Concepts of security in the Hemisphere

Documents

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY TO CONTINUE DEVELOPING THE MOST APPROPRIATE COMMON APPROACHES WITH WHICH TO MANAGE THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY IN THE HEMISPHERE HELD ON MARCH 20-21, 2000

EXPLANATORY NOTE

In compliance with the mandate of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) set out in resolution AG/RES. 1643 (XXIX-O/99), the Committee on Hemispheric Security held, on March 20 and 21, 2000, a Special Meeting to continue developing the most appropriate common approaches with which to manage the various aspects of international security in the Hemisphere. The Chair of the Committee, Ambassador Flavio Darío Espinal, Permanent Representative of the Dominican Republic to the OAS presented this Report at the end of the Special Meeting and invited delegations to submit written comments on the Report.

Requests that amendments be made to the summarized presentations by the Delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Canada, El Salvador, Jamaica and Mexico have been received from their respective Permanent Missions to the OAS. The Chair is pleased to present to Committee members the present revised Report containing the amendments requested.

This Report also contains the Chair’s Summary circulated during the Closing Session of the Special Meeting, as well as the interventions made by delegations during the Meeting which were later submitted in writing to the Chair.

REPORT OF THE CHAIR

I. SUMMARY

This special meeting of the Committee on Hemispheric Security (CHS) was a continuation of the exercise initiated by the Committee in April 1999 pursuant to the provisions on security contained in the Plan of Action of the Second Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Americas, held in Santiago, Chile, on April 18-19, 1998. According to those mandates, the OAS, through the Committee on Hemispheric Security, is to analyze the meaning, scope, and implications of international security concepts in the Hemisphere, with a view to developing the most appropriate common approaches and to pinpointing ways to revitalize and strengthen the institutions of the inter-American system related to the various aspects of hemispheric security. The CHS meeting in April 1999 focused on concepts of security, while this latest meeting addressed two major topics: first, an examination of problems and threats to peace and security in the Hemisphere, together with conflict prevention and resolution; and, second, the pinpointing of ways to revitalize and strengthen security-related aspects of the inter-American system (instruments, institutions, processes, agreements and mechanisms). The two meetings form part of the preparations for the Special Conference on Security mandated by the Santiago Summit.

One of the aspects considered by the delegations concerned the premises that any reformulation of the concept of security in the Hemisphere would have to be based on. One such premise, on which there was almost unanimous agreement, was the need to recognize the close links between security, development and the consolidation of democracy, as well as the historical relationship between peace and democracy.

With regard to threats to security in the Hemisphere, there was considerable agreement among the delegations that the main security problems for American states on the threshold of the twenty-first century do not come from eventual external military threats, but from new and complex phenomena such as narcotics trafficking, illicit trafficking in arms, and transnational crime by non-state actors, with all their repercussions in terms of violence, insecurity and the destabilization of political institutions. Small island states emphasized threats to security posed by natural disasters, the transportation of nuclear waste across the Caribbean Sea, and vulnerability to economic globalization, among other factors. Although agreement was reached on certain approaches, appeals were nevertheless made for greater conceptual precision and carefully worded definitions in this matter.

On the topic of new threats, some delegations pointed out that the OAS had been finding effective answers to some of them, as evidenced by the adoption of the Multilateral Evaluation Mechanisms (MEM) within the framework of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), the adoption of two inter-American Conventions to do with arms, and the creation of the Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism, inter alia. With regard to the possibilities of conflicts between states, delegates pointed out that, despite the progress made by the Hemisphere in recent decades, it was important to sustain efforts to prevent such disputes, to make systematic use of existing mechanisms for overcoming controversies, and to upgrade the inter-American system’s capacity in this specific area.

With reference to instruments, the delegations underscored the absence of universal participation by member states in instruments such as the Rio Treaty and the Pact of Bogota, unlike the OAS Charter, in which, clearly, all Member States participate. Based on that observation, many delegations agreed that any arrangements and instruments adopted in the future should make it possible for as many Member States to participate as possible. Apart from these observations on the limitations of the Rio Treaty and the Pact of Bogota, some delegations mentioned that, historically speaking, they had been overtaken by events. Three options were identified: maintaining the status quo, revising the current hemispheric security system, or devising partial solutions to allow the system to adapt to the new circumstances.

