NYT op-ed: "On the Brink of Justice in Guatemala"

Anita Isaacs, in a NYT op-ed: "I have spent the past 15 years researching and writing about postwar justice in Guatemala. I am encouraged that, a decade and a half after peace accords ended 36 years of civil war, Guatemala is being given a chance to show the world how much progress it has made in building democracy. The trial gives the Guatemalan state a chance to prove that it can uphold the rule of law and grant its indigenous Mayan people, who suffered greatly under Mr. Ríos Montt, the same respectful treatment, freedoms and rights the rest of its citizens enjoy." [NYTimes.com]


  1. Proof positive that this op-ed is printed in the NYT:  despite ms. Isaacs having “spent the past 15 years researching and writing about postwar justice in Guatemala”, there’s not one single mention of the United Fruit Company, the CIA, or the School of the Americas.

    Plus ça change, eh?

    1. It’s true that this element of history is important, particularly with american audiences—but they’re space-limited with op-eds. You can’t always tell the last 50 years of history in one essay. I do agree that it’s a critical point, however. It bears repeating and reminding, and fighting to mention.

      1. Not including that the effect that the US government had on Guatemala is like ignoring the role that slavery played in the Civil War. Unless you have an interest in keeping that hidden, you include it.

    2.  One of the many reasons I just side eye people who sincerely, non-ironically believe the NYTimes is “the best newspaper in the world.” Not just because it’s the NYTimes, but also because of how ridiculous the belief that there can be such a thing as a best newspaper in the world.

Comments are closed.