Talk:Organization of American States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Organizations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of organizations. We are developing a framework that will sort every category by location, field, ideology, and type. We need a few more people to help coordinate this ambitious project. If you have any technical experience with templates, or just have an interest in the topic, add your name, and check out the talk page to get involved. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
An event in this article is a April 30 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
[edit] 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)
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)
[edit] 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:
'[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.'
'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.'
'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.'
'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)
[edit] " ... 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).
-
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] ¿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)
[edit] 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))
[edit] 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))
