Dr. Adalberto Rodriguez Giavarini, President of CARI,
Dr. Andrés Serbin, Executive Director of CRIES and GPPAC Regional Initiator for Latin America and the Caribbean,
Mr. Carlos Felipe Martínez, UNDP Permanent Resident Coordinator of UN System in ArgentinaUnited Nations,
Dr. Alberto Dalotto, Chief of Staff of the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Senator María Cristina Perceval, Defence and International Commissions of the Argentine Senate,
Mr. Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize winner 1980,
Mr. Augusto Miclat Jr., Executive Director of Initiative for International Dialogue from Philippines; GPPAC Regional Initiator for Southeast Asia,
Members of the Corps Diplomatique,
Representatives of civil society organizations,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Introduction:

I would like to thank CRIES, the GPPAC, ECCP and CARI for their kind invitation to participate in this high-level panel and to share with you my perspectives on conflict prevention in the 21st century and the role of regional organizations in this regard.

Allow me also at the outset to say that I do not like the term “conflict prevention”, I prefer to speak about “peace building”, not only because it seems to reflect a more positive and constructive approach, but because it also refers to a more continuous process and set of activities.

The issue of building peaceful societies and a secure environment that can facilitate social and economic development is of the utmost importance to the Organization of American States. In a way this conference is timely given the current dynamics on inter-state relations in the Americas, especially in the Andean region. As many of you know from the recent events, the OAS was called upon to address- what many perceive to be one of the most critical disputes the hemisphere has seen in many years - that arose between Ecuador and Colombia. This conflict between two OAS founding member states, with all its’ complexities and intricacies, has provided an opportunity to demonstrate the strength of multilateralism and the commitment and power of a consensus-based organization, like the OAS, to maintaining peace and stability in the region.

This conference is also timely because of the fact that the prime political body in this hemisphere and the oldest regional organization in the world will celebrate this year its 60th anniversary in its modern form. This celebration in Medellin, Colombia where the 38th Regular OAS General Assembly will take place provides a historic opportunity to not only reflect on the achievements and the role of the OAS in the past 60 years, but also to discuss new areas of strategic orientation, as well as how to deal with some of the emerging hemispheric challenges threatening the stability, security and prosperity in the Americas.

I believe that this conference is also important because it provides an opportunity for strategic thinking on inter-state relations and for sharing views regarding security and peace in the Western Hemisphere from a holistic perspective. Latin America and the Caribbean still lack critical analytical capacity to put into perspective the global and hemispheric developments for a forward looking political and socio-economic agenda, which can assist the region as a whole to determine their position in the international environment. Within this context, it is important to also examine the role played by civil society at large in the promotion of democratic practices, human security and peaceful resolution of conflicts.

In my presentation today, I will address two issues, which I strongly believe to be vital to the strengthening of peace building efforts in the hemisphere:

• Firstly the need for continued support to multilateralism and the strengthening of regional and sub-regional organizations working in the areas of democratic governance, peace and security; and

• Secondly, the need for continued commitment to comprehensive capacity building at all levels of government and society in peace building efforts, establishing dialogue mechanisms and processes as the most effective means for structural peace building.
The Hemispheric Context

Before I address these two topics allow me to list a couple of realities in the Western Hemisphere, which in my view are important to take into account in the context of our understanding of the context in which peace building efforts need to be nurtured:

• the democratization process in the past 25 years has resulted in the establishment of legalistic democratic frameworks, institutions and regular general, free, fair and transparent elections, while we also recognize that more work still needs to be done in some countries in further embedding democracy and democratic values in the minds of the people and to strengthen democratic governance, especially sound public policies geared towards transparency, accountability, equality and opportunity for all.

• after the ending of the “cold war” the diversity in the hemisphere has been accentuated, bringing to the fore the different strategic political and economic interests of countries in the region and between sub-regions. This divergence, although understandable given the different histories, political and legal systems, economic opportunities and performances, international orientation, isolated hemispheric relations, etc., makes consensus building difficult in many areas. It is clear to me that security means for different countries and sub-regions different things! At this point in time of hemispheric relations there is no such thing as a “hemispheric foreign policy”, but it may be time to start identifying the areas where there is a shared vision for such a collective regional foreign policy.

