***Will he lose "the Chivo y el mecate"?
In July 2005 a rather flattering article on Jose Miguel Insulza by Sergio Aguayo (“America’s Protean Left: Jose Miguel Insulza”, in Open Democracy, July 24, 2005) stated that the test of success for the new Secretary General of the organization would be threefold: one, “demolishing the stereotype that the OAS is a club of governments”; two, redefining the OAS to become a bridge between the U.S. and Latin America and, three, “managing strategically” the sweep of the left in Latin America due to the failure of the structural adjustment policies imposed by Washington to the region. If we accept Aguayo’s criteria as valid we would have to conclude that Insulza’s term at the OAS has been an almost total waste of time. In effect, the OAS today is less respected than ever before, due to its spineless posture. What Aguayo calls a “stereotype”, the OAS as a club of governments, is a tragic reality. Authoritarian regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua have spoken disdainfully about the organization and about Insulza personally, while democratic public opinion in the region have become indignant about the passivity of the OAS in face of the violations to democracy and human rights in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia. In the U.S. Congress, in April 2008, Insulza asserted that there was no evidence of the link between the Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and the terrorist Colombian FARC. He obviously did not see the video showing Venezuelan Minister of the Interior, Ramon Rodríguez Chacin, telling the terrorists that “they could count on [our} support”, nor did he feel that the documents found in Raul Reyes’ laptops indicated a link between Chavez and the FARC. While in the case of the numerous Andean crises he has remained essentially distant and has defended the governments rather than the peoples of the region, he has found time to give his opinion about a totally different area of the world, where he has no competence: the Hamas-Israeli crisis. He has condemned the bombing by Israel in Gaza adding that the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians cannot be justified under any excuse, but he has made no attempt to go to the roots of the Hamas-Israeli problem nor has he bothered to mention the 70-80 Hamas rockets that hit Israeli communities every day.
Like Janus, he has been looking in two directions at the same time. On the one side he has been doing a very dispirited job at the OAS. On the other side he has been increasingly absorbed by the presidential race in Chile, where he has the hope of becoming the presidential candidate of the Chilean government coalition. In a recent interview in Santiago (La Segunda) he said: “I am clear. I want to be candidate and I will register January 26. This has not changed”. He was reacting to the recent polls in Chile that show him lagging far behind Eduardo Frei as the candidate of the government coalition and even farther behind the conservative presidential candidate Sebastián Piñera (who has 44% support to Insulza’s 23%). The poll conducted in Santiago by the Centro de Estudios Publicos, CEP, showed Insulza as the weakest candidate the government coalition could field.
In Venezuela we say that, by trying to attend to two things at the same time, one can lose “el chivo y el mecate”, both the goat and the rope.
In July 2005 a rather flattering article on Jose Miguel Insulza by Sergio Aguayo (“America’s Protean Left: Jose Miguel Insulza”, in Open Democracy, July 24, 2005) stated that the test of success for the new Secretary General of the organization would be threefold: one, “demolishing the stereotype that the OAS is a club of governments”; two, redefining the OAS to become a bridge between the U.S. and Latin America and, three, “managing strategically” the sweep of the left in Latin America due to the failure of the structural adjustment policies imposed by Washington to the region. If we accept Aguayo’s criteria as valid we would have to conclude that Insulza’s term at the OAS has been an almost total waste of time. In effect, the OAS today is less respected than ever before, due to its spineless posture. What Aguayo calls a “stereotype”, the OAS as a club of governments, is a tragic reality. Authoritarian regimes in Venezuela and Nicaragua have spoken disdainfully about the organization and about Insulza personally, while democratic public opinion in the region have become indignant about the passivity of the OAS in face of the violations to democracy and human rights in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia. In the U.S. Congress, in April 2008, Insulza asserted that there was no evidence of the link between the Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and the terrorist Colombian FARC. He obviously did not see the video showing Venezuelan Minister of the Interior, Ramon Rodríguez Chacin, telling the terrorists that “they could count on [our} support”, nor did he feel that the documents found in Raul Reyes’ laptops indicated a link between Chavez and the FARC. While in the case of the numerous Andean crises he has remained essentially distant and has defended the governments rather than the peoples of the region, he has found time to give his opinion about a totally different area of the world, where he has no competence: the Hamas-Israeli crisis. He has condemned the bombing by Israel in Gaza adding that the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians cannot be justified under any excuse, but he has made no attempt to go to the roots of the Hamas-Israeli problem nor has he bothered to mention the 70-80 Hamas rockets that hit Israeli communities every day.
