Long ago, after finishing my graduate work, I had a very naive view of the world. I guess spending years sweating in a lab to complete a thesis limits the time that you can devote to the world. And if you dominate your field, you think history or politics has to be much simpler than something involving technological know how.
At the time, I innocently believed the world was divided into two groups: Sensible and fairly educated people, on both the right and the left, who cared about human rights and a small legion of uneducated thugs, mostly with a military background who found human rights annoying and an obstacle to their goals. It was simple, I had never personally met anyone in the first group who did not spouse or defend human rights.
Then, it was maybe 1983, when I went to a conference in Argentina, Mar de Plata to be more specific. There, in the peace and quite of an academic coference and the refreshing ocean air of that city, I heard of the horrors of the military regimes in that country. I met 20 year old kids who had been jailed, tortured. I heard of their friends, dissapeared. I heard of the story of Antonio Misetich, the famous Argentinean scientist, arrested, fired and despite assurances to the US Government that he would be well treated, dissapeared. His crime? He had a sister involved with groups actvely opposing the Government.
But if the stories shocked me, what absolutely blew my mind was a speaker, name forgotten, describing the horrors, the dissapearances and the tortures, closing his talk by addressing those in the audience who collaborated with the regime, those that held official positions, passed information to the Government and were quiet in the face of the most abominal human right abuses Latin America had seen in decades. He asked them openly and loudly: How do you expect me to say hello to you in the halls of the university? How do you expect me to support your promotion? How do you expect me to support your funding?
Afterwards, talking to people, they even pointed out some of their colleagues who knew, who helped, who participated. It was truly shocking and an eye opener.
Later, I came to see more clearly, that in the end human rights tend to be mostly secondary. Everywhere. The end tends to always justify the means. Ideology also tends to prevail in the face of the tough choices that come with political responsibility and choosing between success or the respect of the most basic rights that people deserve to have.
And then came Chavez, who revealed to me how marginal human rights can be across our Continent. I saw how despite the most overt and absurd violations of human rights in Venezuela, it did not matter in the end. Foreign politicians care more abour their future than about principles. Foreign Governments care more about commerce than about rights. Diplomats are educated to walk the middle ground, not stepping on anyone’s toes, no matter how bad things might get.
Things like the Holocaust became easier to understand, as well as my own country’s history, recent and long past. Respect for human rights turns out to be a rarity, not the norm. Most people, given the chance, will look the other way, be silenced, justify the unjustifiable.
And as we have fewer and fewer rights in Venezuela today, while Lula and many others laugh and joke with Hugo Chavez, and Insulza says little about everything that has been going on in Venezuela, I see the cynical nature of Governments, politicians and people in general. Not only do they stay quiet in the face of the obvious, but the OAS, an organization representing mostly democratically elected countries, decides to suspend Cuba’s ban from that organization, revoking the resolution from 1962 that expelled Cuba from that organization.
Little has changed in terms of human rights since 1962 in Cuba. people are still shot for crimes against the state which do not involve even injuries to other human beings, people can’t freely leave the country, people are repressed. But these political geniuses, now collaborators in my mind, decide to give Raul Castro a chance. And he accepts it and in his own words, says there are no conditions attached, laughing at the fools that revoked the resolution.
It is indeed a terrible and sad day, when supposedly educated men and women, are capable of leaving their principles and most basic human nature aside in order to achieve their political goals or make a gesture to satisfy the crowds watching your every movement or gain an electoral advantage.
The message sent to Latin American politicians, present and future is quite clear: You don’t have to worry. The OAS democratic charter is just a piece of paper. We will look the other way as far as human rights is concerned. We have no morals. Anything goes in Latin America. We are not ready to defend and respect the human rights of our people.Human rights be damned
It is a terrible day. They should all be ashamed.
The Devil's Excrement 
June 5, 2009 at 12:40 pm
?
June 5, 2009 at 12:08 pm
In 1962 there was not Democratic Charter but there two other things: (1) The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, which was approved the same day the OAS was created, April of 1948. It was approved before the UN passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (2) Also before 1962, and used as the main weapon to expel Cuba from the OAS was the “Inter-American” Commission on Human Rights. It was created in 1959, and its first session was held in October 1960. Romulo Gallegos was Commissioner of the IACHR (1960-1963) and Chaired it as well.
