Insulza and the Organization of American States
Published in El Comercio
(Ecuador) on 16 February 2010
by Carlos Alberto Montaner (link to
original)
José Miguel Insulza should resign from his candidacy for another term as the director of the OAS (Organization of American States). He has not been a good leader. His five years as head of the institution are among the worst in history. He was supposed to have been elected to strengthen the functioning of democracy in accordance with the Inter-American Democratic Charter, signed in Lima by all the states on Sept. 11, 2001. On the contrary, he has contributed to its weakening.
Perhaps Insulza’s original sin is that he owes his position to the support of Hugo Chavez, which didn’t even prevent the Venezuelan from calling him an idiot. In any case, whenever Chavez, Evo Morales, Daniel Ortega or Rafael Correa violated the liberty of their people by silencing the press and destroying the independence of other branches — the judicial and legislative — Insulza has looked the other way and has justified his inaction with the alibi that these violations were related to the internal affairs of those countries.
A little before Insulza’s election, in May 2005, [former] U. S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave in to suggestions and pressure from Ricardo Lagos, then-president of Chile and Insulza’s friend and fellow socialist. Lagos convinced her of Insulza’s democratic convictions and competency for the position.
It was an error on Rice’s part, probably provoked by the scarce importance that Washington has always given to Latin American issues. Who would be able to replace José Miguel Insulza as head of the OAS?
Perhaps this is the time to think about an ex-chancellor, an ex-Central American president or a prominent Caribbean figure. Whoever it might be should have the integrity to respond in accordance with the principles addressed in the foundational documents of the organization and in the Inter-American Democratic Charter, even if it might mean a confrontation with Chavez and his accomplices. What is not tolerable is for the enemies of democracy to use the OAS for purposes contrary to the reasons that give form and meaning to its existence.
A recent article in The Washington Post suggested that some members of the U.S. Congress might freeze payments and subsidies to the OAS if the institution were to maintain the course that Insulza has assigned it. This is not a good idea.
It is possible that Hugo Chavez could buy the institution at a discount with his petrodollars if the United States were to leave an open path.
However, if remaining on the current path, blind and deaf to the violations of democratic rules and the clamor of victims, perhaps the sensible thing to do is to create a joint parallel organization of nations willing to defend liberty and the rule of law. What does not make sense is to maintain a costly apparatus in Washington that, far from serving the peoples of the Americas, contributes to harming them.
Perhaps Insulza’s original sin is that he owes his position to the support of Hugo Chavez, which didn’t even prevent the Venezuelan from calling him an idiot. In any case, whenever Chavez, Evo Morales, Daniel Ortega or Rafael Correa violated the liberty of their people by silencing the press and destroying the independence of other branches — the judicial and legislative — Insulza has looked the other way and has justified his inaction with the alibi that these violations were related to the internal affairs of those countries.
A little before Insulza’s election, in May 2005, [former] U. S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave in to suggestions and pressure from Ricardo Lagos, then-president of Chile and Insulza’s friend and fellow socialist. Lagos convinced her of Insulza’s democratic convictions and competency for the position.
It was an error on Rice’s part, probably provoked by the scarce importance that Washington has always given to Latin American issues. Who would be able to replace José Miguel Insulza as head of the OAS?
Perhaps this is the time to think about an ex-chancellor, an ex-Central American president or a prominent Caribbean figure. Whoever it might be should have the integrity to respond in accordance with the principles addressed in the foundational documents of the organization and in the Inter-American Democratic Charter, even if it might mean a confrontation with Chavez and his accomplices. What is not tolerable is for the enemies of democracy to use the OAS for purposes contrary to the reasons that give form and meaning to its existence.
A recent article in The Washington Post suggested that some members of the U.S. Congress might freeze payments and subsidies to the OAS if the institution were to maintain the course that Insulza has assigned it. This is not a good idea.
It is possible that Hugo Chavez could buy the institution at a discount with his petrodollars if the United States were to leave an open path.
However, if remaining on the current path, blind and deaf to the violations of democratic rules and the clamor of victims, perhaps the sensible thing to do is to create a joint parallel organization of nations willing to defend liberty and the rule of law. What does not make sense is to maintain a costly apparatus in Washington that, far from serving the peoples of the Americas, contributes to harming them.