Against an O.A.S. Force

The U.S. now seems intent on continuing -- even expanding and institutionalizing -- the policy of intervention which it applied to the Dominican Republic. At a meeting of the O.A.S. foreign ministers last week, Secretary of State Rusk proposed the formation of a regional "peace-keeping force", an Inter-American army designed to "safeguard the democratic process against totalitarian takeover."

U.S. officials maintain that this force, composed of military units from every nation in the Hemisphere, would be controlled by "formal consultation" among O.A.S. members. All intervention would be multilateral; no action would be taken without "unanimity" among O.A.S. states. Yet, it is difficult to believe that such "consultation" would be anything more than perfunctory, paper-thin assent to unilateral U.S. decisions. The U.S. managed to wring an ex post facto seal of approval from the O.A.S. for its action in the Dominican Republic; and in the future, Dean Rusk told the foreign ministers, the O.A.S. "ought to be prepared to move fast and effectively."

By using the peace-keeping force to suppress revolution, the U.S. would shirk the stigma of intervention, while continuing to dominate O.A.S. decisions. But in the process, it would also risk splitting the Alliance for Progress, the linchpin of American diplomacy in this hemisphere, as well as the Organization of American States. Merely by pressing for the creation of the force, the U.S. will create serious dissension. Four Latin American nations--Chile, Mexico, Columbia and Uruguay--have soundly denounced the proposal. Five others -- Peru, Venczucla, Argentina, Ecuador and Costa Rica are -- known to be opposed. "This idea of collective action in the internal affairs of states," Gabriel Valdez of Chile told the ministers, "reflects a negative defensive attitude capable of destroying historically the great effort of organizing a new world in the Americas."

For the principle of non-intervention -- the idea that no state or group of states has the right to interfere directly or indirectly in the internal affairs of another state -- is essential legally and diplomatically to every program of hemispheric co-operation. It is stated clearly in Article 15 of the Charter of Bogota, the basic document of policy for the Americas, and it was repeated by nearly every speaker at the Rio Conference. Although the ministers tactfully buried a resolution sponsored by Colombia condemning "a military armed intervention this year in the Dominican Republic", they left no doubt of their dissatisfaction with American policy.

Continued intervention by the U.S. -- whether by unilateral invasion, or under the cover of a regional peace-keeping force -- will only hasten the "totalitarian takeovers" which the Administration is pledged to prevent. Our Dominican policy has convinced Latin Americans that the U.S. will back right-wing civilian or military regimes if there is a possibility that a new government would have communist collaboration.

The fear that the U.S. will invade to protect the status quo inhibits the rise of governments which are committed to reforms. Yet such reforms are essential to economic and social development, the central aim of the Alliance for Progress. While the U.S. continues to pour aid and investment into the Alliance, its policy of intervention forestalls the measures necessary for Progress.