"The Cold War has Ended" at the OAS

That's how the President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, summed it up. Yesterday, members at the OAS took a good step forward towards a new era of dialogue. All members of the General Assembly, including the U.S., were able to agree on a resolution that rescinded an old 1962 decision that suspended Cuba's membership from the organization. (Three months ago, Secretary General of the OAS, Jose Miguel Insulza, originated the idea of annulling this resolution by calling it "obsolete.")

[Original 1962 resolution available in PDF, bottom of page 12.]

While U.S. Secretary of State Clinton was not present yesterday, she had worked with other OAS members on the draft resolution before she left, and approved of the final vote. According to the New York Times (which provides a PDF link to the draft resolution), OAS members and the U.S. had agreed on a "list of conditions" that would follow annulment of the '62 resolution. But, oddly, the NYT does not describe the contents of the "list of conditions."

Instead, the conditions that were agreed upon seem to be general guidelines for the OAS and Cuba, if Cuba decides at some point to initiate its return into the OAS. The guidelines operate as a three-part voluntary process: Cuba must initiate interest in joining the OAS, must agree to a "process of dialogue" with members of the OAS, and adhere to the "practices, proposals and principles" of the OAS. Political analysts believe that pressure from other OAS members made the U.S. drop the explicit preconditions of improving human rights, and releasing political prisoners in Cuba. Also, it is expected that there will be political conflict when members attempt to redefine the "practices, proposals and principles" of the OAS in order to allow Cuba's possible return.

President of the OAS General Assembly, Patricia Rodas, called yesterday's vote "historic" and something that "would not have been possible during the Bush administration." [Video of Rodas' remarks.]

President Zelaya of Honduras called the vote a "wise and honorable rectification," and stressed that the consensus reached by all members provided "an example, that in order to make changes and transformation in the world you don't need weapons, you need the help of conscience and dignity." Zelaya also said that the OAS was "starting a new era of fraternity and tolerance." A more controversial comment followed as Pres. Zelaya claimed the new era at the OAS has shown the people of Cuba that "history has absolved [Fidel Castro]."[Video of Zelaya's full speech.]

Representing the U.S. yesterday was Thomas A. Shannon Jr., Assistant Secretary to the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. He told the OAS General Assembly:

"Today’s resolution was an act of statesmanship. Today we addressed and bridged an historic divide in the Americas, while reaffirming our profound commitment to democracy and the fundamental human rights of our peoples. Today we removed an historical impediment to Cuba’s participation in the OAS, but we also established a process of engagement with Cuba based on the core practices, principles, and purposes of the OAS and the Inter-American system.

"It will also be understood as an action that affirms our commitment to build relationships in the Americas based on dialogue and collaboration, and as an agreement that strengthens the OAS as an institution.

"We are not interested in fighting old battles or living in the past. We are committed to building a better future for all of the Americas, by listening, learning, and forging partnerships based on mutual respect. At the same time, we will always defend the timeless principles of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law that animate our societies and serve as a beacon for those around the world who are oppressed, silenced, and subjugated." [Video of full speech, copy of prepared speech.]

These are hopeful words from Sec. Shannon, but only the future will prove if these intentions are honest. Yesterday's vote at the OAS will only motivate members to confront another obstacle from the Cold War, namely the U.S. embargo towards Cuba, and this effort will certainly test the merit of America's new attitude towards its neighbors. It should be noted that the majority of countries in the Latin Region are totally opposed to the U.S. embargo, and that this policy will be the next logical target for the OAS concerning Cuba.

According to a Bloomberg report, "Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said the lifting of the embargo is inevitable." "There’s no explanation today, nowhere in the world, for the embargo to Cuba," said the Brazilian President.

You might call it "obsolete."

[Full video speeches by members of the OAS General Assembly concerning the vote on Cuba.]

[Additional commentary by Phil Peters at the Cuban Triangle blog.]

[Getty Images Photo: U.S. Sec. Hillary Clinton with Pres. Manuel Zelaya of Honduras.]

Clinton at the OAS

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton arrived in Honduras yesterday to attended this week's meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly.

This year's meeting is significant because the majority of OAS members seem determined on repealing the 1962 resolution which effectively suspended Cuba's membership. Many countries in Latin America now favor Cuba's possible re-entry into the OAS, and U.S. policy towards Cuba seems to be an obstacle in exercising this effort.

While some analysts agree that the 1962 OAS resolution should be rescinded, others, like Sec. Clinton, feel that conditions should be attached beforehand. There is also the possibility that an agreement will not be reached by the OAS this week, but a dialogue (with the help of Brazil) might extend over into next year.