• the reality is also that the slate of elections in the past 18 months, in which almost two thirds of the Latin American and Caribbean population had the inalienable right to cast their ballot, has resulted in democratically elected leaders who have a different views with regard to inter-state relations, as well as with regard how they want to organize their societies and economies. This has created interesting dynamics in the Americas with opportunities as well as challenges.

• the stark reality is that our Hemisphere, despite the reasonable economic growth in almost all the OAS member states, still is the region in the world with the highest levels of income inequality; that we still have some 220 million people, mostly women and children, living in poverty, surviving on one US dollar a day or less; that many in our countries experience social inequality, social exclusion and discrimination, in addition to all the other problems the hemisphere as a whole is facing, whether it is illegal drug trafficking, organized crime, HIV/Aids and natural disasters.

• another reality in our Hemisphere is that youth, making up almost in every country more than 50% of the population, is the key development asset and not only needs to be educated in a formal sense and provided jobs, but also needs to be taught how to become responsible, caring and good citizens, contributing not only to their own well-being; but also to the community to which they belong. Youth in many countries feels excluded, alienated and frustrated about their role in society and many have lost confidence in the political process and in the basic state institutions. In my view it is of critical importance to address the concerns of the youth, otherwise they can become a serious social and economic challenge and security threat for the hemisphere as a whole.

• and finally, we have to take account of the fact that dialogue structures at different political levels have increased in the Western Hemisphere, as well as the new sub-regional entities which have been created. Just to mention that apart from the Organization of American States and the Summit of the Americas process, we also have the Association of Caribbean States, the sub-regional cooperation and/or integration systems of the Caribbean Community, the Central American Integration System, NAFTA, MERCOSUR, the Andean Community, the Rio Group, and the most recent new regional arrangement of the Community of South American Nations. This allows for more frequent political dialogue and agenda setting at the highest political levels, which can facilitate consensus and unity in the Americas. At the same time, I believe that additional efforts need to be made to create more synergies between these entities and that the strategic decisions taken at the highest political levels need to be translated and incorporated in a consistent and concrete manner in the agenda of inter-american institutions to facilitate more effective hemispheric cooperation and integration.

These are just some of the realities facing the Americas.

Clearly, even if all the potential armed and existing border conflicts would have been resolved, in my view, we cannot speak of a peaceful and stable hemisphere, because we cannot afford to ignore the impact of social, economic and environmental challenges on peace, stability and ultimately democracy in the affected countries and sub-regions.

In my view the only option to achieve this noble objective of peace, stability and equality is if we combine holistically an agenda for peace with an agenda for sustainable social and economic development, an approach which some have termed “human security”. And I believe that the Organization of American States, because of its unique convening power, is the most appropriate forum in this hemisphere to facilitate such an approach.

Policy analysts, research and statistics tell us that the number of conflicts, as well as the number of victims of wars and other forms of violence, has declined significantly since the end of the cold war. This is of course very welcome news. Also welcome is the news that this notable progress is largely due to the improved performance of the international community, key civil society organizations and overall peace building community, which includes the efforts and work of the United Nations and regional organizations like the OAS, OSCE and the AU.

In particular, the recognition that these organizations are now more willing to intervene to prevent or end conflicts is worthwhile noting. I believe today that the United Nations, regional organizations and non-governmental bodies are cooperating better with each other and the experience acquired by all in the field is serving them well. As a result there is no doubt in my mind that the international community is now better equipped to help parties involved in all types of disputes to build consensus and resolve differences through dialogue, negotiation and compromise. In this regard I believe that it is of critical importance to share and disseminate information and experiences about the efforts of all in society on a on-going basis, even when we have failed, but certainly when we have had success and to record for wider usage the best practices.

While the recent conflict in the Andean region was one which received the most media and international attention in current times, the OAS has been for a number of years contributing to the peaceful resolution of conflicts both between and within Member States.

While it is true that “conflict prevention” is not a direct mandate of the OAS, the Organization’s founding Charter, the Inter-American Democratic Charter and other regional instruments call for a large degree of preventive diplomacy and crisis management.

One very important distinguishing feature of OAS involvement in pre or post conflict situations is that the OAS does not engage without an invitation or consent from the government of the country involved and of course, the General Assembly or the Permanent Council approval.

