The OAS and the shadow of the UNASUR

Independence
from the Empire or a new hegemony?

By
Eduardo Dimas                                                                      Read Spanish Version

As
the 38th General Assembly of the Organization of American States
proceeded last week, I thought the meeting was taking place under the
shadow of the UNASUR. The central topics were the problems of youth,
democracy, the climate changes and the food crisis affecting several
countries in the region.

Most
of the attention was drawn by the conflict between Ecuador and
Colombia, because of the violation of Ecuador’s national territory
and the massacre of 25 people, including guerrilla commander Raúl
Reyes. Of course, the initial solution was not contributed by the OAS
but by the Rio Group, where the United States plays no role.

OAS
Secretary General José Miguel Insulza restated the problem,
saying that it was time for both governments to settle their
differences. Had it not been for Raúl Reyes’ "magical"
computers and the allegations that Presidents Rafael Correa and Hugo
Chávez had links to the Colombian guerrilla, those differences
could have been settled long ago.

But
Insulza did not talk about that. Not even Colombian President Álvaro
Uribe, who was present because his country was the venue for the
Assembly, dared to touch on the subject. It was John Negroponte, the
State Department’s second-in-command, who slyly accused Venezuela of
promoting terrorism.

Maybe
the best part of the OAS General Assembly was the response by
Venezuelan Foreign Minister Ricardo Maduro. Among other things, he
said that none of the governments present had sufficient ethics to
question the democratic government of Venezuela. That did not go over
very well with the attendees, but it is not far from reality.

Then,
Maduro referred to the double standard of U.S. policy against
terrorism and set as an example the treatment given to admitted
terrorist Luis Posada Carriles. Maduro demanded that Posada be
extradited to Venezuela to be tried for the in-flight bombing of a
Cubana de Aviación airliner on Oct. 6, 1976, which killed all
73 people aboard.

Elsewhere
in his speech, Maduro spoke an irrefutable truth: the United States
has never been challenged in the OAS for fostering terrorism or
military dictatorships or the crimes it has committed in many parts
of the world. Nobody dared to deny that statement.

U.S.
administrations have placed many Latin American governments on the
defendant’s dock but no Latin American nation has dared to do the
same to the U.S. (not so far anyway), not even under the excuse of
reciprocity. It is evident that a new breeze is blowing over the OAS,
which may not be to the United States’ liking.

Something
that caught the attention of many observers was the General
Secretary’s statement about the need to preserve the existence of the
OAS, the participation of the 34 member nations, and even the return
of Cuba as a full member, once the conditions are suitable. He did
not specify the conditions.

What
worries Insulza? No doubt, the founding on May 23 in Brasília
of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), which brings
together the 12 countries in the region. If Insulza thinks that
UNASUR could bring the OAS to a crisis, he may not be far from the
truth.

Notwithstanding
the fact that the two organizations could coexist, it is obvious to
think that the possibility of a common stance by 12 Latin American
governments cannot be pleasing to the United States. But that remains
to be seen, because not all those countries have the same interests.

Some
prefer to remain under the tutelage of the United States, such as
Colombia and several others. Others have not yet decided whether to
become independent from the Empire. Others — such as Venezuela,
Ecuador and Bolivia — have assumed nationalistic policies in defense
of their peoples and against the neoliberalism advocated by the White
House.

A
special mention goes to Brazil, who plays its own game in an alliance
with Argentina and (to a greater or lesser degree) with the
acquiescence of governments like Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.
During UNASUR’s founding session, host president Luiz Inácio
Lula da Silva said:

"A
united South America has the ability to move the political gameboard
of the entire world, to the benefit of our countries." Farther
on, he said: "We shall base our union on the successful
processes of integration of the Mercosur (Common Market of the South)
and the Andean Community of Nations, where more than 300 million
people benefit from a basis of growth and social inclusion."

Elsewhere
in his speech, Lula said it is now possible to create "innovative
projects that are far-reaching in areas of priority, such as
financial and energy integration, the improvement of infrastructure,
road and railway links, and cooperation in social and educational
policies." "What seemed impossible" has come to pass,
he added.

Lula
also talked about the creation of a regional bank and a common
currency for all the member countries. We don’t know whether he was
talking about the Bank of the South or a new entity. In addition, he
invited the rest of Latin America to join the Union.

Needless
to say, the principal beneficiary of any process of union in Latin
America will be Brazil, because of its economic development. It is
the leading economy in all of Latin America and the ninth-leading
economy worldwide. Its major corporations, linked to the rest of the
world’s transnationals, can take advantage (better than any other) of
the new circumstances being created by UNASUR.

We
should remember that the first person to promote the idea of a united
South America was not Lula but President Hugo Chávez, who took
the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Nevertheless, the
government of Brazil is in better conditions to carry out that union.

Another
significant and important element of that Summit was the support
given by all the presidents in attendance — with the exception of
Colombia, of course — to the creation of a regional Defense Council.

What
is the meaning of South American Defense Council? Does it mean that
11 of the 12 nations will withdraw from the Inter-American Treaty of
Reciprocal Assistance (IATRA) and the Inter-American Defense Board
(IADB) or that they should try to coexist with the military
organizations created by the United States? Let us remember that at
the time of the Falklands war, the Reagan administration overlooked
the IATRA and supported Britain against Argentina.

Some
time ago, the armies of Brazil and Argentina studied common plans to
confront the invasion of "extraterritorial forces"
interested in seizing the natural resources of the two countries.
Outstanding Brazilian Army officers have been promoting the creation
of a regional army, a project that could take effect. I don’t think
it’s necessary to specify who that "extraterritorial force"
would be.

Events
like these would not have been possible — could not have been
dreamed — a few years ago. They happen today for two reasons: the
emergence of revolutionary and nationalistic governments in Latin
America and the weakening of the United States as an empire. They are
also caused by Brazil’s desire to become the regional hegemonic
power.

Will
Latin America go from one hegemonic control to another? Is the United
States in a condition to revert the changes taking place? How far are
the South American governments — present and future — willing to
go?

I
could pose many other questions, such as: Are these the shudders of a
change of era in the region or only of an era of changes? Do you have
an answer? No. Me, neither.