PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE  ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY

OEA/Ser. G CP/CSH-332/00  17 November 2000 Original: English

 

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY “NEW APPROACHES TO HEMISPHERIC SECURITY” [AG/RES. 1744 (XXX-O/00)] - REPORT BY THE CHAIR

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The purpose of this document is to provide information that is as comprehensive as possible about the proceedings and outcome of the Special Meeting of the Committee on Hemispheric Security, held from November 13-14, 2000. Included herewith, accordingly, are an Executive Summary of the Chair, the Report of the Rapporteur, and a document on discussions at that meeting, prepared by the Secretariat. Attached thereto are the statements made at the opening session, as well as written presentations submitted by member state delegations.

REPORT BY THE CHAIR

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Committee on Hemispheric Security (the Committee) held a special meeting from November 13-14, 2000 to continue consideration of two of the mandates emanating from the Second Summit of the Americas:

1. To evaluate and identify ways of revitalizing and strengthening agencies of the inter-American system related to the various aspects of security, and 2. To analyze the most appropriate common approaches used to address the various aspects of international security in the Hemisphere.

The Committee designated Ambassador Luis Lauredo, Permanent Representative of the United States and Vice Chair of the Committee as Rapporteur of the meeting /. The Secretary General and the Chair of the Committee spoke during the installation of the Meeting. Ambassador Valter Pecly Moreira, Permanent Representative of Brazil, made a statement about the Fourth Conference of Ministers of Defense of the Americas, held in Manaus, from October 17 through 21,2000 /. There was vigorous participation by the delegations many of which submitted their position papers and contributions in writing /. The Chair of the Inter-American Defense Board, Major General Carl H. Freeman, was invited to give a presentation before the Committee /. At the request of several delegations, the Secretariat of the Committee prepared a summary of the proceedings, which is appended hereto /.

1. Evaluation and identification of ways to revitalize and strengthen the agencies of the inter-American system that relate to the various aspects of security

There was significant agreement among delegations as to the limitations of instruments such as the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and the pact of Bogota, especially with regard to their universality and their applicability to new circumstances in the Hemisphere, in direct contrast to the continuing force and effect of the OAS Charter.

On this occasion, the subject of the Inter-American Defense Board was discussed in greater detail, with specific reference being made to the limited participation of OAS member states in it and the need to decide on and clarify its formal linkage to the Organization. During a lengthy exchange of views about the IADB’s activities, various assessments were forthcoming about its participation in mine-clearing programs, the preparation of inventories on confidence-building measures, the organization of disaster relief and the academic curricula of the Inter-American Defense College. Various questions were also asked, and views were expressed regarding the possibility of rotating the chairmanship of the Board.

There was also a more lengthy discussion than had taken place on previous occasions regarding the importance and relevance of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. While there was on the whole acknowledgement that the application of treaty mechanisms had been limited in recent decades --and there was no sign of any increased future recourse to these mechanisms--, no common position emerged as to what would be an appropriate approach to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance as part of an effort to renew security system mechanisms. It can therefore be said that this topic will have to be discussed further and in greater detail. In that respect, various proposals were made to study in-depth points raised with regard to the treaty, and once a statement was forthcoming as to what new hemispheric commitments would be in the area of security, these commitments would supersede those contained in the Rio Treaty.

The meeting reflected the existing agreement on the complementary nature of subregional cooperation mechanisms in matters of security and the hemispheric system. It has been said that these mechanisms reflect common realities that are specific to countries in different parts of the Hemisphere and that they should be enhanced by renewed hemispheric mechanisms that are in turn supported by subregional processes. This was the basis of the proposal to explore the possibility of establishing a specific mechanism for the southern part of the Hemisphere, a mechanism that would be added to those existing for Central America and the Caribbean.

Emphasis was placed on the agreement that existed, namely, that the Committee should be the place for dialogue and negotiation in the Hemisphere in matters of security. It was the only permanent hemispheric forum that could generate political negotiations and agreements that go beyond an exchange of views.

In the same line of thinking, the Committee brought to the attention of the meeting the commonality of the agendas of the Committee and the meetings of Ministers of Defense. There should be a parallel approach to common topics, one that articulated and consolidated linkages, instead of waiting for one process to absorb the other. Rather, ties between the two should be closer and should be consolidated. One concrete way of doing this would be for the Ministers to extend a standing invitation to the Secretary General and to the Chair of the Committee and for the host country to report to the Permanent Council on the outcome of those meetings.

With regard to any mechanisms to underpin possible commitments based on the new concepts and the architecture of hemispheric security, the Committee raised the possibility of adopting a future declaration. While this proposal was not ruled out, it was noted that it should be viewed with caution, and discussion should be resumed once there was a sign of significant progress based on the necessary consensus.

2. Analysis of the most appropriate common approaches used to address the various aspects of international security in the Hemisphere

On efforts in the area of common approaches to security, the Committee noted a movement, from previous meetings, towards widespread acceptance of a broad, multifaceted concept. On this occasion, the Committee went on to consider in greater detail what the approach should encompass and the principles that should underpin it. It was thus explained that, on the one hand, the concept could not be so broad that there might be a risk of it losing its meaning, nor could it be so narrow that it would exclude the specific concerns of member states. There was broad acknowledgement that any approach to security should adhere strictly to the principles of inter-American relations as contained basically in the OAS Charter. The Committee noted that the subordination of the armed forces to civilian authority was an example of democracy at work in the area of security.

The Committee also noted a shared concern with regard to some of the implications of adopting a broad security concept. It was emphasized that each state had the power to use the means best suited to its own legal system to face new and nontraditional threats. In this respect, specific gains? Had been achieved with regard to the role of the armed forces in containing organized crime and drug trafficking.

Finally, on the matter of the Special Conference on Security in the Hemisphere, the Committee acknowledged that completion of the preliminary and preparatory work was essential to the success of that meeting. Accordingly, the decision was to prepare a questionnaire the results of which should be the subject of study at a meeting of the Committee during February.

APPENDIX I

SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Several delegations presented general statements on their respective country positions with respect to both agenda items Apart from these general statements, delegations also intervened during the discussion of each item. The following is a summary of that dialogue prepared by the Secretariat. .

Agenda Item 1. Evaluation and identification of ways to revitalize and strengthen the institutions of the inter-American system involved in the various aspects of security

Under Agenda item 1, the Committee exchanged ideas on the Inter-American Treaty on Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR), the American Treaty of Pacific Settlement of Disputes (Pact of Bogota), the Inter-American Defense Board, the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas, the Charters of the OAS and the United Nations, and the OAS itself, including the Committee on Hemispheric Security. In order to evaluate and identify ways to revitalize and strengthen these institutions, the discussion was focused on three broad questions: their relevance in the context of the current realities of the Hemisphere and its needs with respect to security; their universality; and what would be the most appropriate forum and mechanism for dealing with security issues at the hemispheric level.

a. Inter-American Defense Board (IADB)

With respect to the IADB, the Chairman, Major General Carl Freeman, made a brief presentation and responded to queries from delegations on several issues. In this context, the Chairman stated that the Board could offer the Committee a wide range of expertise and that a closer working relationship between the two institutions was both desirable and attainable.

On the subject of representation, the Chairman recalled that the membership in the IADB is open to all OAS Member States and he underscored the high quality of the officers appointed by Member States.

With respect to the democratic nature and functioning of the Board, the Chairman noted that the members of the Board are appointed by the States through a civilian Minister of Defense, are sworn to obey the head of their respective armed forces, that each member has one vote, that activities conducted under the explicit mandates of the OAS, and that those activities cover civilian and military issues, such as civil-military education, demining and natural disasters. Also in this context, he emphasized that at the individual, organizational and institutional levels the Board is accountable at the civilian level, to the OAS Secretary General and the Foreign Ministers of the Member States.

