We speak with Annie Bird, director of Rights & Ecology, a project of the Center for Political Ecology, about Hillary Clinton’s role as secretary of state during the 2009 coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya. “There’s no other way to categorize what happened in 2009 other than a military coup with no legal basis,” Bird says. “The U.S. was not willing to cut off assistance to Honduras, and that is the only reason it was not called a coup, a military coup. At the time, activists like Berta called for the assistance to be cut off, and today her children are calling for it to be cut off, because the U.S. assistance is actually adding fuel to the fire and stoking the economic interests of the people behind the coup.”
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, I wanted to get your response to our colleague, Democracy Now!‘s Juan González, raising the issue of Honduras with Hillary Clinton during a meeting with the New York Daily News editorial board. This was in the midst of the New York primary. And Juan asked about Hillary Clinton’s decision at the time she was secretary of state in 2009 to not declare the ouster of then-president of Honduras, Mel Zelaya, a coup.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Do you have any concerns about the role that you played in that particular situation, not necessarily being in agreement with your top aides in the State Department?
HILLARY CLINTON: Well, let me again try to put this in context. The Legislature — or the national Legislature in Honduras and the national judiciary actually followed the law in removing President Zelaya. Now, I didn’t like the way it looked or the way they did it, but they had a very strong argument that they had followed the Constitution and the legal precedents. And as you know, they really undercut their argument by spiriting him out of the country in his pajamas, where they sent, you know, the military to, you know, take him out of his bed and get him out of the country. So this was — this began as a very mixed and…