Several delegations mentioned the need to establish closer ties and more fluid exchanges of information between processes and institutions in the Hemisphere. A high degree of consensus was reached that the discussion and negotiation of security issues should be concentrated within the framework of the OAS and, specifically, in the Committee on Hemispheric Security. It was considered important that, in the course of the CHS’s evaluation and reform activities in this area, other organs and units of the OAS be consulted. The Inter-American Juridical Committee, the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD), and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights were mentioned, inter alia, as possibly important sources.

With regard to the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB), the meeting examined its attributes and activities based on a presentation by the President of that institution. Some delegations pointed to the lack of a clear legal link between the Board and the OAS, a question that would have to be solved in the future. Although some delegations proposed that the CHS make a special effort to examine the question of the relationship between the Board and the OAS, it agreed to proceed with the development of a common approach to general aspects of the inter-American system related to security, prior to solving more specific elements.

Several delegations took it upon themselves to expound the essential features, scope, and contents of subregional agreements and mechanisms, such as the Framework Treaty on Democratic Security in Central America, and the Regional Security System of Eastern Caribbean countries, and the Political Declaration of MERCOSUR, Chile, and Bolivia as a Zone of Peace. There was considerable agreement among the delegations that subregional processes, like bilateral processes, should be construed as factors reinforcing hemispheric security as a whole. At the same time, progress achieved at the hemispheric level may help to strengthen bilateral and subregional arrangements. Mention was also made at that juncture of progress made in applying confidence- and security-building measures to bilateral negotiations or dispute resolution processes between various member states. It was agreed, for those reasons, that such subregional and bilateral agreements and mechanisms were not to be construed as signs of fragmentation but rather as supportive and complementary elements within the hemispheric system.

Delegations agreed that the meeting had made an important contribution to the process of complying with the mandates of the Santiago Summit and the General Assembly in this area. It was also agreed that it was necessary to continue to make headway in analysis and the quest for consensus. For that reason it was felt that another special meeting of the CHS should be convened in the second half of the year.

It was also agreed that the Special Conference on Security should be preceded by a period of preparation to make it possible to forge consensus and conclude the necessary political agreements on the various different aspects of security in the inter-American system.

II. PROCEEDINGS

1. Inauguration

(a) Introduction

The Chair of the Committee on Hemispheric Security (the Committee), Ambassador Flavio Darío Espinal, inaugurated the Special Meeting devoted to continue developing the most appropriate common approaches with which to manage the various aspects of international security in the Hemisphere. The Chair reminded participants of the history of debates on this topic at the Organization of American States and the Summits of Heads of State and Government of the Americas, and recalled the origins of the Committee’s mandate. /

(b) Adoption of the Agenda

The Chair presented the Draft Agenda contained in document CP/CSH-268/00 rev. 2 for consideration. The Committee adopted that agenda without changes.

(c) Work method

The Chair explained how the meeting would proceed on March 20 and 21 and submitted for consideration the draft schedule set forth in document CP/CSH-267/00 rev. 1. The Committee adopted that schedule without changes.

2. Study of the problems and risks to peace and security in the Hemisphere as well as to prevent and settle conflicts

(a) Introduction

The First Vice Chair of the Committee, Ambassador Álvaro Moerzinger, presented item 1 on the Agenda, and dealt with international conflicts and changes that had come about in different areas and had given rise to a new conception of security. / He suggested the approaches that ought to be borne in mind in the day’s discussions and recalled that the OAS had been debating this topic for the past ten years.

(b) General discussion

The Delegation of Mexico stated that revamping the inter-American system of collective security, with a view to strengthening it, was by no means a new item on our agenda. Rather, the profound changes that had occurred over the past decade both in the region and in the international arena had awakened new interest in this debate. He said that States had to be clear about what they wanted from this system if they aspired to strengthen it. He told participants at the Meeting that in Mexico’s opinion conditions were not yet ripe for a Special Conference on Security, nor was it the right time to convene a third conference on confidence-building measures. In his opinion, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and the Inter-American Defense Board had been overtaken by political developments. He said he was convinced that inter-American institutions should reflect the advance of democracy and the strengthening of the rule of law in the Hemisphere. He also stated that the Committee should be the principal organ for deliberating on and negotiating security issues.