I personally agree wholeheartedly with the position of John McAuliff of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development. His recent post at the Havana Note makes perfect sense:

"Placing special conditions on Cuba’s membership or ducking the issue brands the organization as still too compliant with US domestic political agendas and sustains Fidel Castro’s anti-OAS argument. An extended dialogue about reentry is likely given Cuba’s oft repeated denunciation of the OAS, but such a very useful process can only begin if the 1962 suspension is repealed and it is only up to Cuba to decide if and when it retakes its seat.

"As with the rest of [U.S.-Cuba] policy to date, trying to maintain leverage by incremental change is living in denial and counterproductive. Secretary Clinton should simply abstain if the OAS votes on ending Cuba's suspension without conditions. In that way she demonstrates we are listening and serious about a new collaborative role, even if the Administration is not able politically to join the affirmative vote."

[Additional analysis at the Cuban Triangle blog.]

[Reuters photo: Sec. Clinton with U.S. Ambassador to Honduras Hugo Llorens.]

13 Versus Insulza (part 1)

In their tireless efforts for a free Cuba, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart have once again selectively applied the laws they supposedly claim to uphold in their entirety, and have put their names on this ridiculous letter.

Before the letter went out, Ileana was reported as saying that "[o]pening talks now with the brutal Castro regime, before there is any democratization, would be a colossal miscalculation on the part of the OAS that would only extend the grip that the Castro brothers hold over the Cuban nation." This is a false argument that these three Cuban-American politicians have used for lord knows how long. Nevertheless, Ileana, Lincoln and Mario should reread the OAS Charter and consider negotiations if they truly are committed to upholding those principles.

Of the 13 signatories, 8 are from Florida, and three from New Jersey. Nuff said. The three from New Jersey have supported failed policies towards Cuba in the past.

Insulza Watch (part 3)

Any ordinary person can go ahead and read the OAS Charter and see for themselves how US policy towards Cuba violates its very principles. But, its an interesting psychology on how those 13 US Representatives can't see it.


As I have mentioned before, all of the Latin American nations in 2005 signed a resolution that condemned the US embargo towards Cuba. And, looking at the OAS Charter, it is very clear why they did. According to chapter 4, article 20, "[n]o State may use or encourage the use of coercive measures of an economic or political character in order to force the sovereign will of another State and obtain from it advantages of any kind."

According to chapter 5, sections 25 and 26, peaceful settlement of disputes between OAS members shall follow "direct negotiation, good offices, mediation, investigation and conciliation, judicial settlement, arbitration, and those which the parties to the dispute may especially agree upon at any time... In the event that a dispute arises between two or more American States which, in the opinion of one of them, cannot be settled through the usual diplomatic channels, the parties shall agree on some other peaceful procedure that will enable them to reach a solution."

Sanctions are not mentioned.

In fact, the OAS Charter has an entire Chapter titled "Integral Development" with emphasizes economic cooperation and integration between member States. According to chapter 7, article 35, "[t]he Member States should refrain from practicing policies and adopting actions or measures that have serious adverse effects on the development of other Member States."

Obviously, the US embargo towards Cuba fails in these respects.

So, its funny how 13 US Representatives signed this letter to the OAS Secretary General to tell him that he is "contradicting" the OAS Charter. But, things are not so weird when we find out who signed this ridiculous letter.

Insulza Watch (part 2)

So, yesterday in Diario las Americas, Lincoln goes on to say that on the 16th of this month a letter, signed by 13 House Representatives, was sent to Jose Miguel Insulza concerning his recent comments about "dialogue" with Cuba. The letter basically makes two arguments: 1) Insulza confuses Cuba (the people) with Cuba (the dictatorship), thus his statements to "dialogue" with Cuba (the dictatorship) only "serve to strengthen the intentions of the totalitarian regime to fulfill its absolute succession to oppress the Cuban people"; 2) Insulza's comments contradicts the OAS Charter, specifically article 3, section D.

Let's analyze these arguments. First, in Cuba, the worst political act of repression in recent years was the 2003 crackdown on dissidents, which arrested some 75 Cubans. This did not occur after the US decided, or uttered, to have a dialogue with Cuba. The reasons behind this crackdown are very clear and have nothing to do with dialogue with the Cuban government. Also, Cuba has continuous dialogue with other nations, and since 2003 no human rights organization has described a significant increase in repression. To believe that a dialogue with Cuba will cause more oppression is without basis.

