The OAS should not be a prosecutor to decide who is good or bad

MORE INFORMATION Almagro denies that the strategy of the OAS, outside take to Mature of power this year, The crisis in Venezuela shakes the assembly of the OAS

The OAS should not be a prosecutor to decide who is good or bad


Almagro denies that the strategy of the OAS, outside take to Mature of power this year, The crisis in Venezuela shakes the assembly of the OAS

The ecuadorian Maria Fernanda Espinosa wants to become the first woman to lead the Agency of American States (OAS). In his three decades of career, he has served as minister of Foreign affairs in the Government of former president, Rafael Correa, and his successor, Lenin Moreno. Last September ended his term as the president of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which made history by being the first Latin american to hold the office. It has now been dipped in the electoral campaign for the General Secretariat of the OAS, an election that will take place in march 2020. Espinosa, proposed by Antigua and Barbuda and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, competes against the peruvian ambassador in the united States, Hugo de Zela, and the current secretary, the uruguayan Luis Almagro.

Espinosa wants to do things different as you have made Almagro. “I think that the strategies that have been advanced so far have not yielded the desired results,” he says via phone from New York. In front of the tone strong current secretary seems to be a diplomatic manual which avoids delving into the hottest topics in the region, but critical to the prominence it has acquired in Venezuela in the agenda of the OAS, calling it “single-mindedness”.

P : what is your project to lead the organization in these troubled times?

R : We are in a time of great boiling social in the hemisphere, it is known what is going on and I think that it is time to recover the spaces of dialogue, the construction of agreements, the possibility that the OAS once again be the platform hemisphere's most important political dialogue and that it is the member States who take the leading role through its decision-making body most important of which is the permanent council. I think it's time a sort of reconciliation in the region, because only thus the OAS will be able to fulfill the role as a multilateral forum for dialogue and construction of agreements.

P : who will be discussed in the venezuelan conflict, whereas in the OAS sits an ambassador appointed by John Guaidó?

R : A dialogue to be fruitful it has to be between all the actors and such decisions taken by all the States. What we do have to recognize is two things: that the issue of Venezuela has increasingly come to dominate the agenda of the OAS, has been a factor that has polarized the countries of the hemisphere and, finally, [the agency] has not achieved a positive result that has resolved the crisis. The member States of the OAS are the ones who should do this analysis and to rethink the strategy for the future. It is clear that the role of the OAS has not been the expected when it created an ad hoc group to address this issue. When an organization works well, and makes the decisions with the distance with which it must, it does not create special groups to discuss a topic or another.

Q: But do speak with the people of Guaidó or Mature?

A: Anticipate and say, ‘I'm going to have a dialogue with these and with these’, is to fall into that dynamic single-mindedness. What are we going to do with countries that concern us as Haiti or who are experiencing difficult situations, such as Chile or Colombia? We have to see how to be a channel of dialogue, but also build a positive agenda. The worst thing is to think of the OAS as a great attorney to decide who is good or bad and to deepen the polarization and disagreements. I think that this has not turned out well. The role of a secretary general has to go beyond saying 'I'm going to call these self and other does not, or I'm going to recognize these'. It is time to make a serious assessment, to launch an agenda much more comprehensive, independent of the State A, B or C, and to heal those differences and have a spirit that is much more open to the construction of agreements. It is irrelevant to my position if there is a ruling body such as the Permanent Council with a voice and a vote.

Q: If you arrive at the Secretariat, it is likely that the issue of Bolivia follow a singer, how would you rate the silence of the OAS, the Sunday in which Morales dropped the charges pressed by the Army?

A: What I think is crucial is what has happened now. That is to say, that all the political forces in Bolivia have agreed on the need to move forward in a process of new elections, and there is an agreement in that direction. I am a firm and convinced that it is the most important tool that you have in diplomacy, international law, democracy.

Q: do You believe that what you lived was according to the bolivian constitution?

A: Exactly I am referring to the current time. It is not helpful to an examination. Especially in my status as a candidate I see useless to be a voice cast about what happened or did not happen. That is precisely one of the problems that is now the OAS. The organ of decision making body is the Permanent Council and the decisions it has to take this in a democratic way. Obviously the work of the OAS includes the observation of elections and that is important, but I think that is a very delicate subject and must be handled in a manner technical, objective and independent.

Q: What has been handled as well?

A: In my current position does not correspond to make value judgments.

Q: The issue of immigration is another agenda topic relevant to the OAS. How would you evaluate the treaties made between the united States and countries such as Mexico or Guatemala?

A: it Is very important that we look at what are the structural causes of migration. The bilateral agreements or sub are welcome, and I think, for example, that the agreement of the Northern Triangle countries (Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador), which is an area very sensitive from the point of view of migration, are the practices that we need. There is no agreement between Mexico and the other three countries to attack the structural causes of migration. In other words, to attack the poverty, the inequalities and create opportunities for people to remain in their countries of origin.

Q: Some have questioned if the united States, a member of the OAS, acts as an ally to force these agreements through threats of tariff

A: the united States is a country mmembers of the OAS very important, the host country. The issues and the agreements are established bilaterally are bilateral, they are part of the sovereign decision of those States.

Date Of Update: 29 December 2019, 15:00