Home | About | Donate

The Organization of American States Is Eroding Faith in Democracy

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/03/06/organization-american-states-eroding-faith-democracy

1 Like

“Eroding faith in democracy” is the whole point and objective of the OAS. It has no other purpose.

4 Likes

The OAS is another tool of Empire , much like the IMF and the World Bank , all of them designed to ensure Countries deemed “third world” continue to surrender their wealth and resources to the Old Colonial powers and their successor states.

The OAS has nothing to do with Democracy or Human Rights. It about control.

1 Like

You and Dipper are quite correct, of course. The OAS was set up as a U.S. shield for Latin America, ostensibly from outside (Soviet) influence, but just as much from its own people.
Its exclusion of Cuba for nearly all its existence makes this clear.

No accident that OAS is headquartered in Washington, which is the source of most of its budget.
That’s why more progressive countries founded UNASUR, ALBA and CELAC
– and why Washington wants to destroy them.

Makes me wonder where this milquetoast headline came from:
The Organization of American States Is Eroding Faith in Democracy
Did the author or did Common Dreams editors water down the hard truth?

Funny that this article barely mentions Venezuela, the central target of the OAS and Almagro for several years. From biased election monitoring to hosting institutions parallel to the Venezuelan government, to last fall invoking a potential military threat against Venezuela, the OAS has put a lot more energy into subverting Venezuela than into its nefarious activities in Bolivia, Honduras and the Caribbean.

And Almagro personally has gone well beyond his mandate and acted as a thuggish anti-Maduro shill for Abrams and Pompouseo. For example, he coddles the anti-Venezuela “Lima Group” – which was set up precisely because OAS members would not endorse Washington’s subversion with a majority vote.

I wonder why Laura Carlsen ignores this elephant in the room.

I did volunteer development work in Bolivia from 2008-20016, working in two remote villages, but getting a chance to travel through quite a bit of the country. There was continual progress every year–and that was all during Evo’s tenure. The progress was noticeable for the lower and middle classes. I never hob-knobbed with whoever had the wealth. The coup that took him down is yet another disgrace of Empire and its lust for luster, this time in the form of lithium of the salt flats.

1 Like

This could be seriously misleading.
I’ve read elsewhere that the USA has little direct interest in Bolivia’s lithium; it can obtain enough lithium for its own needs from Chile and Australia, which have more stable governments than Bolivia has. It is China that is interested in Bolivian lithium.

And that Pres. Evo Morales wanted to make a deal (with China, I presume) to sell lithium, and the local communities opposed it. (This one statement, from time to time, that I see, and fail to make note of the citation.)

From Bloomberg 12-18-2018, before the coup.
““In Bolivia we have a government that’s just been selling illusions, telling fairy tales and now they’re in a rush to show that they did a very good job and that lithium advances at a steady pace,” Zuleta said. “They’re not interested in whether the country wins or loses —they’re interested in remaining in power.”” &
““There are too many loose ends and a lot of secrecy on the government’s side,” said Juan Carlos Zuleta, a Bolivian professor and lithium analyst. “ACI Systems doesn’t have the technical nor the financial capacity to undertake a challenge of this magnitude.””

11-16-2019 New Republic
"Amidst all this, some on the left began to speculate on a disturbing subplot. Days before resigning, Morales had pulled out of a lithium mining deal with the German company ACI Systems Alemania, or ACISA. " … " Had this all just been yet another plot by Western Powers to seize a valuable commodity for multinational corporations?

The short answer is no. There are [several factors]that have [contributed] to [recent protests]: Morales’s opposition never planned to accept the results of these most recent elections and anger at the president had been brewing from across the political spectrum, with the far-right now playing the most decisive role. While it’s certainly possible that the CIA [yet again] involved itself in Latin American politics—we may not find out definitively for years—multinationals’ desire to capture Bolivia’s lithium market likely was not what got Morales booted out of office."… “The Potosí Civic Committee—which fought Morales over the deal—demanded an increase in royalties from 3 to 11 percent, and more local control over the mining. When Morales pulled out of the agreement with ACISA earlier this month, prior to being ousted, these demands were cited as a major factor.” …
Sorry can’t include links. Google " Climate Change’s Great Lithium Problem

The crisis in Bolivia has an urgent message for environmental policy in the United States."

The USA does not, so far, appear involved in the Bolivian lithium question. It is still unknown how important lithium was to the people who removed Morales, and which side they were on, for more lithium extraction, or against and wanting more payment to the people for any lithium extraction.

(And then there is the other “white gold” of Bolivia and Evo Morales’ involvement in the coca industry; and again which side was opposed. Those against producing any coca, or those upset at Morales goons forcing the expansion of coca production onto indigenous people not getting paid enough for it.)