Like Janus, he has been looking in two directions at the same time. On the one side he has been doing a very dispirited job at the OAS. On the other side he has been increasingly absorbed by the presidential race in Chile, where he has the hope of becoming the presidential candidate of the Chilean government coalition. In a recent interview in Santiago (La Segunda) he said: “I am clear. I want to be candidate and I will register January 26. This has not changed”. He was reacting to the recent polls in Chile that show him lagging far behind Eduardo Frei as the candidate of the government coalition and even farther behind the conservative presidential candidate Sebastián Piñera (who has 44% support to Insulza’s 23%). The poll conducted in Santiago by the Centro de Estudios Publicos, CEP, showed Insulza as the weakest candidate the government coalition could field.
In Venezuela we say that, by trying to attend to two things at the same time, one can lose “el chivo y el mecate”, both the goat and the rope.
First of all, happy 2009, Gustavo!
ResponderEliminarI think Insulza has been an abject failure in leading the OAS. I remember the Aguayo article, it came out just before I moved back from Chile, and of course Insulza being Chilean, it got a decent amount of press in academic and political circles in Santiago. I didn't know a great deal about him prior to his ascendancy to the OAS's top post, but from Chilean friends and colleagues, even back then, I distinctly remember them saying that he was (and is) the quintessence of a self-interested politician who will take a seemingly moderate road so as to not rub anyone the wrong way; as long as he can advance his personal agenda, he will consider his tenure a success. However one feels about Insulza personally or professionally, I think it is abundantly clear that he has done quite a good job positioning himself as a potential presidential candidate.
However, I think that there are a few unexpected obstacles which face him: 1) The Chile of Bachelet is not the Chile of Lagos. Bachelet has been a disappointment for many, including those on the political left. From as far as I can tell, I think Insulza thought that the Bachelet administration would be a continuation of the Lagos administration, and the fact that Bachelet is a woman, leading one of South America's most traditional countries (socially speaking), this would bode well for him, as he might be then seen as a further continuation of a diverse and inclusive Concertacion leader. As we know, Bachelet has faced considerable opposition at home, leading to a relatively unproductive term, again, when compared with the growth and progress under the Lagos administration. 2) The economy has not helped, as we've seen the CLP vary a great deal in the past year or so. 3) Allegations of Insulza's favorable treatment of Chavez and co. in return for political support from Venezuela (financial or otherwise) in his likely potential bid. The fact that a figure who is supposed to be disinterested in his judgments and management of an international body of this sort is disconcerting, and that funds from Chavez to support a run in 09 is despicable for the Chileans. (To be sure, it's also despicable for the Venezuelans, but to be frank, this behavior from the Venezuelan government is to be expected.) Also, both the Chilean and international communities have made note of these allegations, as well as the fact that Insulza has been a lame duck during his tenure. 4) As long as the center-right/right is not stupid this go around by running two candidates, I see Sebastian Pi~era winning. Lavin played the spoiler in 05 when he ran against Bachelet and Pi~era, but I would like to think that UDI and RN (as well as the other parties forming the moderate/conservative coalition) will not make the same mistake. At this point, it is their race to lose. Pi~era is a well-known businessman in Chile, who has had a great deal of success in the private sector, but has also headed many social initiatives on the national level, working with some of Chile's most dispossessed.
very good comment, Kate. You provide very detailed informtion on Insulza's background and on the Chilean poltical scene.
ResponderEliminarAll the best for you in 2009! This will be great year for democracy in Latin America.
Strange kind of Authoritarian regimes countries such as Venezuela and Nicaragua and Bolivia!
