Where Cuba Doesn't Belong
The OAS Is for Democracies Only.
Published May 30, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jun 8, 2009
In 1962, at a special meeting of the Organization of American States,
the Uruguayan resort of Punta del Este became famous for something more
than just luxury condos, restaurants and hotels, and catering to the
Argentine aristocracy during the holiday season. At that meeting, Cuba
was suspended from the regional body, with the Cold War pretext that its
espousal of "Marxism-Leninism" and an alliance with the Soviet Union
were incompatible with membership in the hemispheric club and its
organizations.
But this week, the OAS will hold its annual General Assembly in San
Pedro Sula, Honduras, and there is every reason to believe that the
secretary-general, the Chilean José Miguel Insulza, and the hard-left
nations of Venezuela, Honduras, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador and their
associates in South America and the Caribbean, will attempt to repeal
the 1962 resolution. There is also every reason to believe that this
suspension of the suspension will be approved, despite doubts and
suspicions about Cuba in many countries, including the United States and
Canada.
Technically, one could argue that there is no valid legal reason to
maintain the Cold War resolution, and that could give the Obama
administration, the Canadians and democratic Latin American governments
the cover they need to go along with the far-left countries and the
secretary-general and not find themselves all alone confronting the rest
of the member states. But going from simply and symbolically repealing
the nearly half-century-old resolution to actually readmitting Cuba to
the OAS would not help the cause of democracy in Latin America if Havana
does not comply with the conditions that the rest of the hemisphere's
nations have established for belonging to the American concert.
In 2001, nations in the region came together to sign the Inter-American
Democratic Charter, which states explicitly that representative
democracy is a condition for belonging to the OAS, and defines it as
"respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms," "periodic, free and
fair elections based on secret balloting," separation of powers between
truly independent branches of government and a pluralistic system of
political parties and organizations. Needless to say, Cuba meets none of
these conditions, and thus any attempt to invite Cuba back to the OAS
should founder.
Yet it is possible that now or soon, the hard-left countries will try to
move on readmitting Cuba, and that they will win this fight. The
democracies of Latin America are not likely to reject the attempt, even
if Cuba continues to insist it does not want to return to the
organization. Readmission would mean access for the Cubans to
Inter-American Development Bank resources that they desperately want,
and many Latins would like to help the island. And Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton, if they were scared of isolation in Honduras regarding
repeal, will also fear voting alone against 32 Latin Americans regarding
admission to the OAS.
Once the hard left sees that Obama prefers to go along today, they will
push for more concessions tomorrow. And at some point, Obama will be
forced to make the ultimate choice: reinstate Cuba in the OAS without
democracy and respect for human rights, or vote alone with the
Canadians. Many observers think Obama, who has promised to begin
"repairing relations with the neighbors," would cave. This would be a
mistake, both for the United States and for Latin democracies.
The defense of democracy and human rights in Latin America has never
been an easy thing. The conflict between universal values and national
sovereignty has always confounded the region, for good and bad reasons.
Right-wing authoritarian dictatorships (most of the time) and left-wing
authoritarian regimes (much less frequently, since there have been fewer
of them) have invoked nonintervention and nationalism as a defense
against their domestic and foreign enemies; democrats have been scared
of pushing for an intrusive regional legal structure, fearing
association with Washington.
The hemisphere has advanced enormously on this front over the past
quarter century, and the international covenants protecting these values
are one explanation for the prevalence of democracy everywhere in Latin
America, with the exception of Cuba. But the new, hard-left regimes
today have their own definitions of human rights and democracy, and they
do not match the charters and covenants that guide the OAS.
The United States should, on its own, lift the embargo on Cuba, and vote
for the repeal resolution in Honduras if it has no choice, but should
make it perfectly clear, not so much to its enemies as to its friends,
that it expects them to reject any notion of Cuban readmission unless
the island meets the requirements as they stand. Why? Because if history
is any guide, in the not-so-distant future, certain countries will
unfortunately succumb to new authoritarian temptations and human-rights
violations in Latin America. One of the few arms with which to resist
them will be the legal framework built up over the years. One hopes
there is somebody in Washington who understands this.
Castañeda is a former Foreign Minister of Mexico, Global Distinguished
Professor at New York University and a fellow at The New America Foundation.
Jorge Castaneda On Standing Firm On Cuba | Newsweek International |
Newsweek.com (30 May 2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment