Ortez also gave an interview to a Honduran TV station saying that "I don't have racial prejudices; I like the sugar-mill nigger who is president of the United States."The U.S. right is no doubt more polite but no less denunciatory of Obama. Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, Cuban-American Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and conservative lawyer Manuel A. Estrada have all been insisting that the coup was justified because it wasn't a coup, just a defense of the Honduran constitution. And rightwing blogger Jennifer Rubin published a piece on July 13 entitled "Obama is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong About Honduras." Her Honduran equivalent, Ramón Villeda, published an open letter to Obama on July 11, in which he said that "This is not the first time that the United States has made a mistake and abandoned, at a critical moment, an ally and a friend." Meanwhile, Chavez is calling on the State Department to "do something."The Honduran right is playing for time, until Zelaya's term ends. If they reach that goal, they will have won. And the Guatemalan, Salvadorian, and Nicaraguan right are watching in the wings, itching to start their own coups against their no longer rightwing governments.The Honduran coup has to be placed in the larger context of what is happening throughout Latin America. It is quite possible that the right will win the elections this year and next year in Argentina and Brazil, maybe in Uruguay as well, and most likely in Chile. Three leading analysts from the Southern Cone have published their explanations. The least pessimistic, Argentine political scientist Atilio Boron, speaks of "the futility of the coup." Brazilian sociologist Emir Sader says that Latin America faces a choice: "the deepening of antineoliberalism or conservative restoration." Uruguayan journalist Raúl Zibechi entitles his analysis "the irresistible decadence of progressivism." Zibechi in effect thinks it may be too late for Sader's alternative. The weak economic policies of Presidents Lula, Vazquez, Kirchner, and Bachelet (of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, and Chile) have strengthened the right (which he sees adopting a Berlusconi style) and split the left.Myself, I think there's a more straightforward explanation. The left came to power in Latin America because of U.S. distraction and good economic times. Now it faces continued distraction but bad economic times. And it's getting blamed because it's in power, even though in fact there's little the left-of-center governments can do about the world-economy.Can the United States do something more about the coup? Well, of course it can. First of all, Obama can officially label the coup a coup. This would trigger a U.S. law, cutting off all U.S. assistance to Honduras. He can sever the Pentagon's continuing relations with the Honduran military. He can withdraw the U.S. ambassador. He can say that there's nothing to negotiate instead of insisting on "mediation" between the legitimate government and the coup leaders.Why doesn't he do all that? It's really simple, too. He's got at least four other super-urgent items on his agenda: confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court; a continuing mess in the Middle East; his need to pass health legislation this year (if not by August, then by December); and suddenly enormous pressure to open investigations of the illegal acts of the Bush administration. I'm sorry, but Honduras is fifth in line,So Obama wiggles. And nobody will be happy. Zelaya may yet be restored to legal office, but maybe only three months from now. Too late. Keep your eye on Guatemala.
--by Immanuel Wallerstein[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]

From Arbenz to Zelaya Chiquita in Latin America
By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF
When the Honduran military overthrew the democratically elected government of Manuel Zelaya two weeks ago there might have been a sigh of relief in the corporate board rooms of Chiquita banana. Earlier this year the Cincinnati-based fruit company joined Dole in criticizing the government in Tegucigalpa which had raised the minimum wage by 60%. Chiquita complained that the new regulations would cut into company profits, requiring the firm to spend more on costs than in Costa Rica: 20 cents more to produce a crate of pineapple and ten cents more to produce a crate of bananas to be exact. In all, Chiquita fretted that it would lose millions under Zelaya’s labor reforms since the company produced around 8 million crates of pineapple and 22 million crates of bananas per year.When the minimum wage decree came down Chiquita sought help and appealed to the Honduran National Business Council, known by its Spanish acronym COHEP. Like Chiquita, COHEP was unhappy about Zelaya’s minimum wage measure. Amílcar Bulnes, the group’s president, argued that if the government went forward with the minimum wage increase employers would be forced to let workers go, thus increasing unemployment in the country. The most important business organization in Honduras, COHEP groups 60 trade associations and chambers of commerce representing every sector of the Honduran economy. According to its own Web site, COHEP is the political and technical arm of the Honduran private sector, supports trade agreements and provides “critical support for the democratic system.” The international community should not impose economic sanctions against the coup regime in Tegucigalpa, COHEP argues, because this would worsen Honduras’ social problems. In its new role as the mouthpiece for Honduras’ poor, COHEP declares that Honduras has already suffered from earthquakes, torrential rains and the global financial crisis. Before punishing the coup regime with punitive measures, COHEP argues, the United Nations and the Organization of American States should send observer teams to Honduras to investigate how sanctions might affect 70% of Hondurans who live in poverty. Bulnes meanwhile has voiced his support for the coup regime of Roberto Micheletti and argues that the political conditions in Honduras are not propitious for Zelaya’s return from exile.

