At the recent Organization of American States (OAS) 55th General Assembly, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau made a striking announcement regarding the United States’ involvement in international organizations.
He stated, “The United States is reviewing its membership in every international organization, including this one,” warning that unless the OAS proves its relevance, Washington would reconsider its financial commitment to the organization.
Landau’s comments come amid a broader campaign by President Donald Trump against multilateralism, which has already seen the U.S. announce its withdrawal from the World Health Organization and UNESCO.
Critics argue that Landau’s comments at the OAS could inadvertently aid Washington’s adversaries in Latin America, where populist leaders have long criticized the OAS as a tool of U.S. influence, often advocating for its abandonment.
The irony of the U.S. potentially pulling out of the OAS is not lost on observers, as it might represent an unexpected unraveling of the organization from within.
Landau cited the OAS’s alleged failures in addressing the political turmoil in Haiti and Venezuela as reasons for reassessing U.S. involvement.
However, such criticisms often overlook the OAS’s structure and purpose, established under a charter since 1948 that emphasizes consensus and state sovereignty.
In contrast to other international bodies like the UN or NATO, the OAS’s limited authority and enforcement capabilities reflect its mandate, which relies on the collective will of its member states.
Some argue that distancing itself from multilateral commitments can liberate the U.S. from global constraints, but recent history suggests otherwise.
For instance, the U.S. withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council opened the door for countries like China to reshape discussions around human rights away from international standards.
If the U.S. follows through on its OAS withdrawal threat, experts believe it could lead to a similar outcome, especially as challenges such as mass migration and transnational crime demand cooperation rather than retreat.
Should the U.S. disengage, it would lose a significant voice in an organization pivotal to regional legitimacy and institution-building, potentially creating a vacuum for increased influence from extra-regional players like China.
The OAS has built a well-established legal and political framework over the past seventy years, with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) being a fundamental component.
The IACHR enables citizens to hold governments accountable for human rights violations and has documented abuses throughout Latin America while supporting transitional justice efforts.
Despite the U.S. halting its voluntary funding to the IACHR, it paradoxically supported the candidacy of anti-Castro activist Rosa María Payá to the Commission, revealing a contradiction in U.S. policy.
Furthermore, the OAS Electoral Observation Missions (EOMs) have monitored over 300 elections since 1962, setting standards in election monitoring globally.
In countries like Guatemala, the OAS played a critical role in safeguarding electoral integrity during confrontations involving legal challenges, reiterating its commitment to democratic norms.
During the tumultuous 2023 elections in Guatemala, the OAS helped ensure the legitimacy of the vote amid significant political challenges, showcasing its value in the region.
Tools like the Inter-American Democratic Charter (IADC) and voluntary diplomatic coalitions can be further empowered with renewed commitment from the U.S., enhancing regional cooperation in safeguarding democracy.
While acknowledging the need for reforms within the OAS, many changes are already underway.
In 2024, an external audit commissioned by the Permanent Council aims to improve OAS efficiency through staffing reforms and streamlined processes.
Multilateralism often faces criticism as being naive, but it fundamentally seeks to enhance the power of nations through collaboration and dialogue.
For a modest investment, the OAS allows the U.S. to monitor elections, uphold human rights, and engage on crucial issues affecting the hemisphere.
Abandoning the OAS would not enhance American strength; instead, it would render the U.S. less connected to regional dialogues and crises.
As global norms continue to be renegotiated, the risks of ceding ground in this vital area are significant and could hold lasting implications for U.S. influence in the Americas.
image source from：americasquarterly
