Multilateralism Vs. Democracy

Today's Washington Post reports on the current standoff between the U.S. and the Chavez Axis -- led by OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza -- regarding the Cuban regime's possible readmission to the regional body, which the newspaper describes as a "challenge" for the U.S.'s regional priorities. 
 
The "challenge" is encapsulated as follows:
 
Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank in Washington, said the Cuba resolution has trapped the Obama administration between two of its priorities: democracy promotion and better relations with its neighbors.  In 2001, the U.S. government supported the Democratic Charter, a milestone in a region once known for dictatorships.  But Obama told hemispheric leaders in Trinidad and Tobago last month that he wanted to form closer partnerships and not have the United States dictate policy.
 
"There's really two different values at play here: multilateralism versus democracy. You can't have multilateralism and then let one country, i.e. the U.S., make the decision for a multilateral organization," Hakim said.
 
EDITOR'S NOTE:  Europe and the Americas are the only regions in the world almost entirely composed of liberal democracies -- Cuba is the exception in the Americas and Belarus is the exception in Europe.  In Europe, the 20th century's extremist ideologies -- fascism and communism -- were defeated due to the strength of the region's democracies and incremental economic integration.  Similarly, after decades of civil wars and strife, Latin America embraced representative democracy.  Today, peace in Europe and the Americas depends on the resilience of these democracies.  The reason the Chavez Axis insists on Cuba's unconditional readmission to the OAS is precisely to subvert its own democracies and eventually that of its neighbors -- a fissure that no degree of multilateralism can fix.