Cuba gets a vote of confidence from the OAS.
In a post-bubble world that vilifies the private sector and elevates government as humanity's best hope, two events in Latin America last week deserve attention.
The first was a meeting of the Organization of American States in Honduras. The OAS voted to lift the 1962 ban on Cuba's membership. The second was the 25th anniversary celebration of the Venezuelan, pro-liberty think-tank Cedice Libertad in Caracas.
The former, state-sponsored event, sided with tyranny. The latter, held by private citizens in the most repressive country in South America, took a stand for liberty. This dichotomy may well be the region's future.
The OAS expelled Cuba in 1962, in part, because the regime's Marxist-Leninist ideology was considered "incompatible with the inter-American system." In 2001 all OAS members strengthened that position by signing "the democratic charter" and pledging to respect limits to state power. But under Secretary General José Miguel Insulza the organization's principled stand has withered. Led by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Argentina now tell Mr. Insulza what to do. Brazil goes along as part of its eternal quest to reduce U.S. power in the region. Chilean President Michelle Bachelet has been very public about her admiration for Fidel Castro.
So when the group met to discuss Mr. Insulza's proposal that the 1962 ban be lifted, there wasn't much suspense. Ecuador's foreign minister captured the spirit of the regime's apologists when he told the gathering that Marxist-Leninist ideology is compatible with democracy. That jibes with the views of the Honduran president, who has argued that Cuba is a democracy.
It is true that the agreement ties the renewal of Cuban membership to democratic reform. Yet by lifting the ban, Latin America's axis of evil made important strides toward its end game to redefine democracy at the OAS. The rights to property, transparent elections and free speech are not part of the new definition. The fact that Venezuela is still an OAS member despite the military government's assault on organized labor, religious expression and the press signals where OAS standards are headed.
Don't count on the U.S. to help much, either. Though Washington opposed lifting the ban, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not herself a big proponent of freedom. Asked in an interview in El Salvador about Cuba's membership vis-à-vis the political prisoners, she chose to speak instead about "our shared values," of "lifting people out of poverty in our hemisphere, narrowing the intolerable income gap that exists between the rich and the poor in our hemisphere, working for greater social inclusion, improved education and health care." Millions of Latins living under repressive states were no doubt disappointed that Mrs. Clinton's list did not include "making the trains run on time."
"Some might say President Obama is left-of-center," Mrs. Clinton opined. "And of course, that means that we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential." Sounds like a brave new world.
It is also worth considering the business interests of Mrs. Clinton's party, which have often trumped its concern for the poor. During the Clinton presidency, key Democrats had a secret and lucrative telephone contract with Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide. Any wonder Aristide was never brought to heel as he trampled Haitian rights? This is why the Obama administration's offer to open Cuba to U.S. telecom investors has raised eyebrows.
Meanwhile it's no secret that Mr. Chávez and the rest of the Latin revolution is getting rich off the power grab ignored by Mr. Insulza. This government greed contrasts sharply with the altruism of the more than 150 private citizens who traveled to Caracas last week to speak against the Chávez tyranny and support Venezuelans.
Peruvian novelist Mario Vargas Llosa and his son Alvaro, a journalist, were both detained at the airport and warned not to criticize the government; neither cooperated with the gag diktat. Before more than 600 conferees, Mario spoke for millions of locals when he told them, "We don't want Venezuela to become a totalitarian communist state." Mr. Chávez was so mad about the event that he used his television show to try to stir up public hatred for the participants.
What did Cedice solidarity mean to Venezuelans? Bonny Simonovis, the wife of political prisoner Ivan Simonovis, told me this on Saturday: "The relatives of the political prisoners, specifically the nine policemen condemned on April 3 to 30 years in prison, felt enormous support during the Cedice Libertad event. Liberty is a right in itself, non-negotiable. The freedom of our husbands is the freedom of all Venezuelans, because freedom is a whole. You either have it complete or you do not have it at all. We are fighting for freedom for all Venezuelans."
Too bad Mr. Insulza and the democracies of the OAS don't have Mrs. Simonovis's wisdom or courage.
Write to O'Grady@wsj.com
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal Forum.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15
No comments:
Post a Comment