5 days ago
Why the OAS can't afford to be neutral on democracy in Latin America
When leaders of international organizations proclaim neutrality, it may sound statesmanlike. However, in many parts of the world not taking sides is the equivalent of siding with dictators.
This is certainly true in Latin America, which is why statements from Albert Ramdin, who next week becomes Secretary General of the Washington, D.C.-based Organization of American States (OAS), are troubling especially to South Florida residents, many of whom have fled dictatorships.
Ramdin feels the OAS 'must not become a force that takes sides,' when referring to the region's challenges in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, are troubling to anyone who cares about democracy, human rights and rule of law.
The election of Ramdin, championed by China and member countries like Brazil, Colombia and Mexico that favor dialogue with dictators, brings a new, troubling approach to the OAS.
While the new Secretary-General may try to adopt a position perceived as balanced, there seems to be confusion between ideological neutrality that avoids selectivity and clarity on the principles that the OAS is mandated to uphold. This means that contrary to what Ramdin said, the OAS not only can take sides, it must do so.
The core documents of the OAS were adopted to establish the values of the multilateral framework in the hemisphere.
Article 2 of the OAS Charter enshrined the promotion of democracy as a key purpose of the organization.
In September 2001, the OAS adopted the Inter-American Democratic Charter, a comprehensive instrument to strengthen and protect democracy in the Americas. It established mechanisms that compel the organization to act when there is a serious alteration of the constitutional order that impairs democratic governance in a member-State.
This last provision is especially important: The OAS charter only mentioned constitutional interruptions through the use of force, which doesn't reflect the modern challenge of democratic erosion and progressive autocratization by regimes that were originally democratically elected.
Despite the existence of this framework, democracy faces tremendous pressure in the region, with several countries sliding into hybrid regimes with decreasing institutional quality. Favoring dialogue with dictators appears to be a sort of contestation to those efforts, under the apparent guise of a more balanced and non-selective approach.
There lies the root of the problem, one that confuses evenness with a softer strategy that recognizes the tyrants. So what would an 'even' approach actually look like?
Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela represent examples of authoritarian states identified with left-wing ideologies. They are the most oppressive regimes on the continent, responsible for grave and systematic human rights violations. The focus that the OAS has had on these regimes during Almagro's tenure is hardly arbitrary, but rather one that reflects the most serious and pressing challenges regarding the protection and promotion of democracy, based on the norms of the OAS.
Yet, assaults on democracy are hardly exclusive to the left. The right-wing government of Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, for example, has engaged in some of the most notorious attacks on democratic institutions in the region since the rise of Ortega in Nicaragua and Chávez in Venezuela.
With military coups largely a thing of the past in the Americas, the OAS must put its attention to this type of democratic erosion, serving as an early warning system that calls out member countries when they undermine democratic norms and institutions.
It is in this area that Secretary-General Ramdin could find the balance that he seeks, not one that underestimates the urgency of the region's major crises, but one that is able to point out threats to democracy no matter where they emerge, in which stage they are, or who causes them.
Ramdin's call to dialogue thus is a double-edged sword. While it may open channels of communication, it risks catering to the dictators and their efforts to cling to power.
Member states must insist that Ramdin uphold the OAS' own norms and principles which mandate the organization, its authorities and especially its Secretary-General to take a side. That side can only be the side of democracy and human rights faced against tyranny and oppression.
Ezequiel Podjarny is a legal and policy fellow at the Human Rights Foundation.
