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.