Honduras: Insulza talks
See Boz about a talk José Miguel Insulza gave, sponsored by the Inter-American Dialogue. What strikes me most about it is his comment that the president of the Honduran Supreme Court was confused on the day of the coup and didn't know what was going on. That hardly jibes with the claim that the military was just carrying about the Court's orders, and that everything was all driven by the Court.
5 comments:
The recap is interesting. We now have evidence that Insulza has a serious challenge in guiding Zelaya away from theatrical stunts (e.g. 7/5 attempted landing) and toward more practical solutions. (For suggesting this at the time I was repeatedly called a reactionary troll.) Insulza is still trying to get the OAS offices working on this case and reflective about what needs to be done in future cases. His deep engagement with Arias is a positive sign. Hopefully the right combination of the carrot and stick can be arranged to induce flexibility on both sides and develop a face-saving formula for Zelaya's return. I am more hopeful after reading this recap.
Notice how anonymous suddenly forgets that he was spouting complete nonsense about the "Venezuelan/Insulza script of confrontation" just a few days ago.
Perhaps if he hadn't been wearing ideological blinders to begin with, he would have recognized long ago that Insulza is the quintessential diplomat.
Hey Justin,
I linked them because Isulza went along with the plot it by not criticizing the obvious tactical error in public. As others have said, it appeared that he tacitly approved it. To you it was a sign of firm shared conviction and a "valiant" attempt by Zelaya. What was obvious to everybody except the "all govts. think the same crowd" was it was a counterproductive Telesur stunt not a real attempt to solve the problem.
When I provide a quote from Lula, saying the failure of the landing attempt was predictable, you ignore it. When direct quotes come out about Bachelet's moderate approach, you ignore that too. Facts are stubborn things. Honestly, it seems that in a fluid international crisis you are just sticking to your ideological guns rather than opening your mind and being led by experience, probability and the evidence.
One thing I am proud of in how I have participated on this board is that I haven't called people names nor used inflammatory language. While my essential position stays the same, my analysis continues to evolve. It is a self-correcting process.
(The attempted landing by Zelaya) "was a counterproductive Telesur stunt not a real attempt to solve the problem."
I don't think anyone expected the landing attempt to solve the problem. But it undoubtedly had the intended affect which was to show his supporters he is struggling and resisting along with them and that he is brave enough to put his life on the line. That action surely helped give the resistance a breath of fresh air and increased his active support. I know to those who are not in Zelaya's position it seemed a little reckless, and probably was, but it many ways it was also a brilliant tactical move at that time. And the live broadcasting of his voice to the crowds below was truly something magical to all those who attended.
While my essential position stays the same, my analysis continues to evolve. It is a self-correcting process.
Well, good. I'm glad that you now acknowledge the error of hysterically spouting off about the "Venezuelan/Insulza script of confrontation." That's a start.
Post a Comment