Major General Keith Huber, Director of the Inter-American Defense College (IADC),

Brigadier General, Julio Ernesto Florian, Chief of Studies of the IADC,

Comodoro Roberto Giorgio, Vice Director, IADC, Other high-ranking officials of the Inter-American Defense College and Board,

Distinguished Ambassadors, Amb. Francisco Villagran, Amb. Osmar Chofi, Representatives of the diplomatic corps, the international community and other institutions,

Members of Class of 2006

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to thank the Inter-American Defense College for inviting me to speak with you today about the role of the Organization of American States in addressing the evolving security threats and challenges in the Western Hemisphere. It is a pleasure and an honor to be with you on this special occasion to inaugurate your seminar in the presence of such distinguished guests and experts from around the region.

I am particularly pleased to be with you in light of the newly reinvigorated relationship between the Inter-American Defense College/the Inter-American Defense Board and the OAS which seeks to provide OAS and its member states with technical and educational advice on related military and defense issues in the Hemisphere. I believe that this redefined relationship will be an important element in a new strategic approach that I envision as a Partnership for Security in the Americas.

The 20th century for some of our generations represented a period of many armed conflicts and insecurity caused by concerns about the balance of power, arms races, superpower confrontation, and deterrence, creating in many regions long periods of instability and uncertainty. Many had high hopes that the 21st century would usher in a period of renewed peace and order between states and a more equitable balance of power at the global level, enabling an environment conducive to and focused on improving the social and economic well being of the citizens of the world.

However, as we survey the world, we find that achieving greater peace and security continues to be one of our most critical challenges. Today we face new sources of conflict, both at the intrastate and interstate levels, which have changed the nature of international conflict and added new dimensions, like terrorism, cyber crime, among others, to our security order.

The topic of security and the evolving and ever-so-complex systems of response that are currently being debated across the globe would make one believe that in addition to understanding the nature of the new security environment in which we live, we should be developing policies that not only respond to-- but also address the structural sources –the underlying causes- of these threats in order to reduce or eliminate them for future generations.

Before we can develop a strategic approach to address the challenges we need to identify the sources of conflict and understand their meaning and inter-relationship within the society and beyond. This will require a great deal of dialogue about and understanding of different civilizations and cultures. In this respect, and in my view, the Inter-American system is responding quite well and many believe it has made great strides in this direction, by creating an institutional framework in many areas for dialogue, negotiation and concrete action.

As many of you know the shift from focusing on combating traditional threats to introducing new transnational and internal security issues generated a renewed determination of member states to consider a more holistic approach toward hemispheric security: one that would take into account the interdependence of threats and challenges, at the international, national, and local levels, as well of the cross-border impact of these challenges.

After a long process of discussion this new approach was recognized by OAS member states in the Declaration of Bridgetown in June of 2002, which sought to incorporate non-traditional threats to hemispheric security, such as natural disasters, communicable diseases, destruction of the environment as well as poverty, illicit drugs, human trafficking, and acts of terrorism. Essentially, what our hemisphere faces is a combination of man-made and natural threats to our safety and well-being.

The multidimensional approach described above calls on member states to work cooperatively toward redefining the institutional structure of existing mechanisms and encourages relevant strategies, methodologies, and approaches to address internal threats that can damage or destroy democracies and democratic governability.

Thus, the Declaration on Security of the Americas, adopted in Mexico in 2003, reflects the diversity of visions on security and the differences in capability, geography and historical experience among the 34 OAS member states. It also brought to the forefront the difficulties that lie ahead in the process of building a strong regional consensus on a feasible security strategy and architecture for the Americas in which national priorities and threats may differ significantly at any given moment. The Americas, is from a political, economic, developmental, and security perspective, as we all know, not a homogeneous collection of states, in terms of their objectives and interests.

The Paradox between the global and local realties:

In the recently published Human Security Report (2005), distributed by the Canadian government, we are presented with the premise that “despite popular fears and misperceptions the world is actually a safer place than it was a decade ago: conflicts between states, civil wars, battle deaths, coups and genocides have all declined”. Although armed conflict continues in parts of Africa, South Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, the overall incidence of warfare has decreased. According to the Report, in 1992 when the Yugoslav wars of secession began, there were 51 state-based conflicts around the world. The figures dropped to 29 in 2003. The arms trade has also declined by a third in a similar period.

