Yesterday’s decision by the OAS to allow Cuba to reapply for membership in the group (see previous post) spurred quick and, for the most part, predictable responses from the relevant actors we noted—Cuban leadership, certain members of U.S. Congress, and Hugo Chávez and Daniel Ortega.
Cuban officials, for their part, rejected the invitation to rejoin. Ricardo Alarcón, President of the Cuban National Assembly, pointed out to reporters that Cuba had already expressed its lack of interest in rejoining the group and that the OAS decision could not alter what Cuba felt “yesterday or the day before.” Still, he acknowledged that this was “a major victory.”
In the United States, Congressional Representative Connie Mack of Coral Gables, Florida, introduced a bill that would prevent the White House from providing any funding to the OAS if the group were to accept Cuba back without pushing for changes on the island with respect to democracy and human rights. The United States accounts for 60% of OAS funds—a vital flow of support.
Hugo Chávez, meanwhile, applauded the OAS decision, saying it marked the beginning of “a new era.” Daniel Ortega called the vote “news of hope.” But both are still pushing for Latin American countries to create an alternate organization that would include Cuba and be free of the “excessive influence” of the United States.
What does this all mean? Does the decision lose significance because of these reactions, which all essentially guarantee that Cuba will not actually rejoin the OAS?
In fact, although these are the loudest responses to the OAS decision, they cannot succeed it detracting from it. Cuba declined to join, but expressed its appreciation for the gesture. Venezuela and Nicaragua say they are looking into creating a new organization, but both heads of state participated in the meetings and voted with the group for the final unified statement regarding Cuba. And several U.S. Congresspeople were outraged at the decision, but their numbers are small and on the whole, the United States sided with the hemisphere on this issue. [Note: Although withholding substantial funding from the OAS would undermine the U.S. expressed position, which was welcomed by Latin American leaders, it would be too difficult to get the support necessary to pass the bill. Very few House representatives appear to stand behind it, and there is not yet anyone who has agreed to even introduce it to the Senate.]
The significance, then, is that the hemisphere is beginning to look less polarized and more open to compromise than it has in years. This will be an asset in pursuing solutions to shared challenges (energy security, climate change, trade, migration, the global economic crisis… and on and on), but also in eventually formulating multilateral approaches to democracy and human rights in Cuba. Whereas Washington has so often been left on its own in recent years because of its unpopular approach to the island, a point of consensus could eventually emerge.
