In the early hours of October 8, the recent General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) closed, under the slogan “Together against inequality and discrimination,” which took place in Lima.
This time, the Assembly had the stellar participation of none other than Secretary of State Antony Blinken. His presence in the Assembly of the regional organization ended up being useful to reinforce the arguments that the United States government usually proclaims in this type of forum, where its Latin American counterparts meet.
Thus, Blinken insisted on the need to maintain the alignment of Latin American and Caribbean governments in the face of the turbulent times we are currently experiencing. But, above all, in the face of links that could arise with rivals such as China and Russia. Similarly, he spoke in favor of democratic regimes and against the survival of ideologies, as if they were necessarily antithetical and irreconcilable terms.
It was not by chance, therefore, that Blinken insisted on this idea, not only criticizing the governments of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, which is already a leitmotif in this type of international meeting. On this occasion, and surely given the political changes that have occurred in the region in recent months (and those that will come in the near future), he referred to the increasingly widespread presence of “anti-democratic leaders”, ultimately responsible for the implementation of “authoritarian regimes”, even under the false justification that they have “popular support”.
Faced with the fear that more and more governments in the region will distance themselves from “democracy” (or from what is understood by it in Washington), and face a more autonomous path (although not for that, of confrontation with the United States) , Blinken indicated that he will work with his partners, either in governments, as well as in civil society organizations, to denounce the alleged abuses of governors and popular leaders.
Based on the above, the debate on the current conflict in Europe was also included. In this regard, Blinken congratulated the OAS for having expelled Russia months ago as an observer member of the organization and pointed out that it was crucial that all countries condemn the “fraudulent referendums” on the annexation to Russia of four provinces located in eastern Ukraine.
Even, and to deepen the insistence in the face of a conflict of wide proportions in which the region refuses to interfere, a film of President Volodímir Zelensky was presented in which he requested the solidary and direct support of the Latin American governments. However, it is probable that the mention of him to San Martín, Bolívar and Hidalgo as possible supporters of the Ukrainian cause if they had been alive today, has added surprise, bewilderment and rejection in the Assembly participants.
Without major news regarding its thematic agenda, the conclave had positive gestures such as the treatment of the rights of sexual minorities, which in turn provoked mobilizations in rejection that visualized the organization as an enemy under slogans such as “OAS: women define biology, not ideology” and “The OAS is an atheist, it wants you without a god and without a family!” Similarly, it is worth highlighting the approval by acclamation of a resolution that defends “the legitimate rights” of Argentina over the Malvinas Islands: a fair tribute and claim to forty years of war with Great Britain.
However, the new times that run within the OAS, and that mark certain changes within the internal correlation of forces, took place in a specific event that, despite everything, did not have great importance in the international press. Thus, the debate revolved around whether the OAS could admit Gustavo Tarre as a “special representative”, who until now has served as a delegate of the leader Juan Guaidó.
Indeed, as soon as the Venezuelan government left the OAS structure, Gustavo Tarre has been operating on an equal footing with the rest of the representatives of the different governments since April 2019, except that he does so as a delegate of the “president in charge.” thanks to the initiative of the United States (at that time, under Donald Trump), Secretary General Luis Almagro, and the satellite countries that approved this controversial initiative, especially from the “Lima Group.” At that time, only 10 countries on the Permanent Council criticized this decision.
This discussion was surely influenced by the renewed dialogue between the governments of Biden and Maduro over the world oil situation after the crisis in Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia, the strengthening of the Venezuelan government and a new crisis in the opposition, Added to this is the growing discredit of Juan Guaidó and his inner circle, above all, in the management of important economic resources. Of course, to this must be added the changes in some governments in the region.
Tarre’s exclusion proposal was presented by Antigua and Barbuda and accompanied by the governments of Mexico, Bolivia and Caribbean countries allied with Venezuela.
To be approved, the initiative had to have the approval of two thirds of the representatives, that is, 24 votes: that number was not reached, although it reached 19 votes, which in any case can be considered a success in the Assembly. Indeed, behind a specific objective, and which obviously generates a wide discord within the OAS, a broad group of governments were able to act in a coordinated manner.
In this sense, the representatives of Argentina, Mexico, and Bolivia and a broad group of Caribbean nations (Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica and Grenada). They were joined by representatives from Colombia, Chile, Honduras and Peru and even the government of Panama.
In the vote there were nine abstentions, among which were the representatives of Brazil, Uruguay, Ecuador and Costa Rica. Meanwhile, the permanence of Guaidó’s delegate in the OAS only obtained the support of four governments: that of the United States, accompanied by Canada, Paraguay and Guatemala.
Without a doubt, the final numbers of the election must have been worrying for Washington but, above all, revealing of the change of era that the region is currently experiencing. It is true that not all the votes in favor of expulsion are “anti-United States” votes, but it is also true that the unconditional supporters of Biden were reduced to only three governments, of which only two are Latin American.
Similarly, only a few governments opted for neutrality, including Brazil, which may change its political sign in the coming weeks, along with Ecuador and Uruguay, aligned with Washington although in the midst of growing weakness.
In short, the vote on Tarre involved a discussion about the Venezuelan government, its opposition, and its international support. It was not a minor issue and it was not just a matter of numbers. On the contrary, he provided an x-ray of the political tensions that exist today and that could even strengthen the internal investigation that is currently being carried out around Luis Almagro for an alleged violation of the code of ethics within the OAS.