In the XXXVIII Lecture of the Lecture Series of the Americas entitled: In Search of Solutions to the Financial Crisis: Measures Taken and Future Challenges, Alicia Barcena, Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), shares her views on the current financial crisis and its impact on the future.  She begins by explaining that this crisis is unlike any other for Latin America.  This is the first time that Latin America has entered an economic crisis from prosperity, with solid politics, flexibility in exchange rates, high foreign reserves, and a surplus in the balance of payments.

Barcena contends that there is a “new normality” that will arise from the current economic crisis, characterized by a lower level of economic growth, a “jobless recovery,” a new political axis featuring the United States and China, and a rise in protectionism.  In the case of Latin America, Barcena emphasizes that the countries are recovering at different rates but most have managed to implement effective counter-cyclical fiscal policies.  In terms of growth, it is expected that by 2010 most countries will have returned to a rate of 3-4%.  Barcena worries that “jobless recovery” will force workers into the informal sector, creating higher levels of poverty and indigence and especial challenges for women and children. 

Barcena highlights two forms of protectionism that will affect the recovery of the global market:  the first is the traditional form of buying domestically and refusing to purchase foreign goods;  the second occurs in the financial and credit markets.  Financial protectionism will reduce investment in developing countries until a multilateral regulatory system aimed at better global stability renews confidence in the investment market. 

In order to confront the financial crisis, Barcena states that there needs to be legitimate global political bodies that reflect the needs of all the international community and that are inclusive, sustainable, and universally accountable.  She states that, in the past, a few developed nations controlled the world order, while today, the G-20 and the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) offer new opportunities for global representation.  The G-20 recently transferred 5% of the rights to vote from the over-represented developed countries to those that were underrepresented, and reiterated the importance of employment and equity in society.   Within the United Nations, there is a proposal to elevate the ECOSOC to the same level as the General Assembly, and ensure fair regional representation in social and economic analysis and in the creation of objectives and political instruments. 

Barcena states that international and regional financial institutions, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), are essential for creating a new economic and financial system.  These institutions must provide liquidity on a global scale in a counter-cyclical and inclusive manner.  To do this, they need a larger financial base for loans and the ability to solve the problem of over-indebtedness through restructurizing of payment schedules.  Regional institutions have the added responsibility of compiling and synthesizing macrofinance information, developing early alert systems, and adopting shared regulatory systems in the distinct sub-regions.        

Barcena also addresses climate change as a challenge in the “new normality.”  She says that it is necessary to create a new economy that is less dependent on carbon emissions and states that both multilateral agreements and unilateral initiatives are necessary.  In the case of Latin America, she points out that the countries can choose to make climate change another restriction to development or use it as an opportunity to renovate existing infrastructure, improve production processes, and create more efficient public transportation. 

The structure of the State is vital to economic success under the “new normality.”  Barcena believes that Latin America has already made great strides in reducing populist spending and the public deficit, and in enacting measures to reduce the size of the State and the degree of economic intervention.  For the coming era, Barcena says that countries need to forget the old neo-liberal dichotomy of laissez-faire or State-controlled economics.  She believes an effective market will only come about through proper controls by the State, where each nation will have its own equilibrium and best practices.  The State should provide public goods in a manner that makes them not an owner, but an equal provider with the participation of the private sector.  It should have the legitimacy to arbitrate between the various interests in a society and the power to confront the enormous influence of major corporations.   

According to Barcena, taxation is one of the biggest challenges to public welfare in Latin American states.  Taxes are not only below the needed level, they are also collected from sales tax and other indirect taxes that exacerbate economic regression.  Countries must have democratic and equal policies with legitimacy, long-term thinking, and which allow for the participation of the most vulnerable sectors of society in the benefits of economic growth.   

To conclude, Barcena believes in a macroeconomic strategy that emphasizes equality in order to grow, and growth for better economic equality.  She challenges the State to close the gaps in productivity, provide a basic level of income transfers, healthcare, and education, and enforce a transparent agenda vis-à-vis the private sector and the citizens.  She urges the continuity of political institutions to serve the people, and a viable fiscal policy that focuses on civil and social rights.  Lastly, Barcena reiterates that a State structure that is unable to carry the burdens of the “new normality” will compromise its future. For full summary in word file, please click here

In the XXXVII Lecture of the Lecture Series of the Americas, Right Honorable Dame Jennifer Mary Shipley, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, shares her expertise on the topic of social cohesion and inclusive societies.  Dame Shipley is the co-chair of the Shared Societies Project at the Club de Madrid, an organization of more than 70 democratic former Heads of State and Government from 50 countries committed to leadership in the promotion of democratic values.  Dame Shipley describes a shared society as socially cohesive, safe, and just, and based on human rights and tolerance.  She emphasizes social inclusion as building a common ground where everyone feels safe to embrace their potential and celebrate differences.