The report attributes these successes in part to what it calls the “explosion of international activism directed toward stopping wars, and preventing them from starting up again”. It echoes the findings of the United Nations High-level Panel on Threats, Challenge and Change: in which it states “Whether by reducing the demand for nuclear weapons, mediating inter-state conflict or ending civil wars, collective institutions have made a critical contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security”. Regional institutions have helped to foster and embed new norms towards non-violence through the promotion of participatory democratic governance and peaceful conflict resolution.

The statistics that I just mentioned constitute some good news for our hemisphere and the world at large. And yet, the paradox is that most people, either in the developed or the developing world, do not feel more secure and certain about the future. The quickly changing nature of security has made us realize that the absence of war and conflict do not necessarily translate into peace and security for our societies.

The events of 9/11, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the war on terrorism, and the spread of virulent disease, together with the potential spillover effects of continuing intrastate wars, to say nothing of less imminent but nonetheless worrying threats like resource and environmental depletion, have added new dimensions to the growing security concerns of many states. Globalization with all its perks and benefits has also meant that there is a real possibility of conflict and insecurity touching us all in some way. I stated on another occasion that the potential of globalization to socially and economically marginalized countries and groups of people is in itself a security risk.

Clearly, the new security environment from all aspects--human, national, public and international, leaves little room for complacency.

How then, in these circumstances, can regional organizations, like the OAS respond more effectively in addressing and or eliminating these imminent threats? How might a regional consensus through effective multilateralism lead the process of consolidating a new security agenda and architecture for the Hemisphere?

For most Latin American countries, the new security agenda now focuses on intra-state problems. Latin America and the Caribbean are sub-regions with a concerning level of intra-national conflict, where violence plays a major role and affects perceptions of security that go beyond the borders of each state.

Citizen security is being seriously threatened by the rise in both organized and non-organized crime, and by rising social tensions resulting from increasing poverty in the region. There are also problems with coordination at the intra-state level. These problems are primarily related to organizational culture, jurisdiction, command authority and intelligence sharing.

Added to this list, on the sub-regional basis, are sovereignty concerns and the fact that international security institutions are not well entrenched in Latin America and the Caribbean. This results in a lack of coordination and missed opportunities both for dialogue, policymaking and information sharing among key actors and with other parts of the world.

Finally there are financial and institutional constraints due to size and level of development of particular countries. This only underscores the need for a sub-regional approach; such as the one put in place by the Eastern Caribbean countries in the form of the Regional Security System; however, in my view, its mandate and membership need to be broadened and deepened.

These realities have prompted, not surprisingly, regional institutions to be the first among many institutions to prioritize this newest security agenda, notably the EU and NATO.

In the case of the OAS, the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism was opened for signature in June 2002 and entered into force in 2003. The Inter- American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE), in 2005 alone, offered eight national and Regional Seminars on Counter terrorist Legislation in different capitals in Latin America. At CICTE’s Sixth Regular Session, held in March 2006 in Bogotá, Colombia, member states reaffirmed their commitment to strengthen international cooperation mechanisms, information exchange and legislative measures to more effectively prevent and combat terrorism-related crime.

The Declaration of San Carlos on Hemispheric Security for Comprehensive Action to Fight Terrorism, adopted at the meeting, includes a number of specific measures—including the commitment to develop security standards and practices related to tourism and recreational facilities. CICTE implemented a pilot project in this area involving six Caribbean member states, as part of its efforts to help address security concerns for the Cricket World Cup 2007. It plans to hold a meeting this year to study the results of that pilot project and consider expanding it to other countries.

Europe has also been more active since the tragic events of Madrid, appointing a Counter Terrorism Coordinator in 2004, and in April 2005, NATO revealed a joint plan to improve awareness of terrorist threats. Most regional organizations have followed suit, issuing declarations of commitment to fight terrorism, with for example, a new protocol added to Organization of African Union’s Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism in 2004. Some analysts have argued that the responses of regional organizations have been most effective and timely in developing strategies to combat terrorism.

From the perspective of regional organizations therefore, it is possible to demonstrate comparative advantage in addressing the linkage between intrastate and interstate security issues, especially through comprehensive peace-building, democratic strengthening and conflict prevention activities that have been undertaken by Regional Organizations in the last decade.

