Who is Peace Prize Winner Santos?

Many things can be said about Juan Manuel Santos, president of Colombia and former minister of defense who was rewarded with (not awarded, rewarded) the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday. But I’ll stick to what I personally know. In 2014, Santos’s military invited two acquaintances of mine, members of the Venezuelan non-violent resistance Operación Libertad, to visit a military base where the below photo was taken. Later Santos extradited these two to the dictatorship in Venezuela where they were thrown in the most infamous torture site, known as “The Tomb”. They are still there.

Gabriel Valles y Lorent Saleh en un base militar en Colombia en 2014.
Gabriel Valles and Lorent Saleh in a military base in Colombia in 2014. 

The last time I spoke to Lorent Saleh he told me about being invited to a Colombian military base.  Apparently this invitation was the cause for their extradition. But who is the commander in chief of the military? President Santos, of course. So he was ultimately responsible for their visit, and then he extradited them supposedly because of that visit(!).

Now as regards “peace”, for peace to be made there has to be war first. But Colombia is not in a civil war. Colombia is plagued by a terrorist group that is armed and supported by Castro on Cuba. Castro also supports and controls Maduro’s regime in Venezuela, and Venezuela cooperates intimately with FARC. So when Santos engaged in “peace negotiations” with FARC, with facilitation by Cuba, Venezuela, and Norway, it was really a negotiation to rewards a foreign-backed terrorist group. Santos is a quisling!

Norway was used as a pawn to give legitimacy to this charade. There is no reason to suspect that the Norwegians acted with malicious intent, because they are acting against their own national interest. You see, the bad guys in this deal are intimately allied with Putin’s Russia, so what Norway did—in the negotiations and in rewarding the quisling with a Nobel Peace Prize—indirectly helps Russia, Norway’s enemy.

Castro lurade byxorna av Ola Nordman

Norges deltagande i de så kallade fredsförhandlingarna mellan Colombias regeringsparti och terroristerna i FARC (utan deltagande av oppositionen, vilka fördömt hela företaget) är en skamfläck för broderlandet. Projektet har utmålats som ett fredsprojekt, men det är allt annat än ett fredsprojekt. Tack och lov att folket röstade ner det i folkomröstningen den 2 oktober.

Detta så kallade fredsavtal skulle ha gett terroristgerillan FARC en position som de aldrig skulle ha kunnat uppnå i val. Det skulle ha kullkastat hela rättsstaten. Det skulle ha grundlagsskyddat politisk förföljelse av de som motsatte sig traktatet inklusive militärer och oppositionspolitiker.

Nej till straffrihet för Castros terrorister i Colombia
Nej till straffrihet för Castros terrorister i Colombia

Det bakomliggande syftet med avtalet var att förvandla Colombia till en kubansk vasallstat, likt Venezuela under Chávez och Maduro. De främmande makter som deltog i förhandlingarna var Kuba, Venezuela och Norge. FARC är en irreguljär styrka kontrollerad av Kuba. FARCs ledare har bostäder i Venezuelas centrala militärbas Fuerte Tiuna. Det enda land i förhandlingarna som representerade det internationella samfundet var Norge.

En skamfläck på Norges flagga

Hur kunde Norge sitta vid samma bord som dessa blodsugare och förhandla bort grundläggande fri- och rättigheter för 50 miljoner colombianer utan att slå larm? Att Norge nu dessutom gett Nobels fredspris till Colombias president Juan Manuel Santos sätter en skamfläck på broderlandets flagga som kommer att ta lång tid att tvätta bort.

Nordmän, ni verkar ha glömt att “Frihet är det största ting, som sökas kan all världen kring.” Mänskliga rättigheter kan inte förhandlas bort. Att lagstifta om en “fred” som slår undan benen för rättsstaten leder inte till fred – det leder till krig! Det som Santos nu får fredspriset för var ett förräderi mot allt vad fredspriset står för: en draksådd. En draksådd som Norge deltog i och lånade sitt goda rykte för, säkert av ren och skär blåögdhet; Castro lurade byxorna av Ola Nordman.

What Russia wants in Syria

Russia wants a navy base. Period. It’s not a mystery. If you understand that Putin is supporting Assad for the purpose of having a navy base with a harbor that doesn’t freeze in the winter, and that is not cut off from the rest of the world by straights guarded by NATO, then Russia’s behavior becomes totally predictable and understandable.

