OAS at the crossroads

Next week's 56th Regular Session of the Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly convenes at a pivotal moment in hemispheric affairs, with several unfolding, interlocking developments bearing profound implications for regional relations and the Caribbean's place within all this.

These are not ordinary times. Here in our region, and perhaps everywhere else, a declining appetite for multilateral cooperation and action is accompanied by a reduction in the capacity to engage through both economic participation and enthusiastic political will.

It may well be that the latter persists as a by-product of cynical, hegemonic purpose and design and/or a growing inclination to singularly favour the transactional demands of domestic social and economic disequilibrium.

Within Caricom, there also appears to be a belief in the dispensability of a Caribbean paradigm that witnesses common cause and action. Even the colonial experience found value in geographical cohesion and joint endeavour.

Whatever the case, the hemispheric grouping founded on great hope in 1948 now faces a defining test of its relevance and effectiveness as a point of reliable resort at times when peace and security appear at stake.

For this reason, the outcomes of the June 22-24 General Assembly have the potential to be seminal in the framing of a renewed mandate and focus. There are several key issues, but those with profound, immediate impact include prevailing geopolitical tensions, sustainable financing of the organisation, and institutional reform.

The 55th General Assembly
hosted by Antigua and Barbuda (OAS Photo)

Secretary-General, Albert Ramdin, has already sounded the relevant alerts to reactivate an OAS that is “more agile, transparent, and results-oriented and better equipped to respond to Member States’ needs in a rapidly evolving geopolitical environment.”

It appears however that the requirements of such ambitions reside substantially in the will of member countries to decisively address some lingering, vexatious past and contemporary issues.

For example, and to invite the cat to pigeons’ quarters, the membership status of Cuba (now attracting aggressive, potentially violent attention from the US) should be regularised, and the situations regarding Venezuela and Nicaragua revisited.

Cuba’s membership, for example, is recognised for its non-participation in OAS processes since 1962. It never actually quit the movement. (Just, by the way and on another note, Cuba as far as I know has never expressed an active interest in full formal membership of Caricom.)

Nicaragua withdrew its membership in 2023, and Venezuela has been the subject of an on-and-off again relationship.

In 2017, then Foreign Minister (now Acting President) Delcy Rodríguez announced her country’s withdrawal. In 2019, through the Juan Guaidó fiasco, they were on again. Now, more recently, Rodríguez has asserted that Venezuela is no longer a member of the organisation. It’s complicated. Hopefully, this will be openly and honestly discussed in Panama.

Haiti meanwhile remains in the fold but is a major humanitarian concern and one for which there appears to be no readily available resolution.

The other major, but not entirely unrelated issue, is financing of the organisation’s 2027 budget. The United States typically accounts for close to 50% of such funds. Total expenditure in 2025 was US$165.2 million even as the USA “paused” its contributions for 90 days “pending review.” This followed an executive order to that effect.

For 2027, the Trump administration has, significantly, sought no funding for the country’s assessed contribution to the organisation. Several smaller contributors, such as T&T, are reportedly in arrears of their financial obligations.

There is also the corresponding imperative to ensure the OAS runs a much tighter ship. A May 2026 US Congressional Research Brief identifies the inter-connectedness of the key challenges of geopolitics, finance, and institutional capacity.

OAS Secretary General, Albert Ramdin
(OAS Photo)

“Since the early 2000s,” the brief says, “increased ideological polarisation among member states has made it more difficult to establish a common hemispheric agenda. In addition, member states have repeatedly assigned new responsibilities to the OAS without providing commensurate increases in funding.”

In the budget document prepared for next week's Assembly, Ramdin argues that discussion of the organisation's future “will require balancing ambition with fiscal responsibility, ensuring that political objectives are adequately aligned with operational capacity.

“We hope that we can unite around the principle that effective delivery requires investment, and without sufficient human and financial resources, mandates cannot be fulfilled. Making the OAS relevant again thus becomes unattainable.”

There must be acknowledgement of the fact, though, that there will not be another transformative 1948. The turbulent tides have come and gone and come again, in changed directions and intensities. This General Assembly might well prove to be a key make or break moment.