McClatchy Washington Bureau

Print This Article

The future of the Organization of American States is definitely not something that keeps Washington D.C. awake at night, but OAS chief Jose Miguel Insulza's campaign to win reelection has created a noisy clash in the U.S. capital.

At issue is whether Insulza, a Chilean-born former foreign minister, has been too shy in denouncing government attacks on democratic institutions in countries such as Venezuela. Critics say he has failed to enforce the OAS commitment for the collective defense of democracy, perhaps because he needs the votes of Venezuela and its allies to win reelection.

Insulza is running for another five-year term. The 36-country OAS is to vote on his reelection at its Washington, D.C., headquarters on March 24.

A Jan. 26 congressional report commissioned by Sen. Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, accused Insulza of practicing a "selective intervention in the defense of Democracy." It said that Insulza reacted promptly to mobilize the region to denounce coups against leftist leaders in Venezuela in 2002 and in Honduras in 2009, but didn't do much to prevent these leaders from gradually dismantling democracy before the coups.

A Feb. 12 editorial in The Washington Post said Insulza "has unabashedly catered to the region's left-wing leaders." It recommended that the Obama administration not support Insulza's reelection, and that the U.S. Congress "consider whether the United States should continue to provide the bulk of the funding for the OAS."

Aren't they right? I asked Insulza in an extended interview earlier this week. Where were you when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez barred nearly 300 opposition candidates from participating in Venezuela's 2008 local elections?

Or when Chavez staged a coup against the democratically elected opposition mayor of Caracas, Antonio Ledezma, and stripped him of his offices and budget? Or when Chavez closed the independent RCTV television station? I asked.

Insulza said that he criticized these and other attacks on democracy in Venezuela and other countries, but argued that under OAS rules, he can't unilaterally send observation missions to countries. "I cannot force the OAS Permanent Council to take on issues that they don't want to touch," he said.

You see yourself as a bureaucrat? I asked. Insulza responded: "Those are the [legal] limitations that we have. As for whether I am a bureaucrat, no. But I don't go out on a limb either. I am not the president of the OAS. The Secretary General is called that way because he implements actions stemming from collective mandates."

Asked about his critics' point that he can request meetings of the OAS General Assembly to raise public attention and put authoritarian countries on the spot, he said he has often issued personal statements on issues, but that "I am not going to propose resolutions. The Secretary General doesn't propose resolutions. That's done by member countries."

As for what would be different in his second term if re-elected, Insulza said that "there would be differences in emphasis." He said that it is "indispensable" to find ways to make sure that all OAS member countries enforce decisions by the OAS Human Rights Commission, and to improve the OAS "early warning" mechanisms to prevent presidents from breaking the rule of law.

My opinion: I would prefer a more pro-active OAS leader, such as outgoing Costa Rican President and Nobel Prize winner Oscar Arias, but unfortunately he doesn't want the job. Arias told me in a telephone interview that the OAS "is a very weak institution."

Considering that Insulza probably already has the votes to be reelected, democratic countries should take him at his word, and ask that he formally commit himself to strengthening the OAS' human rights and democracy mandates.

The OAS' problem is not Insulza. It's the group's absurd tradition of reaching decisions by consensus, which in a polarized region amounts to a recipe for not making any substantive decisions.

The OAS needs to create a United Nations-like Security Council, which would allow the Secretary General to convene it on urgent matters. Or it should form a Commission on Democracy, modeled after its semi-autonomous Commission on Human Rights -- by far the OAS' most effective branch -- to monitor governments' adherence to their own constitutions.

Barring that, the OAS' future -- with Insulza or without him -- will be as mediocre as its past.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Andres Oppenheimer is a Miami Herald syndicated columnist and a member of The Miami Herald team that won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize. He also won the 1999 Maria Moors Cabot Award, the 2001 King of Spain prize, and the 2005 Emmy Suncoast award. He is the author of Castro's Final Hour; Bordering on Chaos, on Mexico's crisis; Cronicas de heroes y bandidos, Ojos vendados, Cuentos Chinos and most recently of Saving the Americas. E-mail Andres at aoppenheimer @ herald.com Live chat with Oppenheimer every Thursday at 1 p.m. at The Miami Herald.