How do I know this? Easy. Putin said as much. In 2008 if my memory does not fail me, he announced plans for a new oceanic fleet by 2020, with navy bases in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela. Then came the Arab Spring and wiped away Kadaffi in Libya, and created civil wars in Syria and Yemen.

Russia already had a small base in Syria that seemed about to be lost, just like Sevastopol in Crimea would be lost when the treaty with Ukraine expired. Which is why Putin installed his man as president, but he was ousted in an uprising in 2014. So Putin invaded Crimea in order to hold on to Sevastopol. After that victory he turned to Syria and decided to hold on to that base as well, which is why he has backed Assad for a year now. Another stop gap measure has been a cooperation with Iran, using one of their bases in the Indian Ocean.

Libya and Yemen are out of reach now, but Venezuela is un unknown case. The area where the base presumably would be built has been closed off for civilians, and there are a lot of work going on under foreign direction. Not Russian though, but Asian. Tensions have gone high recently when foreign work leaders have pushed local crews beyond what they deem acceptable.

The Quagmire in the Levant

Russia is bombarding Aleppo because Putin wants a navy base in the Mediterranean, and his ticket to that is to keep Assad in power in Damascus no matter the cost. There are moderate rebels striving for a modern state, there are islamic extremist rebels, and there are some ethnic Turks and Kurds. This comes on top of the previous conflict in Iraq with Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds fighting each other, each with their links to kinfolks in other countries in the region.

The most problematic of these circumstances is the Kurdish case. It is the largest ethnic group in the world that does not have a country, a nation state. Their land is split between four countries, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Turkey is helping the moderate rebels in Syria against Assad but their main foe is the Kurds. Apparently the situation is as follows:

Russia's enemies: 1) moderate rebels, Kurds; 2) ISIS. Friends: Assad.

Turkey's enemies: 1) Kurds; 2) Assad; 3) ISIS. Friends: Moderate rebels.

USA's enemies: 1) ISIS; 2) Assad. Friends: Moderate rebels, Kurds.

There is one factor and one factor only that prevents the West from showing a united front, and it is the Kurdish problem. The fact that Turkey is insisting on subjugating a large tract of Kurdish land.

Turkey would have a lot to win on reconsidering its stance on Kurdistan. They would get more stability, and stability leads to economical development. It could also open the doors for EU membership. Furthermore, it would give them a friendly eastern neighbor that can act as a buffer to Iran, a very useful buffer since there are Kurds on the other side of the border as well, inside Iran. A Kurdistan created with pieces from present Iraq and Turkey would put Teheran on the defensive. By removing this problem from the table, all efforts could be focused on defeating the bad guys in the Levant (a people wanting sovereignty is not a bad guy!). It seems that it’s in Ankara’s interest to reconsider the Kurdish question.

La gran toma de Caracas

El 1 de septiembre la oposición en Venezuela, respaldado por la resistencia, ha llamado a tomar la capital Caracas. Dado que el país se ha convertido en una dictadura bajo un régimen genocida, no hay problema ninguna si el pueblo decida derrocar al gobierno en una revolución popular para establecer un gobierno nuevo. La Ley Internacional les otorga ese derecho, siempre y cuando cualquier uso de fuerza solo sea dirigido hacía el régimen y sus fuerzas de seguridad (regulares como irregulares). El llamado es a una marcha pacífica, lo cual indica una lucha no-violenta. Eso está bien, porque tiene más probabilidad de tener éxito.

La resistencia en Venezuela por años ha estado claro que es una dictadura y que la salida pasa por el uso de fuerza popular, o sea, un pueblo unido en la calle para presionar y exigir la salida del régimen. Mucho de esta acción indica que por ahí van, pero no todo. La oposición política en la MUD (mesa de unidad democrática) parece incapaz de mantener un mensaje creíble. Ellos llaman a esa marcha para supuestamente exigir un referendo revocatorio este año, lo cual es un derecho constitucional.

El problema con esta exigencia es que el régimen ya lo ha dejado absolutamente claro que no lo van a permitir, y todos los demás observadores han captado esta respuesta del régimen (la OEA, la UE, la ONU, la resistencia venezolana). Por alguna razón la MUD sigue clamando por un referendo revocatorio que todos saben no se va a dar, punto. Eso hace mucho daño a la credibilidad política de la MUD. Un elemento de la resistencia sospecha que la MUD en realidad está trabajando para el régimen. Los chavistas piensan que los de la MUD son mentirosos. La comunidad internacional se pregunta si la MUD sabe lo que está haciendo. El pueblo en general se encuentra entre mensajes cruzados y eso contribuye a la confusión dentro del país — y la confusión solo beneficia a la dictadura. Realmente no entiendo por qué la MUD mantiene esa linea y ese discurso que hace tanto  daño.

