Che’s critique of the Organization of American States

From Punta del Este (1961) to Bolivia (2019)

Bibliographic Data

ID12716111
AuthorsShannon Brincat (0000-0002-1426-5793, Politics and International Relations, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sunshine Coast, Australia, corresponding author), Juan Zahir Naranjo Cáceres (University of the Sunshine Coast)
Year2023
Volume20
Issue8
Pages1508-1527
Publication date2023-09-03
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueGlobalizations (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1474-7731 • E-ISSN: 1474-774X
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/14747731.2023.2243750
OpenAlexW4386398252
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited18

Che's revolutionary solidarity championed the Spirit of Bolivar and Marti across the Latin American Community. Underlying this solidarism was a fervent belief in the potential for an emancipated regional Americas freed of neo–imperialist control. Yet, Che saw this possibility thwarted by the regional hegemony of the US government and its dominance of regional organizations through which it was able to intervene economically and even militarily across its southern neighbours. In this article, we explore Che's critique of the US' dominance of the Organization of American States (OAS) and how this has distorted regional integration in the Latin American Community by focusing on his famous speeches at Punta del Este at the Alliance for Progress (AFP) conference in 1961. We argue that Che's critique remains relevant for analysing regional integration today by highlighting the role of the OAS and its intervention in the Bolivian coup of 2019.KEYWORDS: Che GuevaraOrganization of American StatesBolivian CoupPunta del EsteMarxismimperialism Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 The Latin American and the Caribbean (LAC) region is comprised 33 countries. The definition includes countries that are part of South America, Central America, and the Caribbean.2 Whilst fundamental, this third part is beyond the scope of this article to explore. We hope to take it up in future research.3 It should be noted also that just a few years earlier, sixteen American states had joined the US in signing in Rio de Janeiro the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR or Rio Treaty) that was considered a collective security agreement against foreign (specifically communist) intervention in the region.4 The ‘latrinocracy’ (as it is now pejoratively derided) refers to the emphasis on sanitation as the solution to serious poverty issues at the neglect of real development (see Subcomandante Marcos, in Besancenot & Löwy, Citation2017, p. 119).5 Che does not use the term elite capture but his comments on how the national bourgeois class will side with Northern capital and follow the dictates of US imperialism is a regional expression of this process in South America. That is, national bourgeois elements have been able to control or steer public resources for their benefit, especially through asset ownership and political power, in accordance with the overriding interests of the US through which they are able to maintain such controls. This may broaden the usual definition of ‘elite capture’ but it is nevertheless consistent with its form in neo-imperialism. This link between elite capture and wider neo-imperial interests has been noted especially since Mamdani (Citation1976).6 These include promotion of prosperity (article 13), development (articles 17, 18, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51), and equality (articles 34 and 45) for all (also see Scheman, Citation1981, p. 85).7 Morales was in office from 2006 to 2019.8 This was despite the fact that in 2017 the Bolivian Constitutional Court had unanimously decided all elected officials could run for re-election based on its interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR, an organization of the OAS), specifically, Article 23(2) (Right to Participate in Government).9 See Bolivian Constitution, Article 166(II) and Chapter III, Section I, Article 52 (II [b]) of the Bolivian Electoral System (Law No. 26 of 2010).10 The report was released by the Andean Information Network (AIN), Bolivia; the Association for Human Rights, Bolivia; the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS), Argentina; The Europe-Third World Center (CETIM), Switzerland; and the University Network for Human Rights (UNHR), USA.11 Both of these were in contravention of The OAS Charter’s express condemnation of aggression and upholding of the principle of non-intervention (directly or indirectly, ‘against its political, economic and cultural elements’, Article 15).12 The ‘school’ would be expelled from Panama in 1984 and relocated to Fort Benning, Georgia, and renamed WHINSEC.13 In countries such as Panama (Generals Miguel Antonio Noriega in 1983 and Omar Torrijos in 1968), Ecuador (Major General Guillermo Rodriguez in 1972) Peru (Major General Juan Velasco Alvarado in 1968), and six others in Argentina, Bolivia and Honduras.14 The ‘school’ would be expelled from Panama in 1984 and relocated to Fort Benning, Georgia, and renamed WHINSEC. In its mission statement, WHINSEC claims to have been founded upon the Charter of the OAS (Wadi, Citation2015, paras. 6, 7 & 8) but since 2016 issues of transparency and accountability have plagued the organization with the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals ruling that the names of students did not have to be disclosed (Thanawala, Citation2016).Additional informationNotes on contributorsShannon BrincatShannon Brincat is a Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations and the Program Director of the Bachelor of International Studies at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia. He holds a PhD in International Relations and a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Arts (both with Honours). His range of specializations include international political theory, climate change adaptation, and security. He has designed participatory research platforms and data collection in India, Mozambique, Fiji and Papua New Guinea. He has published 8 books and over 40 papers in international journals and books. For his publications see: shannonbrincat.com.Juan Z. N. CáceresJuan Z. N. Cáceres: is a PhD candidate in the School of Law and Society at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia. He is working on a thesis titled Latin American Regionalism. Progress or regression?: A critical analysis of the role of Colombia and Ecuador within the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). He holds a Master of International Studies, a Master of Teaching, Postgraduate degrees in Australian Migration Law and Constitutional Law and a Bachelor of Laws

Alliance · Development economics · Dominance (genetics · Hegemony · Latin Americans · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Regional Integration · Sociology · Solidarity · Treaty · International Relations and Foreign Policy · International Relations in Latin America · Law · Political and Social Dynamics in Chile and Latin America

Tools

Open DOI