Contrary to suggestions that it signals the end of the Cold War in the hemisphere, the decision by the Organization of American States (OAS) to end Cuba’s exclusion may not be such a big deal, some observers suggest.
“The OAS decision is unlikely to hasten democratic change in Cuba; the Cuban government, after all, has repudiated the OAS and its core principles,” says the Inter-American Dialogue’s Michael Shifter. Havana, others note, has shown no interest in rejoining the organization.
Although the Venezuelan-led Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) claims that the reversal of Cuba’s membership ban carries no conditions, others insist Havana must demonstrate tangible progress on democratic governance and human rights before it will be allowed back into the OAS from which it was suspended 47 years ago.
Some OAS states reportedly agreed to a compromise to prevent Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez from splitting the OAS and forming a rival group based on the left-wing ALBA bloc, which currently comprises Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
Some human rights activists welcomed the decision, arguing that it still left room to pressure Havana to reform. The move “changes the landscape, and the political context, to an opportunity for the region and the Obama administration to press the Cuban government collectively,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director for Human Rights Watch.
But others believe it signals a disturbing shift in the region, highlighting the growing confidence of populist authoritarian forces. A leading Cuban democracy advocate notes:
Unlike Asia, Africa or the Middle East, where democracies still vie for ideological predominance against diverse types of despotism, the concepts of inherent human rights and rule of law based on respect for personal freedoms have prevailed in the Americas with the glaring exception of Cuba. …. [But] the Castro-Chavez bloc would change that by introducing a new authoritarianism in the region that seeks to redefine the source of political sovereignty away from individual rights, placing it in the hands of vertical totalitarian states with no separation of powers and no political accountability.
So-called “democratic” nations can also tend to be authoritarian. Authroritarian and democratic are not opposites. Take a look at the Bush government. It is an extraordinary example of what I am trying to convey, here. Democratic governments are also not peace promoting governments.