SIX REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF
POLITICAL PRISONERS IN CUBA
INTRODUCTION
A. Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Cuba
Since it began its activities, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has received numerous communications in which reference is made to the situation of human rights in the Republic of Cuba. To date the Commission has prepared the following five reports on this subject:
a) Report on the situation regarding human rights in Cuba (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.4, doc. 30, May 1, 1962); (Ex-ante)
b) Report on the situation of political prisoners and their relatives in Cuba (OEA/Ser./V/II.7, doc. 4, May 17, 1963); (Ex-post)
c) Report on the situation of human rights in Cuba (OEA/Ser.L/II.17, doc. 4, rev. 1, April 27, 1967); (Ex-post)
d) Second report on the situation of political prisoners and their relatives in Cuba (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.23, doc. 6, rev. 1, May 7, 1970) (Ex-post) and
e) Fifth report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Cuba (OEA/Ser.6 CP/INF.872/76, June 1, 1976) (Ex-post).
Did I say that solutions have to come from the US? I said that I believe that up until the time the US decides to start respecting “human rights”, I see very little hope. Unfortunately as left wing fanatics say, they are the most powerful empire on earth (still) and as a consequence rule. We might like or not, but that is the way it is. And I said that I do believe any effort that can be made to persuade or force the US to walk their talk, that is, truly respect human rights, will be more productive or effective than anything else.
I did say that I also believe that if you were more critic towards the US (explicitly), all your blogging effort might be more helpful towards achieving the only thing that we seem to share: The believe that human rights must be respected as principles, and not as means to an end.
I also believe that we have to look for our own solutions, but then let’s stop pretending that the OAS and the likes are set up to protect principles and rights, they are just there to protect governments and the politicians behind them.
June 5, 2009 at 11:08 am
“Human Rights shoudl not have countries or political sides, they are absolute. And the whole point of this article is that I used to believe that 99+% of the people belived in them and have discovered that it is 1-% and yes, it includes the americans too.”
I agree with you, Miguel Octavio.
I think most people think Human Rights is a good thing, but they are willing to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses for the sake of convenience. You know, the ends justifies the means rationale. Also, many grow cynical when nations, including the US, use Human Rights language selectively–sort of like dictators enforce laws (even good laws) only against their political enemies while tolerating the same infractions from his own side.
June 5, 2009 at 11:02 am
Ben Franklin once said: “Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.”
Kolya, I’d argue that the people who would trade freedom for security, they deserve dictatorship. They’ve actually chosen it. And in case you forgot, Chavez, a known coupster, did WIN his position as President. That he subsequently abandoned Democracy only surprises the naive.
As to engaging communists, I say, let more windows and doors be opened. Living in China for the past 6 years, I can tell you that this strategy works better than isolation. Just look and compare Cuba and North Korea to China and South Korea.
China still has a long way to go, but they are making clear progress. The Chinese have many more rights today than just even 5 years ago. Back then, a Chinese couldn’t marry without his or her boss’s permission. Travel between provinces required an internal passport. The list of changes is too long for this post, but suffice it to say that China is becoming more free.
Miguel, I knew you were talking about the OAS, but having grown up in Miami, I have seen my Cuban brothers suffer for so long looking for the ‘magic’ that would bring freedom to Cuba, all the while clinging to methods that clearly don’t work. Einstein called that the very definition of insanity.
Let Cuba join whatever groups they want. Engage them as much as possible. ANYTHING will be an improvement over the status quo. As for leverage, how’s that worked out?
June 5, 2009 at 10:38 am
Why the tone? Sorry, nothing personal.
Sorry, but you do mention countries: “And as we have fewer and fewer rights in Venezuela today, while Lula and many others laugh and joke with Hugo Chavez, and Insulza says little about everything that has been going on in Venezuela” I see there Brazil and Chile.
And I see countries here as well: “The message sent to Latin American politicians, present and future is quite clear: You don’t have to worry.” And it calls my attention that the US, by far the most important actor in this pathetic soup opera is not even mentioned once. My point is precisely that, you miss to mention and point to the intellectual and material actor (by action or well thought omission) that has decided and still decides which “human rights” violations are allowed in Latin America and which are not, and why.
Lula? Follows the US example being very careful not cross the boundaries set by the US.