This presents both challenges and opportunities to the OAS, politically and legally. On the one hand, from a sustainability perspective, it also allows for the role of the OAS to be fully supported by all actors in a given situation. Most of you working in this field can appreciate how critical this requisite is to the overall resolution process. On the other, it hampers the organization ability to move swiftly and effectively in a crises situation.

Consequently, the OAS has also directed much of its efforts toward strengthening democratic governance by building national capacities to engage in constructive dialogue and institutionalize conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms within state structures. This has been considered one of the most strategic forms of support the OAS has provided to member states in the area of conflict management and prevention.

In the past 10 years, OAS has strengthened its capacity to address situations of actual and potential violence and has proven itself to be an effective, trustworthy and honest broker in political negotiations. OAS missions and programs have exerted a significant positive political impact in situations ranging from chronic low-intensity violence to volatile political tension. In particular, the OAS work in democratic governance, human rights, and development has focused on promoting actions, norms, and institutions which strengthen local capacities to solve disputes at multiple levels of society and at all stages of democratic development.

In the last few years, we have witnessed the emergence of conflicts involving borders. In this regard, the OAS has been particularly instrumental in managing several interstate disputes in Central America including between Guatemala and Belize and Honduras and Nicaragua.

These cases 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 OAS headquarter facilities as the venue for these meetings of the ITLOS court in The Hague, The Netherlands.

The recent role played by the OAS and the Rio Group demonstrated that regional organizations can play a complimentary role in achieving desired solutions. Overall, the OAS has been active in finding solutions to the political challenges in Haiti, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia and Colombia, through several mechanisms.

I strongly believe that if we want to be fully committed to the Summit of the Americas mandates, the Inter-American Charter, as well as the very founding Charter of the organization, the OAS and its specialized institutions needs 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.

This engagement should not only be geared toward immediate resolution, but also should provide the required technical assistance, political accompaniment and capacity building for the longer term. This has been the case with countries like Haiti, where the international community has realized there are no short term solutions to entrenched historical conflicts.

The importance and effectiveness of regional organizations in the promotion and maintenance of international peace and security was most aptly underscored by the report of the UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change released in 2004 . In the report, the High-level Panel sets in place the new vision of collective security for the 21st century emphasizing that in today’s world, “a threat to one is a threat to all.”

While highlighting the importance of working collaboratively to address these threats and challenges to peace in the world, the High-level Panel recognizes that regional organizations can be a vital part of the multilateral system. The Report indicates how important it is to organize regional action within the framework of the UN Charter and the purposes of the UN, and to ensure that the UN and any regional organization with which it works do so in a more integrated fashion.

This necessitates greater consultation and cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations, covering such issues as meetings of the heads of the organizations, more frequent exchange of information and early warning, co-training of civilian and military personnel, and exchange of personnel within peace operations, among other initiatives.

Regional organizations have proven to be effective peace brokers primarily due to their:

• continuous presence, credibility and commitment of the organization in the particular country; and

• a more comprehensive historical understanding of the country and their conflicts.

And as has been cited by former UN SG Kofi Anan, “due to their proximity, regional organizations [can] provide a local forum for efforts to decrease tensions and promote and facilitate a comprehensive regional approach to cross-border issues”.

Institutionalizing Dialogue in the Americas

A mechanism that has proved successful in dealing and preventing conflict in several situations is the implementation of dialogue processes. In the last few years, there has been a rising awareness about the importance of the institutionalization of these mechanisms not only as a means to manage or even solve existing conflicts, but also as a longer term system of public policy formulation.

Through the 2003 General Assembly Resolution AG/RES. 1957 (XXXIII-O/03) on the Promotion and Strengthening of Democracy: Follow-up to the Inter-American Democratic Charter, the member states 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 [to develop] 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.”

In this context, dialogue is considered by the OAS as an instrument to maintain peace in the countries of the Hemisphere and is “seen as part of a longer-term strategy that remains unaffected by time sensitive crises. Dialogue tends to lead to the kinds of agreements and relationships between actors that are likely to survive changes in administrations and become part of national policy-making process.

