The House Foreign Affairs Committee began its Wednesday markup of the State Department authorization bill by voting to end funding for the Organization of American States (OAS), with Republicans lambasting the organization as an enemy of freedom and democracy.

The one-hour debate over the GOP proposal to cut the entire $48.5 million annual U.S contribution to the OAS is only the beginning of what looks to be a long and contentious debate over the fiscal 2012 State Department and foreign operations authorization bill written by chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). Democrats accused the Republicans of isolationism and retreat for their proposal, while the Republicans accused the OAS of being an ally of anti-U.S. regimes in Cuba and Venezuela. The OAS Charter was signed in 1948 at a conference led by U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall.

“Let’s not continue to fund an organization that’s bent on destroying democracy in Latin America,” said Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL), the head of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere and the sponsor of the amendment. “You will support an organization that is destroying the dreams of the people of Latin America.” ~Josh Rogin

Charges of isolationism and retreat are obviously ridiculous, but that doesn’t mean that the reasons being offered for eliminating funding for the OAS make any sense. It is possible that the U.S. can’t do without this $48.5 million, but maintaining a regular role in our own main regional organization that the United States helped to found seems like the sort of normal engagement with neighboring states that generally serves American interests. The real problem with this anti-OAS sentiment is that it appears to be motivated by a desire to exercise greater regional hegemony. Opponents of the funding also appear to exaggerate wildly how important and influential Chavez is, and it seems likely that they are conflating political outcomes in democratic contests that they dislike with the collapse of democracy. As a regional organization filled entirely with democratically-elected governments that tend to look askance on American influence in Latin America, the OAS is not going to be a compliant or reliable instrument of the U.S. The notion that “the people of Latin America” would associate the OAS with destroying their “dreams” is comical. By and large, the OAS is far more closely aligned with the political aspirations of most nations in Latin America than the U.S. is., which is what one would expect since their states make up the overwhelming majority of members.

A few important distinctions need to be made here. There is no question that some of these governments are illiberal and a few are explicitly socialist in their ideology, and these governments tend to be very favorably disposed towards Cuba and ill-disposed towards the U.S. Of course, there are seriously flawed governments, including those of Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, but they represent a small number of the organization’s members. Gutting the organization’s funding to make a point about these states is frivolous at best. As Rogin reports, Cuba is not a member of the organization:

In fact, the organization lifted its ban on Cuban membership in 2009 but stated that the present Cuban government could only join if it adheres to the group’s democratic principles.

Nonetheless, the idea that the OAS is “bent on destroying democracy in Latin America” is laughable on its face. U.S. funding accounts for almost 60% of the OAS’ budget, and it seems unlikely that the OAS would be able to function at its current level without that funding. The worst thing that might be said of the OAS is that it doesn’t do very much, but most of what it does is fairly innocuous or even constructive when it comes to election monitoring and development aid.

Update: Ali Gharib has more on the alleged democracy-destroying activities of the OAS:

And the OAS has actually strongly criticized Chavez and Venezuela twice in the past two years. In early 2010, the OAS issued a blistering report about Venezuela’s human rights record and slipping democratic credentials. In January of this year, OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza criticized a Venezuelan law passed in December as being “completely contrary” to the Inter-American Democratic Charter passed by the OAS in 2001. Insulza added that the issue would likely come before the OAS.