Professor Feinberg in the News
"America should care about the OAS"
04/18/2005
Richard Feinberg,
San Diego Union Tribune
While attention was focused on congressional hearings on the controversial appointment of John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the Bush administration made another mistake in a less visible multilateral institution, the Organization of American States. The administration voted for the wrong candidate in the dramatic deadlocked balloting for the top OAS post, the secretary general.
A strong OAS serves Washington's purposes. The OAS has become an important instrument in promoting democracy and in forging hemispheric consensus on critical economic and social issues. The Chilean candidate, José Miguel Insulza, promises to continue to strengthen the OAS, in the manner of César Gaviria, the former president of Colombia who lead the OAS from 1994-2004. Instead, the United States voted for Mexican Ernesto Derbez, an undistinguished gentleman not known for an interest in democracy promotion or inter-American solidarity.
The OAS has gained in value during the last decade. In crisis after crisis, the OAS has stepped in to safeguard democracy, promote civil dialogue and pre-empt civil wars. In 1993, President Jorge Serrano of Guatemala sought absolute power by shutting down the Congress and courts. The OAS immediately convened, condemned this power grab and sent a high-level mission to Guatemala that explained why such anti-constitutional, anti-democratic behavior was no longer tolerated in the Western Hemisphere. The military and business leaders – the traditional power brokers in Guatemala – got the message, and Serrano was soon on an airplane to exile.
In subsequent political crises, in Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela, the OAS has struggled to preserve or strengthen democratic procedures. In Paraguay, the OAS has worked with other Mercosur nations – Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay – to stabilize that very fragile democracy. In Peru, after the fraudulent re-election of 2000, the OAS established a permanent mission in Lima whose persistent critical witness, together with the famous Vladimir Montesinos bribery videotapes, helped to dislodge Alberto Fujimori and place democracy back on track.
In Venezuela, the OAS helped to foster civil dialogue that may have avoided civil war, and monitor last year's presidential recall referendum. In Haiti, if the OAS's political objectives have been frustrated, it has helped the United States to manage its policies toward Haitian refugees.
Especially important to U.S. interests, the OAS also has become the secretariat for the Summits of the Americas. The summits serve a number of U.S. interests, including facilitating dialogues among leaders, gaining a multilateral imprimatur for favorable policies and advancing major new initiatives. The summits have incubated the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the Inter-American Anti-Corruption Convention, the Inter-American Democracy Charter and a host of periodic ministerials in sectors ranging from energy to security. The Fourth Summit of the Americas is scheduled for November in Mar del Plata, Argentina.
By preferring Derbez to Insulza, the United States presumably chose bland safety over intelligent personality. Derbez rose from obscurity as a long-term bureaucrat at the World Bank to become minister of economy in Mexico as a result of his friendship with outsider Vicente Fox. After Jorge Castañeda shook up Mexican foreign policy by challenging the United States to immigration reform and tackling Fidel Castro on human rights, Fox turned to the nondescript Derbez to return Mexican diplomacy to its traditional low-profile crouch.
If Derbez is eventually chosen, the danger is that the OAS will sink to the pre-Gaviria quietism and irrelevance. This would be a shame for the whole hemisphere, particularly those who have cheered as the OAS has championed democracy, human rights, economic integration and active multilateralism. It also would deprive the United States of a valuable instrument in its inter-American diplomacy.
In 1994, the United States faced a similar choice: between a bland Costa Rican candidate and the more dynamic, valiant Gaviria. Serving in the Clinton administration at that time, we opted for Gaviria, believing that a stronger OAS would ultimately serve U.S. interests.
Subsequent events proved our judgment correct.
In 1994, some warned that Gaviria might tilt toward Fidel Castro, just as today some fret that Insulza might tilt toward Castro or Hugo Chávez. We judged, correctly, that Gaviria would understand the broader responsibilities of the OAS secretary general. The Bush administration should have placed a similar bet on Insulza. As the OAS member states ponder the next ballot on May 2, it is not too late for Washington to vote for the candidate who is in the interests of both the United States and the hemisphere's premier political institution.
Feinberg is professor and director of the APEC Study Center in the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California San Diego. He is a former special assistant to President Clinton for Inter-American Affairs.
