A Banana Republic Once Again?

[Judi Lynn]

A Banana Republic Once Again?
Submitted by Brendan Fischer on December 27, 2010 - 11:55am


In the first part of this series, the Center for Media and Democracy reported how the 2009 coup d'etat that toppled Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was successfully maintained not through the use of force, but through the power of lobbying and spin. That tale, whose details were revealed through Wikileaks' publication of diplomatic cables and research into lobbying activities, had some echoes of the role PR played in an earlier "regime change" in the region. Here is the story of how the Chiquita banana company successfully used PR spin to help topple Guatemala's left-leaning government in 1954, and how they may have done it again in Honduras, 2009.

The term "banana republic" was coined at the turn of the 20th Century in reference to the economic and political domination of weak or corrupt governments in Central America by the United Fruit Company, the corporation now known as Chiquita (this article will refer to the company formerly known as United Fruit as "Chiquita"). Throughout much of its modern history, Honduras has been the quintessential "banana republic," a poor country ruled by a small group of wealthy elites, with national politics controlled by multinational business interests, particularly Chiquita. In fact, Chiquita has historically been known as "El Pulpo" ("The Octopus") in Honduras, as the company's tentacles had such a firm grip on Honduran national politics.

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Chiquita maintained its grasp on Central American politics with a range of illegitimate tools, including the use of mercenary force and bribes. Since the birth of modern public relations in the mid-20th century, though, Chiquita has successfully fought many of its battles for political control with the power of spin. Recent revelations suggest they have done the same in the case of Honduras in 2009.

Edward L. Bernays, Chiquita, and the CIA-backed Guatemalan Coup
Chiquita's most famous act of interference with Central American politics is its role in toppling Guatemala's left-leaning government in 1954. For the first half of the 20th century, Chiquita poured investment capital into Guatemala, buying the country's productive land and controlling shares in its railroad, electric utility, and telegraph industries; as a result, the Guatemalan government was subservient to Chiquita's interests, exempting the company from internal taxation and guaranteeing workers earned no more than fifty cents per day. At the time of the 1944 Guatemalan revolution, Chiquita was the country's number one landowner, employer, and exporter.

More:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/9834

[Judi Lynn]

1. Here is the first part, posted last week: Honduras' PR Coup

Honduras' PR Coup
Submitted by Brendan Fischer on December 20, 2010 - 8:03pm

Wikileaks recently published documents suggesting that PR spin helped determine the final outcome of the June 2009 Honduran coup. At the same time that a July 2009 diplomatic cable from the U.S. Ambassador in Honduras to top government officials confirmed that the Honduran president’s removal was illegal, professional lobbyists and political communicators were beginning a PR blitz, eventually managing to manipulate America into believing the coup was a constitutional act.

On June 28, 2009, the Honduran military deposed Manual Zelaya, their country’s elected president since 2006, taking him at gunpoint from his home and sending him to Costa Rica. The international community quickly condemned the act as a coup, and the Organization of American States (OAS) issued an immediate and unanimous call for Zelaya’s return to office. President Obama stated that “we believe the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the President of Honduras, but he and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton stopped short of formally declaring the actions of the military to be a “military coup.”

America’s Initial Caution Was Justified

As a diplomatic and legal matter, it may have been prudent for Obama and Clinton to be cautious about making a formal coup declaration. U.S. law requires that America cut off aid once a country is determined to have experienced a military coup d’etat, and there were initially questions about whether the removal of Zelaya was constitutional under Honduran law.

Zelaya was no angel, and an earlier Ambassador described him as a “rebellious teen” in a different cable released by Wikileaks. Zelaya had pushed the limits of his power by requesting a non-binding referendum (essentially an opinion poll) about whether there should be a second, binding referendum to convoke a constituent assembly that would rewrite the Constitution (many believed Zelaya’s goal was to revise the Constitution’s one-term requirement so he could make a second presidential run). The Honduran Constitution can only be amended through a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions, so had the assembly actually been invoked, its proposed constitutional changes would have been invalid. Zelaya pushed forward with the referendum after the opposition-controlled Congress passed a law prohibiting it and two lower courts had ordered him to suspend his efforts. When the head of the military refused to carry out the poll, the president dismissed him, and refused a subsequent Supreme Court order to reinstate the General. That refusal led the Court to order his arrest; in carrying out the arrest, the military pulled him from bed at gunpoint and sent him out of the country.

More:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/9806

or:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=577136