Here I have listed countries and some individuals and a set of potential relevant explaining why they are for/against the potential return of Honduras to the OAS. I hope and expect that the discussion to follow will expand this list a lot....so please send me specific issues and wording so that I can incorporate here.
Once exhausted I will formally list all contributors (unless you wish to remain anonymous) as an update in the post...plus many will be listed in the comments part. Please note that I have included the moral/ethical imperative, because in the end everybody is convinced they are right...right!! and of course it is quite a bit simplistic to list a country having a for/against position simply because there are many issues that shape foreign and national policies.
Brazil
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Want to position itself as a regional/global leader and world-class
Panama
Expecting a potential free trade agreement with the US
Colombia
Expecting a potential free trade agreement with the US
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Venezuela
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Waning of its regional influence
Increase in its internal dissension and thus need to divert attention away
Social and economic problems brought by an unsustainable/disastrous policies
Decline in net gains from the petroleum economy (lack of re-investments, mis-management)
Waning of traditional allies and like minded countries (i.e. Libya)
Nicaragua and other ALBA bloc countries
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Follow mandate of ALBA policies (the Caracas-Havana axis)
Dependence on Petrocaribe funding and preferential conditions
Increase in its internal dissension and thus need to divert attention away
Bolivia, Ecuador
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Follow mandate of ALBA policies (the Caracas-Havana axis)
Increase in its internal dissension and thus need to divert attention away
Human Rights Groups and activist/pressure/special interest groups
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Campaigns that sustain current/future funding
United States
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Seek counterbalance to ALBA and Chavez/Castro influence in the region
Cuba
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Continue export the "Cuban" style revolution
The eternal contrarian since 1959 - oppose those that do not support the Cuban revolution...
Increase in its internal dissension and thus need to divert attention away
Organization of American States and J.M. Insulza
No comments here - just following the orders and mandate of country members...right?
Honduras
Desire to acquire legitimacy in the eyes of the international community
Desire to access some investment funds closed by the ALBA group and other nations
Need to divert attention away from its internal issues
Once exhausted I will formally list all contributors (unless you wish to remain anonymous) as an update in the post...plus many will be listed in the comments part. Please note that I have included the moral/ethical imperative, because in the end everybody is convinced they are right...right!! and of course it is quite a bit simplistic to list a country having a for/against position simply because there are many issues that shape foreign and national policies.
Brazil
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Want to position itself as a regional/global leader and world-class
Panama
Expecting a potential free trade agreement with the US
Colombia
Expecting a potential free trade agreement with the US
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Venezuela
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Waning of its regional influence
Increase in its internal dissension and thus need to divert attention away
Social and economic problems brought by an unsustainable/disastrous policies
Decline in net gains from the petroleum economy (lack of re-investments, mis-management)
Waning of traditional allies and like minded countries (i.e. Libya)
Nicaragua and other ALBA bloc countries
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Follow mandate of ALBA policies (the Caracas-Havana axis)
Dependence on Petrocaribe funding and preferential conditions
Increase in its internal dissension and thus need to divert attention away
Bolivia, Ecuador
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Follow mandate of ALBA policies (the Caracas-Havana axis)
Increase in its internal dissension and thus need to divert attention away
Human Rights Groups and activist/pressure/special interest groups
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Campaigns that sustain current/future funding
United States
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Seek counterbalance to ALBA and Chavez/Castro influence in the region
Cuba
Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")
Continue export the "Cuban" style revolution
The eternal contrarian since 1959 - oppose those that do not support the Cuban revolution...
Increase in its internal dissension and thus need to divert attention away
Organization of American States and J.M. Insulza
No comments here - just following the orders and mandate of country members...right?
Honduras
Desire to acquire legitimacy in the eyes of the international community
Desire to access some investment funds closed by the ALBA group and other nations
Need to divert attention away from its internal issues
"Moral and ethical imperative ("it is the right thing to do")"
ReplyDeleteThat may be what they say, but I don't believe for a minute that is the true reason for ANY of them!
Since we are talking about motivations for a specific policy or course of action, I always pressume that the person thinks she/he pursues doing the "right" thing and that once a decision is made, the decision maker thinks she/he is right in following that particular course of action...
ReplyDeleteObviously, not everybody can be "right" at the same time, especially when having completely divergent positions...
I guess we would need to define "right" for each entity. When it comes to international politics, I think that "right" means what is right (benefits our country/organization/me personally/etc.) the most, not what is right in terms of law/ethics/etc.
ReplyDeleteI think that many countries took their stand over the past couple of years based on 1)saving face and 2)whether or not they were willing to go against Chavez.