What happened at the OAS with Maria Corina?

The Organization of American States (OAS) is the oldest regional organization dating back to 1889. The first proponent of creating a league of nations in the region was Simon Bolivar, who believed that if the countries united they could better address invasions and global conflicts. The main objective of the OAS is stated in article 1. It is to establish “an order of peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence.” Unfortunately, time and time again the OAS has been ineffective in solving conflicts within its hemisphere because each member of the organization also has the obligation to safeguard their national interests, even if it means turning a blind eye to the human rights violations that may be taking place within the borders of a fellow OAS member.

This is exactly what happened to Venezuela, when Maria Corina Machado (an opposition leader) was given a chance to speak at an OAS meeting and 22 of its 35 members voted to make it closed session, making it impossible for Maria Corina to speak to the world about the violations that are taking place in Venezuela. Conversely, 11 countries spearheaded by Panama voted to make the meeting public, while one country (Barbados) abstained from voting. Although Cuba belongs to OAS, a sanction against the country prevents it from voting.

Although I was hopeful, in the end I wasn’t surprised by the outcome. From the moment he was elected president, Hugo Chavez acquired the support of many countries in the region and across the globe by offering Venezuelan oil as financial aid or as part of energy agreements, a policy that has continued into Nicolas Maduro’s term. In spite of this expected support some countries like Colombia and the United States chose to put economic interest aside and take a chance on behalf of human rights. To these countries, we are grateful.


This image illustrates Venezuela’s oil policies and the type of agreement it has with each country, both in the region and worldwide.

The conflict that exists between being true to the first article of its constitution and each country's best interest has called into question OAS's effectiveness many times throughout history. It is not the first time men or women of power use their country's resources to influence and/or buy nations that will support, cover-up, finance, arm and even protect the governments they have built. In the end, these influences cannot be put aside even when human rights are being violated and innocent people are dying.

Still, we went, we spoke, we continue to protest and hope for the best.