| U.S. AND LATIN AMERICA DIFFER ON ROLE OF OAS |
| Written by Maria Elena Salinas |
| Monday, June 13 2005 |
| |
| The United States finally looked to the south, and when it did, the south did not seem very receptive. When President George W. Bush spoke to the members of the Organization of American States in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., it was definitely not a lovefest. It was the first time the OAS held its general assembly in the United States in more than 30 years. And it was the first time in a while that President Bush focused his attention on our hemispheric neighbors.
In a 15-minute speech, he outlined his agenda for Latin America: the strengthening of democracy and the promotion of free trade. For Bush, one goes hand in hand with the other. "When people throughout the Americas see their lives improve and opportunity more abundant, their faith in democracy will grow, and our hemisphere will be more secure," he said. "An Americas linked by trade is less likely to be divided by resentment and false ideologies."
While Bush's words might have been meant to pressure Congress into approving CAFTA-DR, the Central America Free Trade Agreement that includes the Dominican Republic, his speech got a tepid response among those present at the OAS meeting. It's not that Latin America rejects free trade; on the contrary -- governments in the region would like nothing more than to see trade barriers disappear throughout the hemisphere. And neither is their commitment to democratic rule necessarily waning.
What many Latin American countries seem to be rejecting is what some view as an imposition of democracy a la Bush. The U.S. delegation presented a proposal that would create mechanisms to monitor democracy in each of the 34 member nations. Civilian groups would denounce what they view as threats to democratic rule, and the OAS would then intervene and possibly impose sanctions.
The first country to balk at that proposition was Venezuela, whose foreign minister took the proposal to heart. "It seems as if it is aimed at one single country," said Ali Rodriguez. "Democracy can thrive in many forms as long as those forms honor universal principles such as freedom of speech and respect for human rights," he added.
But Venezuela, which has had increasingly tense relations with the U.S., was not the only country to denounce the proposal. "Democracy cannot be imposed," said Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim. Other countries, like Mexico and Argentina, urged against violating the OAS's policy of nonintervention.
Chile proposed a compromise plan -- which was included in the final declaration -- that would have OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza monitor how the member nations are applying the Democratic Charter and suggest improvements. However, Insulza insisted that the OAS cannot act without the consent of a country: "If the states don't want something, then nothing will be done." Such is the case with Bolivia, which has rejected any outside help as the second democratically elected president in two years was forced to resign after massive protests. And such is the case with Venezuela, whose government has taken steps deemed by many in the region to be borderline authoritarian, although no one dares to intervene.
The spectacle at the 35th general assembly of the OAS makes you wonder how an organization whose purpose for existing is to promote, support and defend democracy in the hemisphere can reach its goals if it does not have the power or the political will to enforce them. Though the OAS rejected the U.S.'s formula for democracy -- "my way or no way" -- there do not seem to be any viable alternatives to further strengthen the many fragile democracies in the region. Therefore, while reinforcing its independence from the United States, the OAS risks becoming a symbolic organization whose relevance is questionable. |