With regards to conflict prevention in particular, it is widely acknowledged that regional actors can and have played unique and crucial roles because of their privileged position with regard to the local context and actors, though some conflicts remain stubbornly outside the scope of any such actor. Regional organizations have also come to recognize that the changing face of security requires innovative mechanisms for conflict mitigation and crisis prevention. It also requires greater engagement with civil society organizations (CSOs), the strategic use of quiet diplomacy and early preventive action in order to avoid conflict escalation or a breakdown in dialogue among states.

These mechanisms have also proven to be useful in addressing several of the border disputes in the various subregions. The Western Hemisphere continues to face more than a dozen unresolved territorial and border disputes. While most of these disputes are either being managed, are in negotiation or dormant, they remain areas of concern.

I recognize that getting regional actors to work together to deal with regional problems and with the United Nations, has its many challenges. It is difficult for states to delegate upwards, and for the UN to delegate downwards, to the regional level. Indeed the record, though improving is still very mixed. Furthermore, while it is true that much of the business of security remains the affair of states, strong states in particular, it is equally true that other actors have increasingly entered into the picture providing important contributions to an emerging global security framework. The twin goals of promoting peace and providing security can no longer be the responsibility of any single actor, but requires the participation of a variety of different actors – at the state, multilateral and regional levels.

Clearly, regional institutions cannot be stand alone actors in the security context. However, the increasing acknowledgement by the UN and other actors, of the role of regional institutions in the development of peace and security, underscores the significant role for a robust and coordinated inter-American system in the prevailing security order.

New Challenges we face today and the Role of the OAS

The last decade has seen significant changes in the nature, scope and intensity of transnational organized crime. Criminal groups have established more tightly structured cells or networks of individuals, while also increasing the sophistication of crime and range of their operations. The volume of organized crime has grown in every region across the world where there have been sustained periods of conflict. Furthermore, in situations of institutional weakness, corruption, ineffective rule of law and organized crime networks, there is a greater likelihood of creating an environment in which terrorism may thrive.

Given this multiplication of challenges, the OAS has been repositioning itself, restructuring programs and solidifying partnerships (including with the Inter-American Defense College) in order to support the security concerns of its 34 member states. This is an essential mandate for the OAS as governments seek to exert control of their national territory in order to be able to:

o provide protection against internal or external violence;
o sustain an effective judicial system;
o enforce the rule of law;
o pursue long-term development;
o establish responsible democratic processes; and
o secure a lasting peace.

Let me, now highlight a few of the challenges that confront some of our member states and how the OAS is providing support to governments in confronting these challenges.

1. Recently, this hemisphere has been faced with a wave of organized juvenile crime. Criminal gangs, called Maras have become major security threats in Central America, the Caribbean, and other countries in the region. This new cross-border phenomenon and security challenge has traceable links between gangs in the United States with partner groups in El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Jamaica, etc.

The gang network has also been implicated in illegal weapons and drug trafficking. The speed with which the most sophisticated weapons get into the hands of criminal elements combined with the well financed and orchestrated drug operations constitute major areas of concern for law enforcement.

It is also of concern for countries that are still going through a process of democratic consolidation and in which violence and instability can threaten the ability of governments to govern. The response of the OAS in addressing the issue of gangs has been limited, in large measure due to a lack of resources. Nonetheless, the Organization has been able to execute a few key activities in the area of prevention, particularly in El Salvador. Additionally, the Inter-American Commission Against Drug Abuse (CICAD) financed the first national census of local gang prevention initiatives, which also identified the emerging links between gangs and organized crime.

The growing priority and concern of OAS member states have given way to establishing a special Section on Gangs under the Department for Public Security. As a first critical step, the Department is committed to developing a secretariat-wide policy paper, which will constitute a framework for action and cooperation on the issue of Gangs.

2. The Western Hemisphere must also contend with the unique set of characteristics that represent threats to the security and viability of small island states and make them vulnerable to risks and threats of a multidimensional and transnational nature, such as natural disasters, sudden changes in the global economy or systematic environmental damage. In recognition of this reality, and to respond effectively, the OAS works closely with governments to identify and address their security risks, and by multilateral cooperation through the Natural Disaster Reduction and Risk Management program. The OAS further provides a network to facilitate regional sharing of intelligence on criminal activities.