Increased dialogue and participation with civil society in informing policy issues and public discourse has enhanced governance in the twenty first century even as it has made it more complex. The “third wave of democracy” in Latin America has embraced the new role of civil society and the gradual but steady growth of direct citizen activism.

However, mechanisms to channel citizen activism in governance structures have not been systematized in tandem with the growth in influence. Thus, there has emerged a marked tendency toward the utilization of de facto political power through demonstrations, national strikes and other tactical actions. Forums like this one must continue to stress the importance of building consensus and developing mechanisms for dialogue and negotiation in the democratic process.

This year, the OAS in preparation for its General Assembly has improved the dialogue space with civil society. There is a strong sense of commitment at the OAS that government and civil society collaboration aimed at consensus building and the creation of participatory mechanisms is a must to reflect modern and good governance.

Today, in the Americas we observe that in many countries the underlying basic values of a democratic political culture have been eroded by the incapacity of state institutions to deliver the basic services and fulfill social needs of significant portions of the population. Civic discontent resulting in damaging and massive unrest and instability, within a democratic framework, has forced constitutionally elected leaders to leave office prematurely.

As a consequence democratic governability in a number of states in the region is being challenged. Other problems, like the international illegal drug trafficking, the alarming rise in organized gangs and criminality, and illegal trafficking in arms add to these challenges and force governments to focus on short-term actions, instead of strategic development objectives.

As conflicts become more complex and interrelated, there is a need to make our cooperation more effective thereby enabling us all to respond more swiftly to evolving global and regional threats.

No doubt, member states, international institutions, as well as the civil society organizations, such as those represented here today, have an important role to play and must be willing to take the lead in strengthening democratic governance and promoting the peaceful resolution of complex problems that face the different countries and sub-regions of our hemisphere. But the fundamental question remains: How can donors, member states, state and non-state actors work toward more effective and timely conflict prevention, leaving in place the kind of capacity so that states may find their own solutions to their own problems?

Lessons learned and recommendations:

Indeed, the OAS has recognized that democracy, development and security are highly interrelated and mutually reinforcing. Therefore the OAS has focused its peace building efforts on 3 primary pillars as mandated by our political bodies:

• Peaceful settlement of intra-state disputes and the new hemispheric security agenda (multidimensional concept of security);

• The protection of human rights (through a two-pronged approach focusing on the punitive and the constructive); and

• The defense and promotion of democracy and strengthening of representative institutions.

The current challenge posed to the OAS is how to consolidate these types of mechanisms and institutional forms of support toward the consolidation of democratic governance and socio-economic development.

Aside from what the OAS can offer through political mediation/shuttle diplomacy and technical cooperation actions, OAS comparative advantages lie in its convening power among its member states and its ability to work with all levels of government in forging consensus on important policies, both nationally and sub-regionally. This capacity of dialogue and decision making by consensus is the preventive capacity the OAS brings to the multilateral cooperation framework.

In this regard, let me mention a few key lessons that are particularly relevant to building capacity for effective peace building based on our experience of over 15 years of democratic strengthening in the Hemisphere.

Interventions, pre- or post-conflict must be designed and developed to respond to the objective needs of the target country and must be perceived as relevant by their societies and local communities.

As such, we have found that joint assessments between donors, host country and the international community can help with four key challenges most international institutions must contend with when dealing with building peace:

• insufficient understanding of the nature of the conflict

• time-bound donor assistance which is not framed within a strategic framework and long-term commitment;

• a disconnect between external interventions and national processes and priorities; and

• external actors consistently neglect institutional and capacity strengthening, even though they are recognized as central.

• acknowledge the comparative advantages of the different institutions working in a particular sub-region. The political clout, experience in the country and established trust with political actors may facilitate a more optimal solution. (Bolivia/Ecuador)

• there are situations where the regional and sub-regional organizations may be better suited to take the lead in a particular situation. As pointed out by this forum, conflict prevention must and should be a shared responsibility.

Priority should be placed on capacity-building after peacekeeping, peace building or a crisis support operation is withdrawn. The single most important lesson that we have learnt is that in order for peace to be sustained, the concerned national actors have to be supported in owning and resolving the relevant issues on their own initiative.

