To isolate Cuba is ‘absurd’ and ‘a profound mistake’
OAS president speaks out frankly
The following interview with José Miguel Insulza, president of the Organization of American States, appeared in the Argentine daily Clarín on Sunday, July 15. The interview took place in Buenos Aires last week. The translation is by Progreso Weekly.
CLARÍN: The neoliberal model seems to have aged faster in Latin America than in other regions. What is your assessment of those years?
INSULZA: The model cut deep with the dismantling of a number of very important State functions, so we suffered a doubly perverse effect. We did not incorporate fully into modernity and retreated substantially in terms of social services, education and health. It came to a point where the CEPAL [the United Nations' Economic Commission for Latin America] last year gave us "the good news" that we managed to shrink poverty, so the poverty rate today is the same as it was in 1980.
CLARÍN: There is a persistent alarum about the instability of democracy in the region. Do you agree?
INSULZA: Yes, I believe the danger exists. There is a fatal triangle: there is democracy, there is growth, and people want to see how they can improve their lot. The demand is greater precisely because there is growth and there is democracy. What doesn't exist, in many instances, is a state institutionality that can deal with the problems. That's when strong leadership come together with weak institutions, and that's always a problem.
OAS president speaks out frankly Read Spanish Version
The following interview with José Miguel Insulza, president of the Organization of American States, appeared in the Argentine daily Clarín on Sunday, July 15. The interview took place in Buenos Aires last week. The translation is by Progreso Weekly.
CLARÍN: The neoliberal model seems to have aged faster in Latin America than in other regions. What is your assessment of those years?
INSULZA: The model cut deep with the dismantling of a number of very important State functions, so we suffered a doubly perverse effect. We did not incorporate fully into modernity and retreated substantially in terms of social services, education and health. It came to a point where the CEPAL [the United Nations' Economic Commission for Latin America] last year gave us "the good news" that we managed to shrink poverty, so the poverty rate today is the same as it was in 1980.
CLARÍN: There is a persistent alarum about the instability of democracy in the region. Do you agree?
INSULZA: Yes, I believe the danger exists. There is a fatal triangle: there is democracy, there is growth, and people want to see how they can improve their lot. The demand is greater precisely because there is growth and there is democracy. What doesn't exist, in many instances, is a state institutionality that can deal with the problems. That's when strong leadership come together with weak institutions, and that's always a problem.
CLARÍN: How is this manifested?
INSULZA: Where the leadership is strong and the institutions are fragile, and problems must be solved, there is a temptation to look for solutions that go beyond the existing institutionality. That is why there are so many calls to Constituent Assemblies and personality issues. We are at a crucial moment and the answer must be the same: to reaffirm democracy and at the same time to find the institutional means to make the necessary changes.
CLARÍN: Does that place into question the ability of some regimes or societies to transform?
INSULZA: After a strong political transformation, many roads open up. In Chile we emphatically won a plebiscite (in 1988, against the continuity of President Augusto Pinochet) and realized that almost 44 percent had voted against it. So, the question was: How do we make a policy that includes those voters? That entailed concessions and a slowdown of the process.
In Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez called for a Constituent Assembly at once and made sure the Supreme Court told him that his call to reform the Constitution was valid. If you want an advance by consensus, with institutional development, perhaps a slower formula might be best; but if you want to produce immediate changes and transformations, the temptation of authority is almost inevitable.
CLARÍN: Speaking of Venezuela, the OAS spoke critically when Chávez did not renew RCTV's broadcast license. Did the OAS mean that it was a danger to the press or a bad example?
INSULZA: The latter, more than the former. I said that, not the OAS. Gentlemen, I said, I know that the government has a legal right to do it. All our governments have power over licenses and, as the president of Brazil said, when a president has the power to do or not to do, not to do is just as democratic as to do. [Chávez] can refuse to renew the license, I said, but that will be seen as a clear signal to the regional press as a whole. From that point of view, it seemed risky.
CLARÍN: So it seemed.
INSULZA: It wasn't just an administrative issue; it provoked a shake-up, it provoked problems, and many people in Latin America said that it had created a rift in the situation.
CLARÍN: What is your opinion?
INSULZA: I don't believe it was [a rift]. I believe democracy is very much alive in Venezuela. I believe that problems do exist, that difficulties do exist, and the response given by the opposition and the press in recent weeks has demonstrated that the situation is still very tense. But I also believe that the alternative some have proposed — to promote a kind of isolation of the regime, a condemnation — is a totally unviable alternative from the legal point of view, and very inconvenient from the political point of view.
CLARÍN: Were some positions that extreme?
INSULZA: When somebody says (and I don't want to quote anybody here) "Cuba and Venezuela … Cuba and Venezuela," that's a recipe for disaster. What has to be done, from the point of view of democracy, is to recover Cuba, not to give away Venezuela.
CLARÍN: And why can't the organization you head rescue Cuba?
INSULZA: I would like that. In Cuba there is a disposition toward an interesting transition process. You must understand that the people who will govern Cuba in the future most likely will be the ones who have governed it for a long time, as happened in eastern Europe. But with Cuba we must open the way for a new process; we mustn't go around condemning it. When I assumed the leadership of the OAS I said I don't believe in intervention. In Latin America, interventions have caused only harm. There is no reason why in 2007 getting together with the Cubans is a kind of sin. That's totally absurd.
CLARÍN: And why is that not done, if you think so?
INSULZA: You must realize that things will not be solved just because one wants them to be solved. And I'm not willing to allow the OAS to split or fracture over the topic of Cuba. So, we must let time take its time. We have launched the idea and we shall take the steps Cuba wants and the members want. What is clear is that today Cuba is being governed by someone and we have to converse with them. It is absurd to think that we can contribute to a peaceful change in Cuba by keeping its regime in isolation. It is a profound mistake, almost like thinking that someone is going to improve the condition of the opposition in Venezuela by isolating the government. That's even more absurd.
CLARÍN: Are you planning to meet with the Argentine authorities?.
INSULZA: Yes, that's the purpose of my visit; to deal with a series of topics.
CLARÍN: What will be the agenda?
INSULZA: I come with no particular topic in mind. I hadn't been here for over six months. Argentina has supported us a great deal in the OAS and for that reason it is good to talk about the region.
CLARÍN: Is the government receptive to these topics?
INSULZA: Of course. I insist; it has helped us a lot. The Argentine presence in the OAS is very solid. I'll even tell you that the problems of its contribution have been solved. That's a great thing. I hope to have a good visit.