The Delegation of Brazil said that Brazil favored a broader concept of hemispheric security, based not just on military considerations, but also on political and social considerations as well. The importance of this renewal process derived more from its substantial long-term implications than from any immediate concerns. The Delegation also suggested that this debate should take into account the emerging concept of human security as an increasingly necessary complement to the definition of the concept of security in the Hemisphere. It also proposed that any attempt to revise the concept of hemispheric security should start from two fundamental premises: the specific circumstances of the countries of the region with respect to security and the need to reconcile the new dimensions of the concept of security with the primacy of the basic principles governing hemispheric relations.

The Delegation of Argentina said that the kind of security to which the countries of the region should aspire was one which defended essential values of our societies, such as representative democracy, human rights, development, and the well-being our peoples. The Delegation maintained that democracy and regional integration also strengthened peace and security and it cited the example of MERCOSUR, saying that it had made it possible to turn relations governed by rivalry into those of an association, in which all the members share the same concerns and risks. The democratic nature of the governments in the Hemisphere had reduced the level of military threats, and thereby helped to redefine the concept of security. The Delegation was of the view that with regard to the so-called “new threats,” a distinction should be drawn between security aspects and defense aspects and that each country had to decide, based on its own particular circumstances and laws, how best to tackle them. The Delegation suggested that in some cases the Armed Forces had a role to play and in others not, depending on the nature of the problem. It added that the new concepts of security, non-military or “new” threats, and the analysis of hemispheric security instruments, etc. should be looked at from a political standpoint. It intimated that the CHS was the appropriate body to deal with these questions and one that had received a mandate to do so from the presidents of the region.

The Delegation of Antigua and Barbuda summarized the special security concerns of small island states put forward at the CHS meeting dedicated to that topic, which was held on February 29, 2000. These were: the effects of economic globalization, financial vulnerability, the debt burden, natural disasters, the transportation of hazardous substances, illicit drug trafficking, and global warming. It suggested that the OAS might play an important part in devising appropriate responses to those threats.

The Delegation of El Salvador pointed out that the complexity of the challenge involved in developing the concept of security had to do with past experience and the difficulty of reaching a consensus. This Delegation went on to suggest that it was also partly due to the fact that security had to be considered not only in a regional context but also within the wider international arena, and had to also take into account poverty and national development. The Delegation also recalled that in order to achieve effective international security arrangements it was essential that all States agree to abide by universal, identical, and binding rules and that peaceful relations between States had to be strengthened on the basis of those foundations. Flexible working methods were called for to attain that goal, since the time was not yet ripe. This Delegation expressed the view, moreover, that the Committee had an important part to play in this process and had already made headway in this field, in ways that could serve as a basis for the Special Conference on Security.

The Delegation of the United States stated that there were four indispensable pillars for security: democracy, prosperity, good relations between neighbors, and peace. The Delegation suggested that the particular contribution of the OAS was to formulate common principles related to hemispheric security, based on existing institutions and processes in the inter-American system. The Delegation identified transnational threats and the many-sided responses to them and underscored the importance of strengthening dispute prevention and resolution mechanisms and of continuing to develop a range of confidence and security-building measures. Finally, the U.S. delegate emphasized the historical importance of the institutions and processes that make up the inter-American system and the need to build a future based on them. The Delegation also supported the idea of convening a Special Conference on Security and urged the Committee to continue its work in preparation for that Conference.

The Delegation of Chile stated that this must be a participatory and comprehensive exercise based on consensus-building. It was emphasized that it was necessary to identify the appropriate means to respond to the new threats and indicated that starting at the national level the discussion should take into account all related aspects. It was also stated that the contents of the concept of international security should be defined for each State, based on the nature of progress already made by the OAS and the contributions of subregional mechanisms. In that way a consensus based on the recognition of the diversity of each situation and country responses would be created and serve to revive and renovate key institutions bringing them into line with global, regional, and bilateral processes in the same field.

The Delegation of Canada stated that the older security structures in the Hemisphere lacked the comprehensiveness and flexibility to deal with the broader range of security concerns that had emerged over recent years. It proposed that: the OAS be the central coordinator for regional discussions on security issues; that the final product of the hemispheric security review be a statement or declaration of security principles; that the structural relationship currently in place between the OAS and the Inter-American Defense Board needed to be modernized; and that linkages had to be forged with other processes, particularly the Defense Ministerial of the Americas.

