This post is also available in: Português Español
Q: Foreign ministers from across the Western Hemisphere, including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gathered June 6-8 in Lima for the annual General Assembly of the Organization of American States. What was accomplished at the meeting? Did member countries make any headway on controversial off-agenda topics like the reintegration of Honduras into the OAS? How relevant is the OAS given the rise of other subregional groups such as Unasur and the proposed Community of Latin American and Caribbean States?
A: John F. Maisto, member of the Advisor board, director of U.S. Education Finance Group and former U.S. ambassador to the OAS: “There were two positive developments in the otherwise uneventful OAS General Assembly. First, the OAS crafted a way out of the hole on Honduras by charging the secretary general to head a regional group to look at the situation and make a recommendation—rapidly. Combined with the work of the truth commission headed by Eduardo Stein, that, hopefully, should provide enough cover for those who need it to reinstate Honduras. Second, it gave Secretary Clinton the opportunity to frame the debate for the real issues if the OAS is to be relevant: refocus on democracy, reform the budget and implement the Inter-American Democratic Charter by ensuring it is fully adopted by its 10th anniversary on Sept. 11, 2011. Clinton’s message of increased U.S. financial support for the OAS clearly, albeit subtly, was linked to these three issues. The biggest missed opportunity, of many, was not to incorporate the work of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights into the OAS’ political agenda. Once again, the IACHR’s reports were relegated to last on the agenda, just before the parties. Finally, the Honduras situation is one of the reasons that the OAS as a regional group is indispensable. Geopolitically, no subregional group could credibly deal with it; a U.S. role is always crucial. Additionally, the plethora of the OAS’ below-the-radar horizontal cooperation and other activities valued particularly by small countries would not be possible without U.S. and Canadian funding—70 percent of the OAS budget.”
A: Vicki Gass, senior associate for rights and development at the Washington Office on Latin America: “While Honduras’ membership in the OAS was not reinstated, the resolution to form a high-level commission to analyze the political and legal events surrounding Honduras’ suspension last July is an important step. The countries opposed to Honduras’ return correctly argued that President Lobo must take stronger steps to guarantee democracy and respect for fundamental rights before his country can be reinstated. Rumors of a new coup d’état in Honduras are circulating, and human rights continue to be violated including assassinations, attacks against the press and illegal firings of public workers opposed to the coup. Emboldened by the success of the coup, its supporters continue to thumb their noses at the international community’s call for open, participatory debate on constitutional reforms that will address the fundamental issues of social exclusion, corruption and impunity—a call echoed by Hondurans opposed to the coup. Indeed, no one has been held responsible for his or her part in the disruption of democratic rule in Honduras. Instead, they have been awarded amnesty and/or plumb positions in the government as is the case of Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, the former defense minister under the de facto government, who now heads Honduras’ telecommunications company, Hondutel. The OAS commission must submit its recommendations to the General Assembly no later than this July 30. Its analysis should contribute to revealing the truth about the events surrounding the coup. Its recommendations should include holding people involved in the coup as well as perpetrators of human rights violations accountable for their actions, and removing them from government positions. To reinstate Honduras to the OAS without these recommendations only rewards those responsible and sends a dangerous message to other member countries.”
A: Diego Arria, member of the Advisor board and director of the Columbus Group in New York: “The Chávez-Lula axis—even though both have different individual purposes—has succeeded in dividing the region and rendering the OAS redundant. But both share the common goal of excluding the presence of the United States in the regional institutions which they have created, Chávez with the Alba group and Lula with Unasur as Brazil’s own backyard. They have been able to accomplish that thanks to a rudderless OAS that has increasingly become a club of friends and a very weak and ideologically compromised secretary general. The fact that no Latin American of significance was interested in the post of secretary general speaks volumes of its unfortunate irrelevance. Another consideration that should be added is what appears as a lack of true interest in the organization by the United States. It is a sign of the division within the OAS that a resolution to reinsert Honduras into the inter-American system—from which it was irresponsibly ousted—was not accomplished. Brazil’s unfortunate intervention during the Honduras crisis seems to show more affinity for Ahmadinejad and the Castro brothers than the democratically elected President Lobo. Lula’s obstinate stand and the support of his sidekick Chávez have prevented the readmission of Honduras, the second-poorest country in Central America, but a democratic one. I don’t see a Community of Latin American and Caribbean States in sight. Chávez’s Venezuela has become not only a disruptive factor in the region but also a threat to the internal political situation of several countries within it, making the creation of such an entity a difficult if not impossible one at least until Chávez departs from the scene. Also, Brazil appears more interested in finding a potential global role that transcends the region.”
A: Abraham F. Lowenthal, professor of international relations at the University of Southern California: “I cannot comment first-hand on the most important aspects of the meeting—the informal discussions and consultations, in private meetings and corridor exchanges, about a variety of issues among the foreign ministers and other officials who attended. Certainly one advantage of the annual General Assembly is its capacity to convene senior officials from throughout the Americas, providing them a convenient forum for such exchanges on a mutually acceptable basis, without requiring that everyone travel everywhere. That seemingly trivial observation points out one of the reasons why, if the OAS did not exist, the countries of the Americas would probably have to invent it. There is an ongoing utility and relevance of having a hemisphere-wide organization, with the necessary secretariat to arrange meetings and agendas, collect important data and analysis and handle the logistics and protocols of multiple diplomatic interactions. The relevance and utility of the OAS goes far beyond those minimal functions, of course. On issues where broad consensus exists, and with active and skillful leadership, the OAS can and should contribute to progress on many other issues, from counter-narcotics efforts to elections monitoring, and educational exchanges to public health. What it cannot do is force change on recalcitrant governments unless strong and broad hemispheric consensus exists. Properly staffed and supported, Unasur and the proposed Community of Latin American and Caribbean States may come to contribute beyond symbolism to facilitate regional exchanges and collective action among the member countries, but it can never replace a well-supported and well-staffed OAS that includes the United States and Canada.”
To view the full PDF edition, click here.
