OEA/Ser.G
CP/doc.3494/01 rev. 1
16 July 2001
Original: English
STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR ODEEN ISHMAEL OF GUYANA
DURING DISCUSSIONS ON THE INTER-AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC CHARTER
AT THE MEETING OF PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE OAS
(Presented to the Permanent Council at its meeting held on June 20,
2001)
Statement by Ambassador Odeen Ishmael of Guyana
in the Permanent Council of the OAS during discussions
on the Inter-American Democratic Charter
Washington DC, June 20, 2001
Mr. Chairman, Ambassadors, Secretary General, Assistant Secretary
General, Members of Delegations, Ladies and Gentlemen.
The Permanent Council of the Organization of American States has been
given the task of examining and streamlining the draft text of the Inter-American
Democratic Charter.
My Government supports the principles laid out in the draft text. We
feel that this Charter is a significant milestone in the historical development of the
OAS. For when the OAS was initially formed, its objective was not the promotion and
defense of democracy, but instead it was more concerned with the broad areas of regional
cooperation. The idea of democracy was just given lip service since many of the regimes in
those days were not rooted in that principle.
It is generally postulated that the idea of regional cooperation that
forms the basis of the OAS grew out of a history of regional cooperation dating back to
the 19th century. But, in reality, even before that period, long before the arrival of
European conquest, people of different nations in this hemisphere coexisted, implemented
systems and patterns of government, and carried out lucrative trade between areas
stretching from, what is today, the southern United States to as far as Bolivia in South
America, and including the Caribbean islands. In some areas advanced civilizations with
advanced cultural forms developed, and the levels they reached amaze some of the most
advanced minds even today. History is now revealing that in the pre-European period,
Amerindian nations contacted and communicated with each other, sending emissaries to
negotiate political, military and trade deals. How advanced was this hemispheric
cooperation at that period will be left for historians to analyze. But as we know, the
advent of the military and pseudo-religious conquistadores from the sixteenth
century changed the face of the Americas and introduced new concepts of government and
culture.
Within two hundred years, Eurocentric nations of generations of
immigrants sprang up, and by the early nineteenth century, many of them on the continental
landmass, and also the Black Republic of Haiti in the Caribbean, had moved on the road to
self-determination.
Then in 1826, the liberator Simon Bolivar convened the Congress of
Panama with the idea of creating an association of states in the hemisphere. Fifty-five
years elapsed before independent Republics in 1889 held the First International Conference
of American States in Washington, DC, established the International Union of American
Republics and its secretariat, the Commercial Bureau of the American Republics. This
organization became the Pan American Union in 1910.
From 1910 through 1945, many conferences were held concerning issues
like commerce, external aggression, and cooperation.
It is my belief that the OAS, as we know it, began in 1947 with the Rio
Treaty, which established a mutual defense treaty applicable to American states.
On April 1948, at the Ninth International American Conference,
organized by the Pan American Union, representatives of 21 countries of the hemisphere met
in Bogota, Colombia, to adopt the Charter, which serves as the foundation of the
Organization of American States (OAS). This they did on April 30, 1948, and by so doing
they affirmed their commitment to common goals and respect for each nation=s sovereignty.
They signed the OAS Charter and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,
the first international expression of human rights principles.
The Charter, signed in 1948, defined the purpose of the OAS as follows:
"To promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the
principle of nonintervention; to prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the
pacific settlement of disputes that may arise among the Member States; to provide for
common action on the part of those States in the event of aggression; to seek the solution
of political, judicial and economic problems that may arise among them; to promote, by
cooperative action, their economic, social and cultural development, and to achieve an
effective limitation of conventional weapons that will make it possible to devote the
largest amount of resources to the economic and social development of the Member
States."
In the period beginning from the decade of the 1970s, the OAS began to
expand its membership and it now includes Canada and the independent nations of the
Caribbean. Since then, a number of amendments were also made to the OAS Charter.
Looking back over the years, it is not unknown that the main reason for
the formal establishment of the OAS, shortly after the end of World War II, was for it to
act as a deterrent to the perceived threat of communist expansionism in the western
hemisphere. At around the same time, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the
South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) were set up with the primary objective of
containing communism.
As such, the OAS was not set up to promote democracy since many
existing military regimes which were seen as fighters against communism, were coddled and
told they were doing a good job, even though in many instances people in their countries
suffered from repression and poverty.
Despite its Cold War cloak, the OAS made some significant strides in
promoting democracy. In 1959, it created the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
which today provides recourse to citizens who have suffered human rights violations. Ten
years later we saw the signing of the American Convention on Human Rights, and in 1978, it
established the Inter-American Court on Human Rights.
In 1961, Punta del Este launched the Alliance for Progress, an
ambitious program of reforms designed to strengthen democracy and achieve economic
progress and greater social justice in the hemisphere.