The Delegation of Jamaica stated that delimitation and territorial disputes were the most likely source of inter-state conflict in the Hemisphere and that the OAS had the management capabilities under the Charter to deal with issues related to preventing and resolving such conflicts. It emphasized that special attention should be paid to external factors that caused or exacerbated domestic problems, such as drug trafficking, the illicit traffic in arms and associated criminal activities, which threaten the security of small island states. The Delegation also underlined the problem of the forced deportation of criminals. It, too, observed that the framework for a new concept of security should encompass social, political, economic, and environmental factors, as well as others related to human security.

The Delegation of Nicaragua stated that the concept of security had changed enormously, moving away from a strictly military approach toward one incorporating social, political, economic, and developmental concerns. The Delegation suggested that new mechanisms would have to be devised to respond to these new challenges and pointed out that some major progress had already been made in this area.

The Delegation of Costa Rica expressed its concern that not all member states had ratified the Pact of Bogota and that many had not signed the Rio Treaty. It agreed that the system had to be modified to accommodate the new circumstances in the region, while recognizing that, despite its shortcomings, the present system had served well. The Delegation concluded by saying it is necessary to promote the excellent early warning mechanisms initiative.

The Delegation of Colombia stated that the concept of security had expanded to include interdependence, economic and financial cooperation, and the promotion of development. It pointed out that today’s conflicts are more complex than previous ones and are based on economic, social and cultural differences. In the quest for peace, emphasis had to be placed on development and respect for human rights, and that with regard to these tasks the OAS had to reassume its leading role. The Delegation called for the establishment of a regulatory framework to govern the operations of the security system in the Hemisphere. The Delegate said that the problems of terrorism, illicit traffic in arms and narcotics trafficking against which Colombia had struggled for so long, were transnational problems and that an international effort should be made to tackle them, with the active participation of other members of the OAS. This Delegation proposed that such cooperation should be based on consensus and respect for the autonomy and sovereignty of each State, and should be channeled through the OAS.

The Delegation of Uruguay also stated that the concept of security had extended to include anything that might threaten the stability of the nations in the Hemisphere and their international relations. The Delegation proposed that a decision had to be made on whether to continue with a practically inoperative system, or whether to make the adjustments needed to make it effective and relevant. The Delegation put forward six factors to be considered in any attempt to reform the inter-American system, including the reconciliation of the interests of weaker countries with those of the strong countries; establishing obligatory collective measures; recognizing the huge differences between member states in terms of power; and replacing the Rio Treaty with an instrument on which all states could agree.

The Delegation of Paraguay recalled that Paraguay’s constitution renounces war and recognizes the fundamental role of international law. The Delegation said that the present discussions should be based on the premise that there can be no security without a consolidated democracy in each of the member states and without promotion of sustainable economic development. The Delegation stressed three new threats: international crime, natural disasters and narcotics trafficking.

The Delegation of Mexico took the floor once again to express its concern over the opinions expressed by the United States and Costa Rica to the effect that illegal migration is on the list of so-called new threats to hemispheric security. The Delegate said that migration was a highly complex issue that should not be treated superficially. The Delegate emphasized that the fact that this phenomenon had been mentioned showed how careful one had to be when defining the concept of security.

The Delegation of Bolivia declared that the Rio Treaty is a treaty of reciprocal assistance, not military assistance, and one based on two original concepts: consultation and reciprocal assistance. To deal with the new problems in the Hemisphere, in an atmosphere of democracy, it is necessary to reassert the historical values of the inter-American system and to enrich them with new ideas and measures furthering consensus on security among member states. In this regard, the Delegation recalled its earlier proposal to create early warning mechanisms for the prevention of conflicts and reiterated its hope that in the future an agreement on such mechanisms could be reached.

The Delegation of the United States replied to Mexico’s concern about illegal migration and clarified its position on the matter.

The Delegation of Costa Rica also replied on this issue and explained that massive migration has an impact on any country’s infrastructure.

The Delegation of Antigua and Barbuda explained its government’s position with regard to the movement of criminals from one country to another and said it posed a grave threat to national security.

The Delegation of El Salvador stated that States were now realizing how migration also constitutes a factor in development and that actions taken should bear this in mind, along with respect for the human rights of migrants.

The Chair asked those delegations that had taken the floor to let the Secretariat have their remarks in writing.