Second, the accusation that Insulza's comments "contradict" the principles of the OAS Charter is also absurd. Article 3, section D of the OAS Charter basically says that the "solidarity" between OAS members is based on "effective exercise of representative democracy." Well, Cuba is not a member and Insulza isn't really asking for "solidarity" with Cuba, he's trying to help them (the people). In Jamaica (Feb. 7, 2007), Insulza said that "[w]e cannot help the people of Cuba if we cannot talk to them." In fact, he is obeying the purpose of the OAS Charter to "strengthen the peace and security of the continent" (article 2, section A).

Also, Insulza never suggested that Cuba become a member of the OAS. But, even if we were to apply the principles of article 3 of the OAS Charter to Cuba, Insulza still does not "contradict" himself. According to article 3, section I, "[c]ontroversies of an international character arising between two or more American States shall be settled by peaceful procedures." A dialogue falls within this principle. And, Insulza (and the rest of Latin America) has made it very clear that he opposes US policy towards Cuba. On the other hand, if we obey the principles of the OAS, it seems that US policy towards Cuba violates the OAS Charter!

Insulza Watch (part 1)

More news is brewing about Insulza's bad-word. For those who don't know him, Jose Miguel Insulza is the current Secretary General for the Organization of American States (OAS). Last week he got some attention in Miami because of his comments to have a "dialogue" with Cuba. I wrote about how Radio Mambi got all flustered over his comments, even going so far as to call him a communist.

Well, yesterday two newspapers in Miami gave a response to Insulza (in a suspicious example of coincidence). In the local newspaper Diario Las Americas, a paper that frequently serves hard-line rhetoric on Cuba, they published a letter presented by the one and only Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Florida Republican Congressman from the 21st district. Obviously, Lincoln believes that the idea of a "dialogue" with Cuba is contrary to the OAS charter (he cites article 3, section D), and that Insulza is off his rocker. Anyway, his letter is co-signed by 12 other House Representatives from New Jersey and Florida (what a surprise), except for two from Indiana (guess who) and South Carolina (you'll never guess). No real surprises from the list of names that support this letter, which I will soon address.

The other local paper that coincidentally responded to Insulza, the same day Lincoln gets his letter published in Diario Las Americas, is (drum-roll) the Miami Herald! The Miami Herald has had such a rocky relationship with its Cuba-American readers in Miami that it is an entire post all by itself. Anyway, the Herald (trying to win back readers) also comes out and says that Insulza must be nuts to suggest a dialogue with Cuba. They even make the same argument that many on BabaluBlog make. The irony.

There's no doubt that the Miami Herald waited for the letter by the House Representatives to make their own comments. Insulza made his comments more than a week ago! The Herald could have come out all by itself if it wanted to. But, of course, they don't want to step over anyone's feet here. Without question, this is another case where the local media follow the footsteps of the Cuban-American political leadership when it comes to the case of Cuba.

Insulza makes a Boo Boo, Good for Him

Today, Radio Mambi has gotten a fever over the recent statements by the OAS secretary general, Jose Miguel Insulza. For some hardliners there is a "bad word" that starts with a "D" that Insulza said. And, no its not doo doo.

In 2005, the secretary general for the Organization of American States, Jose Miguel Insulza, was elected to the position for a five-year term. Since then, this "moderate Chilean socialist," has stood out in the headlines every now and then. Concerning Cuba, on May 23, 2006, Insulza was reported as saying "There is no transition and it is not your country." Insulza was responding to the appointment of Caleb McCarry as a coordinator for the US Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba.

This disagreement between Insulza and US plans for Cuba has recently been further clarified. When visiting Jamaica last week, and Peru this week, Insulza has been saying the "D" word like a drunken sailor. Or should I say, like a brave sailor.

In Jamaica, Insulza was reported to have said: "I hope that the lack of DIALOGUE about or with Cuba is only a temporary situation. We cannot help the people of Cuba if we cannot talk to them." In Peru, Insulza commented that "it seems to me that the OAS should get involved in at least initiating a significant DIALOGUE with Cuba." What a potty-mouth!

Radio Mambi, since hearing these words, have decided to defame and condemn Insulza for his insult to Cuban exiles. Armando Perez-Roura, in a bit of creativity, called Insulza a "comunista." (Wait a second, he calls everyone he disagrees with a "comunista.") Anyway, Ninoska Perez-Castellon spent a good portion of her afternoon show on Insulza's comments. Basically, her argument goes along the lines that dialogue is forbidden with assassins, vampires, and the Boogeyman. But, most of all its insulting to the victims of the Cuban government, and its exiled community. You should know this by now, its the same policy that has lasted almost a half-century.

Anyway, did I mention that virtually the whole world disagrees with Ninoska Perez-Castellon's position? And no, I don't mean the one about vampires and the Boogeyman.