My point is that US, and not the OAS won Cuba’s suspension from that silly group of politicians in 1962, just 9 months after the disastrous U.S.-backed exile invasion of the country flopped at the Bay of Pigs. The argument? “the lack of protection for the human person”. The true reason?, the US did not want Fidel Castro “the Soviets’ son of a bitch” running a Marxist-Leninist regime in their back yard. The rest of the politicians, including Venezuela’s, were just puppets. The message from the US, not the OAS, which has been pretty irrelevant in practice as an organization, has always being the same: You can do anything you want in my backyard, including Human Rights violations, as far as you are a right wing dictator. The only forbidden thing here is going against the US will and/or interests. Remember Chile?
Here is the operative part of that resolution prepared by the US, sorry the OAS:
1. That adherence by any member of the Organization of American States to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the inter-American system and the alignment of such a government with the communist block breaks the unity and solidarity of the hemisphere.
2. That the present Government of Cuba, which has officially identified itself as a Marxist-Leninist government, is incompatible with the principles and objectives of the inter-American system.
3. That this incompatibility excludes the present Government of Cuba from participation in the inter-American system.
4. That the Council of the Organization of American States and the other organs and organizations of the inter-American system adopt without delay the measures necessary to comply with its resolution.
Do you see the word Human Rights anywhere? The resolution was “approved” by fourteen countries. One vote was against (Cuba), and there were six abstentions (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Mexico).
I think it does not get clearer than that. It was a US resolution driven by its political interests, not “human rights” considerations.
Second part. It was the US who decided or allowed to “lift” its 1962 resolution. It helped Chavez and his puppets, but it was a US decision! By the way, does it mean that the US, sorry, the OAS, will now allow Marxist-Leninist regimes in the Americas as the original Resolution says, or it has to do with Human Rights? My point is that It was NOT a terrible day, it has been a terrible period (before 1962 to the present day).
My point is that I believe things are clearer if called by their name. It is not the OAS, it is what the US wants to do, and I believe things should be said explicitly: The USA, no more, no less.
My point is that the single most important and effective action that I believe could be taken to improve “human rights” in Latin America and probably the world would be to do whatever can be done to persuade the US to walk their talk!
My point is that when I read what you write (which I enjoy, respect and value), you seem to be writing from a desk in Washington, D.C. looking to outside world. I have gotten sort of the feeling that the US is your blind spot. And I don’t blame you, you studied there, so you were trained to think the way they think. So did I. My point is that if your analyses were less “biased” or your desk were in Gilbraltar facing the west, they would be way much powerful. I would certainly enjoy them more.
My point is that thinking in cause-effect terms, might be more effective or appropriate? In my opinion, you focus too much on the effects, and very little in the causes. By the way, that is your right, and I respect it.
Do you see my point?
June 5, 2009 at 7:46 am
Did I exempt the US from my article above? The whole point of my article is precisely that nobody seems to care about Human Rights, gringos, criollos, Russians, Chinese. I mentioned no countries. And why the tone? My beloved us? I was educated there, but it has problems politically that I avoid in this blog so that we can talk about my BELOVED Venezuela. So, I dont get what your points is. Is it any different than what I said.
June 5, 2009 at 1:46 am
Miguel: Have you ever read the Inter-American Democratic Charter? If you read it you will find that it has been the most violated charter in the American history. After all what has happened in Venezuela not even one country has made any claim against Venezuela! Please read it and tell me which article in that charter has not been violated. I strongly recommend you to finish your wake up process; politics is about interests (or fears) not about principles. And I am talking about politicians everywhere, including the US.
