Q: In July, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee voted to end the United States' annual $48.5 million contribution to the Organization of American States, with Republicans arguing that it is deferential to leftist regimes including Venezuela. Though the measure is unlikely to pass the Senate, it has triggered a discussion about the organization's importance. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the OAS? How important is the institution, and what would take its place? What does the debate signal about the United States' relationship with the region?

A: Harriet Babbitt, attorney at Jennings, Strouss & Salmon PLC and former U.S. ambassador to the OAS under President Bill Clinton: "The Venezuelan opposition has spoken out forcefully and clearly in support of the importance of the OAS. I concur with their concern that our withholding our dues 'will jeopardize the opportunity to restore democracy and the rule of law' and believe we the United States would be foolish to weaken the one remaining multilateral forum which we have to relate to our neighbors. While the OAS is imperfect, we in this hemisphere all benefit from the organization's attention to democratic principles and human rights. We should also remember that the OAS has provided a useful forum for expanding rule of law measures of special interest to the United States. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), prohibiting U.S. citizens from bribing foreign nationals, was passed in 1977. From that time until the mid-1990s, despite our aggressive diplomacy to urge others to follow suit, no other country or multilateral forum had passed similar laws. The OAS led the world with the successful negotiation of the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption. The OAS convention was the first international anticorruption convention agreed to in any forum when it was adopted in 1996 by the 34 member states. Importantly, OAS leadership produced valuable subsequent anticorruption action in the OECD and the United Nations. It would be short-sighted and counterproductive to fail to fund an organization that has provided significant support for human rights, democratic institutions, open trade and anti-corruption efforts in our neighborhood."

A: Roger Noriega, managing director of Vision Americas LLC and former U.S. ambassador to the Organization of American States under President George W. Bush: "The OAS' central strength is that it operates by consensus and can serve to organize a genuinely regional response to crises. However, when a group of countries block consensus on the most fundamental issues (such as promoting democracy or fighting terrorism or drugs) in a conscious effort to undermine the organization's effectiveness, 'consensus' becomes a weakness. The secretary general can defend the credibility and independence of the OAS if he has the political will to do so. It is clear that José Miguel Insulza has failed in this responsibility. He has let himself be bullied by Venezuela and its clique of client states, and he has been unwilling or unable to get the United States, Brazil, Canada or other key governments to work with him to do the job he was elected to do. His re-election was a nadir for the OAS, because no government cared enough to field a credible alternative. Because dictatorships are being created to muzzle popular will, the OAS should be reformed to create a forum for the voice of the people (in the form of independent branches of government, credible NGOs, media organizations or political parties) to be heard. Donor governments should be permitted to allocate their regular fund contributions to their priorities. The key states should meet informally on a regular basis to agree on a constructive agenda for the OAS and to identify issues that should be put to a vote. And, the secretary general should be elected to a single five-year term and should resign as soon as he or she becomes a candidate for another public office."

A: John Maisto, member of the Advisor board, director of U.S. Education Finance Group and former U.S. ambassador to the OAS under President George W. Bush: "The OAS' glaring weakness is in dealing with threats to democracy that come from some elected governments themselves. Such violations of the 2001 Inter-American Democratic Charter (IADC) include politicizing election tribunals and judiciaries, media pressures, using taxes and other powers against opponents and civil and human rights violations. (OAS responses to the Honduras coup and the Ecuador police situation were easy IADC applications). But the OAS' strengths are important: the world's best independent human rights organization-the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, election observation, horizontal cooperation in counter-narcotics and anti-terrorism, peer-review on compliance with anticorruption agreements, in addition to scholarships and training. The OAS' combatant resettlement programs in Central America and Colombia are models. Another institution is not the answer. Applying the IADC fully is the only way to make the OAS, a club of executive branches, a hands-on defender of democracy. This will require smart, persistent U.S. diplomacy. Allowing other branches of government to have a voice at the OAS and to provide similar access to civil society organizations would be useful steps forward. For any of this to happen, individual governments, with the OAS secretary general, must provide the political will to apply the IADC. This includes insisting on election observation where political opposition and civil society demand it, and compliance with recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Although some governments, citing 'nonintervention' and 'sovereignty' may resist and even threaten leaving, such efforts are necessary for the OAS to be credible. The alternative is the OAS withering away into nonrelevance."