The Consequences of the Charter Passed by the OAS on 3 April 2017

By Andres Saez
Written and last edited 4 April 2017 07:22 AM

On April 3, 2017, the Organization of American States (OAS) voted to pass a resolution in response to current events in Venezuela. This is an account of the proceedings of the meeting (full video of the proceedings, in Spanish) as well as possible ramifications. The resolution comes in response to violations of the Inter-American Democratic Charter adopted by the general assembly on September 11, 2001, after a "self-inflicted coup d'état" on 30 March 2017, when the Venezuelan government dissolved the National Assembly and consolidated its powers with the Supreme Court of Justice, removing the last opposition-held remnants within the Maduro government. This has followed a year where the national assembly agenda has been blocked by a supreme court made of Maduro surrogates. The court’s decision has eliminated any symbolic resemblance of a democracy and has sparked the outrage of the current charter. 

The Session of the OAS on 3 April 2017

The motion was presented by the delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the United States, Jamaica, Mexico, Paraguay, and Peru, with the support of the delegations of Guatemala and Panama. In addition to these 13 backing nations, the delegation of Uruguay, in accordance with its prior resolutions as a member of MercoSur (a sub-regional bloc) stands with the delegations of Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil in condemning the actions of the Venezuelan government. This was all laid out by Susana Malcorra, Foreign Minister of Argentina, speaking on behalf of the president of Argentina (and president pro tempore of MercoSur) in the meeting.

The delegates of Venezuela and Bolivia were less than pleased with the motion to pass this resolution. The Bolivian delegate, Diego Pary Rodríguez, was recently appointed as president of the Permanent Council of the OAS, and immediately filed to delay the deliberation for which 20 member states had filed. The meeting was held despite Pary's tardiness and presumed absence, with the representative of Honduras, Leónidas Rosa Bautista, acting as interim president as per Article 7 of the Statutes of the Permanent Council of the OAS. When Pary arrived, Bautista offered him his place as presiding president, which Pary refused, instead calling the motion a usurpation of the rights of Bolivia. The delegation of Venezuela had similar complaints, stating that in accordance with Article 1 of the OAS charter, the member states had no authority to intervene in the internal affairs of Venezuela, and reiterating this fact until finally leaving the meeting in protest before the resolution was even read.

In the end, the resolution passed unanimously with the 20 nations present despite initial calls from the Canadian delegation to postpone the vote until the general assembly meeting Wednesday and initial objections on behalf of El Salvador and the Dominican Republic, who advocated for "open dialogue" moderated by former Presidents José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (Spain), Leonel Fernández (Dominican Republic), and Martín Torrijos (Panama), as well as the Holy See. 

The Ramifications of the Resolution Adopted by the Permanent Council on 3 April 2017

According to Article 19 of the OAS charter, 

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements

 This means that any militaristic intervention would have to be an act of a government outside of its jurisdiction as a member state. On the other hand, the newly-adopted resolution allows for the member states

To stand ready to support measures to return to democratic order through the effective exercise of democracy and rule of law within the Venezuelan constitutional framework.

This means that should an opposition-led group claim the ideal of a "constitutional change" to instill a "democratic government" (as has been proposed by opposition leaders for years), it would be within their right as member nations to intervene in support of the opposition as they see fit.

It is not out of the question that the opposition, upon learning that it has substantial international backing, including a world superpower such as the United States, would finally use this decision to stir up popular support for an insurrection. The USA has a moral imperative to back these opposition leaders because of its commitment to democratic principles and free elections, as well as its commitment to the Inter-American Democratic Charter of the OAS. In particular, the United States needs to ensure that should such a movement occur, a full-blown civil war be avoided to the greatest extent possible. To that end, the United States should use every legal method within its power under domestic and international law to uphold the values it has publicly declared.

The State Department and  Interim U.S. Permanent Representative to the OAS Kevin Sullivan have both yet to comment (outside of Mr. Sullivan's comments during the meeting above) on what they believe to be the ramifications of the charter which they presented and their commitments therein.

-------------------------------
All content in this post (as well as any other articles on this blog) are the sole intellectual property of Andres Saez. If you wish to quote or use this post in your publication, please make inquiries via email.