Please answer the following questions: 1) Your beloved USA had the following statement in their Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Which of the following is not true: A) African-Americans were not human? Or B) Slaves were really free until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed in 1865, but they were rather workaholics? Do you know why that happened? INTERESTS OVER PRINCIPLES! I want to avoid going through the beautiful Bill of Rights, which is used whenever it is necessary to protect their INTERESTS. 2) Everybody agreed that “Chapita” Trujillo was a cruel dictator. Do you know who said “he was a son of a bitch, but he was our son of a bitch”? Do you know why Americans supported him even though they would have never accepted such a regime for themselves? INTERESTS OVER PRINCIPLES! How is the DR of Chapita different from Fidel’s Cuba? Or is it that right wing dictators are better than the left wing ones? 3) Do you know who supported, trained and financed the Islamic fundamentalist in Afghanistan that later became their worst enemies and said “We must not break faith with those who are risking their lives–on every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaragua–to defy Soviet aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth? Support for freedom fighters is self-defense”? Clue: He was President of an important nation and got a Nobel Prize (Peace!) and runs a circus that has made spectacular performances in recent local elections? Do you know why? INTERESTS OVER PRINCIPLES! The whole Middle East “liberation” and “democratization” process in general has been the most pathetic international Piniata (being the content Oil) that the world has ever had. And has been going on for quite a while. Were there not any oil there, it would be a forgotten and irrelevant part of the world where nobody would give a dam of whatever goes on there. Remember Rwanda? 4) Do you know why the US was so interested in “keeping Panama free of drug trafficking dictators”? You got it! They could not afford to live w/o the Canal! INTERESTS with a nice costume made of the most beautiful principles under the sun! 5) Do you know why the US refused to join the International Criminal Court? Because it is one rule for them and one for you! Human Rights what? They love justice as far as they can control it. 6) Can you explain why the US decided to invade IRAQ w/o any real evidence of “weapons of mass destruction”? Correct! They could not sleep knowing that those poor human beings with their same human rights and all that were under the tyranny of Sadamm! By the way, is there any oil there? 7) Can you tell me where Guantanamo is and what do patriots do to prisoners there? How come those terrorists can not be prosecuted in US territory? Sorry, forgot the one rule for you and one for me rule! Geneva what? 8) Have you ever heard of Abu Ghraib? I have seen some very nice pictures about human rights there which I would also use to illustrate the book “Implementing the Geneva convention” Let me recommend to you the following parts of the Geneva Convention: Part II-General Protection of Prisoners of War and Part III-Captivity.
Now closer to your heart: 9) After the burst of the most recent bubble, one where institutions like Lehman Brothers “supervised” by the SEC and rated by S&P, Fitch, etc with AAA ratings went belly up overnight, how come no body from the SEC and/or the rating agencies is canned? Is it that they only have authority w/o any responsibility? Or is it that Lehman Brother’s bondholders and shareholders have no rights and can be screwed by bandits under the supervision of incompetent and negligent regulators and credit rating agencies? Do you want to talk about the conflict of interest that Goldman has, running the Treasury and the FED and deciding who gets AID? Well, AIG got AID and Goldman got $12Bn for the Credit Default Swaps they had. How come Merrill Lynch, who had bought their insurance from other insurers like XL (that were not rescued by the US government – or should I say Goldman), that returned less than a fifth of what was owed to those firms: in effect pushing those firms into significant loss positions. I do believe that the rights of Stephen Friedman, chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank’s board of directors (and also shareholder and Director of Goldman Sachs) were violated when he was asked to resigned from his position to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest? How is this poor man going to continue living out of just one salary and the nickels he get in the form of Goldman dividends?
I have nothing against the US, as a matter of fact I DO believe that in spite of its politicians and their lack of ability to manage their economy and protect such a valuable asset (the US Dollar), it is one of the closest things to a democracy in this world. My only point is that there in NO country (or politician if you prefer) on this bloody planet who can be taken seriously when they start talking about human rights, and all those beautiful principles. They are all beasts fighting for their interests. You make a big deal about Cuba and say “Little has changed in terms of human rights since 1962 in Cuba”. Sorry my friend but with principles… either you respect them or you don’t, and in this continent, it is Cuba, the US, and the rest.
This final thing is not real but is really good:
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives … You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty … we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ’em as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it!
From A Few Good Men, Columbia Pictures, 1992.
Any resemblance with reality is pure coincidence!
June 4, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Senor Octavio is correct.
If you do not learn from the past, you are bound to repeat it. OAS members have forgotten how the organization came to be.
Right on Miguel!
June 4, 2009 at 1:52 pm
On the issue of human rights, ultimately individual people must solve their own problems.
If somewhere between 20% and 35% of crimes are committed by police… I guess that means that the rest of the crimes are OK, because they are committed by civilians and not police? That makes no sense. Once someone is dead, it doesn’t matter whether they were killed by a policeman or a malandro, dead is dead. The problem is that the crime, the kidnappings and the killing have to be stopped and the government of Venezuela is evidently not capable of doing so.
The real solution is simple: individual people must take responsibility for their own actions and behave as rational and reasonable adults, respectful of the rights of others. But what about people who are not responsible, rational, reasonable and respectful? What to do with those? We must recognize that when we judge them by their actions, some people are more animal than human, and when such people commit crimes for which there can be no restitution… the person who did it should be put to death.