Dame Shipley uses the case of the Maori people in New Zealand to explain policy and best practices that foster social inclusion.  She begins with stating that equal citizenship, like the Maori were given under the Waitangi Treaty in 1840, does not amount to equality, and assimilation leads to alienation and a detachment from cultural roots.  She explains that reversal of the exclusion of the Maori people began in the last quarter of the 20th century, when both the Maori and the Pakeha (people of European and Asian descent) began to recognize what was lost.  The state focused on nursery school education in the Maori language and slowly integrated Maori primary and secondary education.  The result was Maori students began performing much better when they entered an English medium classroom, and the whole Maori community felt in control of the education of their youth.  In terms of healthcare, the Maori people were allowed to set up their own public clinics that integrated Maori tradition and modern medicine.  Higher numbers of Maori began going to see a doctor and the overall health of the population improved.  Dame Shipley uses the example of the Maori regaining their fishing rights and building the largest fishing company in New Zealand to emphasize the economic benefits of social inclusion. 

In addition to the participation of previously marginalized classes in society, she notes that social cohesion leads to political and social stability lowers public costs, increases capital investment.  For those reasons, Dame Shipley believes that every leader should internalize the economic argument for shared societies as a true benefit to civil society as a whole. 

The Club de Madrid’s Shared Societies Project has developed 10 Commitments for Shared Societies based on government and legal responsibility for social cohesion, the need for a voice for all social groups, economic and educational opportunity for everyone, safe physical environments, and the promotion of understanding, shared vision, and tolerance.  Dame Shipley emphasizes that shared societies are possible, and it is all a matter of leadership. 

Please click here for full remarks by His Excellency Jennifer Mary Shipley

In the XXXVI Lecture, "The Fight against Terrorism and the Promotion of Democratic Values," Judge Bruguiere classified terrorism as a challenge to democracy and its fundamental values. He explained that the necessary response engendered by this threat will only be legitimate and effective if it remains within the scope of the rule of law and promotes democratic values. He assured us that both of these proposals should not be antithetical.

In his view, terrorist violence must not trigger responses that fall outside the rule of the law, violating basic principles of human rights and whose "extraordinary" character seems justified by the seriousness of the threat. While rulers are protectors of the safety of their citizens, they must, when confronted with terrorist violence, respond with the utmost firmness. By no means should they respond with the weapons of their opponents, regardless of the seriousness of the situation, the pressure of public opinon, and policy implications. The management of a crisis must be firm, resolute, uncompromising, but respectful of the fundamental values that underlie our institutions.

Judge Bruguiere warned against embracing a strategy that violates human rights or the rule of law, as it will be ineffective in the long run because it necessarily engenders corrections. Furthermore, it is often brutal and difficult to manage politically by the supervisory bodies of the State, including the judiciary. He reminded us that during his inaugural address, President Obama reiterated the danger posed by terrorism to the United States and the democratic order and reaffirmed the willingness and commitment of his country to "defeat those who seek to ensure and promote their goals through terror and the massacre of innocents." When President Obama took office, the first thing he did was to close Guantanamo and ban the harsh interrogation techniques used by the CIA. He justified his decision, stating: "our nation is stronger and safer when we deploy both the full extent of our strength and the power of our values, including the rule of law."

In reference to Latin America, Judge Bruguiere stated that it has not yet  suffered from the actions of radical Islamic networks linked to Al Qaeda. Yet, this situation could change in the future, especially as organized crime extends its reach to terrorist organizations.

“It is not my intention to propose a model of anti terrorism. There are none that have a universal
applicability. Each state must find its own way, according to its history, socio-cultural factors, its institutions, its regional environment, the geopolitical environment, and, of course, the types of terrorist threats that it faces. But the requirement for a legal approach to the fight against terrorism is a constant that must transcend the different national approaches.”

Whatever the state of the terrorist threat in the Americas, Judge Bruguiere believes that OAS Member States should develop a doctrine of effective, collaborative, and respectful core values in the fight against this threat to facilitate the necessary international cooperation and to improve control over the evolution of terrorist organizations and their criminal activities. Judge Bruguiere highlighted that Europe has recorded remarkable progress in the fight against terrorism and organized crime with the European Arrest Warrant and Joint Investigation Teams. These institutional mechanisms can serve as a point of inspiration for the Member States of the OAS The transnational dimension of the terrorist threat requires a response that can not be exclusively domestic.

After giving an overview of the genesis, evolution, and current situation of Islamist extremist terrorism and its effects around the globe, he warned that geopolitical factors, in conjunction with the Middle East, such as an aggravation of the dispute over Iran's nuclear program or new tensions in the region of Sham, could have implications for security issues in Latin America. Judge Bruguiere pointed out that although there is no evidence, we can not exclude the notion that a shared feeling of hatred against the United States is likely to facilitate objective coalitions between radical Islamic groups, criminal organizations, and even local terrorist networks operating in Latin America.

