[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3499-3500]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               SAVING THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about an issue that 
all Senators should be concerned about, and that is the future of the 
Organization of American States.
  The origin of the OAS dates to the First International Conference of 
American States held in Washington from October 1889 to April 1890. The 
OAS was formally established in 1948 with the signing of the OAS 
Charter, which entered into force in 1951.
  As the OAS Charter states, its mission is to achieve among its 
members ``an order of peace and justice, and to promote their 
solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their 
sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence.'' 
That is an important and inspiring responsibility, and no less so today 
than when the OAS was founded, although many of the challenges of one-
half century ago have been replaced by new challenges today.
  Today the OAS consists of 35 independent States and is, at least in 
composition and tradition, the primary political, judicial, and social 
governmental forum in this hemisphere. Another 69 States and the 
European Union have permanent observer status.
  The OAS supports programs and activities in four principle areas to 
carry out its mission--democracy, human rights, security, and 
development--and it does so in a myriad of ways, some far more 
successfully than others.
  Few here may be aware that the United States is by far the largest 
contributor to the OAS, paying 60 percent of its annual budget. Two 
other countries pay 22 percent and the remaining 32 countries together 
pay only 12 percent.
  Of course, the United States has by far the largest economy and 
should pay its fair share, but no country should be assessed to pay 
more than 50 percent. Other members should also pay their fair share, 
and we should all expect the OAS to be competently managed and to 
deliver tangible results that justify its expenditures.
  The OAS can be proud of the indispensable work of the Inter-American 
Human Rights Commission and the Inter-American Court, its 
internationally respected election observer missions, and other 
activities to support democracy and promote transparent and accountable 
governance. These priorities should be strengthened, as I will mention 
shortly.
  But the reputation of the OAS as a hemispheric leader has taken a 
beating. This is partly due to ideological polarization driven 
primarily by the viscerally anti-United States rhetoric and policies of 
the leaders of four of its member States, and partly due to the fact 
that the OAS has failed to exercise effective leadership in response to 
key

[[Page 3500]]

