OAS Meeting in Paraguay
!!!
The forty-fourth regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States was held in Asunción, Paraguay from June 3 to June 5, 2014. The theme proposed by the Paraguayan Foreign Ministry for general debate was “Development and Social Inclusion.” Member states had various things to say about democracy, economic growth, inequality, and the nature of balance in efforts to achieve economic development. Naturally every country had its own particular concerns and these were expressed in the coverage the meeting received in different media markets. These included continued arguments over the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), efforts to strengthen the OAS, poverty, peace, illegal drugs, human rights violations, freedom of expression, discrimination against LGBT people, cybercrime, the crisis in Venezuela, and Argentina’s perennial claims on “Las Malvinas.” For some commentators the meeting showcased what they say is the OAS’s declining relevance. There is little doubt in Latin America about waning U.S. interest in the region post 9/11, and its seeming disengagement has lead to what many believe is declining U.S. influence, and to the diminished importance of the OAS.
Paraguay and the Theme of the Meeting
OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza embraced the meeting’s theme with gusto. He argued that while “our region has changed and much has changed well in recent years,” the extended practice of democracy and economic growth have been insufficient to eliminate the high degree of unfairness in the distribution of wealth in the countries of the Americas. La Jornada of Mexico City reported that Insulza recognized that expanding democracy and economic growth “have expanded the prospects of a better life for many citizens,” but pointed to an enduring “high degree of unfairness in the distribution of wealth and access to social goods,” an “inequality” that still “damages our democratic fabric.” Insulza wrote in O Globo of Rio de Janeiro (one of the highest circulation papers in the Americas) that the decision by the Paraguayan government to devote the OAS General Assembly to the issues of development and social inclusion was quite “appropriate.” “Although in the last decade, the number of poor has declined considerably, many who managed to take this important step still face conditions of extraordinary precariousness.” Approximately one third of the total population of Latin America lives in households with incomes between $4 and $10 per day. These people have emerged from poverty (that still afflicts more than 167 million Latin Americans), but to call them “middle class” makes no sense. “Actually, there are many millions of ‘non-poor,’ who are have income levels that still keep them in a situation of extreme vulnerability.” What is more, while much of the recent alarm generated by inequality has focused on economic aspects, especially on the distribution of income, “it is important to note that this inequality is also driven by other area factors,” such as class, race, gender, geographic origin, physical capacity and other phenomenon. “Being a woman, being poor, being indigenous, being of African descent, a migrant, an informal worker,” all are “disadvantageous starting positions.” Insulza insisted that the time has passed “when it was thought that the interaction between democracy and the market economy would reduce inequalities.”
La Jornada of Mexico City observed that Paraguayan President Horacio Cartes used the meeting to promote his country “as a future center of commerce and production,” with “attractive tax laws for investment.” Brazil proposed a statement of non-discrimination of gay, lesbian and transgender people, while the OAS also presented findings on digital threats, and ways to promote technology, as well as prevent and respond to cybercrime.
El Universal of Mexico City and La República of Lima, among others, reported the OAS’s approval of the “Asunción Declaration” against inequality. The 34 countries attending the General (all the countries of the region except Cuba), approved unanimously a document condemning inequality and calling for more balanced development, social inclusion of migrants, improving infrastructure, public safety policies, and “a multidimensional approach to development and social justice.” The signatories also pledged to undertake Public-Private partnerships, which provide private investment in public services such as roads, waterways and airports.
The IACHR and Freedom of Expression
El Comercio of Lima wrote that “the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is back in the spotlight.” The countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) once again demanded a cut in IACHR’s powers and autonomy, as well as that of its Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression (RLE). They sought, for all practical purposes, to defund them. These proposals “were being pushed by countries” that in last few years have been cited for treading on their citizens’ freedom of expression. Earlier attempts had been defeated at the OAS meeting in March 2013 when a majority of countries rejected them. But Ecuador, the main driver of the action, would not leave the issue alone, and this time received a bit more support from some of its neighbors. In O Globo of Rio de Janeiro Flavia Barbosa noted that Brazil and other major countries of the Union of Nations South America (UNASUR) yielded to pressure from Ecuador and endorsed proposed the resolution that would dry up funding sources for the IACHR and impose severe restriction of activities of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Ecuador gave up on its original text, considered “very aggressive” by Brazilian diplomats and accepted a version drafted by Paraguay. Yet as El Universal of Mexico City wrote, the General Assembly approved a resolution on the functioning of IACHR without the profound changes proposed by Ecuador, which garnered enough support among other countries. O Globo also published a statement by Human Rights Watch arguing that the proposed change would have been “a blow” against freedom of expression.
Crisis in Venezuela and Human Rights in Brazil
La Jornada of Mexico City wrote that Secretary General Miguel Insulza said the situation in Venezuela remains a concern. He stressed the need for dialogue between the parties and argued that OAS could contribute to a positive outcome. He called on the government and the opposition of Venezuela to seek an understanding, but asked the international community to express its support for the Venezuelan internal process without pressure or sanctions. La Nación of Buenos Aires observed that the OAS, at the request of Nicaragua, went into a closed-door session in which Venezuelan opposition lawmaker María Corina Machado talked about the situation in her country. Despite strong protests from countries like Panama, Canada, the U.S., and Peru which claimed that in the name of “transparency” the meeting should be public, there were 22 votes for a closed session, and 11 abstentions. Speaking to reporters Machado described the event as “censorship” caused by Venezuela. Also in La Nación of Buenos Aires Silvia Pisani argued that in effect, the OAS had again silenced the Venezuelan opposition.
