|
OEA/Ser.G 31 July 2001 Working Group to study the Draft Inter-American Democratic Charter OBSERVATIONS AND PROPOSALS BY MEMBER STATESREGARDING THE DRAFT INTER-AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC CHARTER Haiti Permanent Mission of Haiti to the Organization of American States MPH-OEA:517/01 Washington, D.C., July 30, 2001 Excellency: Further to your letter dated July 27, 2001, I have the honor to transmit the following preliminary observations on the draft Inter-American Democratic Charter (Rev. 7). The competent state authorities and certain civil society organizations have been asked to give their opinions and once we have their responses the consolidated comments will be passed on to the Organization. The present draft does not essentially solve the problems of identifying and distinguishing the precise cases, procedures, and measures contemplated in the event of alterations of the democratic order, on the one hand, nor those posed by the treatment accorded the key issue of poverty, on the other.
1. Specification of cases, procedures, and measures contemplated As dealt with mainly in Articles 12 to 16, especially Articles 12, 13, and 14, these questions remain somewhat confused. Article 12 is meant to be the application of the "democratic clause" adopted at the Third Summit of the Americas. It unleashes automatic sanctions in the event of any "unconstitutional alteration or interruption" of the democratic order in a country of the region. However, given that the incriminated occurrence is not defined with enough precision to make it immediately recognizable, recourse to a collective appraisal mechanism would appear to be essential. Yet the article ignores this crucial point completely. Moreover, the article necessarily raises the question of ascertaining whether the OAS still exists as an autonomous institution (in which case it would be a partner to the Summit process) or whether (and through what regulatory mechanism) it has simply become just another cog in the Summit process machinery. If the latter is true, wouldn’t such a change necessarily require a formal amendment to the Charter of the Organization? In principle Article 13 identifies another kind of affront to democracy defined as "the sudden or irregular interruption of the democratic political institutional process or of the legitimate exercise of power by [a] democratic government." That sets in motion a procedure, which appears to be developed in the following article. However, one cannot be sure because this latter article, the fourteenth, refers to an "unconstitutional interruption," an expression also used in Article 12. Yet, that article would appear to deal with another case. Thus, there is a certain amount of confusion.
In addition, the suspension measure contemplated in Article 12 is enumerative while that referred to in Article 15 is presented as an unqualified whole, without listing the bodies in whose activities the guilty state will not be allowed to participate. Would the two measures be qualitatively different or might they be referring to the same reality? Or would enumeration mean that the sanction is less severe? If it is a question of two different types of disruption of democracy, that should be stated unequivocally and the applicable mechanisms and procedures clearly established. If, on the contrary, it is a question of acts requiring identical measures that should be indicated by using uniform descriptive language and the adoption of measures couched in the same terms. Finally, it is worth pointing out that the clauses appended to Article 12 exacerbate the confusion. The first ("subject to the Charter of the OAS") opens up the possibility of annulling the provisions set forth in the Article. Hence, what point is there in adopting a Democratic Charter in the framework of the Organization of American States if there is already some doubt as to whether it is compatible with the Organization’s own bylaws? The second appended clause, in square brackets [, as well as the Summits of the Americas process] raises the question, on the one hand, of whether the OAS can speak for the Summit and, on the other, whether decisions taken in the framework of the OAS can be subject to the provisions of the Summit of the Americas process.
As noted above, the draft Inter-American Democratic Charter is not particularly enlightening with respect to the role it assigns to the crucial issue of poverty in connection with democracy conceived as a viable order. The goal of the Americas is not just to install democracy but above all to establish sustainable democracy. Such sustainable democracy cannot be established without a serious response to the dramatic, moral, socioeconomic, and political problem posed by poverty. Thus, just as the Democratic Charter takes up the democratic clause contained in the Declaration of Quebec City and draws conclusions from it for the Organization of American States, it would be good if the same declaration were to inspire greater balance in the [Democratic] Charter, in the form of stronger provisions on poverty reduction. As they stand, they are mere allusions to the topic, so weak in content that they require no real commitment. The "political clause," known as the "democratic clause" needs to be matched by a "social clause." That is why it is proposed that the following two articles be incorporated:
A.
Poverty, illiteracy, and low levels of development are structural factors that are detrimental to democracy and constitute obstacles to enjoyment of human rights taken as an indivisible whole. Their eradication is a joint goal of all the countries of the Americas "united in [their] determination to leave to future generations a Hemisphere that is democratic and prosperous, more just and generous, a Hemisphere where no one is left behind."
B.
The American States will spare no national or collective effort to free the citizens of the Hemisphere from the dehumanizing conditions of absolute poverty. They renew their commitment to making every effort needed to reach the targets set for international development, above all the halving of the percentage of people living in absolute poverty, and to do so by 2015. The text of these two new articles could go near Article 5, or just follow on from it. Furthermore, the following points should also be noted: First, Article 7 poses the important problem of the relationship between democracy and human rights. Here, it is worth recalling that the same question has been raised in the United Nations, where the Human Rights Committee recently asked the High Commissioner for Human Rights to establish a working group of experts to study the question and make recommendations. That being so, it might seem premature for the Organization of American States, as a regional organization, to make any categorical statement on the subject.Second, the procedure regarding lifting of a suspension contemplated in Article 16 needs to be spelled out or rendered more predictable. In particular, it lacks a reference to the facts that could serve to support or justify a proposal to lift a suspension. To overcome this gap, consideration should be given to establishing an inter-State evaluation committee, whose report could serve as a basis for a proposal to lift measures adopted against a member state. Accept, Excellency, renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
Jean Ricot Dorméus
His Excellency |