“By this means, I inform you that I denounce the letter from the Organization of American States in accordance with the provisions of article 143, with immediate effect”
Only this I lacked, to have to open a category for politics and international law, because the issue goes for long. I spoke to them yesterday of the possible options, and four, the election was the third both by what Insulza insinuated as or by which the State decided.
The world will have dawned with the news that Honduras denounced the letter from the Organization of American States OAS, with immediate effect. And given what this implies, we will make some reflections:
1. Why does Honduras do it this way?
It should be remembered that the member is the State of Honduras, not its authorities, so that although the OAS does not recognize the authorities, they can act on behalf of the state and denounce the letter.
Then, the government insists that there has been no breach of the constitutional order, an aspect that they justify according to their legislation, although after Insulza's visit, he did not come to ask what happened but to ratify if they are willing to reinstate President Zelaya. The issue becomes complex… very complex.
According to what the media mention, there is a certain predisposition on the part of the Secretary General, who is in a re-election process, who is also a militant of the left and wants to look good with the countries that are sympathetic to ALBA. Reason that would make that in the face of the threats made by Hugo Chávez to intervene at any time, no reaction has been heard.
Although the interim government, to give it a name even though at the international level it has called itself a coup, bases its actions on Zelaya's actions towards the guidelines of Chavismo, the great gaffe of driving the president to Costa Rica as if outside a package has no rational explanation and will be an act that the whole world will not forget so easily. If there were acts that weighed on him, it was to apprehend him, communicate to the world ... at least that is how most coincide; it would have been much easier to justify the next act to the world.
2. That implies denouncing the letter of the OAS
According to article 143 of the charter, a member state may denounce it by written communication to the General Secretariat, who will notify the other members. However, there are two years from that date, time in which the letter ceases, and from that time that would be July 3, 2011, the country would be separated from the Organization. Although the fact of manifesting "immediate effect" is open to doubt whether the two years apply or not.
Behind the subject there is a brain, which I hope to know enough of the subject, if they notice, who gave the announcement was the deputy chancellor, who is a member of the government of Zelaya, in case they appear that the new chancellor is not recognized by the OAS; apparently the intention is to pass the storm of the six months that are missing for the elections called by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, or even to advance them, to hope that Insulza will not be re-elected as General Secretary and try to return again.
Insulza also said that the OAS does not practice intervention in the states, that is, that practice of blue helmets that were to restore order by force as it was not a good experience.
3. What can we expect
The measure is reckless, especially with international relations, because although in the case of the UN and the OAS, which are multilateral relations, these are usually a framework of reference or conditioning for bilateral relations. It would imply that many countries that have cooperative deals could decide to break or suspend ties and international credits would be blocked.
But internally, there is a polarization crisis, due to Zelaya's supporters who are against the act and who call it a coup. Stopping this pressure is not so simple, the door to a civil war is imminent, especially, as I said last time, if there is support from the three sources before which an economically limited state cannot survive for long: Support from the Chavismo, inherence of drug trafficking and organized crime.
4. Alternatives for optimism
I only tell you what is heard in the media, impartial to this, it shocks me to know that everything could be avoided if there were fewer petty actions fighting for power and more agile institutions in the performance of their duty. The denunciation of the OAS letter is irreversible, for now, perhaps the non-sectarian effort to seek internal dialogue through a plebiscite, lead to decisions of the population to advance the elections or even lead the population to vote regarding support Zelaya to make it clear at once if the population that supports him is greater than the one that rejects him. After the elections this November, the state must justify that the new government was born from a democratic election ... who knows what resources will be here, tomorrow I will ask the man who is under the almond tree receiving the rain in Macondo.
There is also the option for the OAS to reconsider, under the proposal of members of the council, who suggest revising phrases between the lines of the Honduras letter, such as “unilateral decision of the OAS”, as well as to review positions that international figures such as Hillary Clinton who said "call it something else, but make sure you see if the coup is really a coup." If so, it would be the first time in history, and explaining it to the world will not be easy.
We have to be optimistic, those of us who dedicate ourselves to work, and hope that this bitter drink produces urgent transformations in the participation of the population, the fight against corruption, reforms against political patronage, social compensation policies, among others. If these crises do not arise, there are no changes in countries with such weak institutions on this issue.
I wish the subject had never started, I miss talking about technologies.