Oppenheimer's Take On The Carter Proposal

Andres Oppenheimer, who's usually on perfect target about issues, has gone soft on us over a proposal from always-gullible former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. And I am disappointed.

He says that a proposal put forward by Carter about strengthening the Organization of American States on human rights is the best way to retire President Hugo Chavez.

I beg to differ. And I think the proposal, coming from Carter, is grotesque.

We already have an OAS in place and it's ineffective. It's supposed to advocate democracy and just look at the place! All we have to do is note its 'performance' in Venezuela last August. That's not because it didn't have enough power, but because it didn't have enough leadership.

There's little analysis about why multilaterals fail so often, but the fact is, they do. From what I can tell, one reason is they move only at the pace of their slowest member. Another reason is that gamy nations like to influence-hijack them, because they cannot be made to look respectable otherwise. Hence, we have Libya and Sudan at the UN judging the world on human rights. Some system!

According to The Nation correspondent Ian Williams, who studied the phenom in his book, "The UN for Beginners," nations put their own interests before any group's. One can argue about whether or how they should, or not, but the fact is, they do.

I can just see Carter favoring the 'unselfish' group approach through. And as usual, it will disappoint. Carter's not had a new idea in years, probably ever, as the smoking ruins of his presidency showed.

After all, the OAS was meant to foster democracy and it's done nothing of the sort. What's multilateral to Carter is buck-passing to me. And the OAS has gotten into the condition for the Williamsian reasons. All of this makes me think that anything Carter proposes for OAS effectiveness will have no impact whatsoever. In reality, Carter has no idea about the roots of the problem.

Perhaps I can explain why through this anecdote about Carter and the OAS here:

I have a leftist friend who attended the RR press conferences declaring all was 'free and fair' given by Jimmy Carter and OAS President Cesar Gaviria. My friend told me that Carter immediately declared it all 'free and fair' and then gave Gaviria a death-ray glare warning him not to undercut him by saying maybe it wasn't all so free and fair.

"His look was, 'I want to get out of here,'" my friend told me.

The net result? Gaviria meekly went along with the crapulent Carter and negated the vote.

With that kind of meddling, which influenced Gaviria, (and from that kind of a reliable source), it's pretty clear to me that any 'new powers' given to the OAS would have little impact. If the OAS leadership can be intimidated easily by the 'authority' of the rodent-like Jimmy Carter, then what is the point of additional new powers?

Carter never, ever, learned that there's no such thing as power without leadership. The biggest problem at the OAS is the lack of leadership. This shows in the impossibility of democrats and totalitarians agreeing on anyone to lead.

The OAS right now is in a battle over leadership and none of the candidates, all consensus-men (read: lowest common denominator) look attractive. What good is it to place power in the hands of wimps who do not lead?

I adore Oppenheimer but this time I think he's misreading the situation.