This brings up a problem. Who would trust the Venezuelan government with the death penalty? Only a lunatic would trust a court system where justice is for sale to the highest bidder to hold the power of life and death.
The only real solution is to remove the legal impediments and allow the people to arm themselves and defend themselves and their families… with the understanding that they are responsible for their actions.
This is the solution that gives fear to government bureaucrats and tyrants.
People who can defend themselves cannot be ruled except by their consent and governments do not want an armed and vigilant population.
Some tell me that if there were no laws in Venezuela concerning guns… that there would be a bloodbath. They tell me that the Venezuelan people are too “hotblooded” and drink too much. To them I say “don’t you read the newspapers? Isn’t Caracas already the murder capital of the world?” Yes… Many criminals would be killed if the intended victims started to fight back. Some of the innocents would be killed as well, but aren’t the innocent ones already dying by the thousand? There would be blood in the streets but at least people would have a fighting chance.
At this moment the people of Venezuela do not have a fighting chance. They are forced to depend on a corrupt and criminal law enforcement apparatus and a judiciary that sells “justice” to the highest bidder, and a government of corrupt buffoons that make a mockery of all that is right and just.
June 4, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I understood the OAS decision correctly, they gave Cuba the “chance” to come back to the OAS. Right now, Cuba is not a member of the OAS.
If I’m right, then I see nothing wrong. It is a “good faith” gesture.
But if indeed Cuba gets to be part of the OAS without complying with the Democratic Charter, then I would be disappointed.
Or, in the end, perhaps Chavez is right: The OAS has outgrown it usefulness.
June 4, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I agree with what Bruni wrote about China, the US and China. The US is vociferous about human rights abuses in Cuba but largely silent about them in China. I guess it’s better to recognize at least one wrong than ignore all of them, but hypocrisy is part of parcel of foreign policy, including US foreign policy. Just remember that a few years before Saddam invaded Kuwait he was supported by the US–even though the Reagan White House was perfectly aware that he gassed to death thousands of Iraqis, including women and children.
For what is worth, I don’t agree with the “people have the government they deserve” saying. It’s a complex issue, but this saying provides too facile of a dismissal. NO people deserve to live under a dictatorship.
June 4, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I also disagree with you on this one Miguel, not on the principle but by omission.
This week, it will be 20 years of the massacre on Tiennamen Square, yet nobody seems to be too concerned with what went on with China. Everybody was more than happy talking about China progress and giving China the Olympic games.
Hypocritically (because of China’s economic importance) or in good-faith, some people thought that breaking China’s isolation was a good idea, that economic openness will bring democracy and, in the long run, that will insure the respect for human rights.
One may or may not agree with that policy, but is a clear example that we have all witnessed in the last 20 years.
Now lets talk about Cuba. Cuba is where it is today because it was isolated and let to the Soviets. Isolation does not work so the OAS is trying to break that isolation, just as the world did with China, despite the Tiennamen massacre.
So, if the policy of isolation breaking is good for China, it should be good for Cuba. Otherwise, it should be bad for both…
June 4, 2009 at 11:38 am
Totalmente cierto. Es una verguenza. Pero ¿Cuándo la OEA abogó por la democracia y los derechos humanos? ¿Cuándo? Lo hizo durante la abominable dictadura Argentina que tan bien describe al comienzo de su artículo? ¿Lo hizo durante las dictaduras chilena y uruguaya? ¿Lo hizo cuando se instaló en Venezuela, en 2002-2003 para legitimar el gobierno de Chávez y validar el fraudulento referendum revocatorio?
No recuerdo ningún momento en que la OEA haya hecho valer la carta democrática cuando se necesitaba. ¿Por qué hacerlo ahora? La expulsión de Cuba no respondió a criterios relacionados con la democracia (inexistente) o los derechos humanos (violados) en ese país, sino a las demandas geopolíticas de la Guerra Fría. Lo dijo Thomas Shannon: “No queremos seguir librando batallas del pasado”. Más claro imposible.
¿Democracia? ¿Derechos humanos? Eso, como su artículo refleja, son tonterías que ciertos jóvenes llegan a creerse. Sólo para descubrir que la política no se trata de precisamente de imponer tales valores.
Aquellos que siguen pidiendo que la OEA haga valer la carta democrática en Venezuela me inspiran tanta lástima (por ingenuos) como los que aún claman porque los militares hagan valer sus principios institucionales. Qué lástima.
