What Canada Is Up To at the
Organization of
American States
Whither the Divided Organization of American States?
- Sir Ronald Sanders -
On March 20, 2020, a reckless and irresponsible
General
Assembly (GA) was held by the Organization of American States
(OAS), putting the health of many at risk and giving an entirely
wrong example to the entire world. The meeting of at least 50
persons was held amid intense concerns about the quickly
spreading Coronavirus (COVID-19), and despite the strongest
possible recommendations by U.S. and international health
authorities not to hold gatherings larger than 10 persons.
This dangerous act was done to hold the election
for a
Secretary-General of the Organization and to gain an advantage
for the incumbent, Luis Almagro, who was the declared candidate
of the U.S., Brazil and Colombia. Almagro's current term does not
end until May 28. Therefore, the meeting could easily have been
postponed for at least a month, allowing time for greater control
of COVID-19.
Rather than cancelling the meeting, the OAS
issues a press release stating
it is inspecting the meeting room. Click to enlarge.
|
Despite logic and good sense, many member states
of the
Organization were coerced into holding what was, at best, a
wrongful meeting. At worst, the meeting was illegal.
The meeting proceeded, based on the advice of the
Legal
Secretary of the OAS. He is an employee of the Secretariat and is
answerable to the Secretary-General. He may be the most
independent-minded and fair person in the world, but because all
his opinions have synchronized with the positions of the
Secretary-General and powerful states within the Organization,
healthy scepticism of his advice is understandable.
Remarkably, the Permanent Council of the OAS --
the supposedly
highest, day-to-day decision-making organ of the institution --
has no legal counsel of its own, and no machinery for seeking
external and independent legal guidance. Therefore, the opinion
of the Legal Secretary prevails.
In the week running-up to the GA, the U.S. was in
a state of
heightened concern over COVID-19. The official
advice from the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the
Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), the U.S. Centres for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the President of the U.S.
himself, was to hold no gatherings larger than ten persons.
Three days before the meeting, 13 CARICOM
countries sent a
joint letter to all member states of the OAS and to the
Secretary-General, pointing out the dangers of the meeting, and
the powerful advice from all pertinent health authorities, to
postpone it. Haiti was the only CARICOM country that did not sign
the official letter.
While the CDC was asked to examine the OAS
building at which
the meeting was held, there were no other pertinent checks. No
one, entering the room, was checked for their travel history, or
for the travel history of persons with whom they had been in
contact. Anyone could have been COVID-19 positive, but simply
displaying no symptoms. The virus is known to take up to 14 days
to incubate. The dangerous consequences of that meeting may yet
unfold.
Up to the day prior to the event, meetings of
representatives
of the regional groups of the Organization were held
electronically to consider the letter from the 13 Caribbean
countries, which had the private backing of many other states,
although some of them were silent publicly for whatever
reason.
On March 19, the Legal Secretary gave the opinion
that the GA
could only be postponed by the Permanent Council since the
decision to hold the General Assembly on March 20 was taken by
the Permanent Council and only the Permanent Council could change
its own rules. When asked whether the Permanent Council could
hold an electronic meeting to consider postponement, the Legal
Secretary gave the further opinion, ex cathedra, that
the rules
of the Council did not permit electronic meetings. It seemed not
to occur to him that the rules were written prior to the
technological age in which circumstances, such as COVID-19, did
not exist. He also casually dismissed the notion that where rules
are silent on a course of action, simple common sense should
prevail. In all the opinions he gave, the Legal Secretary was
backed up by the representatives of the countries determined to
hold the GA on March 20.
What is important to note here is that a precedent
has now
been set. No meetings of the Permanent Council can be held
electronically since the rules do not provide for it. The
Organization may yet be hoisted by this petard in the weeks
ahead.
Of further note is that the GA was held under new
rules of
procedure that were not approved by the GA itself, although only
the GA could change its own rules. None of the states that
insisted on holding it, nor the Legal Secretary, has explained on
what authority the rules were changed.
All of this is a sad indication of what the OAS
has become. It
is an organization run by a few for a few. In any event, Luis
Almagro was elected for a second term with 23 votes. Ten
countries voted for Maria Fernanda Espinosa, the remaining
contender, since the Peruvian candidate Luis de Zela had
withdrawn, and Dominica was the sensible absentee.
Over the last few years, the OAS has experienced a
bitter
period of division among its member states that has left the
Organization weakened and lacking in a coherent vision of its way
forward in the collective interest of the people of the Americas
that it was created to serve.
If these divisions are not bridged and these
wounds are not
healed, the Organization will continue to exist only as a
cauldron for disagreement and discord. This would be catastrophic
for the OAS as an institution. It would also be calamitous for
Almagro's record.
Majority is not consensus. To operate only based
on satisfying
a majority, however achieved, neglects the interests of many
others. The OAS will not survive in constant contention, vexation
and division. Almagro's second term provides him a great
opportunity to leave a legacy of which he could be proud and
which all member states could honour. It will require him to be
attentive to the needs and aspirations of each group within the
OAS, and to forge a common and vibrant agenda on which there is
genuine consensus.
The member states themselves also must be
committed to that
goal and act on it, or the Organization will wither into a few
states, using it as a bullhorn for their own positions, disdained
by others tired of being subjugated.
(Sir Ronald Sanders is the non-resident
High Commissioner to Canada of Antigua and Barbuda and Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the U.S. and the OAS.)
This article was published in
Volume 50 Number 16 - May 9, 2020
Article Link:
What Canada Is Up To at the
Organization of
American States: Whither the Divided Organization of American States? - Sir Ronald Sanders
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|