International

Palestine’s path to full membership in the UN will be long

Palestine’s request to become the 194th State of the United Nations could follow the relatively rapid steps of other States that have joined the UN throughout the 21st century, but in its case it faces the probable veto of the United States in the Security Council.

The most recent State to take a seat at the UN as a full member was South Sudan, which in 2011 separated from Sudan after a friendly agreement. His incorporation into the UN was made by acclamation on July 14 of that year, just a week after his declaration of independence.

In 2006, Montenegro, another state that emerged from the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia, separated after a popular referendum from the last remaining remnant of that federation and proclaimed its independence from Serbia. The referendum took place on June 3 and on the 28th of that same month the state was admitted to the UN.

And 2002 was a very special year because the UN welcomed two members: Switzerland did so in September, thus putting an end to an anomaly that made it welcome numerous international organizations but did not sit at the UN for the sake of a principle of neutrality inscribed in its DNA.

Much more traumatic was the chaos of Timor Leste, which was also admitted in September 2002. The new Asian country, a former Portuguese colony, lived 24 years of occupation and resistance against Indonesia and then almost three years of supervised administration of the UN, but its entry into the United Nations was unanimously approved by the Assembly.

20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90

In 2011, Palestine first presented its formal request to enter the United Nations, but the procedure ran aground in its first stage: it did not get the support of 9 of the 15 members of the Security Council (that is, the qualified majority), so that request did not reach the General Assembly, the second stage of the process.

Palestine had to settle for acquiring the status of “observer state,” an anomaly that only the Vatican has in the United Nations, which is not even considered a country with its own attributes.

Palestine obtained 138 votes in the General Assembly in favor of its new observer status, while 9 voted against (including Israel, the United States and Canada) and 41 abstained.

It is foreseeable that Palestine will not have it as easy as South Sudan, Montenegro or Switzerland had, and all observers assume that Washington will use the veto tool in the Security Council, which is the instance where the incorporation process begins and ends.

According to the UN letter, the request for a new State necessarily goes through the following stages: it is formulated before the Security Council, which appoints an ad hoc committee to study it formed by the fifteen members, and if the committee approves it, the Council then assesses whether it is “a peace-loving state” (article 60), in which case it sends the issue to the General Assembly.

20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90

In the Assembly, the votes of two-thirds of the Member States are needed to move forward, and if this happens, the final decision returns to the Security Council.

The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has the right to veto the process at any time – in 2011 it threatened to do so, but did not need it – and few doubt that he will also use it on this occasion.

If this happens, the dream of Palestine will have fallen by the wayside.

But something has changed since 2011: now, every time a permanent member uses the right of veto, the question comes to the General Assembly, where that country must explain its position and submit to a non-binding vote.

At the current juncture, the United States will once again be evident in the face of a very large majority of states that are expected to support Palestinian membership.

20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90

International

Venezuela Debates Broad Amnesty Law Covering 27 Years of Chavismo

Venezuela’s Parliament began debating on Thursday a sweeping amnesty bill that would cover the 27 years of Chavismo in power, while explicitly excluding serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity.

The proposed legislation, titled the “Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence,” was introduced by interim President Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed power following the capture of Nicolás Maduro during a U.S. military operation.

The legislative session was convened for Thursday afternoon, with lawmakers holding an initial discussion focused on the general principles of the bill. This phase precedes a consultation process with civil society, after which the proposal will move to a final debate examining each article individually.

According to a draft of the bill obtained by AFP, the amnesty would apply to individuals accused of crimes such as “treason,” “terrorism,” and “incitement to hatred,” charges that were frequently brought against political prisoners over the past decades. The scope also includes offenses ranging from acts of rebellion to punishments imposed for social media posts or messages sent through private messaging services.

The bill’s explanatory text emphasizes reconciliation, stating that it seeks to move away from “vengeance, retaliation, and hatred” in favor of “opening a path toward reconciliation.”

20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90

However, the proposal explicitly excludes from its benefits crimes such as “serious human rights violations, crimes against humanity, war crimes, intentional homicide, corruption, and drug trafficking.”

These exclusions, the text notes, are based on strict compliance with the Venezuelan Constitution, which already prohibits granting amnesties or pardons for such offenses.

International

Díaz-Canel Calls for Talks With Washington Without Pressure as U.S. Tightens Oil Sanctions

Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said on Thursday that his government is willing to engage in dialogue with the United States, provided that talks take place on equal terms and without pressure.

“Cuba is prepared to hold a dialogue with the United States on any issue that either side wishes to discuss,” Díaz-Canel said during a press conference broadcast nationwide on radio and television.

He stressed, however, that such dialogue would only be possible “without pressure, without preconditions, on the basis of equality, and with full respect for our sovereignty, independence, and self-determination.” The Cuban leader added that discussions should avoid issues that could be interpreted as interference in the country’s internal affairs.

Díaz-Canel’s remarks come at a time when Cuba is facing growing pressure from the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, which has implemented a series of measures that have restricted the island’s access to fuel needed to generate electricity.

Washington has sought to prevent Cuba from receiving oil from Venezuela, its main ally for more than two decades, and has stepped up pressure to reduce crude shipments from Mexico. In addition, Trump signed an executive order in late January allowing the United States to impose tariffs on countries that sell oil to Cuba.

20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90

In that order, the U.S. president declared that Cuba represents an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security and foreign policy, accusing the island of aligning itself with hostile countries and actors.

International

HRW Warns Trump’s Influence Has Weakened Human Rights in Latin America

Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned that the political influence and rhetoric of U.S. President Donald Trump have contributed to a deterioration of human rights conditions across Latin America and the Caribbean. In its World Report 2026, the organization stated that several governments in the region have committed abuses against migrants and citizens, or have used U.S. policies as justification to impose harsher repressive measures.

During the first year of Trump’s new term, HRW observed that multiple countries violated the rights of foreign nationals under direct pressure from Washington. Other governments deepened security strategies based on militarization, mass detentions and excessive use of force, according to the report.

“The impact of the Trump administration has undoubtedly been negative in Latin America and the Caribbean,” said Juanita Goebertus, HRW’s Americas director. However, she emphasized that “governments in the region remain responsible for defending democracy and fundamental rights, regardless of who is in power in Washington.”

HRW also reported that the United States significantly reduced cooperation funding for human rights organizations and independent media. At the same time, countries such as El Salvador, Peru and Ecuador passed laws allowing the arbitrary closure of civil society organizations and media outlets, weakening democratic systems and institutional checks and balances.

The organization further criticized what it described as a “double standard” in U.S. foreign policy, which condemns human rights violations in Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua while overlooking serious abuses committed by allies such as El Salvador, Peru and Ecuador. The report also included criticism of the U.S. military attack against Venezuela in early 2026, warning that it could strengthen Nicolás Maduro’s regime and respond primarily to U.S. political and commercial interests.