¿Por qué la MUD no habla claro y dice que “esto es una dictadura y tenemos el derecho bajo la ley internacional y el deber constitucional de restablecer la vigencia de la constitución”? Si dirían eso, a lo mejor todos los “duros”, los determinados, les respaldarían de inmediato en vez de posiblemente mantenerse en casa dudando sus intenciones. Es hora de hablar claro.

Indígenas en marcha hacía Caracas desde Puerto Ayacucho, Amazonas.
Indígenas en marcha hacía Caracas desde Puerto Ayacucho, Amazonas.

Too, BLM2

Too. A little word in English that can make a world of difference. Right now Americans are up in arms against each other for the lack of a “too” in a certain spot. Some say “black lives matter” and others (me included) feel that it is exclusionary towards all other races, that “all lives matter”. But when some with a larger media platform than me have responded that all lives matter, then they have been attacked by others who say that it doesn’t respect the legitimate grievances of the blacks. Let me be clear: I know that those grievances are legitimate, but it doesn’t make their slogan any less divisive. The thing is that their school system seems to have forgotten to teach them a three letter word: too. The sentence must have a “too” in the end in order not to be divisive. So here I offer the amended logo to them:

BLM2, Black Lives Matter, Too.
BLM2, Black Lives Matter, Too.

La diferencia entre libertador y terrorista

¿Cómo y cuando se puede usar fuerza para liberar al país sin hacerse culpable de terrorismo?

Se puede distinguir cuatro justificaciones y/o excusas en la ley internacional.

1. Derecho a la Revolución

Los pueblos tienen un derecho inalienable a rebelarse contra un gobierno tiránico, bajo estas 4 condiciones:

  1. La mayoría de los ciudadanos respaldan el uso de la fuerza, o los revolucionarios tienen una razonable creencia que la mayoría lo hubiese respaldado si hubiesen conocido todas las circunstancias relevantes;
  2. El uso de la fuerza es el último recurso y no es excesivo en relación a las ventajas concretas anticipadas;
  3. La causa atrás del uso de la fuerza tiene que ser la opresión del gobierno o en torno a violaciones substanciales de la constitución o de derechos humanos fundamentales;
  4. El uso de la fuerza tiene que ser dirigido hacía el gobierno opresivo.

La fuerza que se basa a ese derecho tiene que ser limitada a los actores directamente responsables del régimen: Los que tienen en su poder cambiar la política y cambiar al régimen al irse del país, y los que ejecutan la opresión directamente: Militares, policías, grupos paramilitares, grupos criminales, militantes políticos etc que actúan en defensa del régimen. Dictaduras dependen de dos brazos principalmente para sostener el poder: Represión y propaganda. Eso significa que lógicamente el aparato de propaganda también es un blanco legítimo (por ejemplo canales de televisión y radio bajo control del régimen).

El uso de fuerza no debe ser excesivo, significa que si sabotaje técnico puede lograr la misma meta como un asesinato, se debe preferir el sabotaje.

No se justifica víctimas civiles inocentes bajo esta justificación para uso de fuerza. Es una cosa que pueden caer víctimas por la respuesta violenta del régimen, pero nunca se debe hacer ninguna acción que pone en peligro las vidas de inocentes. Por eso, bombas solo pueden ser usados donde no hay civiles presentes.

Otro principio es de no hacer daño a la propiedad privada y tampoco la pública a menos que sea necesario. Después de la revolución es importante poder gobernar, y la destrucción por eso debe ser evitado.

Finalmente, los ataques contra los personajes del régimen deben formar parte de una lucha generalizada, sistemática, y no casos aislados, para poder considerarse parte de una revolución y no asesinatos.

2. Ley de Auto-Defensa

Se distingue entre dos tipos, auto-defensa en la ley internacional publica y auto-defensa en la ley internacional criminal. En ambos casos la violencia solo se justifica para frenar un ataque inminente, por lo que solo que puede aplicar contra el ejecutor del ataque, no contra el que está dando los órdenes. En el caso de un Holodomor no existe ejecutor; la población muere no por acción activa sino por falta de comida. En esos casos se puede aplicar la ley de necesidad.

Si alguien está atacado con armas siempre se puede defender con fuerza letal, eso no cambia por estar en resistencia o rebelión.

