US diplomacy reiterated its familiar formula of keeping "all options on the table," this time directed against the Nicaraguan government, headed by Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo. This stance revives a historical script of interference in the internal affairs of the Latin American region, where Washington has accumulated decades of interventions, pressure, and actions aimed at destabilizing or overthrowing administrations that challenged its geopolitical interests.
From the Cold War to the most recent blockades and maneuvers, the sovereignty of the peoples of the continent has persistently clashed with the hegemonic ambitions of the North. In this machinery of political pressure, the Organization of American States (OAS) has historically functioned as an institutional instrument serving these designs.
Far from fulfilling its role as a multilateral body that respects self-determination, the OAS has validated interventions and sanctions under the guise of inter-American law. The recent resolution adopted by the OAS, which demands internal political changes and sets a ninety-day deadline to evaluate the situation in Nicaragua, demonstrates how regional forums replicate Washington's agendas.
The diplomatic standoff and the background of the resolution
During the press conference following the extraordinary meeting of foreign ministers, the Under Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Juan Pablo Segura, reaffirmed his country's position by stating that the Sandinista administration lacks the will to negotiate.
As an example, the US official alluded to the official rejection of the nomination of diplomat Natasha Franceschi as ambassador, a gesture that Managua interprets as a defense of sovereignty against foreign interference, while Washington describes it as a closure of channels for professional dialogue.
The text, unanimously approved by the continental body, raises demands ranging from holding elections and the separation of powers to restoring rights to people stripped of their nationality.
However, the document currently omits direct economic sanctions, perhaps reflecting reluctance or a lack of complete consensus among member states. Of the thirty-four countries that make up the OAS, only seven sent their foreign ministers, while the rest opted for lower-ranking delegates, demonstrating a degree of diplomatic caution in the face of the offensive launched by the bloc promoting the measure.
The US dialogue is: either you do what suits me regardless of what suits the country, or I invade you and put a bootlicker in as president; you choose democratically.