The Chairman urged that more States appoint staff officers and other representatives to the Board, and that the Committee consider funding a chair for a former ambassador to sit on the faculty.

With respect to the Inter-American Defense College (IADC), the Chairman highlighted its external relations with such institutions as the Lester B. Pearson Peacekeeping Center and the United States Department of Defense.

The Chairman also explained the budgetary sources and allocations with respect to the Board and the College, pointing out that they have always operated within budget, that the majority of the US$2m provided by the OAS goes to the College, and that efforts are underway to find alternative funding sources to finance additional academic programs.

In response to questions from Canada on its demining activities, the Chairman reported that there has been considerable progress in Honduras and Costa Rica, and that the program in Nicaragua is being expanded. The Chairman also pointed out that the Board continues to work closely with the OAS Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD) to find funds to finance these operations.

The delegation of Antigua and Barbuda suggested that with the appropriate enlargement of functions, the Board could assist Caribbean countries, including the continental countries that have a Caribbean coastline, with their counter-drug trafficking efforts, in particular, with respect to information-sharing. That Delegation also addressed the issue of land-use information and suggested that the Board could assist States in obtaining this information.

In response to these suggestions, and to a question as to the process for altering the current leadership of the Board, the Secretariat for Legal Affairs representative explained that the decision taken at the third meeting of the Board was never incorporated into the decisions of the OAS and that the OAS Charter does not clearly establish the Board as a permanent organ of the OAS, despite having been established by a Meeting of Consultation. He suggested that the functions and juridical nature of the Board have to be determined as a first step in the evaluation of the Board and prior to identifying ways in which it could be strengthened and revitalized.

The delegation of Costa Rica expressed its view that the Board could be very useful to the OAS, but is currently under-utilized, and suggested that it should be modified in order to allow participation by more Member States which would in turn serve to strengthen it. This delegation illustrated the Board’s usefulness making reference to a 1979 study conducted on border evaluation by the Board at the request of the Costa Rican government.

The delegation of Mexico was of the view that, at the invitation of respective Member States, the Board has made a substantial contribution to education for peace efforts and has assisted the OAS Unit for the Promotion of Democracy in the demining operations underway Central America. However, this delegation emphasized that, based on the General Assembly resolution AG/RES. 1240 (XXIII-O/93), the Board is not vested with tasks of a operational nature, which therefore limits its function and makes this delegation doubt that the Board could expand to encompass all the roles indicated by the Chairman, such as peacekeeping and environmental security. With respect to the Inter-American Defense College (IADC), the delegation of Mexico suggested that it should be modernized, changing its focus from a Cold War perspective to address the new security issues, and increasing the number of professors. On the subject of reforming the Board, this delegation suggested that the OAS Charter provides for such reform and that any reform should be carried out with the participation of all the Member States and be adopted by consensus, and ensure universality, full representation and democratic functioning.

The delegation of Chile addressed the issue of the universality of the Board, noting that 25 OAS Member States are also members of the Board but that only 19 of these are active participants, and suggested that the extent to which the Board can achieve universality would help the Committee on Hemispheric Security in its analysis and assessment of the Board and reduce budget-related questions.

The delegation of Argentina expressed the view that the Board plays a vital role in the Hemisphere in the areas under its competence.

The delegation of El Salvador expressed its appreciation for the work being carried out by the Board, underscoring its relevance to the Hemisphere. This delegation also noted that the Board works with different centers for strategic studies, and enquired as to efforts by the Board to stimulate greater participation.

In response to the points raised by these delegations, the Chairman of the Board stated as follows:  CSBMs: the Board compiles only CSBMs of a military nature in accordance with the mandates from the OAS General Assembly and the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas and that the compilation has received the commendation of the defense ministers;  natural disasters: the Board has an active role with the Committee on Disaster Preparedness and the Pan American Health Organization, and has coordinated and elicited support in the wake of natural disasters in Central America, particularly after Hurricane Mitch, in collaboration with the UPD;  IADC: the curriculum of the IADC is constantly under review to make it more relevant to current realities which includes active cooperation with the Center for Hemispheric Studies; efforts are being made to expand the small permanent faculty; students are increasingly involved in practical exercises;  Arms control: the Board has expertise in small arms and works in this aspect of arms control;  Environmental security: the Board helps to clean up in post-disaster situations and helps with environmental contamination;  Universality/Participation: several states have financial limitations which hinder their ability to have military attachés in Washington, D.C., and that membership can be easily reactivated by letter.

The delegation of Canada expressed its view that the Board should be fully integrated into the OAS to allow for the fullest participation by all OAS Member States. This delegation also suggested that the Board could be the permanent secretariat for the Conference of Defense Ministers, and that budget issues and the possibility of a rotating chair should be considered.

The delegation of Colombia stated that the security-related hemispheric institutions and mechanisms have to respond to the current security realities, and that in order to achieve this, new functions should be assigned to the Board within the norms of the OAS Charter, the Board’s juridical link with the OAS should be clarified, and the Board’s membership should include all OAS Member States.

The delegation of Brazil referred to its position paper, previously circulated, in which it stated that the Board’s consultative and advisory function reflects the region’s cooperative efforts toward peace and security, principally when it promotes the exchange of information and understanding among armed forces of the Hemisphere. This delegation expressed its willingness to join discussions on transforming the Board into a specialized organ of the OAS, but stated that it would not support the introduction of a military establishment in the inter-American system.

The delegation of Jamaica stated that it was imperative that the Board continue taking steps to streamline its activities and that it should focus on the College, collaborate with the OAS and others, and should seek to involve all OAS Member States in its programs. This delegation also expressed the view that unless the Board becomes relevant to all Member States then efforts to make the College more inclusive would be futile.

The delegation of the United States proposed that the Board should be expanded and restructured to allow it a clearer advisory role to the CSH, to help advance civil-military relations and contribute to dialogue and cooperation on non-traditional security concerns, and to respond the special security concerns of small island states.

b. The OAS Charter, the Inter-American Treaty on Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR) and the American Treaty of Pacific Settlement of Disputes (Pact of Bogota)

The delegation of Jamaica stated that the OAS Charter is the main pillar of the hemispheric system anchored by the TIAR and the Pact of Bogota, but that while these two are of historical significance, they do not enjoy universal adherence, have had limited use in the past and are not active today. This delegation proposed that they must therefore either be expunged from the OAS legal framework, updated or recognized as of historical value. The Jamaican was shared by the delegation of Mexico, which added that the OAS Charter is the best instrument for reciprocal assistance and that the TIAR became and remains inoperative since the adoption of the OAS Charter in 1948. The delegation of Antigua and Barbuda also agreed, stating that the TIAR is no longer relevant and cannot be invoked in the current hemispheric security environment.

Declaring the TIAR the only hemispheric instrument on collective security, the delegation of Costa Rica proposed that the TIAR and the Pact of Bogota should be carefully reviewed and reformed taking into account the new security realities in order to make them more relevant and applicable to all OAS Member States. The delegations of Argentina and Bolivia shared this opinion. The delegation of Argentina went further, supporting the idea of reviewing both these instruments in a CSH working group as suggested by the delegation of Canada. The delegation of Canada agreed that the TIAR should be reviewed in the context of a reformed hemispheric security framework and effective ways to reflect new security threats, and suggested that the TIAR might be superceded by a declaration of principles adopted at the anticipated Special Conference on Security.

The United States agreed that a review of these instruments is necessary, stressing the importance of inclusiveness and relevance, and posed the following questions to be borne in mind during such a review: 1. Does Article 3 of the TIAR apply to conflicts between states of the Hemisphere? 2. Does the TIAR apply to internal conflicts within states? 3. Would transnational threats be covered by Article 6, which concerns “any other fact or situation that might endanger the peace of the Americas?

