In our opinion, the OAS almost exclusively uses the rules-based or deontological perspective in its moral decision making. The OAS places a strong emphasis on the duties and obligations of its member states, and thus reiterates the “agent-centered” focus of deontological thinking. All OAS member states have a duty to follow the principles set forth in the founding charter, such as collective security and promotion of democracy. When and if a member state’s internal policies violate any of the founding principles, the OAS sees it fit to intervene.
For example, this April the OAS saw the need to condemn Cuba for a number of violations. Although the OAS received considerable criticism from Cuba’s allies, Venezuela and Nicaragua, the organization felt the need to make public the multiple infractions made by Cuba. Their violations include, but are not limited to, to suppression of “political rights and freedom of expression,” lack of “free elections and an independent judiciary,” and the creation of “a permanent panorama of breached basic rights for the Cuban citizenry.” These infractions are yet another notch on the belt for Cuba, who is still a member of the OAS, but has not been permitted to actively participate in its issues since 1962. Even though it is not an active member, however, officials still reason that the member state is still obligated to respect human rights treaties.
We feel that the recent action with Cuba illustrates the OAS’s commitment to holding its members accountable to rules-based standard of morality. It shows that even though long term membership maybe more beneficial, immediate moral accountability is more important to the OAS.
This is a very interesting point and a good application of rules-based thinking. It definitely appears as though OAS is governed by the need for moral actions; however, we cannot help but wonder if there is some ends-based thinking in this organization. For instance, if we look at the US and torture (which we have been discussing in class), we see a blatant violation of general morality, yet has the OAS condemned US actions? Or is it only willing to denigrate those countries that are already in ill-favor with the world and who aren’t potent enough to threaten the stability and legitimacy of the OAS?
Neither of us have actually ever heard of OAS and therefore reading this blog taught us numerous new ideas and perspectives. The post before ours mentions the legitamacy and stability of the OAS and we were wondering how much power the OAS actually hold within the sphere of Latin and South America?
Another issue we talked about was how the OAS’s purpose was to create unity and collaboration within the region, yet there is an apparent schism between pro-Western and anti-Western nations. How does that promote unity since it seems contradictory to its purpose? Does this defy its rules since clearly its results are not desirable?
Trafficker Chris and Drug Lord Nora