In the absence of deadly attacks, he stated that the public is unlikely to accept infringements on its freedom, even if they are limited and justified by the fight against this scourge. The paradox lies in the fact that in this context, it becomes much more difficult to obtain the resources, legal and material wise, to prevent or mitigate the risk.

Falling into the opposite extreme, is France, which rejects the notion of "war against terrorism" and has, subsequently, allowed many abuses to be perpetrated as a consequence. Terrorism amounts to an indirect strategy, asymmetrical used by non-state actors to promote an ideology or to bring a claim. In some cases, as in Afghanistan and in tribal areas of Latin America, where organizations like the FARC or the "Shining Path" have formed armed militias, the use of military force can be based, but the priority should always be intelligence, says  Bruguiere.

The French example is efficient, responsive, proactive and respectful of the values and principles of the Republic. France has a long experience with terrorism: separatists Corsica, ETA in Spain, Palestinian terrorism during the Cold War, and radical Islamist terrorism linked to Al Qaeda.
In 1986, after a series of deadly attacks in Paris by an organization close to Hezbollah, the French Parliament profoundly changed its criminal procedure by implementing a centralized prosecution system and investigation trials on terror cases. More specifically, the maximum pretrial detention period has been extended to three years for terrorist conspiracy. Additionally, other legal provisions relating to searches at night, the use of intrusive measures like the sound capturing devices on private premises and vehicles, and internet surveillance have been put in place.
 
In order to avoid the pitfalls of defining a terrorist act, the legislature extended the definition of terrorist crimes to common crimes already contained in French Penal Code (offenses against persons and property) where "they are intentionally related with an individual or collective enterprise aimed at seriously disrupting public order through intimidation and terror." The legislator also added two specific provisions concerning  terrorist conspiracy and terrorist activities affecting the environment.

The crime of conspiracy terrorism is a legal weapon particularly aimed at the repression of logistical and financial networks. The legislator added that the effectiveness of this device has been enhanced by intense international cooperation in Europe but also with other international partners, including the United States. It banishes, however, recovery for the purely national events and activities of terrorists or their instrumentalization for political purposes.

Please click here for full remarks by Judge Jean-Louis Bruguière, leading French investigating magistrate in charge of counter-terrorism affairs and Vice-president of the Paris Court of Serious Claims (French only)
 

In the XXIV lecture of the Lecture Series of the Americas entitled The Universality of Human Rights and the Work of the Council of Europe, Right Honorable Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, discusses the Council, the European Convention on Human Rights, and challenges to universal human rights in today’s world.  The Council of Europe is an intergovernmental organization created in 1949 to defend democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.  Its four pillars come together to set standards and legally binding rules, monitor these standards and make suggestions, cooperate with assistance programs and other organizations, and communicate with the general public about human rights and the work of the Council of Europe. 

In this lecture, Davis insists that human rights are universal, and this universality has not yet been fully accepted.  He explains several challenges to human rights.  Sometimes differences of opinion on specific issues such as the death penalty, anti-terrorism, and gay rights make consensus difficult.  Older democracies that consider themselves above suspicion create double standards that developing democracies use to justify their own human rights abuses.  Some claim that human rights are a Western concept, authoritarian rule is more effective in Eastern societies, and cultural and religious practices should be respected even if they are seen as against human rights. 

Davis reiterates the universality of human rights.  He states that every country must provide basic human rights, and that intercultural tolerance and dialogue is a key component of advancing them.  He describes the approach of the European Commission as one where human rights and cultural diversity are not mutually exclusive.  According to Davis, intercultural dialogue is an antidote for intolerance, division, and violence and creates a climate of mutual respect, justice, and safety.  In this climate, universal human rights thrive.   

In the end, to achieve universal human rights, every political body must act on its word. Davis points out that the Council of Europe has managed to draft international law, balance the rights and freedoms of individuals against the interest of the larger community, and effectively and fairly respond to the threats faced by society.  He rejects the notion of a trade-off between freedom and security and embraces the idea that universal human rights are a reachable goal.

Click here for full remarks by Right Honourable Terry Davis

Remarks by Dr. Fidel Chávez Mena, Former Foreign Minister of El Salvador (Spanish only)
February 16, 2007

   Français - Traduction français fournie par l’Université San Martín de Porres
 

   Français - Traduction français fournie par l’Université San Martín de Porres
   Português - Tradução para o português proporcionada pela Universidad de San Martín de Porres
 

   Français - Traduction français fournie par l’Université San Martín de Porres
   Português - Tradução para o português proporcionada pela Universidad de San Martín de Porres
 

Home | Agenda | Press Releases | Photo gallery | Videos | Lecture Series | Schedule | Live Transmission

© Copyright 2006. Organization of American States. All Rights Reserved.
Headquarters: 17th Street & Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, USA
Tel. (202)458-3000

Prepared by Department of Press and Communications
Terms of Use & Privacy Notice | Comments and questions