June 4, 2009 at 11:06 am
OEA is a joke lately, this didn’t surprised me. Another useless organization.
June 4, 2009 at 10:56 am
deananash,
It’s irrelevant what the US does economically, because as you said, contries get what they deserve.
June 4, 2009 at 9:30 am
Dean, let me explain something to you about the embargo. First of all, do you know why it’s in place? There is a good reason for that. Second, it provides leverage which you need because without it, you are not going anywhere. That Cuba uses the embargo for domestic propaganda purposes is their problem.
Cuba has never had a problem obtaining US and foriegn goods. US goods have traditionally been obtained by Cuba via middlemen in Panama and Mexico. I’m talking about everything including the latest computers during the PC processor-race days of the 80’s and 90’s.
Under Bush the US started supplying significant food and medicine on credit. Under Obama, lines of credit can be established.
Lifting the embargo just cuts out the middlemen and makes the regime stronger as the added margins will go straight to their pockets.
Who benefits from lifting the embargo? US business and the Cuban regime. The Cuban people will still be subjected to the whims of the regime. The regime is not going to change for another 20 or so years until the last of the ruling generation is dead and their families inherit their riches. That’s what it boils down to … those in power want to remain inmune and the only way to guarantee impunity is keeping the system in place for otherwise they all go to jail and lose everything. Same goes for Venezuela.
Cuba may open up a bit post-Fidel but that’s about it. Keeping the power structure intact is first and foremost.
June 4, 2009 at 9:26 am
I do not see the OAS as an independent multilateral. In fact, I see the vote as a well-planned precursor to the US reopening of ties with Cuba. Or, better stated, reopening greater ties with Cuba, for after all, the US has been trading on essential items — cash terms — for years. Naturally, the left won’t want that information to get around, so intent are they in producing pity-parties to explain Cuba’s shabby economy.
So the OAS opens the road and allows the US to follow suit without that country losing face.
June 4, 2009 at 8:46 am
Well we know who paid to get this vote. The Venezuelan people with the last of the oil windfall and the money that was not paid to PdVSA service providers.
June 4, 2009 at 7:48 am
Sorry Dean, I am not talking about the economic boycott by the US, which obviously does not work, I am talking about a political organization that has a Democratic Charter which includes an extensive and detailed description of the rights of the people that members countries will respect. This was put in by people who believed in human rights in the aftermath of the horrors of the 70’s in a number of countries. The charter gives the OAS the ability to intervene and judge and impose sanctions on member countries. This decision says the OAS is not worth the paper it is founded upon.
June 4, 2009 at 1:43 am
Robert Mugabe.
same deal.
the people suffer but nobody spends the bullet that could end a lot of misery
June 4, 2009 at 1:01 am
Miguel, thank you for having the spine to say the truth in this regard.
thank you.
June 4, 2009 at 12:47 am
Miguel, I rarely disagree with you, but here I must.
For starters, whatever policies we’ve had toward Cuba these past 50 years DO NOT WORK. So changing them, regardless of direction, can’t possibly hurt.
Secondly, as Majiks stated, Venezuela’s (and Cuba’s) problems reside within. Said another way, “People get the government that they deserve.” I’m sorry to say, but having lived three years in Venezuela, I can honestly say that I believe that the majority of Venezuelans are going to receive what they deserve.
Of course, others will suffer needlessly. People such as yourself. This is one reason that I have been advocating for you and others to FLEE the country, ASAP.
Now, I freely admit that I might be wrong about all this – I’m often wrong. But it’s as plain as the nose on our faces that what we’ve been doing doesn’t work. Neither towards Castro nor towards Chavez. Somewhere there is the definition of insanity crying out for us to change.
June 3, 2009 at 11:46 pm
In the end it will be the people on the ground who have to wake up to the human rights abuses around them. Some will pay the ultimate sacrifice. The question we all need to ask ourselves is, will I stand in front?
Chavez, like all politicians, is removable, but only if enough people stand their ground and articulate a new future. This, I believe, is the crux of the problem facing Venezuelans who have a shambolic opposition without a clear idea for Venezuela. Of course, nothing I’m saying here is news to the regulars of this blog.
June 3, 2009 at 10:38 pm
If there are ANY citizens of the US who still feel some guilt over our government having supported undemocratic regimes in the past, this recent OAS action, should reduce those feeling guilt to a rather small number.