The delegation of Argentina also recalled that the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs is at present considering whether the OAS Charter should be revised.

c. Committee on Hemispheric Security (CSH)

Several delegations stated that, given its universality, permanence and structure, the Organization of American States, through its Committee on Hemispheric Security is the appropriate forum for the consideration, negotiation and coordination of all issues related to hemispheric security. In support of this position, many delegations recalled the statements made at the Fourth Conference of Defense Ministers (Manaus, Brazil, October 2000) to the effect that the OAS is the only possible forum for an inclusive dialogue that would allow for the consensus necessary to determine future policy and course of action on hemispheric security. The delegation of Brazil pointed out that the conclusions arrived at by these Conferences are not binding and that the CSH is the only political forum that could convert those ideas into an hemispheric political agenda. Similarly, the broad review mandate given to the CSH by the Summit of the Americas was cited as indicative that the CSH has received the highest recognition as the body best suited to deal with security issues at the hemispheric level.

It was also suggested that in order to make this role an effective reality, the Committee itself would have to be strengthened and its relationship with other regional and sub-regional institutions, processes, and arrangements would have to be reinforced.

d. Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas (DMA)

The delegation of Canada stated that while the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas is outside the scope of the OAS, it is a valuable confidence-building venue for discussion and exchange of views on all security issues, and that it would therefore be beneficial to the OAS to participate in its sessions. That delegation proposed that this could be achieved through standing invitations to the OAS Secretary General and the CSH Chair. The delegation of Chile supported this view, adding that the OAS and the DMA have parallel agendas dealing with both military and political aspects of security. Several delegations supported strengthening the relationship between the CSH and the DMA.

e. Other institutions, regional arrangements, processes and agreements

Several delegations made reference to the sub-regional arrangements and agreements, such as the Regional Security System of the Eastern Caribbean countries and the Framework Treaty of Democratic Security in Central America, the Declaration of Mercosur, Bolivia and Chile, noting these as instances of cooperation and transparency that address specific security concerns of groups of states. It was suggested that contact between these and the CSH was necessary for a truly coordinated hemispheric security system.

The delegation of Antigua and Barbuda proposed that the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) be considered within the context of institutions within the inter-American system related to security since its policies and practices directly affect the development of small island states in the Caribbean. This delegation proposed specifically that there should be immediate universal membership of the IDB which would extend to each of the member states of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States.

Agenda Item 2. Analysis of the most appropriate common approaches used to address the various aspects of international security in the Hemisphere

There was general consensus among delegations present that the security environment and realities of the countries of the Americas has changed in light of hemispheric political developments, increasing confidence-building efforts among the countries of the Hemisphere, and new international relations. It was also generally accepted that the traditional threat of military aggression against states of the Hemisphere while still relevant, was no longer the primary nor most immediate challenge to the peace and security of the states of this Hemisphere, but rather that a number of new non-military threats had emerged and significantly altered the hemispheric security reality. These new threats were identified as including the special concerns of some states with respect to narco-trafficking and related criminal activity, natural disasters, transnational organized crime, forced migration, limited access to capital, human rights violations, internal political instability, and terrorism.

In the light of these new realities, it was the common position that a new concept of hemispheric security had to be defined and new approaches to dealing with security issues had to be developed. Given the disparity and complexity of the nature and applicability of the security concerns, it was stated by several delegations that any such concept and approaches would necessarily have to be all-encompassing, taking into account all aspects of security, the differences among Member States, and the various security-related instruments, including the OAS Charter. It was also stated that multi-faceted responses, involving joint efforts by civilian actors, military forces and international bodies, were necessary to adequately address such a diverse range of concerns.

The delegation of Brazil drew special attention to the fact that this Hemisphere has a comparatively low level of armed conflict among states and that in effect the continent is peaceful, and proposed that this must be considered when formulating a definition of security.

The delegations of Mexico and the United States, while recognizing the unique concerns of smaller states, cautioned against broadening the definition of security to include phenomena which are not so much security issues but rather stem from a country’s economic or social situation.

The delegations of Brazil, Jamaica and Mexico made specific reference to the value of diplomatic negotiation and cooperation as an effective means for resolving differences between nations affecting their security, proposing that this is an approach to be increasingly utilized, including through the CSH.

The delegations of Canada and the Unites States called for the development of a declaration of security principles to guide the future treatment of hemispheric security.

In discussing this agenda item, delegations also mentioned the Special Conference on Security mandated by the General Assembly based on the decision of the Heads of State and Government at the Second Summit of the Americas, and which should be held at the beginning of the first decade of the 21st century. The delegation of Canada suggested that the Conference could clearly set the hemispheric security agenda by adopting the abovementioned declaration of security principles. The delegation of Mexico expressed the view that the CSH still had much to accomplish before that Conference could be convened.

After considering discussing several proposals as to how it should proceed with respect to the mandates emanating from the Second Summit of the Americas, the Committee agreed to prepare a questionnaire in order to obtain statements from Member States on their positions with respect to these agenda items.

APPENDIX II

PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE OEA/Ser. G ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES CP/CSH-332/00 17 November 2000 COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY Original: English

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY: “NEW APPROACHES TO HEMISPHERIC SECURITY” [AG/RES. 1744 (XXX-O/00)]

RAPPORTEUR’S REPORT

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY: “NEW APPROACHES TO HEMISPHERIC SECURITY” [AG/RES. 1744 (XXX-O/00)]

RAPPORTEUR’S REPORT

I. INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Hemispheric Security held the Special meeting to discuss new approaches to hemispheric security, pursuant to mandates emanating from the Second Summit of the Americas and endorsed by the OAS General Assembly in AG/RES. 1566 (XXVIII-O/98), as follows:

Paragraph 15: “To instruct the Permanent Council, working through the Committee on Hemispheric Security, to:

a. Follow up on and expand topics related to the strengthening of confidence-and security-building measures;

b. Analyze the meaning, scope, and implications of international security concepts in the Hemisphere, with a view to developing the most appropriate common approaches by which to manage their various aspects, including disarmament and arms control; and

c. Identify ways to revitalize and strengthen agencies of the inter-American system related to the various aspects of hemispheric security.”

Paragraph 16: “To hold the Special Conference on Security once the tasks envisaged in the previous paragraph have been completed.”

These mandates have been reiterated in subsequent General Assembly resolutions, and the Committee has been instructed to hold special meetings to deal with these issues, as is stated in the General Assembly resolution AG/RES. 1744 (XXX-O/00):

Paragraph 3: “To request the Permanent Council to hold, through the Committee on hemispheric Security, a special meeting with the participation of experts from member states to continue discussing the most appropriate common approaches with which to manage the various aspects of international security in the Hemisphere.”

The Committee accordingly held two such special meetings –one in April 1999 and one in March 2000, and decided to hold a third on November 13 and 14, 2000. The Committee therefore prepared the draft Agenda (CP/CSH-321/00 rev. 2) and government experts were invited to participate. The Chair also prepared an Annotated Agenda (CP/CSH-328/00).

II. PROCEEDINGS

The opening session was held from 3:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Monday, November 13th. The First Vice-Chair of the Committee, Ambassador Luis Lauredo, Permanent Representative of the United States was elected Rapporteur of the special meeting.

The OAS Secretary General, Dr. Cesar Gaviria, delivered a statement covering the wide range of security-related issues confronting the Hemisphere and the work done by the OAS and the Committee on Hemispheric Security to address these in accordance with the General Assembly mandates.