Chiquita: From Arbenz to Bananagate
It’s not surprising that Chiquita would seek out and ally itself to socially and politically backward forces in Honduras. Colsiba, the coordinating body of banana plantation workers in Latin America, says the fruit company has failed to supply its workers with necessary protective gear and has dragged its feet when it comes to signing collective labor agreements in Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras.Colsiba compares the infernal labor conditions on Chiquita plantations to concentration camps. It’s an inflammatory comparison yet may contain a degree of truth. Women working on Chiquita’s plantations in Central America work from 6:30 a.m. until 7 at night, their hands burning up inside rubber gloves. Some workers are as young as 14. Central American banana workers have sought damages against Chiquita for exposing them in the field to DBCP, a dangerous pesticide which causes sterility, cancer and birth defects in children.Chiquita, formerly known as United Fruit Company and United Brands, has had a long and sordid political history in Central America. Led by Sam “The Banana Man” Zemurray, United Fruit got into the banana business at the turn of the twentieth century. Zemurray once remarked famously, “In Honduras, a mule costs more than a member of parliament.” By the 1920s United Fruit controlled 650,000 acres of the best land in Honduras, almost one quarter of all the arable land in the country. What’s more, the company controlled important roads and railways.In Honduras the fruit companies spread their influence into every area of life including politics and the military. For such tactics they acquired the name los pulpos (the octopuses, from the way they spread their tentacles). Those who did not play ball with the corporations were frequently found face down on the plantations. In 1904 humorist O. Henry coined the term “Banana Republic” to refer to the notorious United Fruit Company and its actions in Honduras.In Guatemala, United Fruit supported the CIA-backed 1954 military coup against President Jacobo Arbenz, a reformer who had carried out a land reform package. Arbenz’ overthrow led to more than thirty years of unrest and civil war in Guatemala. Later in 1961, United Fruit lent its ships to CIA-backed Cuban exiles who sought to overthrow Fidel Castro at the Bay of Pigs. In 1972, United Fruit (now renamed United Brands) propelled Honduran General Oswaldo López Arellano to power. The dictator was forced to step down later however after the infamous “Bananagate” scandal which involved United Brands bribes to Arellano. A federal grand jury accused United Brands of bribing Arellano with $1.25 million, with the carrot of another $1.25 million later if the military man agreed to reduce fruit export taxes. During Bananagate, United Brands’ President fell from a New York City skyscraper in an apparent suicide.

