To Send Letters
Email: aqletters@americasquarterly.org
Mail: Letters to the AQ Editors, 680 Park Ave,
New York, NY 10065.
Full name, address and daytime phone number required.
concerns about human rights, including the rights
of political expression and representation.
It is regrettable that Dr. Fisk did not understand
our points or else chose to ignore them. But we are
encouraged that the people we hoped to reach, the
new officials making policy in the Obama administration, are moving forward in the directions and
modes that we recommended.
—abraham f. lowenthal,
theodore j. piccone, laurence whitehead
Response from Daniel Fisk
Events in Honduras reinforce the fact that demo- cratic institutions throughout Latin America re- main fragile. But even before this, the signs of fra- gility were clearly evident, which is why I noted
early in my review of The Obama Administration and the
Americas that the volume was “correct to focus on the
state of democratic governance in Latin America.”
Another dynamic that Honduras has put into stark
relief is the ineffectiveness of multilateralism in dealing with the assault on democracy. Despite this, I again
agree with the editors that multilateral instruments
or multilateral coalitions, as well as
dialogue and the building of strategic alliances, among other initiatives, should be on the policy menu.
Based on 20-plus years as a policy-maker, including service with the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Departments of State and
Defense and the National Security
Council, I understand the need to
have as many options as possible
to address a given situation. Having decided on such a course, however, there still needs to be a strategy as to how to deploy an option as well as a sense of how to measure
the achievement of objectives.
My critique went to the fundamental and critical questions of how to deploy and apply policy instruments and,
equally valid, what happens when an option is spurned
or fails. Regardless of the editors’ intentions or views
on the policies of the George W. Bush administration,
the various contributors owed the reader more than
was offered. Again, the case of Honduras is instructive.
The Obama administration recognized early that its
embrace of the Organization of American States’ (OAS)
multilateralism would not achieve its desired objective.
To its credit, the administration worked to initiate an
alternative mechanism, focused on the good offices of
Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, to defuse and seek a
resolution to the crisis. The Arias initiative is the consequence of a failure of multilateralism.
The current Honduran crisis also highlights the
hollowness, if not the hypocrisy, of the Organization
of American States. This is exactly the time when a
coherent and effective regional institution is most
needed. Unfortunately, the OAS and its Secretary General are incapable of offering a neutral institution to
help a member country deal with a constitutional crisis. The silence of the OAS during the dismantling of
democratic institutions in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua, as well as its silence in the wake of President
Manuel Zelaya’s own unconstitutional actions, surely
has not helped the OAS’s credibility.
As I noted in my review, what can be done to address
the sorry state of the OAS was one issue that merited
more attention than it received. The editors plead the
limitations of space, yet the volume devotes t wo chapters each to Cuba, Colombia and Haiti. While Haiti deserves the extra attention, with the contribution of Juan
Gabriel Valdés offering an especially useful perspective, Cuba and Colombia are well-trod ground.
Regardless of the editors’ views of
the George W. Bush administration, the
various contributors owed the reader
more than was offered.
Finally, appreciating that the intention of the volume is to bolster support for democratic governance,
it remains surprising to read that pragmatic interaction with authoritarians is at the heart of the recommendations for policies toward Cuba, Venezuela and
Bolivia. I recognize the limitations of current policies
toward those countries, but it is still an intriguing situation when those who are such strong advocates for
democracy apparently are willing to compromise those
principles by pursuing an agenda that converges with
the very governments that are centralizing power and
dismantling democratic institutions.
—daniel fisk
AMERICASQUARTERLY.ORG
FALL 2009 Americas Quarterly 7