The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

3. Identification of ways to revitalize and strengthen the inter-American system with respect to the various aspects of hemispheric security, through analysis and evaluation

At the opening of the Second Working Session at 3:10 p.m., the Second Vice Chair, Dr. Renata Wielgosz, introduced item 2 on the Agenda, recalling the history of the mandate and one of the purposes of the special meeting: to identify ways to revitalize and strengthen the inter-American system in the area of security. Dr. Wielgosz proposed a plan for achieving this goal, which included a series of questions which the Committee should ask itself, and some ideas on the conceptual basis for the discussion, the main players in the inter-American system, the respective institutions, processes and mechanisms. The suggestion was that proposals made during this Meeting would provide the scaffolding for renewed approaches to discussion of security issues within the inter-American system.

(a) Hemispheric instruments that relate to peace and security

The Delegation of Argentina made some observations regarding the usefulness and relevance of the three basic hemispheric instruments. The Delegation stated that the OAS and UN Charters embodied an international concept of peace and security based on interstate conflicts, essentially of a military nature, but that nowadays, however, this concept was increasingly expanding to include other threats–social, economic, ecological, political (to the democratic regime), and humanitarian, among others. The Delegate stated that, although the preamble to the amended version of the Rio Treaty contained mentions of democratic ideals, human rights, the well-being of peoples, etc., it was still an instrument to be applied in the event of military aggression, so that it would hardly be relevant as a tool with which to confront non-military threats. Similarly, the Pact of Bogota was concerned with the settlement of disputes between States of a kind that could jeopardize international peace and security. The Delegate reiterated that the Committee was the only body with a mandate for conducting this type of analysis and for proposing the path to follow.

The Delegation of Uruguay noted that because of the absence of any active participation on the part of the states that had ratified the Rio Treaty and the Pact of Bogota, these instruments were no longer being applied. Also, given the absence of a legal link between the OAS Charter and these two instruments, the OAS was not in a position to enforce their application. The Delegation suggested that the Committee should consider new instruments that were relevant to all OAS states as an option, as well as the possibility of studying the legal link between the Rio Treaty and the Charter.

The Delegation of Brazil agreed with the views expressed by the delegations of Argentina and Uruguay and asked the General Secretariat to prepare a comparative chart of ratifications of the Rio Treaty and the Pact of Bogota, and of participation in the Inter-American Defense Board. /

The Secretariat for Legal Affairs read out the lists of states that had signed and/or ratified the Rio Treaty and the Pact of Bogota, and that were members of the Inter-American Defense Board. Those lists have been published in the documents presented (CP/CSH-278/00, CP/CSH-279/00, and CP/CSH-264/00 rev. 1).

The United States Delegation noted that today's threats were different from those of the Second World War, and that consequently, the response of states to present-day problems should, therefore, be multidisciplinary, combining civilian and military considerations, while being ever mindful that the key to lasting security was social and economic stability and the consolidation of democracy.

The Delegation of Canada brought to the Committee’s attention that the Rio Treaty is not an inclusive document. Many OAS member states are not currently members of the Rio Treaty nor are they likely to be. Responding to the suggestion by several other delegations that consideration be given to revising the Rio Treaty, the Delegation of Canada pointed out that such an exercise will continue to exclude many OAS member states; instead, that a general statement of security principles to reflect current realities would be preferable because of its inclusive nature.

(b) Institutions and processes

The Director of the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB), Major General John Thompson, made a presentation about the advisory role of the IADB in military matters within the inter-American system. He traced the Board's history, making special note of the recommendation to governments in 1951 that they cooperate in the organization of a coordinated system of exchange of appropriate information within the Board. He also referred to the mandate from the General Assembly in 1993 that the Board provide technical-military advisory services directly to the Organization. On the relationship between the Board and the OAS, he recalled that the Board obtained its financial resources from the OAS, provided information and technical experience when requested to do so, and was subject to the Organization's mandates. He further recalled that the Board carried out activities in four areas: natural disaster preparedness and relief, demining, confidence- and security-building measures and education for peace. Despite radical changes in international security, he felt that the Board had a role to play in the inter-American system, and he pointed to protection of the environment and the promotion of human rights as new areas of activity.

The Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago urged the Committee to draw on the Board's experience and proposed the establishment of a working subgroup, which would be mandated to prepare terms of reference for the functioning of the Board.

The Delegation of El Salvador congratulated the Board on its significant activities in demining and natural disasters. In response to questions from the Delegation of El Salvador regarding encouragement of participation by civilians in the Inter-American Defense College, the Director of the Board reported that there were a number of civilian students and teaching staff at the Inter-American Defense College.

