The OAS, Albert Einstein and Honduras
Perhaps I am missing something. I must be missing something. Early on in the crisis, José Miguel Insulza went to Tegucigalpa and demanded that Roberto Micheletti step down and let Mel Zelaya return to the presidency. Everyone said no. Now, five weeks into the crisis, he is going to send some diplomats to Tegucigalpa and demand that Micheletti step down and let Mel Zelaya return to the presidency.
"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
--Albert Einstein
11 comments:
By this logic then, why wasn't the Arias negotiations "insanity" as well? After all, it was essentially the same tactic - persuasion by a respected Latin dignitary. This latest OAS attempt appears to include unspecificed Foreign Ministers from Latin America. This is possibly an important new twist that should not be so easily poo-pood. FMs will have a lot more cards to play than Arias did. Mexico's influence can not be underplayed as well (Zelaya is meeting with Calderon today).
By this logic then, why wasn't the Arias negotiations "insanity" as well?
Indeed, Greg hasn't quite worked out the logic here.
Do you have a better idea, Greg? I've yet to see one actual proposal from you as to how you think this crisis is to be resolved.
The logic is entirely different. Arias is backed by the U.S., which as far as I can tell is the only country with leverage over the coup government. If the OAS produces collective leverage, then that's great, but as of now I can't how that would work.
I keep meaning to put together a post on what I see as Latin America's terribly weak response to the crisis (where even Venezuela is simply appealing to the U.S. to apply pressure).
And no, I don't have a "proposal," if by that you mean a realistic alternative to the status quo. I wish Latin American governments would find ways to squeeze the coup government, but they have already passed on doing so.
The logic is entirely different. Arias is backed by the U.S., which as far as I can tell is the only country with leverage over the coup government. If the OAS produces collective leverage, then that's great, but as of now I can't how that would work.
But you haven't presented any evidence that the OAS is working at cross-purposes with the Obama Administration now. Perhaps that was the case earlier on, but I don't think it's the case now. Insulza quickly adapted to Arias' mediation role and was fully supportive of it. My guess is that Insulza is coordinating his approach with whatever the Obama Administration is doing at the moment.
As I expected, the OAS is coordinating its efforts with Arias, not working at cross purposes with him or the Obama Administration. AP paraphrases Arias' latest statements about the OAS Mission as follows:
Costa Rican President Oscar Arias said a group of top Latin American diplomats would seek to persuade the government of interim President Roberto Micheletti to accept all 12 points of a proposed compromise — "the most important one, of course, being the return of President Zelaya.
Who cares? They can work to whatever purpose they want. Without exerting leverage their efforts will matter very little.
I keep meaning to put together a post on what I see as Latin America's terribly weak response to the crisis (where even Venezuela is simply appealing to the U.S. to apply pressure).
This is nonsense. If Chavez were to do anything else rather than demand (not appeal) the US apply pressure, he'd be labled irresponsible. He's taken a back seat in this crisis for smart reasons. To mock him for his stroke of moderation seems more than a little off to me...
Plus it would not have seemed weak 10 years ago if Latin American countries demanded anything of a US Government. Today, thanks to leaders more willing to push the envelope, this now seems rather modest. But I am surprised someone with your knowledge of US-Latin American relations does not see the importance of multiple countries (not just Venezuela) demanding the US do something - and the US responding.
Who cares? They can work to whatever purpose they want. Without exerting leverage their efforts will matter very little.
Obviously leverage is a big part of the equation. The US has showed it has little interest in using its big guns. Some OAS countries were content to beleive the US was serious. They have been proven wrong. So now the OAS countires are unified in going to Plan B and are currently coordinating their response. Can we at least wait to see what the proposal consists of before calling it "insanity?"
Who cares?
The point, Greg, is that you're applying two different sets of standards to Arias and Insulza, in spite of the fact that both are working together toward the same end, in cooperation with the Obama Administration. That's what I find strange.
I am not applying standards to anyone. Insulza has no leverage and therefore the coup government has largely ignored him or immediately rejected his proposals.
Insulza has no leverage and therefore the coup government has largely ignored him or immediately rejected his proposals.
To say that Insulza has "no leverage" is an overstatement. Moreover, that's quite different from calling the OAS Secretary General "insane." Your post just wasn't very well thought out.
Post a Comment