Panama Will Define the Future of the OAS: Reform, Transparency, or Rupture

Every discussion about the decline of the Organization of American States (OAS) ultimately comes down to a single question: who has both the ability and the willingness to force the institution to reform before it continues drifting away from hemispheric interests and toward the influence of extra-hemispheric powers?

For years, the answer was no one. The United States had the leverage but chose not to apply sufficient pressure. Other countries lacked the political and financial influence to do so.

That has changed.

The arrival of U.S. Ambassador to the OAS, Leandro Rizzuto Jr., has introduced a factor the organization has not faced in decades: the real possibility that Washington will use the weight of its financial support to demand meaningful reforms—or gradually withdraw from the institution if those reforms fail to materialize.

The OAS as a Strategic Front Against China

From his Senate confirmation hearing, Rizzuto made clear that his mission was not simply to preserve the OAS for its own sake.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman James Risch openly questioned why American taxpayers fund nearly half of the organization’s budget while Chinese influence continues to expand throughout the hemisphere.

That concern aligns with the 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy, which identifies the political, economic, and institutional penetration of the People’s Republic of China in Latin America as a strategic threat.

During his testimony, Rizzuto argued that the Chinese Communist Party uses investments, loans, and influence within multilateral organizations to advance its interests. He pledged to expose any manipulation by Beijing within the OAS and among its member states.

The question facing the General Assembly in Panama is therefore not merely budgetary. It is a debate about hemispheric security, institutional transparency, and regional sovereignty.

The Most Powerful Weapon: Funding

The numbers explain why the U.S. position carries such weight.

The United States contributes 49.99 percent of the OAS Regular Fund, approximately $46 million annually. No other member state comes remotely close.

Yet Washington has already begun reducing its financial support.

Over the past fiscal cycles, the United States has withheld portions of its assessed contributions while simultaneously suspending dozens of programs funded through voluntary contributions. More than 31 programs have been terminated and over 50 employees have left the organization.

The U.S. administration has also launched a comprehensive review of every international organization in which it participates, including the OAS.

The message is clear: funding can no longer be taken for granted.

An Organization Focused on Survival

The OAS itself has begun developing internal contingency plans in the event of a significant reduction in U.S. funding.

Regional media outlets have reported that the organization’s financial survival is being openly discussed for the first time.

Yet while internal planning reflects concern, the institution’s leadership continues to project normalcy.

That contradiction highlights the central problem: an organization aware of its vulnerability but seemingly unwilling to pursue the reforms that could prevent a crisis.

The Jessurun Case and Allegations Against Ramdin

One of the most controversial episodes involves Xaviera Jessurun, former Chief of Staff and close associate of Secretary General Albert Ramdin.

According to international reporting, a series of memoranda originating from the U.S. Mission contributed to Washington’s decision to revoke her diplomatic visa. Jessurun subsequently resigned.

The controversy intensified after reports emerged that she faced a 185-count criminal case related to her previous leadership of a state-owned airline in Suriname and was receiving compensation exceeding that of the U.S. Secretary of State.

Subsequent allegations involving nepotism, administrative failures, and financial mismanagement within the Secretariat further fueled criticism.

For critics, the case exposed a deeper institutional weakness: the inability of the OAS to hold its own leadership accountable without intervention from a member state.

The Real Issue: Chinese Influence

Beyond personalities and political disputes, the central issue is China’s growing presence within the inter-American system.

Since becoming a Permanent Observer in 2004, China has channeled funding through the OAS’s Specific Funds mechanism, a structure operating alongside the regular budget that has historically functioned with limited transparency.

Critics argue that these mechanisms have financed projects involving governance, democracy, and election observation without sufficient clarity regarding the source and destination of funds.

This concern is compounded by China’s broader expansion throughout the region, including ports, telecommunications infrastructure, digital networks, surveillance systems, and energy projects linked to state-owned or state-supported enterprises.

From Washington’s perspective, the problem is no longer purely economic. It is a matter of strategic dependency.

Panama as a Symbol

It is no coincidence that this debate is taking place in Panama.

The country became one of the principal recipients of Chinese investment after joining the Belt and Road Initiative in 2017.

It later reversed course, formally withdrawing from the initiative and reviewing concessions connected to Chinese-linked companies operating in strategic sectors associated with the Panama Canal.

For many observers, Panama has become a case study in the costs and challenges associated with dependence on critical infrastructure controlled by external powers.

CARICOM’s Responsibility

Much of the attention is also focused on CARICOM and the countries that supported Ramdin’s election.

Critics argue that the bloc possesses the votes necessary to pursue reform but has instead chosen to protect the status quo.

Historical tensions between Washington and the Caribbean are real and legitimate. Yet so is the responsibility of governing an institution whose credibility depends on transparency and accountability.

The decision is no longer solely political. It is financial.

Rizzuto’s Proposal: Wall Street Standards for the OAS

The U.S. ambassador has advanced an ambitious vision for overseeing the OAS’s Specific Funds.

According to Rizzuto, the OAS should be managed using the same compliance and transparency standards expected of a publicly traded corporation worth more than $100 million.

His proposal includes:

• Detailed monthly financial reporting for all member states.
• Full identification of the source of every contribution.
• Mandatory disclosure of funds originating from Permanent Observers, including the People’s Republic of China.
• Complete transparency regarding expenditures, contractors, consultants, and beneficiaries.
• Audits of technologies donated by companies such as Huawei and ZTE.
• Whistleblower protection mechanisms.
• Authority to freeze or recover funds used in ways inconsistent with the OAS Charter.
• Independent certification of internal controls modeled after Sarbanes-Oxley standards.

The stated objective is straightforward: ensure that no external government can use Specific Funds to influence the organization’s political decision-making.

Reform or Rupture

The U.S. administration maintains that an off-ramp still exists.

Among the reforms considered essential are:

• An independent external audit.
• Full transparency of Specific Funds.
• Greater focus on hemispheric security, democracy, Haiti, and Venezuela.
• A review of funding rules governing Permanent Observers.
• Restrictions on external financial influence in electoral and governance programs.

Yet an increasingly important question is emerging in Washington: can meaningful reform be implemented under the same leadership that allowed the alleged problems to develop?

For many critics, the answer is no.

As a result, the debate in Panama may ultimately come down to a far simpler choice than it appears.

This is not solely about the budget.

It is not solely about China.

It is not solely about Albert Ramdin.

It is about determining whether the OAS is willing to transform itself to restore credibility and trust, or whether it will continue defending a model that its principal financial supporter now views as exhausted.

The General Assembly in Panama could mark the beginning of a genuine reform process.

Or it could become the moment when Washington concludes that the institution no longer deserves to be funded under its current terms.