Brazil in the Organization of American States: in search of possible convergence
Benoni Belli is a career diplomat and Permanent Representative of Brazil to the OAS. This text was originally written for issue 92 of the WBO Newsletter, published on November 10, 2023. Fill in the form at the bottom of the text to access and subscribe to the WBO weekly newsletter in English.
The OAS (Organization of American States) is the oldest active regional organization in the world. Its Charter was adopted in 1948, but the OAS is heir to the Pan-American conference processes that began at the end of the 19th century and led to the creation of the Pan-American Union in 1910. Throughout its history, the inter-American system was responsible for consolidating principles such as peaceful settlement of disputes, non-interference in the internal affairs of States and respect for the territorial integrity of States. With the founding of the OAS and in the following years, these principles were complemented by the defense of democracy, the protection of human rights and the search for development and security. As a founder of the OAS, Brazil actively participated in this process from the very beginning, helping to shape the system.
Despite these important principles, there has always been a clear asymmetry of power between the United States and other countries in the region. Unlike the UN Security Council, however, whose five permanent members have privileges, the rule of legal equality for all prevails in the OAS, as well as the principle of one country, one vote. Although this rule does not erase the reality of the differences in the size of economies, populations, per capita income, military power and levels of well-being throughout the region, it is clear that the multilateral environment imposes on everyone, without exception, certain constraints derived from common rules.
At times, due to international circumstances, the United States had a decisive influence on the direction of the Organization, especially in the immediate post-Second World War period. The end of the Cold War, the pacification of Central America and the democratic transitions in several countries in the region in the 1980s and 1990s changed the terms of the equation. Once a hostage of East-West bipolarity, the OAS began to reflect a more complex game and the growing independence of the countries in the region, which, freed from the constraints of automatic alignment, began to pursue their own interests, with moments of greater or lesser convergence between different actors over the last few decades.
It is from this period that the OAS develops new capabilities. Optimism and the feeling of convergence shortly after the end of the Cold War contributed to this evolution, which coincided, to a large extent, with the presence and leadership of Ambassador João Clemente Baena Soares as Secretary General of the Organization (1984-1994). During this period, the OAS became the Organization of all American States, with the accession of Canada, Belize, Guyana, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. The foundations were also laid for more robust Electoral Observation Missions and new rules for the defense of democracy that would lead to the adoption of the Inter-American Democratic Charter in 2001. The atmosphere that existed during the period allowed Baena Soares to play an active mediation role in conflicts in Central America and in Haiti, with intensive use of diplomacy.
“Political Manichaeism began to dictate both political bodies' decisions and posts on social media, contaminating the air that is breathed in the Organization's corridors”
Benoni Belli, Permanent Representative of Brazil to the OAS
Many observers of the OAS contrast that golden period with a more recent moment, which has had as its distinctive feature the increase in political polarization and the withdrawal of countries such as Venezuela and Nicaragua from the Organization. New divisions have emerged in a context characterized by the relative loss of civility in domestic politics, the increase in political extremism and denialism, combined with digital guerrilla strategies and the spread of misinformation in our era of social media. All of this also had a negative effect on the OAS. Political Manichaeism began to dictate both political bodies' decisions and posts on social media, contaminating the air that is breathed in the Organization's corridors. Despite this, the OAS continued to provide important services as a platform to address common challenges not only in democracy, electoral cooperation and human rights, but also in areas such as conflict mediation and prevention, combating organized crime and drug trafficking, access to healthcare, technical cooperation, and sustainable development and climate change.
This positive role of the Organization is often overshadowed by higher-octane political issues, so to speak, which end up projecting an image of fragmentation. The key for the OAS's image to be restored and its relevance strengthened lies in reviving the good old diplomatic dialogue, inspired by the example of Baena Soares. The difference is that today the political environment in the region and in the world is more charged, which will require additional doses of prudence and creativity. Brazil is proposing, in this sense, a discussion on negotiating practices and rules of procedure with the aim of expanding negotiation spaces, in order to allow any proposal from political bodies to be prepared with transparency and greater engagement of all, as opposed to texts being prepared in secret by small groups, a practice that tends to undermine trust and generate more polarization and dysfunctionality.
In addition to making procedural rules more participatory, guaranteeing legitimate decisions and real consensus whenever possible, it will be essential to employ temperance in the processes and ways of seeking to implement commitments in human rights and democracy. The high standards and obligations in these fields are not negotiable, but in times of great polarization, extra care is needed so that the defense of these commitments is not seen as biased, politically motivated or an attempt to favor different sides in internal disputes within the countries. Hence the importance of avoiding the automatic resort to punishment, which closes space for dialogue, causing counterproductive isolation. To put it in an illustrative and synthetic image: it is necessary to replace the demands made on “X” (formerly Twitter) by diplomacy and dialogue in order to preserve the ability of the OAS and its political bodies to speak with credibility on behalf of high common standards. Otherwise, there is a risk of a gradual emptying of the Organization, with the consequent dehydration of its weight and relevance.