ResponderEliminarHow many authoritarian regimes have a free and highly critical press, democratic elections, opposition controlled congress (Nicaragua), states/prefectures run by those determined to overthrow the federal government (Bolivia and Venezuela)?
hold elections supervised by Carter Institute OAS, and EEU and recognized as free and fair(Venezuela and Boliva) have consitutions guaranteeing human rights? ( Venezuela and soon Boliva)have invested billions to attain full adult literacy? and provide free health care and universal education for all?
I wonder if you would prefer democracies such as Colombia and El Salvador which provide none of this?
Funny you should bring up Colombia, I would prefer that Venezuela's government were more similar to Colombia's (notice I didn't say identical) than to the monolith it is now.
ResponderEliminarHave you read Colombian newspapers and blogs? They are filled with articles and editorials criticizing Uribe and his government. For God's sake, even Semana, owned by the Santos family, will be critical of the government from time to time. Nicaragua's opposition-controlled Congress is a joke, especially when Ortega simply passes his initiatives by decree in a period which has not been declared a state of emergency. Also, discussing Nicaragua, why hasn't the FSLN-controlled CSE released the final results for the 2008 municipal elections? Or, the 2006 presidential elections, for that matter? I think you're sipping some kool-aid, it would not be in the best interests of the prefects of the media luna or the governor of Zulia (I assume this is the state to which you are making reference in the Venezuelan case) to overthrow the national government because, at present, the don't have the sufficient amount of autonomy to be able to manage their gas and oil revenues, respectively, and distribute it to their regional populations. The Carter Center? Really? The irregularities simply dismissed in their prior observations, which have been proven in various academic papers since, show that the elections have been neither free nor fair. Next you're going to say that the Lista Tascón is merely a figment of our imagination, or better yet, a CIA plot. Having a constitution that guarantees human rights is fine and dandy...provided that the constitution is fulfilled. Both Venezuela and Bolivia fall miles short in this criterion. Full adult literacy? According to the Chavista government, which can't even seem to get its basic census figures right... Francisco Rodríguez has already dealt with this topic at length here. Nothing in life is free. Ninety-nine times out of 100, free health care translates to poor services and the Venezuelan case is no exception. The public hospitals are often in dire need of the most basic supplies; one shouldn't expect the misiones to be be expanding, thus reaching some of Venezuela's hinterlands, with the price of oil right around $35/barrel. Universal education? I assume here you mean the Bolivarian universities. Have a look at their curricula. I think you'll see something more akin to indoctrination than what you and I would consider education.
It is obvious that Skywalker has never heard Chavez speak. If he had he would know what is meant by being authoritarian. Ï will, I have decided, I have given, I have ordered...The manner Chavez and now his pupils Correa, Ortega and Morales try to behave, like XIX century caudillos is tragic/comic. The bulk of the evidence against these men is simply overwhelming for those who are not blind or deaf, or ideologically commited to fixed ideas. Is Castro a democrat? Is Mugabe a freedom loving leader? Is kim Il Sung an icon of tolerance? Is Ahmadinejad conciliatory?
ResponderEliminarDime con quien andas y te diré quien eres, Skywalker.
Gustavo, it appears that Insulza will not be running for Chile's presidency: http://www.latercera.com/contenido/674_89977_9.shtml
ResponderEliminarSorry for those who don't read Spanish. Over the weekend, Chilean politicians (of the government) asked Piñera to sell his businesses in order to run for the presidency. Not sure how that turned out, since Piñera is in the top 1,000 richest people in the world.
I think Insulza knew that he couldn't win and is trying help Frei, in hopes of getting a Cabinet position. My guess would be that a Piñera presidency scares him to death.
Insulza abandoned his quest for the presidency of Chile. He knew he could not win.This could be bad news for the OAS and for the cause of hemispheric freedom. This man will stay at the helm of the OAS until 2010.During the last years he has been a political whore. It could be that, now, without a political agenda of his own, he could become a very effective Secretary general of the OAS.
ResponderEliminarOn the other hand, he might just keep being tasteless (Insulzo)
Place your bets!