3. Ley de Necesidad

La necesidad está definida en el Estatuto de Roma, Art 31.1.d: “…coacción dimanante de una amenaza inminente de muerte o lesiones corporales graves para él u otra persona, y en que se vea compelido a actuar necesaria y razonablemente para evitar esa amenaza, siempre que no tuviera la intención de causar un daño mayor que el que se proponía evitar. Esa amenaza podrá: i) Haber sido hecha por otras personas; o ii) Estar constituida por otras circunstancias ajenas a su control.”

En el caso de un Holodomor por ejemplo, la amenaza existe, está constituida por circunstancias ajenas a su control (ya que la democracia ha dejado de funcionar), y una acción razonable es derrocar al régimen por la fuerza siempre y cuando el número de muertes inocentes en la acción sea menor que el número de muertes inocentes por el Holodomor, y que no existe otra vía razonable aún menos violento. Como la inacción genera muchos muertos, eso justificaría acciones bastante violentos si no hay alternativas.

En caso de crímenes de lesa humanidad, genocidio, crímenes de guerra etc todos que participan en la ejecución de esos crímenes son blancos legítimos bajo el principio de necesidad, todos los que podrían ser condenados en un corte por su participación.

4. Ser Reconocido como Combatiente

Si el enemigo (el gobierno) reconoce al grupo revolucionario como combatiente bajo las leyes de la guerra, los miembros del grupo no pueden ser acusados de terrorismo al hacer actos violentos (pero siguen responsables por cualquier crimen de guerra). Sin embargo, es muy poco probable que el régimen otorga ese estatus a un grupo de revolucionario. Por otro lado, si el conflicto es o se vuelve internacional, entonces eso aplica. Por ejemplo, si el régimen resulta ser una fuerza de ocupación bajo mando y control de otro gobierno, entonces la lucha se convierte en una guerra de liberación, lo cual goza de protección en la ley internacional que una revolución no tiene (siendo plenamente doméstica).

Santo Tomás


Cada uno de estos cuatro justificaciones tiene su lugar donde y cuando puede ser aplicado, y sus limitaciones en la forma como puede ser aplicado.

Justificación por el uso de fuerza Cuando Como Blancos Legítimos
1. Revolución* Hasta que caiga la tiranía** El menor uso de fuerza necesario, y solo como último recurso Las personas que sostienen la tiranía (no contra inocentes, no se permite daños colaterales calculados)
2. Auto-Defensa Bajo amenaza directa y presente La fuerza necesaria para parar el ataque El atacante o equivalente para parar el ataque (no contra el que dio orden)
3. Necesidad Bajo amenaza sostenida, peligro inminente pero sin emergencia El menor uso de fuerza necesaria y menos que el daño que se pretendía evitar Los responsables e involucrados, incluso los que planifican y ordenan la amenaza
4. Combatiente Conflictos internacionales o conflictos nacionales cuando el régimen reconoce la situación como guerra civil Según las leyes de la guerra (la meta siendo debilitar al enemigo hasta que se rinde, tratando de limitar muertos y daños) Según las leyes de la guerra (combatientes y equipo que contribuye al esfuerzo bélico, tratando de mantener los daños colaterales a un mínimo)

*La revolución intenta contra el gobierno de un país, mientras que la insurrección se puede ver como algo regional y la rebelión como algo local. Lo que empieza como una rebelión contra injusticia puede terminar como una revolución.

**En el momento que caiga la tiranía la violencia tiene que parar de inmediato. No existe justificación alguna para asesinar a personas del régimen cuando ellos se han dado por vencidos. Deben ser enjuiciados bajo la ley, y preferiblemente en una corte internacional para evitar sospechas de venganza. La suerte del gobierno nuevo depende de su imagen de legitimidad y defensor del imperio de la ley. Recuerda el asesinato de Ghaddafi y mira como Libia no ha logrado volver a la paz, toma eso como una lección.

