Draft Resolution on Cuba. Opening remarks by Patricia Rodas, President of General Assembly
Laura Carlsen
After some tough negotiations, the General Assembly of the Organization of America States (OAS) passed a resolution to rescind its 1962 decision to exclude Cuba. The decision was hammered out by a working group over several days of talks and accepted in the plenary session Jun 3, to a standing ovation.
On Jun 4, papers from across the Hemisphere celebrated the decision and reflected the sense of satisfaction that characterized the plenary (videos available here). Nation after nation expressed “joy” and spoke of righting an historical wrong.
“Today we put the nail in the coffin of the cold war”, the Antiguan representative stated. She echoed the words of Pres. Manuel Zelaya of host country Honduras who officially announced the “end of the Cold War in San Pedro Sula.”
Both the ALBA countries and the Obama administration accepted the resolution after a seeming impasse over conditioning.
The decision represents a new stage of diplomacy for the region. For the first time in years, the OAS actually took up an important issue, negotiated with a U.S. delegation willing to hear other views, and reached a consensus. The United States, which funds 60% of the organization’s budget and represents a huge part of the regional economy, declined to use its invisible veto, instead opting for compromise.
The result is an historic decision that removes what was a huge thorn in the side of the regional organization and its member nations.
It would be hard to overestimate the resentment that built up in Latin America over the U.S. Cuba policy. For decades, a majority of 33 to 1 was forced to accept the exclusion of Cuba against its will and against the supposed principles of the organization itself. At the same time, the populations had important relationships with Cuba, historic ties and, as mentioned several times in the speeches, received Cuban doctors and teachers. With even dialogue on the issue ruled out by the U.S. government, Cuba’s empty seat was to many a reminder that regional diplomacy still carried a big stick.
What Exactly Happened in San Pedro Sula?
It’s not easy to get at the back-story of the talks because press reports and official statements reflect the political motivations of the media and politicians speaking.
Although everyone has a particular spin, the facts are straightforward enough. On June 3, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States decided by consensus, or “acclamation”, to lift the 1962 resolution that “suspended” Cuba’s participation in the interhemispheric body. This is now a done deal; there are no pre-conditions, intermediate steps or further negotiations involved.
That Cuba is no longer barred form the assembly does not mean that Cuba will be taking a seat at the next regional meeting. For that to happen, several prior steps must be taken that are not at all assured.
Article 2 of the resolution states that Cuba’s reintegration would follow a “process of dialogue to be initiated at the request of the Cuban government and in compliance with the practices, goals and principles of the OAS.”
The Cuban government has stated that it does not want to rejoin the OAS, which Fidel Castro called an accomplice to the crimes committed against Cuba and a Trojan horse. After the impasse broke and the resolution was accepted, an official statement celebrated the decision, calling it “an historic day and the reaffirmation of the independence of Latin America in spite of pressures from the United States” while repeating their determination to seek other forms of regional representation.
The second step regards the vaguely worded “process of dialogue.” Shannon noted that in fact a two-part process would determine the extent of reform on the bilateral level and in the OAS. Venezuela noted that ending the embargo remains a strong demand within the organization. The U.S. pointed to new talks on immigration and communication with the Cuban government while calling for reforms. All this will play out on many levels and with international, regional and domestic politics each playing ensemble roles. Of course, the whole “process of dialogue” will be a moot point in the likely case that Cuba maintains its position not to seek re-entry.
In the working group, U.S. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton initially sought to apply stricter conditions to Cuba’s re-entry, probably involving preconditions to lifting the resolution. The foreign ministers of Venezuela, Nicaragua and Honduras led the charge against tighter conditioning, maintaining that the 1962 resolution was an obsolete relic of the Cold War and had to be eliminated for that reason and to allow Cuba to take its place within the region.
After Clinton flew off to join President Obama in Cairo for another historic moment in dismantling Bush foreign policy, Sub-Secretary Tom Shannon (soon to be replaced by Arturo Valenzuela- pending Senate confirmation) took over. Following what were no doubt very specific marching orders, Shannon carried negotiations through to the compromise.
