At the OAS but not at the April 3 meeting from which no proper notice was given
“It was a coup d'état followed by a lynching”. That’s how an official of the Organisation of American States (OAS) described a meeting of the Permanent Council of the hemispheric body that was held on April 3 in the most unorthodox circumstances and at which 17 countries tore-up the rule book to force through a resolution on Venezuela.
If the meeting had been held 2 days earlier, no onlooker would have been blamed for believing it was an April fool’s day joke. As it turned out, the meeting that was on, then off, then on again, was akin to a tragi-comedy.
At its root was a determination by a group of 17 countries, led by Canada, Mexico and the US, to adopt a resolution on Venezuela in which the Permanent Council would “undertake as necessary further diplomatic initiatives to foster the restoration of the democratic institutional system, in accordance with the Charter of the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Democratic Charter, including the convening of a ministerial meeting”.
Such a Resolution would normally have been controversial among all 34 member states of the Organisation but it had a chance of widespread support on Friday, March 31 after the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice (STJ) suspended the powers of the elected National Assembly and arrogated them to itself.
Few could argue – and none with any validity – that the actions of the STJ had not altered the constitutional regime in Venezuela. And, according to Article 20 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, that alteration allowed “any member state or the Secretary-General” to “request the immediate convocation of the Permanent Council to undertake a collective assessment of the situation and to take such decisions as it deems appropriate”.
It was against this background that on Friday, March 31 there was a groundswell of support, for a Resolution that would demand a reversal of the STJ’s actions and the restoration of the powers of the Venezuelan National Assembly. However, the lead nations of the group of 17 recognised an obstacle in their way. That obstacle was that on the next working day of the Permanent Council – Monday, April 3 – Bolivia would replace Belize as the Chair of the Council. They calculated that Bolivia – an extremely close ally of Venezuela - was unlikely to be in a hurry to call a meeting of the Permanent Council to discuss Venezuela under the only thing that allowed such a discussion which was Article 20 of the Inter-Democratic Charter. So, without consultation with other member states, the powerful countries of the group of 17 persuaded the outgoing Chair, literally in the final hours of his tenure on Friday, March 31, to convoke the meeting for the afternoon of Monday, April 3.
However, on the next day Saturday, April 1, the authorities in Venezuela did exactly what the majority of member states of the OAS were planning to urge at any upcoming meeting of the Council – they instructed the TSJ to rescind its two rulings (155 and 156) that had effectively eviscerated the National Assembly. On the same day, the TSJ rescinded its decisions and the powers and immunities of the National Assembly were duly restored.
By so doing, the authorities in Venezuela had pulled from the jaws of OAS condemnation the alteration of the constitution that would have permitted a discussion of Venezuela by the Permanent Council without the consent of government. And, it is important to understand that the Charter of the OAS and the Inter-American Democratic Charter forbid interference in the internal affairs of a member state without its permission.
Effectively, then on Monday, April 3 there was no further basis for a discussion of Venezuela within the rules laid down by the two governing Charters. As predicted, the Bolivian Chair, who assumed office at 11 o’clock that morning, decided to suspend the formal meeting of the Permanent Council scheduled for 2pm; instead he summoned an informal meeting of all member states for 4 pm at which all countries could discuss the events in Venezuela, with Venezuela’s participation, away from the live television coverage that accompanies formal Council meetings.
The leaders of the group, who had engineered the formal meeting of the Council, protested its suspension and with the help of the Secretary-General (himself at loggerheads with the Venezuelan government), the meeting was re-instated without proper notice. Consequently, almost half of the member states were not present. Faced with a refusal by the Bolivian Chair to hold the meeting and an equally firm refusal by the Vice Chair from Haiti to step-in, the dubious honour of chairing the meeting fell to Honduras which was one of the group of countries that had demanded the meeting.
It remains more than doubtful that the meeting was held within the rules of the Organisation. This was underlined by the elected Bolivian Chair who made a cameo appearance at the meeting only to denounce it as a ‘coup d’état’ before walking out. Then a Resolution, which was also not presented within the rules of the Organisation, was adopted by “acclamation” by only 17 of the 34 member states, whereas the guiding rule states unequivocally that “decisions shall be taken by the vote of an absolute majority”.
Whatever anyone thinks of the situation in Venezuela, Monday, April 3 was an inglorious day in the history of the OAS. The events of that day did nothing to advance concerns about a member state; slammed the door on the opportunity for a tough and meaningful discussion; and hardened the lines of antagonism between member countries.
The rules and the Charters of the OAS are outmoded and in need of urgent review but disregard for them while they remain the only guiding principles, has eroded confidence and trust in the organisation. And, that is a great shame at a time when the world needs strong institutions of multilateralism.