On the eve of the 56th General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS), taking place June 22–24, an old myth is once again making the rounds—one that has paralyzed the organization for years: the supposed need for unanimity in order to act. That requirement does not exist in the Inter-American Democratic Charter. It never has. Yet some governments have used it to water down resolutions, shield allies, and avoid political costs.
History tells a different story. The OAS’s most consequential decisions—including the one that paved the way for Nicaragua’s democratic transition in 1979—were adopted by qualified majorities, not by unanimous consent. Today, Nicaragua is once again testing the inter-American system’s ability to respond with relevance rather than evasiveness.
The United States views the Ortega regime as a national security concern, but appears reluctant to open another front while managing simultaneous crises elsewhere. Strategically, Washington is prepared to act; tactically, it does not want to do so this week. In contrast, Mexico, Brazil, and several allies are seeking to block any strong resolution. This year, Brazil even proposed “inviting” the regime back to the OAS, despite knowing full well that Ortega would never accept the minimum conditions required for readmission. The result is a maneuver that exposes the organization to ridicule and distracts from the central issue: the OAS has already recognized the illegitimacy of the 2021 elections. There is no need to declare it again. What is needed is action.
Read also: Roberto Samcam’s Assassination and the Democratic World’s Duty to Act
While the draft declaration remains weak, international pressure continues to build. The European Parliament has called for the activation of universal jurisdiction and for consideration of referring the Nicaraguan case to the International Criminal Court. It is a reminder that crimes against humanity do not expire and that when regional mechanisms become paralyzed, the international community has other tools at its disposal.
A significant development has also emerged within the Nicaraguan exile community. Opposition groups that have often been divided have converged around a common message regarding the regime’s illegitimacy. The point is not to elevate particular actors, but to underscore the existence of a basic democratic consensus that removes one of the favorite excuses used to justify inaction: “The opposition is not united.”
The Caribbean could play a decisive role. The disappearance of Indigenous leader Steadman Fagoth Müller and the death in state custody of Miskito leader Brooklyn Rivera have raised concerns in several capitals. With the departure of Ralph Gonsalves—the region’s principal defender of Ortega—and the growing alignment of Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago with Washington, the Caribbean bloc may be inclined to support a firmer resolution.
The argument is straightforward: a strong resolution backed by 18 votes is preferable to an empty resolution approved unanimously. The former provides a legal and political basis for multilateral action; the latter leaves the United States acting alone—and Washington will act alone if it feels compelled to do so. Paradoxically, those who fear unilateral action often encourage it by weakening multilateral action.
The OAS now faces a historic choice. It can demonstrate that multilateralism works, or it can provide ammunition to those who question even the United States’ contribution to the OAS budget in 2027. This time, it is no longer enough to repeat that the elections were illegitimate. That has already been established. What remains is to translate that truth into action—beyond expressions of concern and empty condemnations.
You may be interested: How Nicaragua’s Ortega Regime Has Accessed Credit and Debit Card Transaction Data Since 2019