Judging from the result, the key objective of the U.S. team was to leave San Pedro Sula with a position of unity and a new beginning for U.S. -Latin American relations. The position in favor of constructive engagement to compel change in the Cuban political system was to be reflected and it was important for the U.S. to be a partner in the final decision. These goals were achieved.
Who compromised the most is a matter of opinion. Some, including the New York Times, say the three ALBA countries backed down to allow Article 2 that stipulates the process of dialogue. Others claim that the U.S. government softened its position to lift the ban on Cuba without preconditions.
But to pursue this line of speculation is to fall into the emphasis on who won that has replaced statesmanship with one-upmanship and eroded diplomacy. By definition, cooperation requires compromise and an eye to common good, shared goals and long-term results.
From the looks of the faces, the vast majority of the national representatives present felt triumphant when the resolution was read.
What Does It Mean?
The minister from St Vincent underlined the significance of the resolution: “(This decision) was a litmus test as to whether we have a future as a hemisphere for continued cooperation and we have passed that test. This is a new beginning, characterized by mutual respect.”
Some countries, especially Cuba itself, have questioned whether the OAS is the right forum for regional diplomacy, charging that it has always been controlled by the United States and forms part of a web of institutions including the multilateral banks that have exercized coercion and control in the region. Many have high expectations that the Rio Group meeting in Mexico in 2010 will lead to a new group that could be a counter-balance to U.S. power.
Whether or not the region creates a separate institution, the need to engage in dialogue, cooperation, confrontation and peaceful co-existence with the giant to the north means that openings in diplomatic relations mean more than the symbolism of burying the Cold War of the past. Note the change in Shannon’s words and tone from when he worked for the Bush administration:
“Today we addressed and bridged an historic divide in the Americas, while reaffirming our profound commitment to democracy and the fundamental human rights of our peoples. Together, these actions on the part of the United States signal the biggest change to our approach to Cuba in the last forty years. We are not interested in fighting old battles or living in the past. We are committed to building a better future for all of the Americas, by listening, learning, and forging partnerships based on mutual respect.”
What Happens Next?
The next steps will be interesting to watch and important to influence, but they will most likely not take place in the OAS.
In the United States the dwindling anti-Castro organizations and their representatives in Congress have reacted with rage. They have demanded defunding the OAS if Cuba is allowed to return and have presented a bill before Congress to demand that Cuba face certification for a long list of far-reaching clauses that could effectively exclude most of the countries in the hemisphere—including the United States—due to their vague and subjective terms. Even so, many members of Congress opposed to the outcome have taken a wait-and-see attitude for now.
The events of the OAS meeting leave no doubt that the cold war is buried and that the U.S. and Latin America are on a path toward more constructive engagement and more open dialogue. Does that mean that everyone lives happily ever after in the hemisphere?
Not by a long shot. And it’s that long shot—the hemispheric reach of the U.S.’s military power—that will be the next showdown in the hemisphere following Cuba policy. Here the attitude of the Obama administration is unclear. The proposed military base in Colombia, rapid militarization of the relationship with Mexico and bloated defense budget leave reason to doubt whether the balance between defense and diplomacy that the incoming government promised is even moving in the right direction.
At least, there is now room for dialogue between nations and growing space to discuss these issues at home. So much of really changing U.S. foreign policy involves cleaning up the mess that the Obama administration inherited. U.S. -Cuba policy, from the diplomatic sanctions to the economic embargo, is perhaps the most obvious and internationally repudiated mess of a policy there is. Yesterday’s resolution was another step—a deed to match the words at the Fifth Summit of the Americas—toward clearing the way for change.
For More information:
OAS videos of the session and speeches (03/06/09)
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s statement (03/06/09)
Intervention During the Plenary Session Regarding Cuba and the OAS, Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., Assistant Secretary (02/06/09)
OAS Democratic Charter
No comments:
Post a Comment