Can OAS overcome their divided committee?

Written by Matilda Alexis Camara, Journalist, LIMUN

Tension fills the air at the Organisation of American States as three blocs clash against their approaches on ‘Forming a response to the erosion of democratic institutions and suppression of political opposition’. After two unmoderated caucuses and endless moderated caucuses, their prospects of reaching a resolution that satisfies every country are low.

Three blocs, many solutions, no agreements

One bloc, comprising Costa Rica, Argentina and others, campaigns for an institutional approach where they focus on improving institutions in order to address the issue of democratic erosion and suppression of political opposition. They intend to pioneer preventative provisions such as electoral observation missions and a new regional index to detect democratic erosion as well as their proposals that include anti-corruption and transparency. As promising as this bloc sounds, another rival bloc (featuring Panama and Cuba among others) focusing on sovereignty denies this approach because it would be a breach of sovereignty. The delegate of the Dominican Republic reinstated this view during a moderated caucus: ‘we want to work for democracy [but] that should be done on our terms’.  

Despite this, neither blocs appeared to acknowledge the important aspect of human rights, which is strongly defended by the third bloc that includes Brazil, Peru and more. The delegate of Brazil rightly called out Canada’s weak notion of a sacrifice by stating ‘the only sacrifice that is being made, according to [the two blocs] is to secure their institutions.’ Even though this bloc is the smallest out of the three, they have understood that the core of democracy is the citizens: they quote the United Nations who have expressed that sovereignty is the cornerstone and more pressing factors are people suffering. Their human focused approach encompasses solutions such as voluntary reforms and voluntary projects to enforce democracy. However, their small size and arguments fail to suede the two larger blocs who have a concrete belief in their respective approaches.

Remarkably, the delegation of Guatemala appears to be supporting both the human focused approach and the sovereignty approach as both blocs have openly announced Guatemala is a part of their distinct group. Whilst this can be looked upon positively as it displays Guatemala’s openness to compromise and find a solution, there is a slight concern of where Guatemala’s allegiance lies. Guatemala’s own priorities are now brought into question: what do they want to achieve?

Is there a foreseeable resolution?