On March 10, the Organization of American States (OAS) will elect, by secret ballot, a new Secretary General (SG) to assume office in May for a five-year term. So far, two main candidacies have emerged that reflect key divisions within the institution and the region more broadly—divisions that have weakened the OAS to the point that its survival is far from guaranteed. More than a leadership contest, the March election will be a defining moment for the institution’s future.
Founded in 1948, the OAS remains the central pillar of the inter-American system. Its main purpose has been to foster peaceful conflict resolution, democracy, and development. Over time, its focus has evolved from issues of cooperation and conflict between member states to promoting democracy and human rights within member states.
Though it administered billions in aid from the Alliance for Progress in the 1960s and 1970s, its development portfolio has steadily waned as its budget has suffered. This is one of the critical issues defining the race for the next SG and cracking the organization into competing blocs.
A two-way race, for now
The two leading candidates are Albert Ramdin, Suriname’s foreign minister and a former OAS Assistant Secretary General (2005-2010), and Rubén Ramírez Lezcano, Paraguay’s foreign minister and a former ambassador to the UN, who has also held key positions at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF).
Ramírez would probably focus on democracy, human rights promotion, and security issues like migration, terror, drug trafficking, and cybercrime. Ramdin, meanwhile, would likely concentrate on non-controversial development cooperation and technical assistance, and remain relatively neutral on issues related to threats to democracy and human rights violations in Venezuela, for example.
Ramdin is reportedly backed by the 14 Caribbean member states, who hold that under the unwritten principle of geographical rotation, it is their turn to lead the OAS. The bloc believes that “integral development” should remain an OAS priority, and it has been less focused on defending democracy, abstaining for example from criticism of dictators like Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. To win, a candidate needs 18 votes, so the 14-member Caribbean bloc has voting power but minimal financial leverage; it contributes just 0.8% of the $99.2 million budget.
Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Uruguay have just announced their collective support for Ramdin, giving him, for now, a decisive lead. Chile and Peru, for example, seem content to support Ramdin in exchange for Caribbean votes for the Assistant Secretary General position and other high-level posts. China has also openly supported Ramdin, an odd move by an observer country without voting rights that suggests it would consider Ramdin an asset as head of the OAS.
Ramírez, for his part, appears to have the backing of Argentina, and some diplomatic sources suggest that he may also have the support of the Trump administration, though no country has yet endorsed him. The U.S. is reportedly uncertain whether Ramírez can secure the required 18 votes, and there are rumors that it might back a third candidate, Costa Rica’s Foreign Minister Arnoldo André, if no clear winner emerges in a first round of voting. Canada’s stance remains unclear.
An uncertain future
Bolivia, Colombia and Mexico—which has not yet declared its preference—have been critical of the OAS, focusing their ire on current Secretary General Luis Almagro, in office since 2015. As SG, Almagro has repeatedly staked out positions that some critics label interventionist and subservient to the U.S. He took a strong stance against Evo Morales for alleged election fraud in Bolivia in 2019, for example, and has frequently condemned violations of human rights and the democratic order in Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador advocated for the organization to be replaced with a Latin American one, modeled after the European Union. His foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, even proposed dissolving the OAS. In contrast, other have members applauded Almagro’s actions and his staunch support for the Interamerican Democratic Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights.
Colombia and Mexico have both indicated they will not support a U.S.-backed candidate in this vote. They believe the Trump administration will try to dominate the OAS to further what they consider aggressive, interventionist stances on immigration, security, tariffs, the Panama Canal, and the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
However, if a candidate opposed by Washington were to win, the U.S. could react by freezing or terminating its contribution—a full 60% of the OAS budget. Some Trump advisors have privately mentioned that possibility. Amid Trump’s cuts to USAID funding and his withdrawal from the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council, he also froze U.S. “voluntary contributions” to the OAS.
A permanent freeze would cripple the OAS, ironically achieving López Obrador’s goal. Conversely, if the U.S. is seen as imposing a candidate, some countries would resent it, and the OAS could be paralyzed. In this context, the undecided nations, along with the Dominican Republic, may seek an alternative candidate, boosting the Costa Rican’s prospects. Central America has never held the Secretary General post, and the principle of geographical rotation could work in André’s favor.
What’s at stake
The future of the OAS hinges on the leadership and strategic vision of the next Secretary General, who must be able to foster collaboration with member states, recognizing that the OAS functions best when the SG and the Permanent Council work in tandem. The Secretary General alone does not define the organization—a common misconception—but can act as a unifying force.
Given budget constraints, it may be time for the OAS to jettison its development portfolio, transferring programs to multilateral development banks. This would give the new SG the chance to build on what the OAS has done well. He could seek members’ support to reinforce electoral observation and technical assistance programs, which have helped to modernize electoral processes and institutions through more than 300 electoral observation missions in 28 countries since 1990. The organization could also allocate greater resources to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter American Human Rights Commission, which help to document and resolve rights violations. Moreover, there’s ample opportunity to work with national education systems to promote democratic values and practices, and to foster cooperation among the legislative and judicial branches of member states to counter executive branch threats to democracy.
The OAS is the only hemispheric institution that connects all its countries, providing a platform for negotiation and cooperation. It has helped to prevent democracy’s collapse in Guatemala, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru, even if it was unable in Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. A revitalized OAS could contribute to a new inter-Americanism and a renewed democratic alliance, to counter the increasing internal and external threats from authoritarianism.
Whoever wins the election, the next SG will have to strike a careful balance. The SG will need to take firm stances in favor of democracy to combat the spread of autocracy, but also foster the unity, collaboration, and fundraising necessary for the organization to maintain its relevance. This will be no easy challenge.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Rubén M. Perina
Reading Time: 4 minutesRubén M. Perina, Ph.D., is a former OAS official and the author of The Organization of American States (OAS) as the Advocate and Guardian of Democracy. An Insider’s Critical Assessment of its Role in Promoting and Defending Democracy (The University Press of America, 2015).