The Committee Chair, Ambassador Marcelo Ostria Trigo, Permanent Representative of Bolivia to the OAS, explained the methodology to be followed in this meeting, noting in particular the presence of the Chairman of the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB), Major General Carl Freeman and the representative of the Secretariat for Legal Affairs, Dr. Luis Jimenez, to assist the Committee during these deliberations. The Chair gave an overview of the topic, recalling the origin of the mandates to be discussed during this meeting and offering some reflections on the work entrusted to the Committee. In this context, the Chair noted that the Committee has held two special meetings to date in furtherance of these mandates –in April 1999 and March 2000 –and that in these meetings Member States have put forward in general terms ideas with respect to the new perceptions of security.

Ambassador Walter Pecly Moreira, Permanent Representative of Brazil delivered a statement on the topics discussed at the Fourth Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas, held in Manaus, Brazil in October 2000, making specific reference to the recognition given during that Conference to the OAS and the Committee on Hemispheric Security.

Also attending this opening session were the Assistant Secretary General, Ambassador Luigi Einaudi, and the Chairman of the Inter-American Defense Board, Major General Carl Freeman.

The delegations of the Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, El Salvador, Mexico and the United States commented on the presentations and delivered general statements. The delegation of Canada circulated a paper on aspects of hemispheric security. The delegation of the United States also made available two books related to confidence- and security-building measures and world military expenditures and arms transfers. On the following day, the position paper of the delegation of Brazil was also circulated.

On November 14th, the special meeting opened at 10:00 a.m. to consider the items on the agenda:

1. Evaluation and identification of ways to revitalize and strengthen the institutions of the inter-American system involved in the various aspects of security; and

2. Analysis of the most appropriate common approaches used to address the various aspects of international security in the Hemisphere.

The delegations of Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Jamaica, Mexico, United States, and Venezuela made statements with respect to item two and also commented on the following institutions and mechanisms: IADB, Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR), the American Treaty of Pacific Settlement of Disputes (Pact of Bogota), the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas, the Charters of the OAS and the United Nations, and the OAS itself, including the Committee on Hemispheric Security. The delegation of Antigua and Barbuda also put forward a proposal that the Inter-American Development Bank be included in this discussion. A wide range of proposals was put forward with respect to both agenda items.

The Chairman of the IADB delivered a brief statement on the Board’s role in the new security environment and suggested that it could be revitalized to make its membership more inclusive and its functions more relevant to members’ needs. During the discussions that followed, Major General Freeman and Dr. Jimenez responded to a number of questions from delegations.

Comments by delegations on the IADB touched on membership, relevance and modernization.

Comments by delegations with respect to the TIAR and the Pact of Bogota similarly addressed their relevance and membership.

Comments by delegations with respect to the OAS and the CSH touched on the authority and capacity of these bodies to deal with the hemispheric security agenda.

The Committee considered next steps, and decided to develop a questionnaire to solicit Member States’ views on issues related to hemispheric security and the future Special Conference on Security. The delegations of Brazil, Canada, Mexico and the United States intervened on this point.

The Committee Chair requested that delegations make available copies of their interventions for the record of the meeting.

November 14, 2000

Ambassador Luis J. Lauredo Rapporteur

APPENDIX III

STATEMENTS DELIVERED AT THE OPENING SESSION

1. Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Dr. César Gaviria 2. Chair of the Committee on Hemispheric Security, Ambassador Marcelo Ostria Trigo 3. Permanent Representative of Brazil to the OAS, Ambassador Valter Pecly Moreira

STATEMENT BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES, CESAR GAVIRIA, AT THE INSTALLATION OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY, “NEW APPROACHES TO HEMISPHERIC SECURITY” Washington, D.C., November 13, 2000

It is for me a pleasure to be with you at this special meeting of the Committee on Hemispheric Security. I wish to thank the Chair of the Committee, Ambassador Marcelo Ostria Trigo of Bolivia, for the opportunity to extend a welcome to all the experts who have come from the capital cities across the Americas to represent their governments.

This meeting is especially important within the context of the tasks entrusted to us by the Heads of State and Government. At issue is the proposal and analysis of reforms to strengthen and renew the principles and instruments enabling us to give full validity to one of the pillars of the Organization: the strengthening of peace and security in the Hemisphere.

Since establishment of the Special Committee on Security in 1992, and its consolidation in 1995, we have made notable strides, thanks to the will of member states to create a cooperative security system –a system of instruments for confidence-building, transparency and cooperation in the area of security. We are thereby standing up to common threats and forging ahead towards a climate of peace, confidence, and security.

There have been significant milestones along the way: the regional conferences on confidence- and security-building measures in Santiago, Chile in 1995, and in San Salvador, El Salvador in 1998; the high-level meeting on the special concerns of small island states; and, more recently, adoption of the Inter-American Convention on Transparency in Conventional Weapons Acquisitions and the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.

By building on these developments, the Committee, in accordance with the direct mandates of the Santiago Summit, has fostered an exchange of views and opinions as it seeks to address the matter of the components of this renewed security system in the Hemisphere. This preliminary work is necessary and demands a serious and disciplined approach. We must draw on all the lessons of the past, review the present with an eye to the future, and be sure that we consider all contributions and all positions. An effective system for strenthening peace and security requires the support of all states and the legitimate concerns of each one must find an effective response in the hemispheric architecure.

At the same time, I believe we must quicken the pace of the work of the Committee to trigger discussion and participation by all states and thereby fulfill the Santiago mandates, within a reasonable time frame, before the Quebec Summit.

A renewed security system requires values and guiding principles, an agenda, and fora for discussing it and tools for action.

The values are those that sustain the American identity: democracy and respect for the rule of law. They are what makes it possible to reconcile and harmonize the multidimensional, and at times apparently divergent, character of the security concerns of each state in the region. The principles, on the other hand, derive from the OAS Charter: respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, the right to self-determination, the juridical equality of states, noninterference in internal affairs, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the disallowance of the use of force or of the threat of it to settle disputes. To this should be added the basis of our multilateral action, which is collective action based on cooperation.

On the matter of the agenda, those aspects that tie in with the military and strategic dimension of security contine to be fundamental. The purpose must be to consolidate a climate of confidence and respect that is the result of credibility, transparency, timely information and shared knowledge about defense policies, the size of the military and its apparatus and equipment.

For this, we must continue to work to consolidate and intensify the confidence- and security-building measures adopted in Santiago and San Salvador. Each of these measures should be the focus of future effort to promote and extend their application. The OAS Committee on Hemispheric Security must continue its work and become the main instrument both for ensuring compliance with the decisions of states on agreed measures and for considering future developments.

The vigorous application of confidence- and security-building measures should facilitate the logical next step, that is to say, the beginning of consultations in matters of arms limitation and control, including disarmament, particularly offensive weapons systems. This topic would be more appropriately addressed at subregional level. Understandably, such a process cannot be brought to fruition if there is an adverse effect on the need of military forces to maintain an appropriate level of preparedness and discipline in their troops, in accordance with modern standards, and on their chance to modernize and periodically renew a part of their equipment. A step in this direction would undoubtedly make it possible to allocate increased resources for the social development of the American peoples.

The agenda items are not limited to the territorial integrity of the region as a whole in the face of external military threats. There are additional risk factors in regional security: drug trafficking, terrorism, illegal trafficking in arms, organized crime, natural disasters, environmental degradation and even problems such as poverty and the fragility of smaller economies in the face of the challenges of globalization.

Clearly, given each country’s specific circumstances, it is difficult to debate the validity of one argument over the other when defining what constitutes a real threat to a nation’s security. As a forum for political discussion, the OAS must respond to all of these concerns.

The solution does not lie in merely drawing up an exhaustive list of threats to security, but rather in defining the most suitable fora and instruments for dealing with them. We must, in accordance with our values and principles, give ourselves effective institutions and tools for addressing these problems. Security for all of the American and Caribbean societies will not materialize by building a monolithic structure that seeks to encompass all topics.