In response to a question from the Delegation of Uruguay, the Director of the Board noted that the perception by some member states that there was no legal link between the OAS and the Inter-American Defense Board undermined the Board's capacity to support the Organization's activities.

In response to a question from the Delegation of Argentina regarding whether the IADB had requested advice from bodies in the inter-American system such as the IACHR to deal with specific issues, the Director of the IADB stated that the Board tried to avail itself of the resources afforded by the city of Washington, D.C. and the OAS bodies in studying various topics, including the subject of human rights.

In response to a question from the Delegation of Colombia, the Director Board stated that in order to inject new dynamism into the inter-American security system, the first step should be to increase dialogue and cooperation between the states that are part of that system. He added that he hoped that with the passage of time the Committee would see in the Board an institution with which it could work and on which it could rely.

The Delegation of Mexico, citing the document prepared by the OAS Secretariat for Legal Affairs (CP/CSH-264/00 rev. 1), said that the Board could not arrogate onto itself mandates that were different from those given it by the OAS General Assembly and that there was no clear legal linkage between the Board and the Organization. In response, the Director of the Board said that in many countries of the Hemisphere, many armed forces helped in environmental protection and the Board worked in this same type of situation as well as in the field of human rights through training for members of the Armed Forces. As regards the legal linkage between the Board and the OAS, he said that such a link was manifest in the Board's budgetary reliance on the Organization.

The Delegation of Bolivia expressed concern at the hesitation to define the link between the IADB and the OAS and said that the time had come to define an unambiguous legal relationship.

The United States Delegation recognized the efforts of the Board to increase security in the Hemisphere and proposed that the Board’s Charter be expanded to include civilian-military relations. It also proposed that the Committee devise innovative ways in which the Board might help member states (as it has with the Demining Program).

The Delegation of Canada stated that whatever the actual juridical linkages were between the OAS and the Inter-American Defense Board, it was clear that there was an ongoing issue of perceptions regarding accountability which would have to be addressed. It suggested a rotating IADB Chair reporting to the Chair of the Committee as just one possibility of how the accountability issue might be resolved. It then supported the proposal made by the Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago to form a Committee subgroup regarding the IADB. It also emphasized that the elements of the current security “system” were now working well and that the problem was not one of lack of functioning but rather of not functioning at maximum efficiency because of the lack of linkages. The gaps between the various processes and institutions should be filled in order to gain the maximum benefit from a system whose whole in the end would be greater than the sum total of its parts.

The Delegation of Argentina suggested that in this process of analyzing nontraditional threats it might be useful to obtain input from the various organs of the OAS specializing in the areas involved, especially threats of a socio-economic nature.

The Delegation of Brazil stated that it would not support any initiative likely to favor proposals to incorporate military fora into the inter-American system and proposed that the relationship between the Inter-American Defense Board and the OAS should not be altered, given that the IADB’s performance had been satisfactory. However, Brazil did agree to discuss granting the IADB new mandates and had no objection to its being turned into a specialized organization of the OAS.

The Delegation of Chile proposed that the Committee focus on three areas: evaluation of positive factors, the development of common approaches and adjustments to the inter-American system. The Delegate added that that would strengthen governments’ hands in defining the concept of security, and the instruments, institutions and processes associated with it.

The Delegations of Costa Rica and Antigua y Barbuda seconded the proposal put forward by Trinidad and Tobago concerning the establishment of a working group.

The Delegation of Mexico, with respect to the IADB, the Delegate said that the quest for tasks for the Board made it look as if it had not done anything in the past few years to tackle a series of problems affecting the security of States, such as drug trafficking, arms trafficking, and terrorism, which is not true. The Delegate also stated that Mexico could not, at this time, go along with the proposal made by Trinidad and Tobago, since it was premature and did not specify what the working group would do.

The Delegation of Uruguay reiterated that the Committee was the right forum to discuss security and suggested that it prepare a comparative study of the policies of member states. The Delegation of Canada volunteered an explanation as to the proposal made by Trinidad and Tobago in the sense that the proposed working group would only study the link between the IADB and the OAS and would not assign new functions to the Board.

The Chair said that note would be taken of the proposal as well as of the responses to it and that the subject would be submitted for the Committee’s consideration at a later date.

The Delegation of the Dominican Republic expressed support for Chile’s view that certain matters had to be clarified before holding the Special Conference on Security.

The Delegation of Chile suggested holding more meetings of the Committee to continue debate on the matter, but did not consider it necessary to establish a working group.

