The Organization of American States, Liberal Internationalism and the South American Crisis

I believe that the recent crisis between Colombia and her South American neighbors and the –apparent- resolution of it through the Organization of American States presents an interesting example involving the application of liberal internationalism as a means to maintain control. The OAS has thus been brought into the limelight of international institution effectiveness. Long called one of the hemisphere’s “most hopelessly ineffectual institutions,” I believe the handling recent events by the OAS as proven it to be an institution capable of maintaining speech, balance and diplomacy in the region.

The OAS, founded in 1946 and headquartered in Washington D.C, therefore seems to have provided an outlet through which multilateralism maintained peace in northern South America –arguably a U.S interest in the region- while at the same time has furthered the cause of combating the FARC (non-state actors) maintaining U.S policy, power and balance in the western hemisphere.

After a week of arguments concerning territorial sovereignty, terrorism which ultimately culminated with the massing of Venezuelan and Ecuadorian troops on the Colombian border, the OAS issued a resolution which has apparently stalled what seem to be the increasing heat emanating from the Andes. The document does not include an outright condemnation for the cross-border incursion, however many experts, including Peter Hakim, president of Inter-American Dialogue call it a “reasonably acceptable middle ground” in ending the conflict. The resolution states that Colombia did indeed violate Ecuador’s territorial sovereignty in its attack on a FARC camp on March 1^st which killed Reyes, second in command of the FARC; in many ways appeasing Ecuador and Venezuela’s complaints. The resolution also reaffirms “the principle that the territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatsoever.” It thus seems to be a balanced explication of the facts at hand, attempting to quell tensions in the region while not granting a “victor” in terms of fault and/or reason. What it effectively does nevertheless, is halt the already unlikely event of war through the strength of multilateralism overseen by the United States.

Ultimately, what one thus finds is an exemplification that even though the international system is inherently anarchic, international institutions created and/or largely upheld by the United States, serve to maintain her hegemony in the world while at the same time furthering regional goals and protecting interests. I may be being slightly cynical by pressing this issue however this idea I think is clearly displayed by Colombia’s Foreign Minister, who said that “the OAS overcame a historic test that justified is raison d’etre” this week. Through the lens of USGS, and specifically liberal institutionalism, what we see is U.S hegemonic interventionism through a self regulated system –encompassing the OAS- that while having effectively reduced tensions in the region was ultimately worked in favor of maintaining U.S interests in the region.