Talk:Organization of American States/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Logo and photograph

Please split the logo from the photograph. I'm getting a very thin column of text on the left - probably worse for people with smaller screens. <div style="width:642px; float:right; margin:1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align: left;"> [[Image:OAS.Logo&HQ.01.jpeg|OAS]]<br><small> ''OAS headquarters, Constitution Av., Washington DC''</small></div>

--Jiang | Talk 03:00, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OAS

OK. I wasn't particularly happy with the results anyway (although it did look better with the logo in the middle in my second attempt, as shown to the right). But, sure, 642's too wide. Maybe a couple of years down the road when everyone has 1600*1200 screens. –Hajor 03:25, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fidel Castro?: "Organization of American States is the USA's colonial office"

I am trying to find whether Fidel Castro actually said something to the effect that "Organization of American States is the USA's colonial office". Help?! -- Kaihsu 21:41, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

Following the recent OAS presidency row, more references have emerged on the web:
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w09/msg00157.htm

'[What is notable is the confession that Venezuela is finally on the radar screen of the neocon cabal in Washington. Whether they're trying to figure out how to reverse the revolutionary process, or just trying to cover their ass against the inevitable Democrat charges around the theme of "who lost Venezuela" is anyone's guess. Certainly going to such a hopelessly discredited fig leaf for imperialist domination as the OAS --the Yankee Ministry of Colonies, as Che called it-- smacks more of the latter than the former.'

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/oas-m04_prn.shtml

'For most of its history, the body has acted as a pliant tool of US foreign policy—referred to in its early years by Latin American nationalists as the “ministry of the colonies.” It rubber-stamped the US intervention in Guatemala in 1954, expelled Cuba and backed the blockade of that country in 1962 and supported the US invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965. While it “deeply deplored” Washington’s unilateral invasion of Panama in 1989, its condemnation came only after it had helped the US politically prepare the intervention.'

http://www.cadenagramonte.cubaweb.cu/english/news/050505_01.asp

'During his public appearance before representatives of the Communist Party, government, and civic organizations, Fidel repeated his characterization of the OAS as the “ministry of colonies,” with a long history of treason and complicity with the US.'

http://www.luisaguilarleon.com/1994-05-27.htm

'Castro's response was to flout the O.A.S, which he called, among other things, "The Ministry of American Colonies", to form militant revolutionary organizations, like OLAS (Organization for Latin American Solidarity), and to increase his support of guerrillas in the continent. His strategy failed. By 1969, OLAS was in limbo and Castro - backed guerrillas had been routed.'

And Bush spoke at OAS recently:

http://www.oas.org/speeches/speech.asp?sCodigo=05-0113

Kaihsu 13:40, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

definitive reference: Castro calling OAS the Ministry of Colonies

From Time Magazine in 1960:

Lately, Cuba has added another handicap in the form of a deliberate anti-OAS campaign. Last month, calling the OAS Washington's "Ministry of Colonies," it tried, unsuccessfully, to take its dispute with the U.S. directly to the U.N. Security Council. In such an atmosphere, the OAS this week faces its most important challenge.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,869814,00.html

From 1972:

Unrestricted support and contribution for the anti-imperialist front which perhaps in the future shall be a counter to "the obsolete ministry of colonies, the OAS" and in which would be all those who today struggle not only for socialism but also for national independence, recovery of their national resources, and their dignity.

http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1972/19720426.html

I am adding these to the article.

Kaihsu (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

" ... excluded from participation ... "

What exactly does this mean? Does this mean they are technically a member, but not allowed to take part in meetings? Does this mean they can attend meetings but not cast votes? Or does it mean they're out altogether? - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 15:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It means the Cuban nation is technically a member state, but that the current regime doesn't get to go to the party -- don't take part, can't attend, certainly can't vote. The OAS position is that Cuba's obligations under the Charter, human rights Declaration, etc. still hold (eg, the Commission on Human Rights continues to draw up reports on Cuba); Cuba's response to that is (or was) "puzzlement" -- the OAS has "no juridical, factual, or moral jurisdiction, nor competence, over a state which it has illegally deprived of its rights". [1] New Sec Gen Insulza has been caught making vague murmuring noises about Cuba's status in the past... Hajor 16:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
This should probably be made clearer in the article - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 20:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
In one word: Cold War. ok, that was 2 words, but aparently to exclude socialist Cuba from the OAS was a step towards winning the cold war, i believe it was Guatemala (or was it Salvador?, i must check i suppose) the country that was bought with 15 million dollars, a hospital and a road for the vote needed to ban cuba from the OAS (14 out of 21 votes that is), bribed by whom?, the US of course, but its nothing to be surprised here, it was the cold war and a lot of crazy things happened back then (for example all of south america was one brutal dictatorship friendly towards the US back in 1975, yet none of these dictatorships, some of them 10 times more harsh than the one in Cuba, was excluded from the OAS as Cuba was). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.236.41.136 (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Canada?

