It was an active time for the OAS Permanent Council on Venezuela and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. First there was the March 28 meeting of the Council, triggered by a joint statement by 14 member countries expressing concern over the democratic situation in Venezuela, and then a meeting less than a week later, on April 3, over the Venezuelan Supreme Court’s controversial ruling to strip the National Assembly of its powers—a decision that the court later repealed at the request of President Nicolas Maduro after a domestic and international uproar.
The March 28 meeting lasted four hours and came about because of a letter signed by 14 OAS member states (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the U.S., and Uruguay). In addition, four Caribbean states (Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica, and St. Lucia) supported it informally. The final statement called on the Venezuelan government to release political leaders, recognize “the legitimacy of the National Assembly’s decisions,” and resume or establish an electoral calendar. In doing so, the statement not only put down a marker with specific demands to the government, it ended with a demand for next steps should the Venezuelan government refuse to address those challenges. What those steps could be were not specifically defined.
Early in the discussion, Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua tried to boycott the meeting. But they were overridden by a coalition of OAS member states led by Mexico that included Peru, Costa Rica, Argentina, Canada, and the United States. (Grenada, a member of Venezuela’s PetroCaribe program, was conspicuously absent from the meeting). In the end, there was little surprise in the vote count. The votes fell largely along the same lines as the vote in June 2016, when the Permanent Council voted to hear a report by OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro on Venezuela, which we covered in our last report. The only differences were that St. Lucia moved from abstaining in June to voting yes in this discussion; Antigua and Barbuda switched from voting no in June to abstaining, further splintering the PetroCaribe coalition; and Suriname switched from voting yes to voting no this time. Twenty member states were in favor (see chart p. 10), chief among them: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, United States, Mexico, and Peru. Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, and Nicaragua voted against, as was expected by reports in the media and their unequivocal support of the Venezuelan government throughout the meeting.
Early in the discussion, Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua tried to boycott the meeting. But they were overridden by a coalition of OAS member states led by Mexico that included Peru, Costa Rica, Argentina, Canada, and the United States. (Grenada, a member of Venezuela’s PetroCaribe program, was conspicuously absent from the meeting.) In the end, there was little surprise in the vote count. The votes fell largely along the same lines as the vote in June 2016, when the Permanent Council voted to hear a report by OAS secretary general Luis Almagro on Venezuela, which we covered in our last report. The only differences were that St. Lucia moved from abstaining in June to voting yes in this discussion; Antigua and Barbuda switched from voting no in June to abstaining, further splintering the PetroCaribe coalition; and Suriname switched from voting yes to voting no this time. Twenty member states were in favor (see chart p. 10), chief among them: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, United States, Mexico, and Peru. Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, and Nicaragua voted against, as was expected by reports in the media and their unequivocal support of the Venezuelan government throughout the meeting.
The April 3 meeting of the Permanent Council followed the Venezuelan Supreme Court’s decision to strip the National Assembly of its power and came at the request of Secretary General Luis Almagro. The meeting was to discuss a resolution condemning the actions of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, calling them “an alteration of the constitutional order of Venezuela”—a violation of the OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter.
The Permanent Council meeting got off to a rough start when the rotating chair of the Permanent Council, Bolivia, was removed by a vote of the Council members for refusing to allow the meeting to go forward. He was replaced by the representative from Honduras, who allowed the meeting to be held. The discussion opened with a presentation by the foreign minister of Argentina, Susana Malcorra, who called for release of political prisoners, respect for human rights, and the preservation of Venezuela’s democratic institutions. The Venezuelan ambassador interrupted the presentation several times and eventually walked out of the meeting in protest.
In the discussion that followed, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay all spoke out in favor of the meeting and the resolution presented by Peru. On the other side, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela denounced the meeting and the resolution, with Bolivia calling the meeting of the Permanent Council an “institutional coup.” In the end, the resolution was adopted by consensus, with Bahamas, Belize, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador abstaining. The resolution committed the organization to remain apprised of the situation and to “undertake as necessary further diplomatic initiatives to foster the restoration of the democratic institutional system.”
The Venezuelan Supreme Court retraction of the order in the days that followed rendered the resolution moot, though the events in Venezuela triggered waves of opposition protests and a violent crackdown by the government. In the crackdown, more than 70 people were killed by the Venezuelan armed forces and by armed pro-government private militias. The violence and paralysis provoked a call for OAS’s top diplomats to vote on April 25 on the situation in Venezuela. In response, that same day, Venezuelan foreign minister Delcy Rodríguez announced that the government would leave the OAS, saying the government refused to participate in OAS activities or meetings trying to “undermine the stability and peace of our country,” with the goal of promoting an “invasion.” According to experts and the OAS, Venezuela’s departure would take up to 24 months and the payment of outstanding dues.
If Venezuela follows through on its threat, it will serve to further isolate the beleaguered country, but if other countries friendly to Venezuela—such as Bolivia and Nicaragua—decide to follow suit, it could endanger the 50-plus-year-old hemispheric body, with no equivalent organization with the same institutional capacity and normative foundation ready to fill the role. As we have demonstrated in our previous two reports, the Union of South American Republics (UNASUR) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) lack the protocols, experience, expertise, and quite likely, the political will to speak out forcefully and sanction governments for violations of human rights and democratic standards, including free and fair elections. All of this leaves the question: If not the OAS, what comes next?