Friday, March 26, 2010

In Defense Of The OAS

By Tom Risen  

As Costa Rica's ambassador to the Organization of American States, Jose Enrique Castillo Barrantes has a unique perspective on the state of democratization in Latin America. Under the leadership of Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza, the OAS has drawn criticism for its responses to the June coup in Honduras and President Hugo Chavez' policies in Venezuela. Insulza was re-elected to a second term Wednesday after running unopposed.

Despite calls for Insulza's ouster and questions about the organization's continued relevance, Barrantes believes the OAS continues to play a valuable role in Latin American democratization. In an interview at the OAS General Assembly on Wednesday, Barrantes argued that despite its limitations, the organization "cannot be replaced."

Edited excerpts follow.

NJ: In response to the coup and to the erosion of democratic processes in Venezuela, there has been debate about the effectiveness of the OAS's Inter-American Democratic Charter. How do you think the charter could be strengthened?

Barrantes: We would have to look at that very carefully. Because we have to remember that the OAS is an intergovernmental organism, and its members are states that are represented by governments. So the organization is not entitled to practice a policy of [policing] and intervention in the region. The Inter-American Charter has that limitation. It must be compatible with the principles of sovereignty and nonintervention. And that is why the organization cannot go into a country to review what a government is doing. It has that limitation.... It is not for sure that the solution for the current situations would be to broaden the Inter-American Charter....

It is true that there is a hole in international law, because when a government does not comply with the principles of democracy, for instance, or freedom of expression, there are no means to compel this government to behave well -- except the [OAS's] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights... may intervene from the perspective of human rights into the affairs of a member state. That's the way or the solution that the Inter-American system has to deal with internal violations in a given country when they damage human rights. Quite frequently this procedure is forgotten by media or by the public in general, but there is a solution.

But of course, it is true that a gap remains at the political level, and Honduras is a good example. When the crisis in Honduras began, it began because, in part, the constitutional president, [Manuel] Zelaya, was at that moment trying to push things, and many in Honduras [believed] that his behavior was unconstitutional; nevertheless, what we could call potential plaintiffs didn't have legal means to come to the OAS and request an intervention.... This is not a negligent... behavior on the part of the OAS. It is a limitation of international law.

NJ: There was a massive report that the OAS Human Rights Commission released recently on Venezuela. What would you expect to be the response to that? Are you in agreement with the report?

Barrantes: I don't know the details.... What would happen is that, in concrete cases, those cases could be taken under investigation of the commission and eventually be sent to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and eventually Venezuela could be convicted as responsible for violations of human rights. But as has happened already, Venezuela could refuse to comply with the sentence, and we arrive at that point... in which international law doesn't have the means to enforce such a resolution of an international court.... Sometimes the rule of law doesn't reach all the situations. And we don't have the means to force a government or a state to comply to a judicial solution. We don't have that.

NJ: Is there a fear of too much intervention from the U.S.? Does Latin America want to stand on its own more than it did 10 years ago?

Barrantes: Yes, of course. I think that countries in Latin America are claiming their independence, and I think that this is a good moment for multilateralism. On one side, the United States does not want to go on playing the role they had played before as the rule enforcers everywhere; they want to play a role more of conciliation and friendship than before. And that is also a response to what Latin American countries want. So I think organisms such as OAS will play an even more important role than they have in the recent past....

No matter how many new organizations may be created, the OAS cannot be replaced, because this is where we are all together. The interesting thing [about] this organization is that we have around the same table the United States and the major Latin American countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, and even the smallest ones. And we are all sitting at the same table with the same rights, and that's quite unusual. And it is the only forum where a small country can put a veto on a U.S. proposal, and that is very valuable.