The region must move ahead advance with the support of bi-national and subregional schemes and mechanisms, on the one hand, and it must strengthen specific instruments in specific areas, on the other. The political decisions expressed in the declaration of Mercosur, Chile and Bolivia, the Framework Treaty on Democratic Security in Central America, and the Regional Security System in the Caribbean constitute concurrent blocs that should converge and find support in the hemispheric design and, at the same time, sustain it.

The Committee on Hemispheric Security is the appropriate forum for dialogue, an exchange of views and the negotiation of cooperation instruments. It must be open to ideas and proposals put forward in the various political and academic fora, within and outside the region. Even more important, it must be capable of integrating and coordinating the work and contributions of specialized fora in the Hemisphere, particularly the Conference of Ministers of Defense whose time has come for inclusion in the process of hemispheric summits of heads of state and government.

Something similar is happening with the Inter-American Defense Board. Its legal and institutional linkage to the Organization should be clarified since it is imperative that the Board and all other components of the system be integrated and affiliated under the political direction of the governments, through the Organization. The aim here is to comply with the decision of the presidents, which is to have a renewed and strengthened security system that brings together all countries of the Hemisphere.

For certain specific topics, we must continue to develop specific tools. In the area of the struggle against drug trafficking, CICAD had amply demonstrated its ability not only to generate cooperative and balanced policy proposals, but also to assist member states in their national and subregional efforts. It has also developed a particularly useful body of knowledge on topics related to drug trafficking, such as money laundering and illicit arms trafficking. The Committee on Hemispheric Security is, and must continue, drawing on this experience.

In the face of terrorism, the creation of the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE) is a major step. I do believe, however, that this body requires and deserves more attention from member states. I also believe that this Committee should serve to facilitate, pave the way for, and assist national authorities in charge of this area to render their participation in CICTE as productive as possible.

Natural disasters can also turn into threats, as has been recognized in discussions of threats to the security of small island states. But all facets of this problem must be addressed, from development plans and reducing vulnerability to humanitarian emergency aid and subsequent reconstruction. For this, it will be necessary to intensify the activities of the Inter-American Committee on Natural Disaster Reduction.

By giving these examples, I wish to emphasize that we must have tools and mechanisms that are attuned to each topic. We must recognize and make use of the existing interaction among all of them and this will result in more complete and comprehensive treatment of the global security agenda.

Not only must all of these fora be closely coordinated among one another, but also, and especially, they must respond in coordinated fashion to any policy decisions and guidelines that the highest representatives of member states adopt.

Finally, your deliberations should be geared towards a study of concrete proposals aimed at reviewing openly and directly the legal tools available in the Hemisphere in these matters. I am thinking chiefly of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, or the Rio Treaty, as well as the Pact of Bogota on the peaceful settlement of disputes. Clearly, these instruments have gaps and flaws, the main one being, perhaps, their lack of universality. These instruments should, therefore, be revised, updated, or replaced, so that they may encompass all states of the region.

Mr. Chairman, Delegates, Experts:

The responsibility vested in you by our highest political leaders is immense. The work you have been doing so far is commendable. But the road ahead is long and will require commitment, dedication and effort on the part of all member countries of the Organization. Your responsibility is to start with shared values and principles, to set about designing and defining a system and instruments to meet common challenges and threats facing our peoples and our nations so as to guarantee democracy, peace, security and progress for all peoples of the Americas.

I wish you success.

Thank you very much.

COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY

SPECIAL MEETING: “NEW APPROACHES TO HEMISPHERIC SECURITY”

November 13 and 14, 2000

INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC BY THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, AMBASSADOR MARCELO OSTRIA TRIGO, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF BOLIVIA TO THE OAS

Delegates:

As Chair of this Committee, allow me to make a few introductory remarks on the background, purposes, and general topics of this meeting. I would also like to comment on how the work entrusted to us might continue.

As the delegates know—and this appears on the agenda—the Summit of the Americas held in Santiago, Chile, entrusted the Committee on Hemispheric Security with some specific tasks within its purview. These tasks were then converted into mandates by the General Assembly, as reflected in resolutions AG/RES. 1566 (XXVIII-O/98), AG/RES. 1623 (XXIX-O/99), AG/RES. 1624 (XXIX-O/99), and AG/RES. 1744 (XXX-O/00).

At this meeting, we will concentrate on two aspects of these mandates. The first is related to the development of common approaches to hemispheric security and concepts thereof and the second, to the renewal and strengthening of institutions and instruments pertaining to these topics.

Work in the area of common approaches was considered at two meetings of the Committee on Hemispheric Security: in April 1999 and in March 2000.

The documents distributed to the delegations show that it has been possible, with patience and perseverance, to move toward a consensus on a multifaceted approach to our analysis of the various components of hemispheric security today.

This conceptual convergence of views seems to stem from the opinions expressed by delegations to the effect that nontraditional threats have been gaining in importance in the concerns of many countries, owing to the appearance of new, important factors to be considered.

Although impatience about the conclusion of broad agreements on various topics related to hemispheric security is often justified, we should recognize that we are confronting an area that leads to special sensitivity in many of our countries and among domestic public opinion. The reason is that the conception of security, for a long time, was limited to the domestic sphere of each country, like a matter to be dealt with in a restricted, exclusive way.

But the new perceptions—the product of the obvious changes that have taken place in the regional and global spheres—are now widespread. This means that approaches and concepts vary, which also calls for changes in the attitudes of national actors toward a new integrated regional conception.

Taking into account the complex and sensitive nature of this matter, it seems appropriate to say that some progress has been made at earlier meetings, despite the aforementioned impatience to increase the pace of our activities. This program may be viewed as the common approach to the need for a multilateral response to combating drug trafficking, transnational crime, and illicit arms trafficking, as well as the action required in the event of natural disasters.

It has also been recognized—as delegations have said repeatedly at past meetings—that this overall effort to define common concepts of hemispheric security should be made in accordance with the fundamental principles of the OAS as well as peaceful coexistence; the equality, sovereignty, and autonomy of states; and, especially, nonintervention.

As for the instruments of the inter-American system in the area of security, it is the will of the states to renew them.

At the same time, the process leading to the adoption of confidence- and security-building measures has been set in motion in various difficult situations. Indeed, as the delegations are aware, the OAS has made great efforts in these areas, on the basis of the guidelines of our political bodies and the presidential summits.

There is also a convergence of views that this Committee should be the forum for hemispheric dialogue and negotiation on security. Examples of this convergence are the opinions expressed at the Fourth Defense Ministerial of the Americas, held in Manaos, which assumes—and this is of particular importance—a recognition that, in the area of hemispheric security, there is a common agenda for the Americas as a whole.

It is worth mentioning that the Summit of the Americas held in Santiago, Chile, has charged us with preparing the Special Security Conference and that the General Assembly has issued resolutions along the same lines containing mandates for the Committee on Hemispheric Security. Of course this means that we must work and take action so as to focus in on specific agreements as the only means of guaranteeing the success of the planned Conference. Accordingly, the special and regular meetings of the Committee on Hemispheric Security will have to find concrete mechanisms for carrying out any necessary preparatory work.

It should be recalled that this will be the last meeting of the Committee before the report on the status of our work is sent to the Special Committee on Inter-American Summits Management. Consequently, our achievements will have to be reflected in this report and mention will clearly have to be made of those areas that enjoy a consensus, especially security concepts and enhancement of the instruments and mechanisms currently in force.

Delegates:

The time has come for the Committee to make even more progress on the mandates of the Summits of the Americas. It is incumbent on us, after two years of general discussion, to formulate concrete ideas and proposals based on the hemispheric agenda, which is of great significance for the common aspirations of our peoples to consolidate the Hemisphere as an area of peace and cooperation.

