TRANSLATION NOTES: Please read some comments at the end of this post.
“By this means, I inform you that denounce the Letter of the Organization of American States in accordance with article 143 with immediate effectiveness”
Only this was missing for me, having to open a category for policy and international law, because the theme is going for long. Yesterday I talked about possible options, and from four, the choice was the third both hinted by Insulza as the decided by the State.
The world has woken with the news that Honduras denounced the charter of the Organization of American States OEA, with immediate effect. And at what this means, we will make some reflections:
1. Why does Honduras do so
It should be remembered that the member is the Honduras State, not their authorities, so although the OEA does not recognize the authorities, these may act on behalf of the State and denounce the Letter.
Then, the Government insists that there has not been a breach of the constitutional order, aspect they justify according to their legislation although after Insulza’s visit who didn’t come to ask what happened but to ratify if they are willing to reinstate President Zelaya. The issue becomes very complex… too complex
According to what is mentioned by the media, there is a certain predisposition for the General Secretary, who is in a process of re-election, that is also on the left and as he want to stay well with sympathetic countries of ALBA. Reason that would make that against the threats made by Hugo Chavez to intervene in the place, it has not been heard any reaction.
While the interim government, to give it a name although internationally has been called a coup, bases its activities on the acts of Zelaya to the guidelines of Chavismo, the great error (*) of taking the president to the beast to Costa Rica as a package has no rational explanation and will be an act that the world will not forget so easily. If there were acts that weighed on him, then he could be arrested, tell the world … at least this matches with the majority, it would have been much easier to justify to the world the next act.
2. What means denouncing the OEA Letter
According to article 143 of the Letter, a Member State may denounce it by written communication to the General Secretariat, who shall inform the other members. However, there are two years left since that date, time in which the Letter ceases, and from that time that would be July 3 2011 the country would be uncoupled from the organization. Although the fact to express “immediate effect” is open to doubt whether or not to apply the two years in this case.
Behind the theme is a brain, which hopefully knows enough of the subject; if you notice, who gave the notice was the vice chancellor, who is a member of Zelaya Government in case they appear saying that new Chancellor is not recognized by the OEA; apparently the intention goes on spending the storm of the missing six-month for elections convened by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, or even forward them, expect that Insulza is not re-elected as General Secretary and try again to return.
Also Insulza said that the OEA does not practice intervention in the states, so that practice of the Blue Helmets that were going to restore order by the force proved not to be a good experience.
3. What we can expect
The move is reckless, especially with international relations, because although in the case of the UN and OEA, which are multilateral relations, these are usually a frame of reference or condition for bilateral relations. It would imply that many countries that have cooperation deals could decide to break or suspend ties and international credits would be blocked.
But internally there is a polarization crisis by Zelaya supporters who are against the Act and called it coup d ‘ état. Stop this pressure is not so simple, a civil war is imminent, especially as what I said last time, if there is support from the three sources to which a state cannot survive economically limited for long: Chavismo support, inherence of drug trafficking and organized crime.
4. Alternatives of optimism
I just tell you what is heard in the media, impartial to this, it shocks me to know that everything could avoid if it had less petty actions fighting power and more agile institutions in the line of duty. The denunciation of the Letter of the OAS is irreversible, for now, perhaps the effort of seeking to non-sectarian internal dialogue through plebiscite, take decisions of the population by early elections or even carry the population to vote about Zelaya support for leaving clear once if the population which supports is greater than the ones who rejects him. Subsequent to the November elections, this state should justify that the new Government is born of a democratic choice … who knows what resources will have been here, tomorrow I’ll ask the Lord that is under the almond tree receiving rain in Macondo.
There is also the option that OEA to reconsider, under the proposal of the Council that suggest reviewing phrases of Honduras letter, such as “unilateral decision of the OEA”, to review positions that have already mention international characters like Hillary Clinton who said “call it otherwise, but be sure to see if really the coup is coup”. If so, it would be first time in the history and explain it to the world will not be easy.
We must be optimistic, to who work and expect this bitter drink will produce political social compensation among other urgent changes in the participation of the population, the fight against corruption, reforms against the political machine, social compensation policies, among others. Not arise these crises; there are no changes in countries with very weak institutions in this area.
I would like the issue had not ever began, I miss talking about technology.
(*) metida de pata: This jargon means that you’ve made a terrible mistake.