The OAS and Venezuela
At Venezuela Dialogues, a group of experts gives differing opinions about what the role of the OAS should be with regard to Venezuela. Rather than engage each argument, I think it's useful to step back and take a more philosophical perspective.
1. Should the OAS be "impartial" or "neutral"? This makes me uncomfortable. The OAS sent a delegation to Chile in 1974 and made a bunch of recommendations. That certainly wasn't neutral and I don't think anyone today would think it a problem.
2. Should both sides be equally criticized? This is similar to the question above. All things being equal, the state in any situation is far more powerful than civil society and so should be held to a much higher standard.
3. Should an OAS head (or the head of any international organization) be outspoken? I'm agnostic, but some of the authors correctly note that personalization of a conflict actually decreases the effectiveness and leverage of the organization.
4. Should we downplay criticism of human rights abuses in one country because other countries with abuses are not getting as much attention? No. I think all countries should be scrutinized, but that failure to scrutinize one should not detract from the serious nature of abuses elsewhere.