front page - editorial archives  - search - community

Commentary
	What next after the OAS? (Published March 8, 2004) By BILL MOSLEY

It was a historic step forward in the struggle for full democratic rights for the District. On Feb. 11 a panel of the Organization of American States (OAS) declared that the United States’ treatment of the citizens of its own capital city violates international law.

This decision comes after more than a decade of hard work by the indefatigable Tim Cooper and other D.C. democracy advocates. The decision by OAS’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights puts an international body on record as declaring that the District’s lack of voting representation in Congress is intolerable in the eyes of at least part of the world community.

The ruling alone brings no immediate relief. The commission’s decisions are non-binding and carry no enforcement mechanism. In addition, the ruling speaks only to voting in Congress; it does not address the other inequities of the D.C.-federal relationship – such as congressional control over the District’s budgets, laws and governance structure. Even full representation in Congress would not prevent Congress from meddling in (and delaying) our annual budget, snubbing our referendum (approved by 82 percent of voters) to have local crimes prosecuted not by a U.S. attorney but by a district attorney responsible to local residents, and stunting our municipal revenues by forbidding the District from enacting a commuter tax.

The OAS ruling does not mean statehood is around the corner.

Nevertheless, the ruling provides rhetorical ammunition with which the local democracy movement can hammer the U.S. government for treating the District and its 570,000 citizens as its private property. No longer are we crying alone in the wilderness – a respectable, objective forum has heard us and amplified our voices. The extensive press coverage of the decision was itself worth the effort.

The decision also exposes the hypocrisy of the U.S. government when it criticizes the human rights records of other countries – such as Russia, cited by a recent State Department report for anti-democratic practices. Now, the Putin regime may not practice the most pristine form of democracy, but the residents of Moscow at least have voting representation in the State Duma. Who should be criticizing whom?

We must look at the OAS ruling not as a final destination but as another step on the road to full democracy. Cooper himself has suggested some follow-up actions, such as having D.C. residents form diplomatic delegations to foreign embassies and taking the case to other international bodies.

Creative minds could think of other ways to exploit the ruling. If the United States is a human rights violator, it finds itself in the company of, for example, South Africa during the apartheid era, or present-day nations such as Cuba and Burma that live under some form of sanction. Now, the treatment of the District is not exactly like that of blacks under apartheid South Africa, but the difference is one of degree – to those who cherish justice, a "minor" human rights violation is like being a little bit pregnant.

Why not be bold? Perhaps we should take a page from the anti-apartheid playbook and ask other countries to curtail cultural exchanges with the United States. How about asking the International Olympic Committee to bar U.S. participation in the Olympics (excepting D.C. athletes)? I don’t expect them to agree, but even raising the issue will cause the suits in the State Department to sweat a bit. Many of us have friends in other countries – why not ask them to picket U.S. embassies in Paris, London, San Salvador or Seoul just as Americans picketed the South African embassy here?

The OAS ruling itself mandates no change in D.C.’s status, but it opens the doors to a host of possibilities for activism. Let’s make the next step a big one.

***

Bil7l Mosley is a member of the Stand Up! For Democracy in D.C. Coalition. Contact him at billmosley@verizon.net.

Copyright 2004, The Common Denominator