Surely the proposals presented earlier to this Committee will be borne in mind as possible means of proceeding in the enhancement and renewal of hemispheric instruments and in the formulation of possible definitions of hemispheric security. It is well known that time is drawing near for agreements to be reached on these topics and on others that may arise at the special meeting, with reference at the same time to the courses of action to be followed by the Committee.

At stake is the shared future of the peoples of the Americas. We have been charged with this task on the understanding that we have the capacity and the competence to fulfill it. It is therefore incumbent on us to prove that we can rise to the occasion and carry out the mandates.

Thank you for your kind attention.

ADDRESS BY AMBASSADOR VALTER PECLY MOREIRA PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF BRAZIL AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY REGARDING THE IV DEFENSE MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE OF THE AMERICAS Washington, November 13-14, 2000.

Mr. Chairman,

Congratulations on having organized this Special Meeting of the Committee on Hemispheric Security.

As the Permanent Representative of Brazil, I would like to make a brief statement regarding the IV Defense Ministerial Conference of the Americas, held in Manaus on October 17-21, 2000, which brought together representatives of 27 countries in the Hemisphere.

I already had an opportunity to comment on the Manaus Conference during the meeting of the Permanent Council on November 8, following your own verbal report. On that occasion, I referred to the inauguration speech given by President Cardoso and the reasons for the choice of the capital of Amazonas as the venue for that event.

For this meeting, the Brazilian Delegation requested the Secretariat of the Committee to distribute among delegations the following documents related to the IV Ministerial: the “The Declaration of Manaus” and the conclusions of the three working groups, namely “Hemispheric Security at the Beginning of the 21st Century”, “Mutual Confidence in the Americas: The Current Situation and Projections for the Next Decade” and “Defense and Development: Possibilities for Regional Cooperation”.

Mr. Chairman,

The IV Defense Ministerial Conference of the Americas provided a unique opportunity to discuss proposals that might contribute to the debate over identifying new strategic parameters for the modernization of the national defense structures in the Hemisphere. Those responsible for defense policy in the countries of the region were able to discuss, in the frank and open spirit that characterizes these conferences, several complex -- and often sensitive – issues relating to hemispheric security and defense. As the Declaration of Manaus adopted at the conclusion of the meeting succinctly pointed out, the sole objective of the Defense Ministerial Conference of the Americas was to enable the ministers concerned to get to know each other and exchange ideas in the field of defense and security.

During the Plenary Session, the Brazilian Defense Minister, Geraldo Quintão, stressed among other points the major issues addressed in the previous three conferences, including the consolidation of democracy as a prerequisite for development and political and economic stability, and the participation of both civilians and military in matters related to defense.

A matter that was particularly important for our Organization, and which bears emphasizing, was the participation of the OAS in the work of the conference, an aspect that the Brazilian government sought to encourage and support. The Secretary General, Dr. César Gaviria, gave an address in the session reserved for speeches by defense ministers and delegation heads, and the Chair of the Committee on Hemispheric Security, Ambassador Marcelo Ostria Trigo, addressed the working group on “Hemispheric security at the beginning of the 21st century.”

In his presentation, the Secretary General of the OAS underscored the fact that the conference agenda showed that the defense ministers' priorities broadly coincided with OAS concerns. He also touched on three areas in which the OAS is seeking consensual responses to current threats: from drugs, terrorism and natural disasters.

Also notable in Dr. Gaviria's presentation was the affirmation that the consolidation of democracy had provided the hemisphere with an historical opportunity to renew and strengthen its deep commitment and vocation for peace by creating a new security paradigm. He added that for such matters the Organization of American States had provided a privileged forum for frank and constructive debate and negotiation.

For his part, our Chairman Ambassador Marcelo Ostria Trigo was able to stress the following key points to the working group that I mentioned: the evolution of concepts of security in an historical perspective; the work being done by the Committee in this sphere, especially in fulfillment of the mandates emanating from the Santiago Summit and the OAS General Assembly; and the need for close and fluid coordination between the Defense Ministerials of the Americas and the OAS Committee on Hemispheric Security

In the same working group, it fell to the Brazilian delegation - through a representative of the Defense Ministry - to give a presentation on the theme 'The Political-Strategic Framework in the Global and Regional Context: New Threats and Peace Operations'. It focused on the following points: analysis of the global and regional contexts for security and defense, with special reference to South America; adverse scenarios and new threats; and Brazilian policy and legislation with respect to peace operations.

This work group also covered such sub-themes as “The Current System of Hemispheric Security: Evaluation and Improvement” (for which the Venezuelan delegation acted as rapporteur) and “Concepts of Security and Defense” -- the subject of our Special Meeting today— for which the Argentine delegation was rapporteur).

Given that they are useful for our work, I would like to highlight the conclusions that our countries arrived at in the Manaus Conference with respect to the question of “Concepts of Security and Defense”.

1. It is important to reconcile concepts of security and defense in order to build a common doctrine among the countries of the Hemisphere. 2. A broad definition of hemispheric security should be sought that lends itself to incorporating the specific conditions of each region whilst not losing sight of the principal objective of peace and development in the Hemisphere. 3. The uncertainties that characterize the current global situation require that defense continues to be a government priority. To this end, the military apparatus remains of fundamental importance to the survival of states. 4. It is important for states to encourage the training of civilians in defense matters, as well as greater integration between civilians and military officers in discussion related to security and defense. 5. The security and defense of each country is a responsibility for society as a whole, not just for the military. 6. Concerns over national sovereignty lend support to the idea of building mechanisms for cooperating in peace keeping and security at the international level, as well as making common cause to deal with transnational threats and humanitarian crises.

The conclusions of the three working groups are reflected in the Declaration of Manaus document, adopted in the closing session on the afternoon of November 19.

Amongst other relevant matters, the defense ministers recognized in the Declaration of Manaus that:

• Democracy and democratic institutions constitute essential elements for hemispheric security;

• The work of the Defense Ministerial Conference requires continuity, and to this end coordination and cooperation between countries is a necessity;

• Participation by those responsible for the defense of the countries of the Americas in bilateral, sub-regional and regional meetings and events is important and should be encouraged;

• Differences between various sub-regions do not constitute a barrier to cooperation and exchange, but should be respected and acknowledged within a balanced security scheme that recognizes the specific strategic contexts of the three Americas; and

• For the countries participating, the main concerns are: hemispheric security, confidence- building measures, regional cooperation in defense and development, and the role of the armed forces in a democracy.

In the closing session, it was announced that Chile had offered to host the next Defense Ministerial Conference in 2002.

It is fair to say, Mr. Chairman, that the IV Defense Ministerial Conference of the Americas fully met its objectives. On the one hand, it approved a balanced document of recommendations that reflected the positions of the countries with respect to questions of hemispheric defense and security. On the other, by bringing together leaders responsible for defense policy in the countries of the region, it made possible a broad exchange of experiences, an analysis of the global and regional situation, and frank and open discussion on defense issues, pointing toward specific opportunities for both bilateral and multilateral cooperation. In themselves, these outcomes help generate mutual confidence and transparency. Finally, it was firmly established that the Committee on Hemispheric Security of the OAS has a fundamental role to play in taking these issues forward. Thank you.

Washington 13/11/00

APPENDIX IV

STATEMENTS DELIVERED BY MEMBER STATES /

1. Antigua and Barbuda 2. Brazil 3. Canada 4. Colombia 5. El Salvador 6. Jamaica 7. Mexico 8. United States 9. Venezuela

\\OASNTADM1\HC\2001\cp07676a.pdf

\\OASNTADM1\HC\2001\cp07676b.pdf \\OASNTADM1\HC\2001\cp07676c.pdf

PRESENTATION BY THE DELEGATION OF COLOMBIA

Analysis of the most appropriate common approaches with which to address the various aspects of international security in the Hemisphere

The Delegation of Colombia wishes, first and foremost, to pay tribute to the work being done by the Committee on Hemispheric Security and to the coordinated efforts of all the countries in the Hemisphere. Thanks to them, progress has been achieved with regard to confidence and security-building measures and to the examination, development, and implementation of those measures that will soon enable us all to confront the new threats to security in the Hemisphere and to consolidate peace.

