Concepts of security in the Hemisphere
Documents
PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY
|
OEA/Ser.G
CP/CSH-301/00
8 May 2000
Original: Spanish |
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
|