The idea that the United States can or should promote democracy by relying on such multilateral political institutions or engaging in more aggressive approaches is dubious. The OAS has long been ineffective at defending basic freedoms in Latin America, having remained silent about serious violations of the rule of law, freedom of expression, and democracy in such countries as Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador in recent years. Nor is it the proper role of the United States to take on democracy building missions, something in which it has a poor record. But it is proper for the United States to condemn human rights violations when they occur, and membership in the OAS is explicitly based on the defense of such rights, the rule of law and representative democracy. That’s why the OAS’s decision on Cuba is a disappointing sign of the Obama administration’s policy toward Latin America and of the OAS’s continuing loss of credibility.

In its attempt to be well liked in the region, the Obama administration is trying to have it both ways: opening the door to an authoritarian regime for membership in a club of democratic countries, while claiming that the move will somehow pressure Cuba to democratize. As for Latin American governments, the move reflects the rise of populist politics in the region and the preference to criticize the United States rather than defend the liberties of Latin Americans. For those of us who regularly criticize Washington’s heavy-handed policies in the region—including the Cuban embargo—we can only hope that the U.S. administration’s new approach will indeed bring about positive change in hemispheric relations as it claims. One sign of such success would be the emergence of a vigorous campaign by all democratic governments of the hemisphere to condemn abuses of power and human rights violations wherever they occur in the region. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that is about to happen, especially now that Cuba has been welcomed back to the OAS.

Worse, the administration has supported a massive increase in international aid through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank on a scale not seen before as a way to help poor countries deal with the global financial crisis. The idea that large wealth transfers can jump-start growth is an old and failed one and new permanent resources at the lending agencies will only aggravate the lack of accountability problems that they suffer. In the first 100 days, it looks like the Obama administration is embracing old approaches to global development based on government-to-government aid, rather than policies primarily based on wealth creation.

U.S. economic growth, rather than foreign aid or other forms of U.S. largesse, should be welcomed by regional leaders. In practice, Obama should announce a commitment to supporting the Colombia and Panama free trade agreements and move away from the protectionist measures that ban Mexican truckers from driving in the United States, a policy that violates the North American Free Trade Agreement. Such an announcement would be a powerful signal to the region of the United States' continued interest in economic integration.

Greater integration should include Cuba as well, but all regional leaders should forcefully denounce the Castro dictatorship and human rights abuses in Cuba that are typically ignored by Latin America's democratic governments.

Other areas for positive U.S. policy change toward the region include liberalization of an immigration policy that is currently at odds with economic reality; and an end to the failed U.S.-led war on drugs that is undermining the institutions of civil society south of the Rio Grande.

Such moves by Washington would be major steps forward for inter-American relations. At the same time, they would require Latin American leaders to recognize that the United States can help, but not solve, the region's problems. The hard work of development has to be done by Latin Americans themselves.