We should stress that, in the Americas, security issues are predicated upon a comprehensive notion of the various different dimensions involved in social life that contribute to the well-being of individuals and of human groups in general. Traditionally, the commitments worked out and implemented in the Hemisphere relate to military matters, such as the establishment of a reasonable balance of power and the fostering of measures to boost mutual confidence, while addressing new threats to security such as those posed by drug trafficking, international crime, arms trafficking, and terrorism.

The quest for forums in which to reflect on post-Cold War phenomena responded to a deeply-felt need of our countries and crystallized in the creation of the Committee on Hemispheric Security. The Committee has led to major improvements in diagnostic assessments of threats to security and in the development of mechanisms with which to respond to the challenges and opportunities for cooperation in defense and protection.

This organization must forge, as indeed it has been doing, a common structural framework for a set of guiding principles governing the actions of member states in defense of our Hemisphere.

As member states and active partners, we must continue our efforts to identify complementary principles and tenets with respect to hemispheric security that accurately reflect actual circumstances in member states and at the same time safeguard respect for international law, the sovereignty of states, peaceful settlement of disputes, non-interference in domestic affairs, and partnership for development. We reaffirm, too, that the OAS is the appropriate forum for coordination and verification of compliance with these principles and commitments.

Colombia is conscious of the importance of maintaining effective mechanisms of cooperation on security matters with neighboring countries. Such coordination has become particularly important given the current situation in Colombia. It has also proved effective in the comprehensive struggle against all types of criminal behavior.

Recognition of the great progress achieved in forging peace and international security in our Hemisphere presents policy-makers with an important framework of cooperation with respect to confidence-building measures, that enables them to weigh each country’s circumstances and gauge the level of threats to security among member states.

A prerequisite for defining the new concept of security is the existence of appropriate tools with which to analyze developments in critical situations that could turn into potential threats to hemispheric security.

Recent studies attempt to devise and develop contact mechanisms at three security levels: human security, state security, and international security. Recent transnational developments have not yet been diagnosed as strategic threats, even though they trigger military responses by some states.

Students of these new ideas typically focus on a non-military dimension of transnational actions in which the key instruments are cooperation and a quest for consensus.

PERMANENT MISSION OF EL SALVADOR TO THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

SPEECH BY THE DELEGATION OF EL SALVADOR Meeting of the Committee on Hemispheric Security November 13-14, 2000

General Considerations

Mr. Chairman:

As we know, at the Second Summit of the Americas, the Heads of State and Government entrusted us with the task of analyzing “the meaning, scope, and implications of international security concepts in the Hemisphere, with a view to developing the most appropriate common approaches by which to manage their various aspects.”

In the course of its discussions in recent years, the Committee on Hemispheric Security has been become aware of the complexity of this task, which we are following up on today as mandated by resolution 1566 of the twenty-eighth regular session of the General Assembly, ratified in resolution 1744 of the thirtieth regular session.

• It has become clear that the complexity of the challenge stems not just from the historical antecedents involved and the positions held by the States that have seen fit to expound them, but also from the long-term ramifications of an eventual consensus or dissent. We cannot afford “short cuts.” Too much is at stake.

• The reference to “security concepts” in the plural is not just rhetorical, because they refer not only to subregional factors but impinge to varying degrees on a wider –hemispheric – context, in which the development and shortcomings of those concepts are gauged in terms of tasks still pending with respect to hemispheric instruments and the institutions supporting them.

• Along these same lines, we also know that the prerequisite for achieving an effective system of international security is that all States submit to universal, equal, and binding rules.

• That is why this meeting is intent upon developing more appropriate common approaches with which to handle the various aspects and concepts of security in the Hemisphere.

• If a decision is made to change the rules of the game or its baseline scenarios, the fact is we already know that they will remain universal, equal, and binding and founded upon that which strengthens peaceful coexistence among States.

• Member states have participated in several attempts [to make headway in this area], which in the end helped strengthen Hemispheric Security. More is now known about the causes of the threats to national or collective security in the Americas. There is greater awareness that the nature of the threats to security is changing and that we member states are called upon to deepen and manage these areas of consensus and engrave these perceptions on the inter-American agenda.

• There are still, evidently, lessons to be learnt and there is no way we can press the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle artificially into place. There is no forcing this process, which needs the political boost that will surely come from the Third Summit of the Americas.

• We have no option but to work with an open mind, since this topic is not yet ripe and much more thought is needed. Other actors have stepped onto the stage and progress needs to be guided; the agenda has to be harmonized, though the stress may vary. Nothing is achieved with steps in opposite directions.

• For all these reasons, the role of this Committee is vital in channeling the process and agreeing on realistic courses of action, because it is not a question of creating a new security setup for the sake of innovation.

• Preparation of the Special Conference on Security is thus about establishing goals with realistic deadlines. And that is what we are bent on doing today.

\\OASNTADM1\HC\2001\cp07676d.pdf

ADDRESS BY AMBASSADOR CLAUDE HELLER, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF MEXICO TO THE OAS AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY Washington D.C. November 13, 2000

Mr. Chairman,

Since the General Assembly adopted (through resolution 1566) the mandate of the Second Summit of the Americas, this is the third time that the Committee on Hemispheric Security has analyzed the different aspects of international security in the Hemisphere and - in that context - evaluated the institutions that form part of the inter-American system.

Mexico’s stance on these issues has been evinced in the contributions made by my delegation (reproduced in documents CP/CSH/SA.68/99/add.3 and CP/CSH-301/00, respectively). It is not my intention here to repeat these arguments, but rather to delve deeper into those aspects that may help us to identify common approaches and to comment on the positions put forward by other delegations in the debate held on March 20-21 of this year.

1. The global framework for international security

Hemispheric security forms part of a wider political and strategic framework. The global détente that resulted from the end of the Cold War has not been accompanied by significant progress in bilateral and multilateral negotiations on disarmament.

The emphasis placed at the global level on the challenges posed by the excessive accumulation and trafficking in small arms and light weapons should not deflect priority away from the obligation, described by the International Court of Justice in its historic advisory opinion of July 8, 1996, “ to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects”.

It is for this reason that Mexico and Brazil, along with six other countries, have sought to generate in the United Nations the consensus required to adopt a new agenda in the field of nuclear disarmament and to give a fresh impulse to discussion of this fundamental issue.

2. Hemispheric security: new approaches and new threats.

In the Americas, the consolidation of the regime enshrined in the Tlatelolco Treaty and a general climate of cooperation at the regional and sub-regional levels have helped overcome situations which for a long time placed regional stability in jeopardy. In this context, there have been processes involving confidence-building measures, the gradual elimination of anti-personnel landmines, and new commitments to fight both the manufacture of and illicit trafficking in firearms through the firearms (CIFTA) Convention and its Consultative Committee.

In the fight against drugs, the Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism under CICAD (whose Group of Experts is currently meeting) will shortly conclude the first evaluation of this kind, which should help promote cooperation between all the states of the region.

Above all else, our region - unlike others - has known how to channel and resolve through international law those disputes, mainly territorial, that jeopardized peace and coexistence between states. Only a few days ago, the Permanent Council bore witness to the signature of an important memorandum of understanding on confidence-building measures between Belize and Guatemala that should help resolve that territorial dispute through negotiation.

Mr. Chairman,

In recent years, compared with the rather narrower view common in the past, there has been an undeniable broadening of the concept of threats to peace and international security. This has given rise to unprecedented levels of activity within the collective security system established under the United Nations Charter, as evidenced in the proliferation of peacekeeping operations and the diversification of their roles.