Comentario: Justificación 1 no permite daños colaterales calculados, pero número 4 sí. Sin embargo, hace mucho daño por la moral de la acción, así que no es recomendable en ningún caso a menos que sea para evitar aún más muertos inocentes. Esta justificación también es la base para caso número 3, la necesidad. Se distingue entre justificación y excusa. Para caso número 2, auto-defensa, no hay justificación para matar a inocentes pero si ocurre por accidente, hay una excusa. En caso número 1 ni hay una excusa. Se debe evitar, punto. Como caso número 4 en realidad no es aplicable a menos que el conflicto se vuelve internacional, eso significa que lo único que puede justificar matar a inocentes es si es necesario para evitar la muerte de muchos más inocentes, por ejemplo, una bomba para evitar un genocidio — aunque el problema es probar que el genocidio iba a ocurrir ya que es muy difícil comprobar un genocidio hasta después del hecho. Total, casi nunca se debe hacer una acción donde civiles inocentes corren riesgo morir, y en las excepciones, la decisión debe ser tomada de un comandante en jefe que asume toda la responsabilidad.

Brexit and Trump two sides of the same coin

Both Brexit and Trump are reactions to irresponsible politicians. Just like Hugo Chávez was in Venezuela in the 1998 election, for which the people now pay a huge price: Dictatorship, or rather pure tyranny, with Holodomor and Holodolencia (the regime preventing access to food and medicines). But back to Brexit and Trump.

Western Europe and USA are part of the same culture, which since WWII has created a global system in which intervention in other countries is prohibited except as permitted by the UNSC, but due to the veto powers that body rarely allows such moves. This means that the global community protects governments, even in the case of regimes that are un-democratic and lack support among the population. This has given  oppressive regimes a free hand to do what they do best: Repress, rob, steal, and deprive people of hope, while holding up a pretty facade in the diplomatic arena. It’s hard to call it corruption when it is the very essence of what they do.

Since the free world has chosen to tie their hands, the people living under oppression and the violence that repressive regimes lead to, have had no other recourse than to flee to the free world if they want opportunities for themselves and their children. From Latin America they risk their lives to come to the U.S., and from Africa they risk their lives to come to Europe. Both regions have chosen to accept these refugees rather than taking effective action to improve things in their home countries.

In Europe it has for decades been politically incorrect to even question the policy of accepting the refugees rather than try to help them achieve freedom of opportunity at home. So people have gotten fed up. That’s how I interpret Brexit and Trump: Both Brits and Yankees are tired of the lack of political will to deal with the real problem, and so they do something desperate that actually can make things much worse.

Look at the countries from which the refugees come. Third world countries tend to have a filthy rich elite and a large poor population that does not have opportunities to get ahead, regardless of education, because of corruption. The wealth of the rich is such that they even can bribe leaders of the free world, and nobody will be the wiser because there is no control or oversight in these countries I’m talking about.

The international system needs to take the focus away from preserving the Status Quo and the sitting government, and focus on getting effective human rights such as freedom and opportunity to the people.

As one example of a policy area where a new tack may be needed I’d like to mention weapons control. The right to rebellion against a tyranny is a fundamental right that predates civilization itself. But the right to rebel is only a chimaera when citizens are denied the right to bear arms. For many years the international community has worked towards limiting international arms traffic to prevent weapons from falling into the hands of criminals, leaving the government in total control. That is good and well, but what about if the government is the criminal, leaving the potential rebels with no recourse? That’s what makes people flee to USA or Europe, because they have no way of fighting back, and the west will not help them in any way, shape, or form.

For 6 years I’ve followed the Venezuelan people’s fight for freedom from the dictatorship that controls their country since 2002, when the military reinstated Chávez as president after a non-violent movement had forced his resignation by peaceful protests. The dictatorship deliberately disarmed the people, and armed criminal gangs loyal to them—the Venezuelan version of Brownshirts, called “colectivos.” In 2014 the colectivos met peaceful protests with guns, for instance. Any rebellion will need to be able to neutralize the armed colectivos, but where to get the necessary weapons? There is no legal way that the rest of the world can help, and apparently no country wants to do it illegally either (since if so, it would already have been done). This leaves the Venezuelan people at the mercy of a regime that denies them food and medicines. Yes, denies: The regime does not allow these things even to be donated from abroad. What recourse does the Venezuelan have? His choices are to starve and possibly die; to fight unarmed against one of the heaviest armed nations in the Western Hemisphere; or to emigrate. Millions have already taken that las option and many of them are now homeless abroad, but at least not denied food.

There is something fundamentally wrong when the international community helps the despots against people with a legitimate right to rebel.