In introducing his Alliance for Progress on March 13, 1961, President
Kennedy pleaded: "Those who possess wealth and power in the poor nations must accept
their own responsibilities. They must lead the fight for those basic reforms which alone
can preserve the fabric of their own societies. Those who made peaceful revolution
impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
However, those reforms were not carried out by the Latin American
oligarchy – which included the military, the upper-clergy and the latifundistas
-- and this resulted in tragic consequences for the people.
The perceived anti-communist tendency of the OAS was paramount in the
1950s and 1960s. Of course, there are some who would argue that being anti-communist
amounted to being pro-democratic. In the context of this hemisphere, this is debatable.
The suspension of Cuba in January 1962, supported by 14 of the 21 members, was not because
it was "undemocratic". If the lack of democracy was a cause for suspension of a
member, then at that period the OAS would have been desperately short of members. The
expulsion measure stated that Cuba's "adherence to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible
with the inter-American system. " Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and
Mexico abstained on the grounds that the measure violated the principle of
non-intervention in the internal affairs of another member state -- part of the OAS
Charter.
Further, the support of the OAS for the invasion of the Dominican
Republic in 1963 was not given because that act was meant to protect democracy. Democracy
was actually overthrown earlier. And in 1964, with regard to my own country, which was
still a colony of Britain, the OAS did not issue a whimper when international
anti-communist organizations allied with the opposition to destabilize the freely and
democratically elected Government of that period. It was a Government which was putting
into action democratic reforms to reduce poverty and to improve the livelihood of the
masses. In those days this was enough to give leaders who were fighting against
colonialism the communist label, and those who controlled the destiny of the hemisphere
could not allow them to remain in power, even though they won elections freely and fairly.
As the communist threat waned in the 1980s and the Cold War collapsed,
the OAS rapidly began to re-assert itself as the champion of the promotion of democracy.
It was clear that the OAS was going through an evolution from its formation to the
mid-1980s. It had by then shed its Cold War cloak, and certainly, the advent of the
English-speaking Caribbean countries helped it to do so. The CARICOM nations have a long
tradition of representative democracy and the respect and protection of human rights, and
the fresh ideas they brought to the forum of the OAS encouraged this hemispheric body to
adjust its perspective. Issues relating to democracy in the hemisphere became more
important, and programs to encourage democratic development such as promoting and
supporting programs to reduce poverty and to combat crime became more and more significant
as the years progressed.
And in a most significant move in 1991, there was the adoption of
Resolution 1080, which set up procedures to react to threats to democracy in the
hemisphere. A key factor in helping to manage crises, Resolution 1080 has been invoked
four times: in Haiti (1991), Peru (1992), Guatemala (1993) and Paraguay (1996). Preventive
diplomacy, to promote democracy, has also been applied by the OAS from time to time, as
has been seen in more recent times, for example, in Peru. Further, the electoral
observation by the OAS in many of our countries has helped to strengthen democracy and
promote confidence in the electoral process by our people.
So we saw during the 1990s a most rapid evolution -- indeed a
revolution -- in the political transformation of the OAS. In 1997, the ratification of the
Protocol of Washington helped to strengthen representative democracy by giving the OAS the
right to suspend a member state whose democratically elected Government is overthrown by
force. Earlier, the Organization had established the Convention against Corruption, the
first international agreement of its kind.
Successive Summits of the Americas added responsibilities to the OAS
and reaffirmed its role in strengthening democratic values and institutions, and
established a range of new roles and priorities.
And so the OAS has come a full circle, and it can now with a clear
collective conscience live up to the ideals it set out in the charter, as I have quoted
earlier.
I have taken you on a stroll through history and laid it bare so that
you can appreciate the evolution of the OAS in promoting democracy. The current draft of
the Democratic Charter that we are examining also highlights representative democracy, as
the Charter of the OAS has done.
We feel that the people of this hemisphere will strive under democracy
which is progressively advanced. While representative democracy through free and fair
elections is laudable, such a democracy must not remain static. Remember, this is a
concept which was existing at the time of the adoption of the OAS Charter. It is essential
for it to be advanced to become all-inclusive -- not only representative, but also
consultative and participatory. With participatory democracy, we are empowering the people
at the grass roots. This is a democracy which guarantees, in addition to civil and
political rights, social and cultural rights as well.
The father of the Guyanese independence movement, the late Dr. Cheddi
Jagan, summed up this qualification of democracy when he spoke at the Sustainable
Development Summit in Santa Cruz, Bolivia on December 7, 1996. He said: "Democracy
must have as its objective ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. This
would be ensured when it is embracing, not only representative (5-minute voting), but also
consultative and participatory, particularly of women, and when not only civil and
political rights but also economic, social and cultural rights are realized. A person must
exercise his/her right to vote, but that right will be exercisable only if the food
necessary for life is available."
In any case, we fully support the principle of democracy as expressed
in the Democratic Charter, despite the limitations which we feel it has. We also support
the other principles and measures that are expressed in the draft.