Regional organizations and agencies that can continue the democratic consolidation efforts should be identified early on and supported by the UN and others through mobilized funding, cooperation etc. (Haiti)

Regional organizations can collaborate with multilateral organizations such as the UN or EU by assisting in the definition of political objectives and priority areas of a given country. This could include:

• analyzing "root causes" of the conflict (past or potential);

• the dispatch of joint delegations to conflict prone areas;

• joint assessment missions to observe ongoing progress and identify weaknesses (Haiti, Colombia, Guyana);

• monitoring of agreements and commitments by the parties to the conflict (Colombia);

• mobilizing funding for post-conflict or crisis reconstruction. (Haiti)

Expected outputs should be incremental. Expectations are often too high considering that the amount of aid spent on peace building remains comparatively small to that spent on security and other areas. Peace building efforts must be accompanied by long-term development assistance.

Conclusion:

At the regional level, we must continue to work toward a more a pro-active role in building peaceful societies, through quiet diplomacy, greater co-operation and sharing of information and experiences, improved analyses, and reviews of normative and legal frameworks. As I said before, the time may be right to start thinking in the Western Hemisphere of a comprehensive hemispheric security arrangement by studying existing security mechanisms in the different countries and sub-regions and bring these together to develop a common and workable security paradigm.

The role of the civil society and “citizen diplomacy” is important in this regard and I do hope that through activities such as this conference a meaningful contribution can be made to this process.

At the OAS General Secretariat we remain in favor of a strong collaboration with civil society organizations, recognizing each other’s roles, responsibilities and opportunities and in this regard I would like to invite the organizers of this conference to present the results of this important conference to the hemispheric body in Washington DC.

At the global level, efforts to foster and develop new relationships with extra-regional organizations will prove beneficial as the international community continues to manage the arduous task of combating new transnational and regional threats to security. Both extra-regional and hemispheric wide information sharing among the various agencies and organizations involved in conflict prevention and resolution can contribute to gathering and recording a set of best practices to contest the threats to peace, democracy and development in the Americas.

In a multilateral world where inter-state and intra-state conflicts as well as transnational threats affect all of us, it is crucial to work collaboratively to address these threats and promote a culture of peace and equality in the world.

In light of the above, one specific recommendation for your consideration, -this proposal I have made to the EU recently at a Conference on a similar topic - would be to establish an annual conference to analyze successful interventions of regional and sub-regional institutions in specific targeted countries. This would allow for more systematic and effective follow-up on peace building actions, improved cooperation among multilateral organizations working in a host country, and more targeted assistance to avoid a return to crisis situations.

Let me end by sharing with you this personal reflection.

We live in a world that has seen dramatic and rapid changes in the way we live and communicate, due to technological innovations. And daily we are serviced with new tools how to make our lives easier. Paradoxically, most of our generations over the past two hundred years have lived in a global climate of fear, conflict and war.

We could ask ourselves “Where is the higher moral that supposedly accompanies higher levels of civilization? What has gone wrong with the noble objectives of advocating peace and solidarity, respect and understanding? These are basic questions we need to raise and try to analyze, with the aim to find lasting ways of securing peace.

The famous Indian singer Mohammed Rafi, who sang over 35,000 songs in the different languages of India, both Hindu and Muslim-oriented –bridging two major world civilizations and religions-, sang once in English:

“Although we hail from different lands,
We share one earth, and sky and sun,
Remember Friends, the World is One!”

And he continued…

“We want no hate and we want no strife
Since we were born for love and life”.

How fundamental and simple is the truth in these words and yet we continue to fight and enter into wars that cost lives, use scarce capital to kill instead to sustain life, and create profound social, psychological and material damage.

We have to realize that in the end we have no choice: we all have to live in the same place, whether that is our neighborhood, our town, our cities, our countries or the world as a whole, and we have to share the same resources, so in the end peaceful coexistence will be the best option for all.

While we all have a collective responsibility to create change, to build peace, and restore confidence in the democratic system; ultimately this can only be done through the civic and political leadership of each and every country. Our role as third party institutions must focus on helping to build and maintain environments that support domestic and regional objectives of peace and security, justice, social equity, development, and democratic governability and to provide hope and opportunity for all the citizens of the Americas and the world at large.

I thank you for your time and attention.