3. Human Trafficking is another growing problem for the Americas. Clearly, the commercial exploitation of human beings for profit is reprehensible and criminal. The scope and impact of this problem is magnified in the Americas with its broad expanse of porous borders and unsecured spaces.
Trafficking Estimates:

 16,000+ victims within US-LAC yearly
 12,000+ trafficked between the Western Hemisphere & Europe

The scope of this problem is startling. Yet, there is little popular awareness of the problem.

The OAS’ program on Anti-Trafficking in Persons has been monitoring this problem, providing information and working with governments to develop joint cross-border, anti-trafficking initiatives, and to draft legislation aimed at punishing perpetrators and protecting victims.

To further underscore, the interconnected nature of security threats, studies show that the corridors for human trafficking, the methods of shipment and the human elements involved in the trafficking of people, primarily women and children, track closely with another area of challenge, namely illegal drug and arms trafficking.

4. In an age of technological breakthroughs, new challenges to peace and security have also arisen from the possible development of new weapons of mass destructions from revolutionary advances in lethality of conventional weapons, from rapidly growing military expenditures, and weapons systems not controlled by any multilateral regime.

A synergy of enhanced global and regional efforts in strengthening the rule of law in the areas of disarmament, non-proliferation and counter-terrorism is essential in meeting contemporary challenges.

In sum, the concepts of globalization and regionalization do not apply only to trade. Free movement, open access, new technologies and instant communication present opportunities and challenges for security issues as well. Containing threat and being able to respond effectively to threat requires increased cooperation and timely communication and action among states and among different security agencies.

The inter-American community must continue to create opportunities for deeper cooperation, and in this regard the Inter-American Defense College and Board can play an important role through its research and educational capacity.

It is noteworthy that the IADC has included in the 2005-2006 academic program a new module on the subject of Civilian-Military relations in democracy. I have heard very good things about this program—in particular how it has provided important perspectives and analysis of the dynamics of currently changing relations between civilians and the military in many countries of the hemisphere.

Greater cooperation among regional actors and security experts to develop mechanisms and policies geared toward prevention of terrorism and other cross border threats will be critical in developing an integrated security policy for the hemisphere, especially with respect to developing on-going monitoring systems, coordinating information, border controls, policing, or monitoring of financial flows.

Conclusion and Recommendations:

In my view, as the hemispheric security agenda continues to expand, the role of the OAS as a partner for peace and security will become even more critical. In this context, I believe that the OAS must reinforce its ability to support member states in their efforts to:

• Work towards stronger, more effective bilateral and sub-regional cooperation on security-related matters using existing multilateral mechanisms like the OAS and IADC/IADB more effectively.

• Move towards a common conception of global, hemispheric and regional security with a view to improving existing international instruments in this area.
• Cooperate in conflict resolution. This means consolidating prevention and early warning mechanisms with the support of organized civil society and specialized research and think tanks in the region.

• Move towards more effective coordination of the institutions responsible for security at the national and sub-regional levels to minimize duplication, maximize the use of resources and human capacity, and strengthen conflict-prevention mechanisms.

• Reinforce the rule of law and democratic governance in the region by strengthening and modernizing state institutions and supporting capacity building of key governmental actors.

• Pursue public policies to reinforce social security with the objective of reducing extreme poverty and providing socio-economic opportunities, particularly for youth.

• Improve civilian/military coordination, within the framework of democracy, to cope with the new threats to security. To do this, it is essential to have a clear legal framework in place so that the police do not become militarized or the armed forces acquire police functions.

• Intensify international cooperation so that the main vulnerabilities affecting stability, governance and human security in the region can be mitigated.

These are ambitious objectives for the hemisphere, but with adequate resources, collaboration of other regional and sub-regional partners and the expertise of institutions like the Inter-American Defense College, it may be possible to forge an important regional consensus on these issues in the coming years.

I know both Secretary General Insulza and I look forward to collaborating closely with the Inter-American Defense College and its Board on many of these areas of concern to our member states. Let us do not forget that main purpose of the OAS is to promote peace, strengthen justice and enhance solidarity in our hemisphere.

Once again, I thank you for inviting me to address you today. I wish you all good luck and success. Thank you for your time and interest this morning.