I'm curious as to why Canada didn't join until 1990, since the article only states that the expansion of memberships was mostly for newly independent Caribbean states. I'd like to add something on that, but I can't seem to find any information on it.

This is purely speculaton but it might have to do with the Canada Act of 1982. Up until then an act of the British Parliament was still required to make some amendments in the Canadian constitution The act gave Canadian Parliament full control. ProdigalSon

  • A good guess, but the Canada Act of 1982 had nothing to do with Canada's failure to secure membership. The reasons are rather complex and there was a sizable debate within Canada from the 1930's onwards. The first attempt was made under Mackenzie King in 1941/1942, though he abandoned it after discussions with Roosevelt. The major arguments against Canadian membership were that it would put Canada in an awkward position of having to choose between the US or Latin America on issues where they disagreed. In addition, many saw the Pan American Union/OAS as a cloak for Yankee imperialism. Imperialists also opposed membership, fearing that it would weaken ties with Britain. All of these factors influenced PMs from King onward to keep clear of the issue, though I believe Canada was given official observer status under Trudeau. Boubelium 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The decision to join the OAS in 1990 had more to do with the wave of democratization that had occurred in Latin America in the 1980s. Advocates of joining also pointed out that Canada could no longer afford to be excluded from the hemisphere’s primary forum for multilateral dialogue. At the same time, Canada was increasing trade and investment in the hemisphere, which contributed to stronger ties with the countries of the hemisphere. Canada became a member state under Prime Minister Mulroney.


HM1127

Cuban regime

Revert back to regime; the current government is in fact a regime, as designated by the United States and the OAS. Secondly, there is not necessarily anything "negative" about the status of a "regime", other than that it lacks diplomatic recognition as the legitimate government of Cuba, and hence full participation within the Community of Nations, i.e. IMF, WTO etc. See Neutral_point_of_view#.22Regime.22 for the discussion on "regime" being NPOV. All governments are in fact, "regimes", though all regimes are not necessarily fully recognized governments. Another illustration can be drawn with the Palestinian Authority, while it is a full member state within the 23 member Arab League bloc of nations within the United Nations, it is not a UN member state, nor enjoys full recognition from the EU bloc, AOS bloc, and far Asian bloc states., Hence the PA also is merely a "regime" outside the Arab League. Nobs01 15:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Simple comment on your reverted comment: yes, it is a "government", "internally", i.e. it is in control of Cuba. "Externally", it is not a "recognized government" within the the larger Community of nations, and the fact that it is not recognized within its own bloc of nations (unlike the Palestinian PA), even 'adds further to its illigitimacy. Their is nothing derogatory about the term regime; the United States recognized the Vichy government as the legitimate successor government (the proper phrase here actually is "successor regime") to the French Third Republic, at the same time it did not recognize the Forces of Free France (French National Committee), as the legitimate government, yet helped install the "de Gaulle regime" as the successor to the legitimate Vichy "regime". All governments are, in fact "regimes"; though all regimes are not necessarily legitimate recognized "governments". Hence regime is very aptly & appropriately the more accurate reference when speaking of the current regime that runs Cuba. Further, there is no succession apparatus, as best can be determined, for a successor regime upon Castro's inevitable demise; further evidence of the appropriateness of the term "regime".Nobs01 21:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Section marked as POV

I have marked one section of the article as POV. The section contains the following text: "Perhaps more importantly, the Organization's other member states (particularly the South Americans) now appear to be reasserting their political independence and assuming positions that are much less subservient to U.S. interests." silsor 23:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

political inclinations

It would be nice to have a table for the political inclinations of the member states, as in Barroso Commission and Parties in the Council of the European Union. – Kaihsu 09:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This BBC page with maps might help. – Kaihsu 19:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

¿French?

¿Why is French one of the official languages of this union? ¿Was it added when Canada joined?Cameron Nedland 04:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Why not? Canada and Haiti have French as an official language, after all... —Nightstallion (?) 09:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
O yea, Haiti, I forgot, thanks.Cameron Nedland 17:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Gladly! —Nightstallion (?) 13:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget Martinique!.--Zleitzen 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
... which is an integral part of France, just like French Guyana and Guadeloupe, and as such not a member of the OAS, yes. ;)Nightstallion (?) 12:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Doh! Damn it!--Zleitzen 13:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to replace {{flagicon|USA...}} calls

Notice: There is currently a proposal to change calls {{flagicon|USA..}} to {{USA|..}} at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Changing_USA_flag_calls. Please consider posting there to keep the discussion in one place. (SEWilco 04:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Discussion at MoS on flag icons

Please contribute to the discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. (SEWilco 14:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

What about Venezuela?

Since Hugo Chavez is going red, will Venezuela be suspended? -Dan, Motiongraphics81(at)yahoo.com


Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (SEWilco 20:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC))
of course not... if the OAS is begging on it's knees for the cuban dictatorship to return into the organisation without demanding democracy, and banning Honduras because it was trying to deny a new red dictatorship, do you expect any political correctness and indepedency? This organisation is a joke --194.203.215.254 (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The world's oldest organisation?