The Delegation of Trinidad and Tobago pointed out that the presentation made by the Director of the IADB had helped clarify the IADB-OAS relationship.

The session was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

(c) Subregional security agreements, mechanisms, and processes, such as the Regional Security System (RSS), the Framework Treaty on Democratic Security in Central America, and the Political Declaration of Mercosur, Bolivia, and Chile as a Zone of Peace, and their relation to the mechanisms, institutions, and processes of hemispheric security

The Second Working Session resumed at 10:15 a.m. on March 21st. The Chair invited delegations to comment on item 2.c. of the agenda.

The Delegation of Ecuador reminded participants of the history of debates in the OAS on hemispheric security in the OAS and suggested that steps should be taken to define a new concept of security taking into account the economic, political, social, environmental and military context both domestically and at the international level. With regard to the Rio Treaty, the Delegation said it was inoperative and the Committee should study ways to strengthen it or else create a new instrument.

The Delegation of Argentina recalled that despite having been an economic arrangement Mercosur had had a positive effect on its member states in the social, cultural, political, and defense spheres. The Delegation stated that transparency was a key factor in Argentina’s relations with its neighbors. The Delegation reported that in compliance with the recommendation of the Declaration of San Salvador on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures, Argentina and Chile had entrusted CEPAL with the preparation of a common methodology for measuring defense outlays. The Delegation noted also that the Political Declaration of Mercosur, Bolivia and Chile as a Zone of Peace (Political Declaration): (i) reflects the present optimum state of affairs, and (ii) outlines a program for the future aimed at strengthening ties among its members. It envisages bilateral mechanisms of consultation having to be geared to the adoption of subregional, and then hemispheric, measures that are complementary in their approach. The Delegation added that the Political Declaration specifically supported the Committee. It said it was worth remembering that great progress had been made in these areas over the past decade.

The Delegation of El Salvador referred to the information available on security-related agreements to which the States were parties and commented on the usefulness of such information for analysis of hemispheric security. Looking at experience in the subregion with the Framework Treaty on Democratic Security in Central America, the Delegation said it endowed the political, legal, and institutional circumstances in the region with a security model of their own. He underscored the principles it establishes for dealing with human security issues, natural disasters, and extreme poverty.

The Delegation of Nicaragua seconded the remarks made by the Delegation of El Salvador with respect to the Framework Treaty and underscored the progress being made in the quest for a new concept of security containing elements dealing with internal security: violence, corruption, etc. The Delegate added that human security was a core concern of the Framework Treaty.

The Delegation of Antigua and Barbuda mentioned the Treaty of the Regional Security System of Eastern Caribbean States as an instance of cooperation with other states in the Hemisphere. The Delegation recalled the history of the treaty and emphasized that it was an example of cooperation to promote the security of the states parties. The Delegate underlined points in common and what had been learned from the Framework Treaty on Democratic Security in Central America and underscored the recognition by members of the Committee in the sessions of the day before that there was a need to broaden the definition of security and adopt a multidisciplinary approach.

The Delegation of Brazil stated that, through the Committee, the OAS had gradually become the axis, articulator, and coordinator for drawing up frameworks to deal not only with common concerns of the Hemisphere as a whole but also with the more specific concerns of each subregion, all of which made it the ideal forum for pursuing activities related to the strengthening and revitalization of the inter-American system. The Delegation added that subregional agreements could strengthen this hemispheric effort rather than weaken it.

The Delegation of Chile recalled that the Political Declaration signified a political meeting ground that was enduring–one that had set the stage for implementing various confidence- and security-building measures. The delegate emphasized that the Rio Treaty and the Pact of Bogota were not inclusive in that not all states were subject to its provisions and that this is why the Committee should seek to identify specific points in common in the area of security, and on that basis, establish appropriate means for responding to both traditional and non-traditional threats. It was this Delegation’s opinion that this Special Meeting was laying the groundwork for the definition of the new concept of inter-American security and for the eventual preparation of the Special Conference.

The Delegation of Jamaica urged the Committee to take into account regional and subregional mechanisms when considering the hemispheric security agenda. The Delegate referred to items 2.a and 2.b of the Agenda and stated that its position on instruments, institutions and processes, was consistent with those expressed at the previous meeting of the Committee. The Delegation indicated that the Secretariat would be given a document containing its positions and requested that it form part of the record of the meeting. /

The Delegation of Bolivia emphasized that the Rio Treaty and the Pact of Bogota had historical value and proposed that they should be submitted to the region's jurists–the Inter-American Juridical Committee–for study before any decision was made to change them.

