Ms. Rebecca Grynspan, Assistant Secretary of UNDP
Director for Latin America and the Caribbean (RBLAC)
Mr.Tarik Khan, Director, Democratic Institutions and Conflict Division, Policy Branch, C IDA
Mr. Andrew Ellis, Director of Operations, International IDEA
Mr. Ebrahim Ismail Ebrahim, Foreign Policy Coordinator,
African National Congress, South Africa
Ambassador Jorge Skinner-Klee, Permanent Representative of Guatemala to the UN
Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is always a pleasure to be able to participate in an event which has brought together such vast knowledge and expertise as we see gathered in this room. It is also very promising to see the accomplishments of the conflict prevention community because most often this type of collaboration is not given the due attention or recognition it deserves.

As I understand, this handbook is the result of two years of collaboration among the sponsoring institutions, numerous consultations with experts, international think tanks, policymakers and academics etc. as well as a great deal of solid work and effort by the lead team of the sponsoring institutions. Let me begin by congratulating these Organizations and their leadership for supporting such an important and vast task. I thank the authors – Betty Pruitt and Phillip Thomas – for their valuable work, as well as the officials from the OAS, Betilde Munoz and Yadira Soto for their efforts in including the experience gained in the Western Hemisphere on this topic.

Such an undertaking clearly demonstrates the power of partnerships and shared approaches within the multilateral context. I do not want to speak too long on the importance or content of this handbook; as I believe it is self-evident to many of you participating in this event.

Let me just begin by saying that current world events only point to the need and urgency for disseminating such a tool. If there was ever more a need for practical options for promoting dialogue, conflict prevention and inclusive governance, it is now.

I have been tasked to speak briefly on the experience of the OAS with Dialogue; and in light of the time constraints, I will limit my comments to highlighting just a few experiences which I believe have been perceived as the most important contributions of the OAS to the hemisphere, in the area of conflict prevention, dialogue and democracy-building. But before doing so, I think it indispensable that we recognize the changes that have taken place in the political landscape in the Americas and the Caribbean.

In 2006, the OAS was invited to observe the more than 13 elections conducted throughout the Hemisphere, in an electoral year unprecedented in the recent history of the Americas.

First of all, I believe, it is important to make a good analysis of the current situation in the Americas. Since the political landscape, after the many elections in 2005 and 2006, has changed, the perspectives on inter-state relations is evolving in interesting directions, elected leaders are presenting new paradigms on development and the role of the State, etc., it is of critical importance for us all to reflect on these new dynamic environment, which, in my view, can be challenging at times, but also can provide new opportunities. This will demand intensive dialogue at all levels within and between countries. But we should not forget that for dialogue to be effective we need at least two willing and committed participants. Dialogue cannot be forced upon a situation, sometimes the time is not ripe and the application of dialogue promoting mechanisms needs to be measured, otherwise it can become counter productive.


I continue to believe that as the oldest regional organization in the world, the Organization of American States stands for peace, justice and solidarity in the Americas. The principle practical objectives are to mitigate or prevent conflict within as well as between states as much as possible, so as to create the most conducive environment for economic progress for the Peoples of the member states. Building peaceful societies and creating sustainable economies require a climate and approach of unchallenged solidarity and collectivity. And this cannot be achieved without dialogue and communication. In an ever increasing diver world, as a consequence of continuing migratory processes, we need to promote a better understanding and appreciation between civilizations, religions and cultures. Before we truly can respect each other, we need to know each other better, so as to better understand the driving factors and principles behind our behavior and actions.

Furthermore, I strongly believe that if we want to be fully committed to the earlier mentioned objectives, the OAS and its specialized institutions need to be pro-active in their assistance to member states. An active and continuous engagement with member states is of critical importance in solidifying the common trust and laying a foundation for true multilateral cooperation and action.

While we all agree and support the notion that the Americas is a composition of member states with equal status in the OAS, we also have to take into account the diversity which exists in the Western Hemisphere. In terms of politics, political system, economic strength, social arrangements, culture, language, geography, etc., the OAS represents very different priorities, challenges and opportunities. This diversity demands therefore also a differentiated approach to how we deal and respond to situations in the Hemisphere. There is no generic template to act upon, so we need to use the most appropriate channels to respond, if we are to be effective. I strongly believe that the OAS is a relevant multilateral forum for its member states and as such it has been effective in mitigating conflict and strengthening democracy in the Western Hemisphere.

These are some thoughts I felt important to share with you, as it frames the parameters of our engagement, as the main multilateral vehicle in the Americas in terms of principles and pragmatism.

As, the handbook points out the OAS has been able to acquire a great deal of political know-how, knowledge and expertise in democratic consolidation in the last two decades. This institutional knowledge- base has allowed the OAS to work toward the development of programs and actions aimed at assisting our member states deal with internal and external problems. This support has been channeled through new agreements between states (in the case of border disputes), direct assistance in dialogue, peace-building missions (including special ad hoc missions), and institutional capacity building measures, which has focused on indirect support to assist member states constructively manage conflict and consensus building.

