The Significance of the State in the OAS February 28, 2008

The role of the state is central to the foundations of the Organization of American States. Aside from its title, the OAS is shaped by three specific aspects of the state. First, all members of the OAS are by definition, states. They all meet the four necessary conditions of a definite geographical boundary, a stable population, a supported government, and diplomatically recognized. It is indicative of the OAS’s prominent position that the only member state to not fit all of these characteristics, Cuba, has been an “excluded member” since 1962. In its mission statement, the OAS clearly establishes its role to establish and promote democracy and since Cuba’s government does not acknowledge the recognition of its citizens, it violates this tenet.

The second way the role of the state applies to the OAS is through the influence of the nation-state, which promotes the idea of a shared nationhood. Aside from the United States, it is safe to say that due to the colonization of Latin America, the majority of OAS states posses a false sense of nationalism. With the exception of soccer, most Latin Americans indentify with their larger continent as opposed to their country because in basically, their country members share the same identity. Although there is a large influence of the native races, such as Incas and Mayas, the main shared heritage is Spanish. The OAS capitalizes on this distinctiveness because it unites the different citizens of Latin America to strengthen and promote their collective identity.

Third and most importantly, the OAS could not exist if each member state did not have power potential. The OAS is founded on the belief that all member states have something to bring to the table, and thus, have some source of power. Whether it be the geographical location of Mexico, the developing industry of Brazil, or the unbeatable national image of Venezuela; all OAS members have some source of power through which to distinguish themselves. By combining these three sources of natural, tangible, and intangible, the OAS pools together states that by themselves, would be powerless. For example, Bolivia and Guatemala are highly unlikely to ever wield international weight; but with the support of the OAS, their voice gets heard. Therefore, it is the power of states that make the collective OAS a significant player in world politics. 

The International System and the OAS February 15, 2008

The international system that most pertains to the Organization of

American States is that according to Liberals. Under this notion, the

international system is viewed from three perspectives.  The first sees

the system as a process rather than a structure, the second as an

international society, and the third as anarchic.  To reiterate, the OAS

strives “to achieve an order of peace and justice, to promote their

solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their

sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence.”  The

Liberal system is a perfect template for these intentions.

        The OAS treats the system as a process through its multiple

Interactions and meetings, where various actors, all with different ideals,

voice their opinions.  For example, the OAS had a close and heated election

in 2005 for a new Secretary General.  Despite the contention, members eventually

unified under their newly elected leader, Chilean José Miguel Insulza.  Another

example of the inherent order and cooperation of the OAS was the defeat of a US

proposal “to monitor the progress of democracy in Latin America.”  Although we’re

sure you can guess a bit of the tension that ensued between a defeated US and

vindicated members, such as Venezuela; the OAS still managed to move forward with

the allotted changes.  This dedication to progress fits perfectly within the liberal view

of an evolving international society. 

        As an international society, the OAS has a consented list of rules

and institutions, while at the same time accounting for similar interests.

For example the OAS is dedicated to promoting democratic governments, fair

elections, human rights, and to combating, terrorism, the war on drugs, and

bureaucratic corruption.  A key feature of the liberal view is the sense of “we-ness” and

these initiatives provide a front for OAS members to unify behind.  Furthermore, these

goals and the sense of “we-ness” serve to mediate conflict between member states as it

reminds them that the society they work for is larger and more important than inter-

organization conflicts. 

        The final liberal view of anarchy, pertaining to the ideas of the

neoliberal institutionalists, says that all actors act according to their

own self-interests.  This self-interest, however, is seen as a positive

source for the interaction liberals seek in order to normalize state

behavior.  Although the OAS appears perfect on paper, we can all easily imagine the

difficulties that arise by having member states that openly violate some of the chartered

rules.  Venezuela’s elections can hardly be called fair, Argentina’s economy collapsed

due to a dictatorship, and Columbia is viewed by some as promoting the war on drugs. 

Despite these violations, states continue to belong, and other states continue to turn a

blind eye, because it is in everyone’s best interest.  No country wants to be the odd man

out and thus, the liberal view of anarchy will always solidify membership.

 

Liberals and the OAS February 7, 2008

In terms of international theory, we believe that the realist school pertains most to our focus on the Organization of American States (OAS).  Originally founded as the Pan American Union, the OAS was modified in April of 1948 and adopted the world’s first treatise of human rights, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.  According to their charter, the OAS aims to “to achieve an order of peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence.”  We feel that the liberal emphasis on intergovernmental cooperation and general concern for human rights, are at the center of the OAS’s mission. One of the main tenets of the liberal level of analysis is the “connectivity” and dependency of all the world’s nations.  Dedicated to achieving political and individual security, liberals would most likely laud the OAS for its purposes and beliefs.  Also, the liberal view of an international “society” of states perfectly applies to the OAS as it is an assembly of states.  Essentially, the OAS represents the liberal faith in the ability of countries to help each other. As we’ve learned in class, the optimistic liberals do not think of international relations as a “one shot game.”  It is safe to say that intergovernmental organizations, such as the OAS, serve as mediators of potentially chaotic or detrimental situations.  Take for example a current conflict between OAS member states Colombia and Ecuador.  Claiming that the aerial irrigation methods of their neighbor are destroying their own crops, Ecuador has formally summoned Colombia to the OAS.  Although the issue has yet to be resolved, the OAS “has mechanisms to settle disputes between member states.”  (BBC)  The ability and desire of the OAS to work for collective improvement of its member states are perfect reflections of liberal cooperation.   

        Although this video is in Spanish, we found it to be a useful example of an OAS debate.  In this particular clip, Condoleezza Rice first expresses the United State’s wish of a higher democratic influence in Venezuela.  She stresses that democracy should always be a major part of the OAS agenda.  She goes on to discuss the importance of human rights as a part of democracy, including the suggestion that Venezuela should exercise more freedom of press.  In a heated reply, the representative from Venezuela argues that the citizens of the United States receive more censored news than they think and that if she wants to discuss the issue of human rights, she should first consider the United State’s actions in Guantanamo, Cuba.  Finally, he concludes that the United States should respect its fellow OAS members in the same manner in which they wish to be treated, preferably sooner than later. 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGqGp-7WUCQ “Ecuador-Colombia row taken to OAS.”  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6248033.stm