The Chair of the Committee reported that the CJI's agenda included security as an item and offered to convey to the Chair of the Inter-American Juridical Committee the views expressed at this special meeting.

The Delegation of Canada stated that it was sensitive to the wish expressed by many other delegations to see existing instruments maintained but that it was important to reconcile national, subregional, and hemispheric security concerns in some kind of all-inclusive and up-to-date framework which would supercede the older instruments. The Delegation suggested that a Declaration of Principles might constitute such a framework. The Delegation also stated that the OAS, through the Committee, was the only forum for conducting a study of existing instruments as well as institutions, processes and mechanisms, although this did not prevent the Committee from seeking the legal opinion of other OAS bodies such as the Inter-American Juridical Committee.

The Delegation of Argentina agreed with the statement by the Delegation of Canada concerning the Committee's role.

The Delegation of Chile proposed that the Committee hold another special meeting in the second quarter of this year (with fullest participation by government officials from headquarters), given the proposals and observations emanating from this meeting.

The Delegation of Mexico agreed with the proposal by the Delegation of Chile on holding another special meeting and on the need to expedite discussion of these topics. The Delegation noted that the Committee was the only forum in which all countries of the region were present. As for Bolivia's proposal, it was their opinion that the CJI should be given clear-cut guidelines when they were asked to conduct any study of this topic.

The Delegation of Colombia supported the remarks made by the delegations of Chile and Mexico concerning the new factors that were contributing to hemispheric security, adding that while many of the threats referred to in these meetings originated internally it was imperative to improve international cooperation in fighting against them.

The Delegation of the United States pinpointed the steps to be followed to achieve a redefinition of the concept of security and listed the appropriate mechanisms and fora. The Delegation suggested the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach comprising civic-military aspects, national and subregional approaches, the cooperative aspect, and a set of common principles. As an immediate step, it proposed that this work continue and it recommended reiterating the mandates contained in resolution AG/RES. 1643 (XXIX-O/99) regarding the preparation of the Special Conference. Finally, the United States Delegation said that consideration could eventually be given to Trinidad and Tobago’s proposal regarding the establishment of a working group on the role of the IADB.

The session was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

4. Closing Session

The meeting resumed at 4:30 p.m. with the presentation of the Report and Summary of the Chair on the deliberations held during the First and Second Working Sessions. The Chair invited Delegations to submit written comments on the Report by March 31st. The Chair also requested that delegations that took the floor during the Special Meeting submit their statements in writing so that they could be published as part of record of the proceedings. /

The Special Meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

April 28, 2000

Flavio Darío Espinal Ambassador, Permanent Representative of the Dominican Republic to the OAS Chair, Committee on Hemispheric Security

APPENDIX I

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

1. Opening Session: Remarks by the Chair of the Committee, Ambassador Flavio Darío Espinal 17 2. First Item on the Agenda: Introduction by the First Vice Chair of the Committee, Ambassador Álvaro Moerzinger 23 3. Second Agenda Item: Introduction by the Second Vice Chair of the Committee, Dr. Renata Wielgosz 27

APPENDIX II

STATEMENTS DELIVERED DURING THE MEETING

1. Delegation of Mexico, Ambassador Claude Heller, Permanent Representative 35 2. Delegation of the United States, Ambassador Luis J. Lauredo, Permanent Representative 45 3. Delegation of Chile, Ambassador Carlos Portales, Permanent Representative 49 4. Delegation of Canada, Renata Wielgosz, Alternate Representative 57 5. Delegation of Jamaica, Vilma McNish, Alternate Representative 59 6. Delegation of Colombia, Jaime Casabianca, Alternate Representative 63 7. Inter-American Defense Board, Major General John C. Thompson 67 8. Delegation of Ecuador, Rafael Ventimilla, Alternate Representative 73 9. Delegation of El Salvador, Ambassador Margarita Escobar, Permanent Representative 77 10. Delegation of Antigua and Barbuda, Ambassador Lionel A. Hurst 85

APPENDIX III

COMPARATIVE CHART OF RATIFICATIONS (Prepared by the Department of International Law of the Secretariat for Legal Affairs)

Chart only in hard copy