Where are the latin american leaders with courage and principles?

Where are the Latin American leaders with courage and principles?

I was recently reading an interview given by former Organisation of American States (OAS) Secretary General, Jose Miguel Insulza, to the news agency EFE, which left me wondering why there are such few men and women of principles and courage in Latin America these days. What prickled at me was what he had to say about Venezuela, and here are a few chosen quotes (the translation is mine): The political crisis in Venezuela, which deepened from the protests of February 2014, was one of the most “complex and painful” issues we have had to deal with “because the countries refused to act with regards to Venezuela” “I regret very much that there was no will to tackle the situation differently (…), that we did not address the situation of a country which is evidently suffering a crisis and about which, the international community is not doing all it can” He felt that the dialogue between the government and the opposition “did not yield any results”, but the attempts to activate it at least “meant that the number of political prisoners in Venezuela is not as high as it could have been” considering “the government’s attitude”.

“I believe that we have been coherent in this mater, and as a General Secretariat, we have done all we could with regards to Venezuela. But we have not changed the rules of the game”, which do not grant our Office the “powers” to “invoke the Interamerican Democratic Charter, against the will of the Government” in question.

Here is the full article http://www.efe.com/efe/america/portada/insulza-reclama-credito-por-cuba-ydice-que-fue-coherente-con-venezuela/20000064-2618679 Without expressing personal opinions on the subject and simply taking Mr. Insulza’s reported remarks at face value… there is so much that is wrong with these comments, that one does not know where to begin. Mr. Insulza says that Venezuela is a country in crisis. He then points his finger at “the countries” (presumably of America) and at “the international community” (of which he formed part) for basically sitting on the fence. He then states, I believe for the first time, that there are political prisoners in Venezuela and indirectly suggests, that there may be sufficient grounds for invoking the Interamerican Democratic Charter; albeit that he excuses himself from the responsibility for doing so. The whole interview, by one of the most internationally visible Latin Americans of the time, seems a sad indictment on the character of the man, particularly if he truly believes in what he reportedly said.

One remembers the day in March 2014 when the organisation that he led, voted in favour of silencing Ms. Maria Corina Machado. The Venezuelan opposition leader had been given the opportunity (by Panama) to speak about repression and lack of democracy in Venezuela, at a General Assembly meeting.

A motion was duly presented, to in effect silence Ms. Machado by forcing that her intervention be made behind closed doors (i.e. privately). The delegates were asked to vote on the motion, and had simply to say “public” or “private”, to execute their vote. One remembers the cynicism of the Venezuelan representative, who when voting… chose to do so with a smirk on her face and by saying full of sarcasm: “with total transparency: private”, triggering roars of unseemly laughter and chuckles among the dignitaries present. One does not have to share Ms. Machado’s political sympathies or indeed her views about democracy in Venezuela, to feel that such a shameful display of disrespect and contempt was unbecoming… after all, it is worth remembering that, whatever we may think of Ms. Machado, she spoke for nearly 50% of the Venezuelan electorate.

Article 110 of the organisation’s Charter gave Mr. Insulza the right to “participate with voice” if not “with votes” in all meetings. So where were him and his opinions then, when the organisation that he led voted to silence Ms. Machado in such an undignified manner? I would have assumed that Article 110 imposes a duty on the Secretary General to always speak in favour of free speech without interference.

Mr. Insulza claims that his Office did not have the powers to invoke the Interamerican Democratic Charter. While this may be true, the same Article 110 also states that the Secretary General “… may bring to the attention of the General Assembly or the Permanent Council any matter which in his opinion might threaten the peace and security of the Hemisphere…” If Mr. Insulza truly believes that the administration in Venezuela uses political imprisonment as a tool of governance, as he states in the interview… does that not constitutes a matter which threatens the peace and security of the hemisphere?

Mr. Insulza may believe that Venezuela is a country in crisis and that the international community is not doing all it can; he may believe that there are political prisoners in Venezuela and that there may be sufficient grounds for invoking the Interamerican Democratic Charter… He may believe all these things but one would certainly need to be a very diligent researcher, to find a single official statement from the OAS or its Secretary General (during the ten years of his tenure) that had, even a faint hint of disapproval towards the Venezuelan government.

Mr. Insulza’s comments would not have offended, if he (and the organisation that he led) had taken more of a leadership role, in tackling what he labelled “the situation of a country which is evidently suffering a crisis”. I do not suggest that what he said to EFE is true… But if he truly believes it, he should have adopted a more courageous attitude while he was at the helm of the Organisation of American States… the United Nations of the hemisphere. To do so now… how cares?

Alas, Mr. Insulza is but an example of a malaise that seems to be corroding our whole political classes these days. We see it time and again, how men and women who have been charged with managing the destinies of nations; who are supposed to stand up for democracy and human rights, sit on the fence when they are in a position to influence events and only ‘come out of the closet’ and admit their personal views, once they no longer have any influence; and presumably, once their positions and careers are no longer on the line.

Take the flight of Franklin Nieves from Venezuela, just a few days ago (albeit that Mr. Nieves was a humble civil servant and not a leader of nations). The co-prosecutor in the Leopoldo Lopez case fled Venezuela in a hurry and now claims, from within the comforts of a CNN studio in Atlanta… that the whole trial was a sham, that he was acting under direct instructions from the government, and that he was subject to constant and intolerable pressure. This fellow is telling us, without a hint of remorse, that he sent an innocent man to the gallows for nearly fourteen years, because he didn’t have the courage to stand up for what is right. I am not suggesting that Mr. Lopez is innocent, or that the government was indeed interfering… I am simply saying that, if Mr. Nieves was truly being interfered with, as he claims… why did he not resign and leave the country before the trial ended?

Twenty two countries voted against free speech on the day when Ms. Machado was silenced, while most other countries abstained. Venezuela’s foreign minister at the time, said of the decision: “I think the yankee-lovers are defeated again”. One may understand the mistrust with which U.S. foreign policy is viewed across Latin America, and one may say that there are good historical reasons for such mistrust… but is it ever right to let ourselves be manipulated, because of that mistrust? Is it ever right to

always stand against the United States, because of that mistrusts… even when they are trying to do the right thing? I would always vote in favour of free speech! And so should have Mr. Insulza.

Someone once said that people get the governments or leaders they deserve, and for a land whose history is so rich in men and women of courage, of heroes and liberators who once stood up to colonial oppression, we should have deserved better. In contrast to its heritage, the Latin American political landscape of today seems a sterile desert, dearth of any character and moral fibre. Perhaps we mere mortals do not understand the way high diplomacy needs to be played… but if one assumes that there are other leaders in the region who sympathize with Mr. Insulza’s views and remarks… and perhaps there are many, the hemisphere would seem to be doing exactly what Europe did back in the late 1930s… when European leaders worked under the misapprehension that to concede and appease Hitler, to sit on the fence… was the best way to keep the beast away from their shores. And so it seems today in Latin America, that out leaders appear willing to sit on the fence and appease a Venezuelan government, whom privately they may believe to be a threat to the peace and security of the hemisphere. They may come regret it.