Source: Aula Blog
In recent months, the Organization of American States (OAS) has undertaken an active role in criticizing the Maduro government in Venezuela amidst an unprecedented humanitarian, political, and economic crisis. Under the new leadership of Secretary-General Luis Almagro, the OAS has renewed its relevance as a multilateral institution seeking to defend democracy in a region once known for coups and violent regime changes.
To better understand the transformation of the OAS in the context of 2017, I interviewed Professor Cynthia McClintock from the Elliott School of International Affairs at the George Washington University. Below is a transcription of the interview.
Q: What changes have you noticed in the OAS under the leadership of Secretary-General Luis Almagro?
Big changes. The previous Secretary-General Insulza was reticent. I think he felt that he couldn’t make declarations that weren’t advanced by consensus. He wanted to be a representative of viewpoints within the OAS. Since viewpoints within the OAS were so divided, he didn’t say a great deal. I spoke with him briefly towards the very end of his tenure and he expressed a lot of frustration. I think he would have liked to have been bolder in criticizing human-rights violations and democratic abuses in Venezuela, but he felt hamstrung that he didn’t have majority support; he thought that, therefore, he had to be quiet. By being quiet, he didn’t win favor with anyone.
I think he also felt hamstrung because he feared he didn’t have a good relationship with the Obama administration. Early on, he had been at an OAS General Assembly in Honduras with Hillary Clinton, and, from what I heard, it didn’t go well. He was the first Secretary-General of the OAS who wasn’t the choice of the United States. The bottomline is that he doubted he had much support and inferred that his best path was reticence.
Almagro basically said, “I am going to stand up and say what I believe and if I am not supported by 50% or 75%, so be it”. I think that Almagro’s stance was right, given the divisions within the OAS. I know that he has been criticized, that some critics feel he should be more respectful of the norms and procedures within the OAS. But, Almagro has been a leader. I believe that his decision to stand up more clearly and adamantly for democracy and human rights has proven correct given, unfortunately, the very sad downward trajectories in Venezuela.
Q: How do you think the Trump Administration will affect the OAS?
I am very worried. The OAS is composed of the United States, Canada, and then also the Latin American and Caribbean countries. Clearly the Latin American countries are very nervous about the Trump administration. One question is whether or not some of these Latin American presidents are going to want to go to the Summit of the Americas, which is coordinated by the OAS and coming up in Lima in 2018. Will Peña Nieto, Bachelet, Vazquez want to shake hands with Trump? Latin American presidents believe that it is in their interest to have a good relationship with the United States, but they have to consider their citizens’ dislike of Trump. Remember that Peña Nieto was criticized by the many Mexicans who did not want their president shaking hands with a man who calls them rapists, criminals, and other horrible insults.
From Trump’s side, he is also repudiating international institutions and organizations. He doesn’t want to spend money on the social or economic programs of international organizations; he only wants to boost the US military. So what is going to happen to the OAS budget? The US provides over 50 percent of the OAS budget, so is a Summit of the Americas going to happen? Is Trump going to meet with Raul Castro? The Summit has been the key meeting place for U.S. and Latin American presidents since the Clinton era.
In general, Trump’s maligning of international organizations is very worrisome. Obviously Trump has advisors around him who are aware that international organizations matter and I think he has come around on NATO quite a bit, but his positions are still very worrisome.
Q: What is the OAS doing with regards to the growing democratic, economic, and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela?
I think Almagro has been making a major effort to reverse the deterioration of human rights and democracy in Venezuela for quite some time. Before the 2015 legislative elections, Almagro sent a letter criticizing the skewed playing field. I think that was the first indication we had that Almagro was really going to stand up for democracy in Venezuela. Unfortunately, the amount of leverage that the OAS has is limited. What Almagro is trying to achieve now is the application of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the suspension of Venezuela from the OAS on the grounds of interruption of democracy. He hasn’t achieved that, but he has achieved lots of good discussions so that Venezuelan elites know that they are on the OAS’s radar and that their international support is declining. So far, Caribbean countries, which have received a great deal of Venezuelan largesse in terms of the oil subsidies, and the ALBA countries have resisted the invocation of the charter and the suspension of Venezuela. But, even if those steps are taken, it is a long way from resolving the problem; it would send important signals to the Venezuelan public and leaders, but it doesn’t change the economic facts. It does not itself bring about regime change. Other countries have been suspended without positive results. Honduras was suspended in 2009 but the OAS’s concerns were not met by the Honduran government. Not only was Haiti outed, but there was an economic embargo approved by the OAS and even that didn’t have the desired result. We have to remember that the OAS doesn’t have the leverage of a trade embargo; and, it doesn’t have a military. There is only so much that the OAS can do. Its real power is soft power, the power of legitimacy, which matters. However, it is not a panacea.
Q: Do new multilateral Latin American institutions, such as Unasur, CELAC, and ALBA, present a challenge to the OAS?
They could challenge the OAS, but not necessarily so. There is no fundamental reason why they should be at odds. Unasur is a logical organization. There should be a union of South American countries. South American countries are quite different from the Caribbean countries. The languages are different and the histories are different. Obviously the South American countries are larger. There is a good reason to have an Unasur.
With respect to CELAC, China is a major player in Latin America. Why shouldn’t there be an organization where China is a member, but the United States and Canada are not? That said, If the OAS flounders, CELAC could push aside the OAS, which would not be positive for a hemisphere where the United States plays a very important role. I think that most Latin American countries would say that, given US power in the region isn’t going away any day soon, it is helpful to have constructive relations and it’s the OAS where the US is a member and we want to make that work.
It is very interesting that the CELAC Summit is apparently going to occur a month before the Summit of the Americas. One would hope that there would be synergies and similar messages. We certainly do not want to have, or what would be perceived as, a successful CELAC Summit followed by a disastrous Summit of the Americas--where Xi Jinping goes to the CELAC Summit and almost all of the Latin American presidents do, while only foreign ministers attend the OAS Summit of the Americas. That wouldn’t be good.
Dr. Cynthia McClintock is a Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University. She holds the B.A. degree from Harvard University and the Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. McClintock was President of the Latin American Studies Association in 1994-95. Also, she was a member of the Council of the American Political Science Association in 1998-2000, and served as the Chair of its Comparative Democratization Section in 2003-05. During 2006-2007, Prof. McClintock was a Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Based on her research at the Center, she is writing a book on the implications for democracy of runoff versus plurality rules for the election of the president in Latin America.
- Source: Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University