O Globo of Rio de Janeiro reported that Brazil was charged by IACHR with excessive police crackdowns on citizens during the manifestations in the second half of 2013. The Brazilian Foreign Ministry sent a high-ranking team to present the country’s defense. Critics argued that besides the excessive use of force, 1,700 arrests of protesters had been made since June 2013 and represented violations of basic rights, such as detention with no of evidence of crime, illegal questioning, prohibition of protesting, and censorship.
Special Interests: Peace, Poverty, Marijuana, and “Las Malvinas”
El Espectador of Bogotá noted that the OAS gave “strong support” for the efforts of President of Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos and the Colombian people to put an end to the long conflict in that country. The adopted resolution urged the Colombian government to “pursue their efforts to achieve a stable and lasting peace for the good of Colombia and the region.” El Espectador also reported that Peru sough to highlight its achievements in poverty reduction at the OAS meeting. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, Eda Rivas, told the General Assembly that poverty in his country has fallen to 23.9%, while the number of people suffering extreme poverty had been reduced to 4.7%, below the average of 11.5% for the region.
El Comercio of Lima wrote that Guatemala is rethinking its strategy to combat drug trafficking. It wants to legalize marijuana. Guatemalan Foreign Minister Fernando Carrera, submitted an initiative during the debate on the reorientation of drug policy, ahead of a summit on the issue in September. Guatemala’s position is that the region has left behind the politics of the drug war driven by Washington since the 1980s, which failed to reduce consumption and production. It wants to study changes in the international treatment of marijuana, after having been legalized in Uruguay and in the U.S. states of Colorado and Washington. Its president, Otto Pérez Molina, has been one of the promoters of a new regional debate on the issue, since Central America suffers in its role as the main transit route for narcotics from the Andes to Mexico and the United States. Guatemala holds “that cannabis or marijuana should be a managed substance,” but that each country should decide how it wants to approach it, whether with a total ban, permitted for medicinal purposes, or legalized for recreational use. Guatemala maintains that each nation should be able to do so without having to give up its spot as a member of international treaties on drugs.
Finally, Página/12 of Buenos Aires happily reported that the OAS adopted a resolution reaffirming its order to government of the U.K. to come to the negotiating table with Argentina for the “early resumption” of talks about the conflict of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
The United States: Just Going Through the Motions
The U.S. and its neoliberal acolytes Mexico and Colombia had each other’s back at the OAS, but for many pundits the real story was fading U.S. interest in things Latin American, as well as its waning influence.
El Universal of Mexico City noted that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that Mexico shows that “democracy and economic stability are linked” which has resulted in a higher quality of life for its inhabitants. “This prosperity,” he said, is “a result of the sustained effort to open and integrate markets, and foster innovation.” Kerry said that governments “should encourage economic progress with the opening of markets to free trade and expanding opportunities for young people willing to enter the labor market.” He said that the U.S. is committed to working with Mexico and the rest of their allies in America to attain those goals. To achieve inclusive development, he said, institutions are required to be effective, democratic, and accountable, including the Organization of American States, which through its Inter-American Human Rights defends freedom of expression and protects civil society, requiring all governments in the hemisphere, including the U.S., to meet universal, democratic principles. Also in El Universal Natalia Gómez Quintero made it clear that Mexico returned the favor by seeking to strengthen the IACHR and all its Rapporteurs, and sent Foreign Minister José Antonio Meade to make the case in Paraguay. And Folha de S. Paulo pointed out the US financial support for the peace process in Colombia, and the administration of its friend, President Juan Manuel Santos.
Yet long-time observers of Latin America can’t help but note that “Washington and the region have grown apart.” In the Buenos Aires Herald Patricio Navia argued that the “decreasing importance of the OAS annual meetings is directly related to the vanishing role played in Latin America by the United States, the nation that was historically the strongest promoter of the organization. As US influence in the region dwindles, the OAS inevitably fails to capture the attention — both positive and negative — that it used to have.” Certainly the end of the Cold War has had an effect, as well as the “consolidation of electoral democracy” in the region which has led to a certain amount of complacency. There is also the fact that the “hegemony” of the so-called “Washington Consensus” model of economic policies (stressing privatization and market forces) has waned in over the last two decades as nations of the region have experimented with “alternative models.” “To be sure, many countries, like Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Peru continue to embrace Washington Consensus policies. A few others, like Venezuela, have attempted to implement state-led economic growth. Some others, like Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador, have tried a mixed public-private sector model, resembling the import substitution industrialization model, prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s.” Navia believes that “the fact that the Washington Consensus is no longer the only economic model prevalent in the region highlights more than anything else the decreasing influence of Washington.” While the U.S. priorities of free trade and democracy are still healthy in the region, “despite these positive results, the US seems uninterested in further consolidating and expanding its influence in the region,” especially since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. So “after more than a decade of neglect from Washington, Latin American countries have moved on. Strengthening ties with Washington is no longer part of anyone’s priorities in the region.” “The US is absent from debates in the political arena. Nobody seems to care what the US wants, needs or stands for. The little attention paid in the region to the recent OAS General Assembly underlines the new reality of distant and disengaged relations between the most powerful nation on earth and its Latin American neighbors to the south.” But this has meant “costs on both sides of the border.”