One hopes not. The past few years in the Americas have been testing times for different reasons, among them: the rise of leftist populism and Hugo Chávez’s Alba bloc; strained relations between Colombia and Ecuador because of the former’s incursion into Ecuadorian territory to hunt down a FARC guerrilla group; tensions between Colombia and Venezuela; creeping authoritarianism and the erosion of human rights in Venezuela; the coup in Honduras and the impotence of the hemisphere to roll it back; and the devastating earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, with Haiti in particular facing an uncertain future. On top of all this and more, Latin American and Caribbean countries agreed last month in Cancún to create a new regional grouping, which includes Cuba but not the United States of America and Canada and which is already being regarded by some as a rival to the OAS.
Against this backdrop, Mr Insulza had argued that during his first term, the OAS had been present in all the major events in the hemisphere and that it was more relevant than ever. In support of his position, he cited the successes of the organization’s greater involvement in conflict resolution and mediation and the role of its electoral observation missions in consolidating democracy in countries long unaccustomed to the peaceful transfer of power via the ballot.
Certainly, the OAS has come a long way since it was the pawn of successive US governments and the plaything of dictators, but its inability to break the impasse in Honduras and its lack of influence with Mr Chávez have done its image much harm.
That Messrs Insulza and Ramdin were guaranteed re-election by support from the majority of OAS members before Wednesday was a good thing. The fact, however, that Mr Insulza did not receive the blessing of the USA until the beginning of the week was a sign that the Americans, while recognizing that there was no other option but to support him, were not entirely pleased with him. Hilary Clinton is said to be lukewarm about the Chilean and elements of the US administration were uncomfortable with Mr Insulza’s support for fast-tracking Cuba’s return to the OAS. In addition, Republican members of the US Congress have been harshly critical of the OAS’s role in the Honduras imbroglio – notwithstanding their own country’s hapless handling of the crisis – and the organization’s inability to address issues relating to democracy and human rights in Venezuela and Nicaragua.
But critics of Mr Insulza are not confined to the USA or indeed to the American right. Mr Chávez and the radical left are equally unhappy with him and reject any possibility that the OAS might have a role in promoting human rights and freedom of expression in countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua. Both these countries were also late in signaling support for Mr Insulza’s re-election.
If anything, there is a certain balance in Mr Insulza being attacked by both the left and the right. But while Mr Insulza cannot please everyone, he is generally acknowledged to be a formidable politician with considerable diplomatic skills. He may not have always got it right during his first term but he has shown determination, pragmatism and an acute understanding of the political forces at play in the hemisphere.
Thus, Mr Insulza has indicated that he will work for a more flexible OAS, seeking a strengthening of the Inter-American Democratic Charter to avoid crises like the one in Honduras. In this respect, Mr Insulza would like to see the institutionalization of an early warning mechanism, the strengthening of the role of the Secretary General and the adoption of clear procedures for action when a country’s democratic order is threatened by external actors as well as by its own government.
In addition, Mr Insulza seems to understand the Caribbean better and take the region more seriously than many other Latin American politicians. At the recent Intersessional Meeting of CARICOM Heads in Dominica, Mr Insulza was there to lobby for the not insignificant 14 votes that the region wields in the 34-member OAS. According to the official communiqué of the meeting, candidate Insulza assured the Heads that “greater emphasis would be placed on human capacity building as well as on the issue of human security… [and that a] better balance would be sought between the major priorities of the organization – democracy, human rights and development.” This seemed to have satisfied the meeting and the Heads endorsed Mr Insulza’s candidacy. One can only suppose that there was discussion on more specific areas of concern to the region, in addition to the mobilization and coordination of support for Haiti, and that Mr Insulza’s second term will see greater attention being paid to the particular developmental needs of the Caribbean.
In this regard, the role of the Assistant Secretary General, already endorsed by CARICOM Heads last July, will be pivotal. As the Community’s highest elected official in the hemispheric body, his oversight of all programmes being implemented by the OAS in the region should be a given, though as the organization’s number two, his remit goes beyond Caribbean matters. Mr Ramdin, regarded almost as a dark horse candidate in 2005, has surprised many observers with his quick grasp of complex political issues, his assured exercise of quiet diplomacy, his aptitude for consensus-building and his leadership on Haiti in particular. Much is therefore expected of him in his second term. Indeed, much is expected of both men.
