The representatives of the three remaining left-leaning governments in the Americas that are members of the Organization of American States (OAS) —Mexico, Brazil, and Uruguay— approved the resolution passed on Friday, October 2. They did not vote against it, nor did they abstain.
These three leftist governments made it clear, as did the rest of the Americas, that they too are convinced Nicaragua is suffering under an atrocious dictatorship and that freedom and democracy must be restored to this unfortunate Central American nation.
However, the leftist government of Mexico, along with those of Brazil and Uruguay, placed on record their disagreement with certain specific aspects of the resolution, even though they approved its core substance. This is to be expected, because in a democracy, dissent is not only natural, but it is also necessary.
Footnotes attached to an international resolution or agreement are a tool of democratic political diplomacy. They allow a country to register a formal reservation regarding an approved document without rejecting it outright. In doing so, the state or states in question establish an official, legally valid record that they do not support a particular point, thus releasing themselves from any obligation to enforce that specific provision in practice.
In other words, the governments of Mexico, Brazil, and Uruguay share the core purpose of the OAS resolution, which calls for finding the means to end the dictatorship and restore democracy in Nicaragua. However, they placed on record that they do not agree with the document’s characterization of the dictatorship as a threat to hemispheric peace and security.
However, as we noted in LA PRENSA’s editorial last Saturday (“The Outcome of the OAS Extraordinary Meeting on Nicaragua”), despite the aforementioned objections, «the individual decisions that each country chooses to adopt remain fully intact, governed by the right to self-defense and the guarantee of their own security under the terms of the United Nations Charter», remained intact.
Some prominent public figures in Mexico have expressed the view that, by objecting to the OAS resolution, their government has aligned itself with Nicaragua’s dictators. However, we prefer to view it -and state- differently: the three left-leaning governments attached specific footnotes of objection not to cover for or shield the Nicaraguan dictatorship —which they did not hesitate to label as such— but for another reason.
We prefer to believe that their footnotes stem from an outdated ideological view of national sovereignty and popular self-determination —a concept that fails to recognize, or resists recognizing, that national sovereignty without popular sovereignty is devoid of real substance. Without actual, effective respect for freedom, democracy, and human rights, national sovereignty and self-determination are hollow shells that dictatorships exploit to legitimize themselves internationally.
Ultimately, when all is said and done, what truly matters and remains decisive is that, despite these footnotes, the resolution was approved by every member state of the OAS. It stands as a political and diplomatic instrument that could effectively aid in the search for a peaceful solution to Nicaragua’s political crisis. Although past attempts have been unsuccessful, that is no reason to abandon the effort.
After all, perseverance is a fundamental virtue of democratic politics—and even more so in international diplomacy.
This article was translated from its original with the assistance of artificial intelligence and reviewed and edited by a human editor.