In the past 15 years, the OAS has been working with member states in generating minimum conditions for national dialogue, institutionalizing mechanisms for conflict management, and strengthening national and sub-regional capacities in consensus building and negotiation. Our objectives have been to accompany post-electoral circumstances, support institutional strengthening, modernize the State, promote good governance, all necessary pre-conditions for social and economic development. Conflicts in society and sometimes between countries, and as a consequence the need for dialogue, often arise because of democratic institutions and regulatory frameworks do not function well or are absent.

The work of the OAS in post-conflict reconstruction, peacebuilding and democratic consolidation of the 90's provided the basis for developing more structural and practical modes of addressing threats to peace and security within the Hemisphere, focusing on the importance of democratic governance and conflict resolution mechanisms.

Much of our contribution to this handbook was extracted from one of the most successful peacebuilding experiences: OAS/PROPAZ” Program “Promoting a Culture of Dialogue: Developing Resources for Peacebuilding in Guatemala, The 7-year Program provided multisectoral training in communication and conflict resolution skills, negotiation, mediation and conciliation to a variety of Guatemalan actors working at different levels of society, in support of the Peace Process in that country. It is notable that the OAS was able to establish an infrastructure for peacebuilding, democratization and reconciliation, through the PROPAZ effort. The sustainability of this Program exceeded the expectations of the donors and the OAS. In 2003, through a consultation process facilitated by the former UPD, and with the approval and participation of various sectors of Guatemala, including the Government, the OAS transferred the mandates, expertise and personnel of the PROPAZ Program to the Guatemalan society with the establishment of the ProPaz Foundation, currently in its fourth year of operation.

With this, the OAS accomplished the principal objective of technical assistance, which was to leave institutionalized capacity in Guatemala to continue supporting the country’s peace process, facilitate consensus-building/dialogue and strengthen democratic governance at all levels. Creating ownership in societies is critically important to be able to reach high levels of acceptance and effectiveness.

Guatemala was only one of several peacebuilding missions the OAS supported in the previous decade. Since then the OAS has been consistent in its commitment to the use of dialogue as a means for strengthening democratic governance and peace in the hemisphere.

Between 2004 and 2006, crises had broken out or were simmering in several countries of the region; i.e. Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua. The OAS played important roles in several of these countries from offering to observe the selection of Supreme Court judges in Ecuador to facilitating political dialogue between the Nicaraguan government and the main political parties, against a backdrop of a political crisis which threatened the country’s democracy. In all of these instances, the OAS utilized mechanisms such as dialogue facilitation and consensus-building to reestablish peace, stability and democratic governance in each of the countries.

Most recently, the OAS a significant and especially important role in two countries which have endured long periods of ongoing social and political conflict: Guyana and Haiti. We have witnessed the power of quiet diplomatic engagement and dialogue in assisting countries achieve peaceful and violence-free elections; as well as democratically elected leaders.

All of these actions have been supported by the political bodies of the OAS through successive mandates and resolutions; in particular in through General Assembly Resolution of 2003 (AG/RES. 1957 (XXXIII-O/03) on the Promotion and Strengthening of Democracy: Follow-up to the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which instructed the Permanent Council to “continue to promote the exchange of experiences and best practices, so as to institutionalize dialogue as a means of promoting democratic governance and resolving conflicts.” They also asked that the General Secretariat “continue developing mechanisms for dialogue and instruments for the prevention and resolution of conflicts, so as to support the member States in their interactions with various political and social actors.”

Additionally, from an interstate perspective the OAS has been instrumental in managing several interstate disputes in Central America, situations like Guatemala and Belize and Honduras and Nicaragua have shown that these types of disputes can indeed be managed peacefully and constructively between member states. In late 2006 the OAS facilitated the hearings between the Republic of Guyana and the Republic of Suriname on their maritime delimitation case by offering the headquarter facilities as the venue for these meetings from the ITLOS court in the Hague, The Netherlands.

In my opinion, when the OAS political bodies and the Secretariat have acted opportunely at critical moments, the Organization has made effective and extremely valuable contributions towards democratic restoration, consolidation or continuity.

As I have mentioned earlier, the mandates have been established, but we now need to work more proactively in their implementation.

In conclusion, I have no doubt that this handbook will be instrumental in assisting our governments and their civil society actors devise new tools, methodologies and mechanisms to ensure their deliberations, negotiations and dialogue processes are as inclusive as possible. To me the effectiveness of dialogue lies in its ability to ensure political and social inclusiveness.

However, as I mentioned earlier in my intervention, our political landscape has changed substantially in the last 18 months and we are now being faced with new challenges in the political, economic and security arenas, thus we must be ready to foster political dialogue across sectors, but in a flexible manner, allowing ourselves to mold our responses and assistance to the context and needs of those who we serve.

Member states over the past two decades have provided a broader framework for greater OAS support to the prevention, management and resolution of crisis situations, be they internal to a country or between nations. I call on our partners, the UN, IDEA International and donors like CIDA to continue working with our member states in all of these efforts.

I believe that this process of researching for best practices and creating benchmarks in the area of conflict prevention and promotion of dialogue is a continuous process. I therefore believe that we should seek to convene experts from the globe every two year to discuss and share experiences and in that context update this publication. The OAS is willing, if accepted, to host such a conference in the first quarter of 2008 at its headquarters in Washington DC.

Once again I commend the institutions on the publication of this Handbook and I wish you the best in the arduous task of working towards sustainable peace and security in our regions.

Thank you.