issues and events, while recent sub-hemispheric groupings have taken up 
much of the slack and become the region's principal fora.
  The OAS has allowed itself to be spread too thin, accepting too many 
mandates from its member States without rigorous assessment of the 
costs and benefits. Scarce resources have been spent on employees--
without regard to transparent hiring and promotion practices--some of 
whom contribute little to the organization. At the same time, the OAS 
is facing severe budget constraints and there is no monetary reserve to 
respond to contingencies. It is astounding that because some countries, 
including Brazil, stopped paying their quotas or are in arrears, and 
the OAS had nothing in reserve, it had to obtain a loan in order to pay 
employee salaries. This is not the kind of management the OAS needs; it 
is mismanagement.
  The Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court play 
essential roles as institutions of last resort for victims of human 
rights violations in countries where impunity is the norm. When 
corrupt, dysfunctional judicial systems fail to provide access to 
justice for victims of crimes against humanity or other violations of 
human rights, the OAS helps fill that void. Likewise, the Special 
Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression plays a critical role at a time 
when some governments, such as Venezuela and Ecuador, are engaged in a 
systematic effort to intimidate and silence their critics in the 
independent press, while others, including Mexico and Honduras, fail to 
protect journalists from threats and attacks by gangs or violence 
related to drug trafficking.
  Yet a shortage of funding and the failure of some member States to 
comply with the decisions of the Commission and the rulings of the 
Court undermine their effectiveness. Some governments have actively 
sought to weaken these key institutions by withholding financial 
support and proposing to limit the legal authority of the Commission 
and the Court. They and the Special Rapporteur for Freedom and 
Expression need sufficient resources to do their jobs, and it is time 
to establish a mechanism for sanctioning noncompliance.
  The United States is not blameless, having signed but not yet 
ratified the American Convention on Human Rights. This provides a 
convenient excuse for other governments to accuse us of hypocrisy as we 
urge their adherence to human rights norms. It is time for the Congress 
to act on this piece of unfinished business.
  I would add, however, that the United States is part of the Inter-
American Commission, as are all OAS member States, regardless of 
whether or not they have ratified the Convention. In fact, the United 
States has more cases at the Commission than any other country, and we 
strive to implement its decisions.
  The OAS needs to strengthen its election monitoring capability--
including insisting on timely and equal participation by opposition 
political parties, freedom of the press and association--to ensure a 
level playing field when some Latin governments refuse to allow early 
access by the OAS. Many Latin Americans are becoming cynical about the 
ability of democratic governments to deliver basic services in a manner 
that is transparent and accountable. Elected governments which are 
corrupt and neglect, or are unable to protect their people, erode 
support for democracy.
  Similarly, the OAS and the Secretary General in particular need to 
respond swiftly to political crises, and exercise stronger leadership 
in defense of democratic institutions and human rights when they are 
under assault, consistent with the OAS Charter and the Inter-American 
Democratic Charter.
  There is also the issue of hemispheric security. During the Cold War 
there was a single-minded, concerted effort to prevent the Soviet Union 
from gaining another foothold in Latin America. Countless innocent 
people were threatened, disappeared, tortured, or killed in the name of 
fighting communism by Central and South American security forces, many 
of them encouraged, trained and equipped by the United States, and only 
a token number of the individuals responsible have been punished.
  Today the hemisphere faces new threats, such as drug cartels, gang 
violence, transnational crime, money laundering, and natural disasters. 
But the plans to address them like the Merida Initiative and the 
Alliance for Prosperity, while identifying such priorities as police 
and judicial reform, poverty, fiscal transparency, and corruption, tend 
to be long on goals and short on specifics of how to achieve them. 
Cooperation on multi-dimensional security threats is not a matter of 
ideology. Cuba and the United States are already cooperating against 
drug-traffickers, as we are with other countries. But there is a lot 
more that can and should be done to identify the causes and develop and 
implement more effective regional strategies to address these problems.
  Several Latin countries have made notable strides in the past decade 
and are providing greater opportunities for their people. The OAS can 
play a role in convening a debate, identifying solutions, and 
facilitating an alliance of key development organizations, including 
the Inter-American Development Bank and the Pan American Health 
Organization, to address areas of shared interest such as achieving 
sustained, equitable economic growth, strengthening public education 
and health, and protecting natural resources.
  The OAS has an important, under-utilized role to play in interfacing 
with the wide range of civil society organizations which are essential 
to any democracy and are often under-appreciated, under-funded, and 
persecuted. With OAS offices throughout the hemisphere, its under-
utilized employees could engage far more actively with academia, civil 
society, and the media. This should include any such entities that 
reject violence, not just those that are ``registered'' by local 
governments which sometimes use the registration process to silence 
legitimate voices whose views the government disagrees with.
  Finally, the OAS needs to decide how to interact with other 
hemispheric multilateral organizations in a manner that strengthens the 
OAS and encourages cooperation. Cuba's suspension, and then refusal to 
return, provided an impetus for the creation of new entities like 
CELAC, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, that are 
anti-OAS and anti-United States and have sowed division within the 
hemisphere.
  The next Secretary General of the OAS, who will be selected on March 
18, has his work cut out for him. I say ``him'' because there is only 
one candidate, which says volumes about how the job is perceived. The 
Secretary General plays a crucial role as the strategic leader, but not 
the day-to-day manager, of the organization. The next Secretary General 
needs an Assistant Secretary General with the managerial expertise and 
mandate to right this sinking ship.
  It will mean tough budgetary decisions, including the ability to say 
no to new programs and mandates and to focus instead on doing better at 
what it does best.
  As soon as possible after they assume their positions I urge them to 
review Public Law 113-41, the ``Organization of American States 
Revitalization and Reform Act of 2013.'' That Act, which received 
bipartisan support, identifies key issues that need to be addressed--
many of which I have touched on here--and provides recommendations for 
how to address them.
  I wish them both well because the people of every country in the 
hemisphere, including those whose governments have sought to harm the 
OAS, need the OAS. But absent significant and rapid reforms beginning 
with the quota issue, the OAS's decline may be irreversible.

                          ____________________