Go-Go Clinton Years and Colombia
In Colombia United Fruit also set up shop and during its operations in the South American country developed a no less checkered profile. In 1928, 3,000 workers went on strike against the company to demand better pay and working conditions. At first the company refused to negotiate but later gave in on some minor points, declaring the other demands “illegal” or “impossible.” When the strikers refused to disperse the military fired on the banana workers, killing scores.You might think that Chiquita would have reconsidered its labor policies after that but in the late 1990s the company began to ally itself with insidious forces, specifically right wing paramilitaries. Chiquita paid off the men to the tune of more than a million dollars. In its own defense, the company declared that it was merely paying protection money to the paramilitaries. In 2007, Chiquita paid $25 million to settle a Justice Department investigation into the payments. Chiquita was the first company in U.S. history to be convicted of financial dealings with a designated terrorist organization. In a lawsuit launched against Chiquita victims of the paramilitary violence claimed the firm abetted atrocities including terrorism, war crimes and crimes against humanity. A lawyer for the plaintiffs said that Chiquita’s relationship with the paramilitaries “was about acquiring every aspect of banana distribution and sale through a reign of terror.” Back in Washington, D.C. Charles Lindner, Chiquita’s CEO, was busy courting the White House. Lindner had been a big donor to the GOP but switched sides and began to lavish cash on the Democrats and Bill Clinton. Clinton repaid Linder by becoming a key military backer of the government of Andrés Pastrana which presided over the proliferation of right wing death squads. At the time the U.S. was pursuing its corporately-friendly free trade agenda in Latin America, a strategy carried out by Clinton’s old boyhood friend Thomas “Mack” McLarty. At the White House, McLarty served as Chief of Staff and Special Envoy to Latin America. He’s an intriguing figure who I’ll come back to in a moment.

The Holder-Chiquita Connection
Given Chiquita’s underhanded record in Central America and Colombia it’s not a surprise that the company later sought to ally itself with COHEP in Honduras. In addition to lobbying business associations in Honduras however Chiquita also cultivated relationships with high powered law firms in Washington. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Chiquita has paid out $70,000 in lobbying fees to Covington and Burling over the past three years.Covington is a powerful law firm which advises multinational corporations. Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, a co-chair of the Obama campaign and former Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton was up until recently a partner at the firm. At Covington, Holder defended Chiquita as lead counsel in its case with the Justice Department. From his perch at the elegant new Covington headquarters located near the New York Times building in Manhattan, Holder prepped Fernando Aguirre, Chiquita’s CEO, for an interview with 60 Minutes dealing with Colombian death squads.Holder had the fruit company plead guilty to one count of “engaging in transactions with a specially designated global terrorist organization.” But the lawyer, who was taking in a hefty salary at Covington to the tune of more than $2 million, brokered a sweetheart deal in which Chiquita only paid a $25 million fine over five years. Outrageously however, not one of the six company officials who approved the payments received any jail time.

The Curious Case of Covington
Look a little deeper and you’ll find that not only does Covington represent Chiquita but also serves as a kind of nexus for the political right intent on pushing a hawkish foreign policy in Latin America. Covington has pursued an important strategic alliance with Kissinger (of Chile, 1973 fame) and McLarty Associates (yes, the same Mack McLarty from Clinton-time), a well known international consulting and strategic advisory firm. From 1974 to 1981 John Bolton served as an associate at Covington. As U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under George Bush, Bolton was a fierce critic of leftists in Latin America such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. Furthermore, just recently John Negroponte became Covington’s Vice Chairman. Negroponte is a former Deputy Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence and U.S. Representative to the United Nations. As U.S. Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985, Negroponte played a significant role in assisting the U.S.-backed Contra rebels intent on overthrowing the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Human rights groups have criticized Negroponte for ignoring human rights abuses committed by Honduran death squads which were funded and partially trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. Indeed, when Negroponte served as ambassador his building in Tegucigalpa became one of the largest nerve centers of the CIA in Latin America with a tenfold increase in personnel. While there’s no evidence linking Chiquita to the recent coup in Honduras, there’s enough of a confluence of suspicious characters and political heavyweights here to warrant further investigation. From COHEP to Covington to Holder to Negroponte to McLarty, Chiquita has sought out friends in high places, friends who had no love for the progressive labor policies of the Zelaya regime in Tegucigalpa.

--Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2008) Follow his blog at senorchichero.blogspot.com,

De Arbenz a Zelaya: Chiquita (United Fruit) en Latinoamérica
http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=88860,