Phenomena with such transnational repercussions as drug trafficking, illicit arms dealing, organized crime and terrorism, as well as humanitarian emergencies, can easily pose new threats to international peace and security. In this respect, Mexico has expressed the view in the United Nations that the organized international community should provide itself with the political structures needed to confront these threats, so long as these respect international law.

However, it should be made very clear that the perfecting of international institutions, both globally and regionally, will take time, since time is needed to build genuine consensus. Therefore, until such time as another course is adopted, we should continue to be guided by wholehearted respect for the instruments governing system of collective security created by the San Francisco and Bogotá charters.

On this, it has been a longstanding position of the Mexican Government to respect the exclusive powers of the United Nations Security Council to adopt collective measures of whatever kind, in compliance with the overriding responsibility for the maintenance of peace and international security that we member states conferred upon that international body. There can be no doubt that the Organization of American States is subordinate to the Security Council in this field, pursuant to Articles 52 and 53 of the UN Charter and Article 131 of the Charter of the OAS.

The constitution of any force for peacekeeping, peace monitoring, or preventive deployment corresponds exclusively to the United Nations Security Council, and its decisions should not be prejudiced by initiatives from regional organizations.

Examples of international cooperation, like that which is beginning to emerge within the framework of the CIFTA Convention's Consultative Committee, demonstrate that, even if there is no common concept of security, we have the ability to face up to new transnational tensions when we are convinced that they pose a threat to overall hemispheric security. We call on those states that have yet to do so to give utmost priority to the ratification of this important juridical instrument.

However, as we have said before, the search for new approaches to security in the region should begin with recognition of the differences in perceptions of security between member states, and the legitimacy of these differing points of view. There are situations that, even though they may not have the same impact everywhere, affect some countries in the region in particular. The special security concerns of small island states provide an example of this and the way in which the OAS has responded to sub-regional problems.

We cannot accept, however, that such phenomena as migratory movements are included as one of the new threats simply because they are transnational in character. This is tantamount to an extremely dangerous simplification of complex phenomena that have to do with disparities in levels of economic development between our countries and the effects of economic restructuring at the global level. We should not forget that migration fulfills a significant role both in more developed societies and in countries of origin. We should therefore avoid superficial judgements on this and distinguish it from illicit trafficking of people as a criminal activity. Clearly, under certain circumstances, massive flows of people at times of political crisis or internal conflict with transnational repercussions can create emergency situations for receiving countries.

If we agree that progress towards democracy and the consolidation of the rule of law provide a guarantee for regional security, we cannot dodge the fact that democracy cannot be built on the basis of abject poverty and ignorance. That being so, it is essential to make headway in overcoming extreme poverty and in the development of our countries as a prerequisite for international security in the region.

To sum up, cooperation will be much more fruitful if it is nurtured by the diversity of our countries and solutions that are not derived from some pre-established model. Without wanting to belittle the importance of progressively building a new conceptual framework given the deficiencies of past ideological models, we need to be realistic. As the Mexican Government pointed out in the recent Defense Ministerial Conference of the Americas "it is not a question of inventing a new agenda in a vacuum, far removed from the concerns of states at the sub-regional, hemispheric and global levels".

For this reason, in our view, caution should prevail on proposals to elaborate a declaration on principles of hemispheric security and rush into convening the Special Security Conference. As the pertinent resolutions of the General Assembly lay down, such a conference can only take place once all the issues that bring us together have been revised and a consensus reached. These are the minimal requirements for the success of such a conference.

3. Evaluation of the institutions underpinning hemispheric security

With regard to the institutions and juridical instruments that formally regulate hemispheric security, the Government of Mexico reiterates each and every one of the positions reached in the General Assembly, at our meetings in April 1999 and March 2000, and more recently in the IV Defense Ministerial Conference of the Americas, in which Mexico took part as an observer.

Reform of institutions like the Inter-American Defense Board should not only reflect a consensus within the inter-American community but also fulfill the criteria of universality, representativeness and a democratic modus operandi appropriate to a society ruled by the principle of the juridical equality of states.

As opposed to proposals for limited changes in the working methods of the Board, my delegation considers that the whole question of its relevance needs to be discussed.

4. Convergence of forums

In the attempt to breathe new life into the inter-American security system, there seems to be agreement on the need to avoid a dispersion of effort and to encourage greater convergence between the various existing forums.

To this end, in recent years there have been numerous calls to accord the Organization of American States a central role as a forum for deliberation and negotiation on all issues to do with security, including arms control and disarmament.

The Conferences of Santiago and El Salvador - which produced declarations on confidence-building measures and security, the CIFTA convention, and that on transparency in the acquisition of conventional armaments, all took place under the aegis of the Organization.

On this point, whilst the IV Defense Ministerial Conference of the Americas proved once again useful as a forum for the exchange of information, speakers underscored the fact that, owing to its permanence and its ability to represent every state in the hemisphere, the OAS was the only possible sphere for the inclusive dialogue needed to establish the required consensus for defining future action.

Thank you.

\\OASNTADM1\HC\2001\cp07676e.pdf

TOWARD A NEW APPROACH TO SECURITY IN THE HEMISPHERE

Statement by the Delegation of Venezuela

The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela would like to take this opportunity to present its compliments to all those participating in this important meeting and at the same time state our intention of contributing to the study of the problems and phenomena that mark the historic space and time in which we live, with regard to hemispheric security.

We do so, bearing in mind the conclusions set forth in the Declaration of Manaus, which underscores the need to revise the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance as a regional security mechanism in an international context characterized by a new sense of political and strategic realism. These new circumstances call for far-reaching studies and delicate decisions designed to guarantee the security of states through cooperation in a climate of trust born of consensus among nations.

Our countries are duty-bound to propose the regional mechanisms we need to prevent and confront new threats to our Hemisphere. Our goal is to attain a new system of security, founded upon principles, rules, standards, and processes that will induce our nations to act within the bounds of reciprocal trust and respect for the principle of self-determination and the sovereignty of peoples.

This new security system, with its political, economic, social, environmental, and military ramifications, will underpin the consolidation of democracy, economic development, and the appropriate deployment of the military in the framework of a cooperative defense policy based on agreement between the parties involved and such premises as peace and justice.

The existence, in both Central America and the Caribbean, of subregional security mechanisms tailored to their geographical and other special circumstances, opens up, as item 5 in the Declaration of the Fourth Defense Ministerial of the Americas points out, the possibility that South America, too, could assume responsibility for its own security within the framework of a new hemispheric security system. It would be based on the potential effectiveness of using instruments proper to the area to confront common threats, given that South American countries share a number of interests and feel equally exposed to certain risks.

This process implies overcoming the barriers between us and identifying our values and purposes. It means celebrating our identity based on the experience of common problems, on our characteristic social and cultural, political, economic, and military ties, on the success of several organizations created to handle our collective issues.

It is our historic responsibility to pursue well-coordinated initiatives with which to confront the specific threats we face, by establishing a subregional security agenda in line with a new system of Hemispheric Security. By mandate of the Santiago Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Americas, the design of that system has been entrusted to this OAS Committee on Hemispheric Security, of which we are proud to be members.

This new subregional security agenda, with its multilateral focus, could review such topics as democratic stability, observance of human rights, protection of the environment, cooperation in the event of natural disasters, promotion of development, peace-keeping, energy security, efforts to combat drug trafficking and international crime, among others.

Setting up a new security system tailored to today’s new circumstances requires a firm political will, which includes readiness to sacrifice individual prerogatives for the sake of common gains in security, whereby security must be conceived in terms of social well-being and fulfillment of the aspirations and interests of the citizens in each of our nations.

APPENDIX V

STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE BOARD

only in hard copy