Ronald Sanders

There have been many ignominious moments at the Permanent Council of the Organisation of American States (OAS), and many farcical decisions made, but they pale in significance when compared with the events of September 11.

On that day, 11 countries, accompanied by the illegitimate representative of the self-proclaimed “interim president” of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, adopted a resolution opening the possibility of invading the sovereign territory of Venezuela with the obvious intention of achieving their self-interested goal of toppling the government of Nicolás Maduro.

The ridiculousness of the proceedings at the OAS Permanent Council is that 16 of its legitimate 33 member states had no vote in the resolution because they are not signatories of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the Rio Treaty) under which the dangerous resolution was invoked and adopted.

By a previously absurd decision, in 1975, 21 then signatory countries of the Rio Treaty decided to make the OAS Permanent Council the body in which matters related to the treaty would be discussed. At that time, only two Caricom countries were signatories to the treaty, namely Haiti and Trinidad and Tobago. A third Caricom country, The Bahamas, did not join until 1982. No Caricom country has joined since. Canada, a big player in the OAS, is also not a signatory.

The actual number of signatory states is now 17, although farcically the register still shows the membership as 19, with Cuba and Venezuela as signatory states. Cuba withdrew from the OAS and, informally, from all hemispheric bodies in 1962, and Venezuela formally withdrew in 2013.

Another four of the original members of the Rio Treaty have also “denounced” it, withdrawing from membership. These countries are: Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Nicaragua.

In the event, ten signatory states of the Rio Treaty and Juan Guaidó’s improperly seated OAS representative proposed a resolution arising from this anachronistic 1947 treaty for adoption at a meeting of the Permanent Council of the OAS. The objective of the resolution was clearly set out in an accompanying notice. It claimed, without any supporting evidence, that “a series of developments and situations, which are as a consequence of the Venezuelan crisis, pose a threat to peace in the Americas and... affect the inviolability or the integrity of the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of various American states”.

Spuriously it went on to say: “It is for that reason that measures need to be adopted by the member states of the (Rio Treaty) based on the principles of inter-American solidarity and cooperation established in said instrument.”

Venezuela was thereby set-up for “measures” that would be agreed by a two-thirds vote of the foreign ministers of the claimed 19 signatory countries at a meeting to be held “in the second half of September 2019” when they will be attending the UN General Assembly in New York. The measures include establishing a naval and aerial blockade of Venezuela or using military force.

If there was any doubt that the ten governments plus Guaidó’s representative had anything but military force in mind that doubt disappeared when, by virtue of their simple majority of the claimed 19 signatories, they spurned an amendment from Costa Rica, which proposed that any measures would exclude “those that may involve the use of armed force”.

Get caught up with news from the news leader
Subscribe now and get access to the Trinidad Express E-paper
SUBSCRIBE/ LOG IN

So, clearly armed force is very much in the collective minds of the 11 governments plus Guaidó’s representative that eventually pushed through the resolution. These 11 countries are the original ten proposers of the resolution—Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, Dominican Republic, and the United States of America—plus Chile that voted with them.

Alarmingly, and ludicrously, the resolution was adopted in the name of the Permanent Council of the OAS, even though 15 member states have no connection with the Rio Treaty and could not vote, and five of the signatory states (Costa Rica, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Trinidad and Tobago) did not support it.

Sadly, governments of countries which have been the victims of invasion supported this resolution

At some point in the not-too-distant future Caricom itself will have to consider whether its member states have breached undertakings in its own treaty, and whether they should abandon any effort to achieve a common foreign policy. Failure to deal definitively with this situation would ruin Caricom’s greatest strength — its 14 votes pooled in unison.

The 1947 Rio Treaty emerged in the context of a world that had just emerged from World War II. It was a world in which Caricom countries, except for Haiti, were all colonies, as were the majority of countries of Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. It is nothing short of shameful that a handful of countries would invoke a 72-year old, outdated treaty in today’s world to try to accomplish the crushing of a Government they dislike. Today, Venezuela; tomorrow who, and to serve whose interests?

Equally, it continues to be deeply disturbing that at the OAS a minority of states make and impose decisions that wreck the organisation’s institutional foundations and reduces it to a weapon for the interests of a few.

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

OF all the budgets presented by Finance Minister Colm Imbert, today’s will be his most politically sensitive and electorally important. With the next general election not constitutionally due for roughly one year from now

During the 74th session of the United Nation’s General Assembly, Dr Keith Rowley stated the following to the world: “Mr President, We remain troubled that even as we approach the third decade of the 21st century, women, girls and persons with disabilities in many

Four months of mass protests in the streets of Hong Kong, and thousands of injuries and arrests—but only two gunshot wounds, both very recent and neither life-threatening.

THE emerging digital economy with its range of technologies- robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), massive automation- and its applications- digital platforms, flexible and additive manufacturing- is allowing both high productivity and incomes in associated economies.

WE were created in the image and likeness of God. Not some of us, but all of us! Thus, each person has a unique and special dignity, not dependent upon external or internal characteristics. We are all God’s children. We all deserve equal dignity.

Thanks to you and your staff for the District Voice magazine. Concerning the article, “Defining workplace harassment” (Sunday Express, Page 12) I have a couple concerns with paragraph two.