I removed the sentence "It is the world's oldest regional organization", because the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine is older. --RCS (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal of Honduras?

Didn't Honduras withdraw from the OAS recently due to the events related to the deportation of their former President, Manuel Zelaya? 76.254.34.205 (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Honduras: Government Withdraws From OAS July 4, 2009 | 1456 GMT

The new government in Honduras has withdrawn from the Organization of American States, saying it no longer recognizes the organization’s charter, VOA News reported July 4.65.247.230.10 (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I just heard on the radio, the OAS does not recognize the authority of the post-coup government to withdraw, as it is not a recognized, legitimate government. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Suspension of Honduras

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OEA#Suspension_of_Honduras the government is Interim NOT de facto, or, since you wikipedians, do not understand, change it to "Interim de facto" (that's how is referred to Roberto Micheletti, current president of Honduras. Vercetticarl (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you plan to [this in every article you can find]? --LjL (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about documents published by the OAS

I have English-language editions of the Constitution of the Republic of Paraguay, 1940 and the Constitution of the Republic of Paraguay, 1967, both published by the OAS. Nothing about copyright is mentioned in either of them. I was going to add them to Wikisource, but I want to make sure I am not violating any copyright laws. Would it be all right for me to add them there? Since I may forget to check this page, please post any replies to this question on my talk page. Thanks! Josh (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Greenland

Resolved: fixed at commons Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The graphic in the infobox shows Greenland as part of the OAS... Pretty sure that is false. 69.12.129.253 (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

yepp, working on it...Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Honduras readmitted to OAS after coup

Honduras readmitted to OAS after coup --Smart (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Why does the "significant milestones" list on this page/article state that Zelaya returned to the presidency? That's not true. 174.119.108.187 (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Demonym

Is a demonym listing appropriate for what is merely a supranational organization? – RVJ (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Warm Words

The article says "On 17 April 2009, after a "trading of warm words" between the administrations of U.S. President Barack Obama and Cuban leader Raúl Castro, OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza said he would ask the 2009 General Assembly to annul the 1962 resolution excluding Cuba.[17]" What are Warm Words? Warm like friendly or warm like heated?--179.218.131.53 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

America, the continent

[2]

"To strengthen the peace and security of the continent."
"To eradicate extreme poverty, which constitutes an obstacle to the full democratic development of the peoples of the continent."
"The Organization has played a leading part in the removal of landmines deployed in member states and it has led negotiations to resolve the continent's remaining border disputes (Guatemala/Belize; Peru/Ecuador)."
"The OAS is one of the three agencies currently engaged in drafting a treaty aiming to establish a continental free trade area from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego."

According to this English Wikipedia, America is not a continent but a supercontinent. Or this article refers bad to the meaning, or all those discssions on "The Americas" article was just bullshit... --186.6.157.139 (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed some mistakes on the article, it said continents while the OAE actually said continent: http://saraspanishstuff.com/12-octubre-dia-hispanidad-columbus-day/organization-american-states/ http://www.arianica.com/en/event/pan-american-union-founded-first-international-conference-american-states-washington-dc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.249.68.43 (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing

There should probably be a list of the annual conferences/assemblies and what was agreed on in that particular year. It's not really tangible and what the OAS site delivers is rather fluffy. 121.209.56.9 (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Missing is also the 2012 Summit of the Americas which ended in President Obama leaving the Summit in Cartagena, Columbia without signing the final memorandum. The assembly had apparently sprung two topics on Obama, 1. marijuana legalisation, 2. Re-admission of Cuba without haing approval from the State Department. In order to cover up the failure of this conference in the media, the scandal with the ladies of the night was blown up in all media. At the time one had to use a search engine for 'what exactly was Obama in Cartagena for?' because the Summit or the OAS were not at all mentioned.
This was a distraction strategy. This is relevant because one cannot only list the positive events - leaving negative events out that did happen makes an article propaganda. The so called prostitute scandal is still in the media and the security details have been dealt with. But those in the State Department who prepared that summit have not been dealt with, because they should have told the delegates that they are not allowed to put topics on the agenda, and certainly not those which cause affront to the US President.
Both from the media perspective and the political persepctive the 2012 Summit should not be omitted, verify through searches, the NYT had an artcle on it. 121.209.56.77 (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


Gran Colombia

Corrected. Peru and Bolivia were never part of "Gran Colombia". Bolivar´s intention was to create a republic named Colombia honouring "Cristoforo Colombo" that included as much territory of the former Spanish empire in America as possible. However regional interests blocked this protect of becoming reality. That was only partially accomplish in the former territory of the Vice-royalty of "Nueva Granada" that included the current territories of Colombia, Venezuela, Panama and Ecuador. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.31.46.191 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Organization of American States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Executive Secretary for Integral Development

Does not seem to merit its own article based upon content Shaded0 (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Support unless there are drastic improvements. It seems like an orphan article. Classicwiki (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)