OAS considers activating Democratic Charter for first time

In a landmark meeting yesterday, the Organization of American States were summoned to an extraordinary meeting for the presentation of a report on the erosion of democracy in Bolivarian Venezuela, prepared by the secretary general of the organization, Luis Almagro. The meeting started with the point of order of approving the agenda, to which Bolivarian Venezuela, represented by its foreign minister Ms Delcy Rodriguez requested the word. She expressed that her country was opposed to the meeting being held. After the US made a point of order saying that Bolivarian Venezuela had gone into the subject matter when they were at a point in the agenda where only points of order were allowed according to the rules of OAS, and a couple of more violations to thus rule by Nicaragua and Bolivia, the vote was taken.

There was confusion because the chair had first understood that Bolivarian Venezuela requested a vote not to hold the meeting, but later their representative stated that she desired the vote to be on the approval of the agenda. Even though the chair explained this repeatedly the translation seems to have worked poorly, because Antigua and Barbuda had to ask again before voting, and Haiti later explained that they had voted on the original question and really intended to approve the agenda. In this table I present the vote and show the corrected vote of Haiti:

Do you approve the agenda?
YES NO Abstain
Argentina Antigua and Barbuda Saint Lucia
Bahamas Bolivia Trinidad and Tobago
Barbados Dominica
Belize Dominican Republic
Brazil Ecuador
Canada El Salvador
Chile Grenada
Colombia Nicaragua
Costa Rica Saint Kitts and Nevis
Guatemala Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Guyana Venezuela

That makes 21 in favor and 11 opposed, with 2 abstentions, so the agenda was approved and the meeting started. The only point of order was that Luis Almagro, secretary general, presented his report. That was followed by comments by those who so wished. All countries availed themselves of that opportunity except those in italics in the above table. The complete video of the entire meeting (except 2 minutes before the formal start, due to a transmission error) with the original language (no interpreter voices) is available on the Operación Libertad Venezuela YouTube channel.

For Spanish speakers I recommend ‘The pearls of Delcy Rodriguez,’ “Las perlas de Delcy Rodriguez,” since nobody contributed more to prove the case that Bolivarian Venezuela is an authoritarian regime than the foreign minister herself. I don’t have the time to translate it but I will leave it open for user-contributed translations on YouTube.

What next?

The fact that the report was presented was a huge step forward, because the regime’s lies were exposed publicly. But this is not to say that the democratic charter was activated. This was just the secretary general informing the countries—his employers, effectively—that “here is something I think you need to look at”. Now they need to consider the facts and then it is up to the country holding the presidency of OAS to decide if and when to call a new meeting. At present Argentina holds the presidency.

The votes whether to approve the agenda or not in OAS on June 23, 2016. Countries supporting Venezuela voted no to try to prevent the report about erosion of democracy from being presented, here marked in red. Yellow marks abstentions and green in favor.
The votes whether to approve the agenda or not in OAS on June 23, 2016. Countries supporting Venezuela voted no to try to prevent the report about erosion of democracy from being presented, here marked in red. Yellow marks abstentions and green in favor.

Pirates of the Caribbean

Pirates of the Caribbean will decide the fate of the OAS—and their own future on the international arena. On Thursday June 23rd, the OAS will vote. If they fail to activate the Democratic Charter against the patently genocidal regime in “Bolivarian” Venezuela, the organization will lose all international credibility. The countries in whose hands it is to decide the vote are the Caribbean ones. They are also the ones who gave the Spanish language the word “filibustero” from their ways (filibustero comes from Dutch fribuiter which means free-looter in English and fribytare in Swedish, and refers to pirates who operate under the premise of take what you can). In these days they take blood-money from the genocidal regime in Caracas, so their moral has not improved. The vast majority of the people in the Americas, something like 90%, live in countries that support activating the Democratic Charter. But 0.7% of the population has over 38% of the vote and thus the power to protect the genocidal regime of Maduro. What’s more, 9 of those so-called countries have the same head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, so much of the shame will fall on the queen of the English if they fail to exercise their responsibility to protect the Venezuelan people against Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide. The rest of the Americas would be wise to sideline those countries in any future organization of American states, because they would obviously have failed the test of being mature enough to operate on the international arena. Maybe they could be given one vote between all of them, like the 50 states of USA have.

These 13 countries have 38% of the vote, well above the 33% that is needed to shield the genocidal regime in Caracas. In fact, it's enough that 10 of them back the Maduro regime, and the 10 smallest represent only 0.2% of the population in all OAS countries.
These 13 countries have 38% of the vote, well above the 33% that is needed to shield the genocidal regime in Caracas. In fact, it’s enough that 10 of them back the Maduro regime, and the 10 smallest represent only 0.2% of the population in all OAS countries.

Ulf Erlingsson