|
I. Topics discussed
Review of the Summit process and the state of preparations for the 1998 Santiago Summit.
The "Human Rights and Democracy" agenda for Santiago: weaknesses and the need for new participants in the process.
The importance of political leadership in the OAS reform process.
Critical appraisal of the creation of parallel institutions and processes in the Americas: the need for coherence.
Analysis of the socio-economic foundations of democracy: political and legal implications.
Creating a space for open discussion of the "hard questions" of human rights violations, poverty and instability still facing the Americas.
II. Presentations
Nancy Thede, moderator of the round-table, introduced the presentations and discussion by noting the nebulous relationship that currently exists between the Organization of American States and the Summit Process (begun in 1994 in Miami). Nevertheless, there are important links between the two processes. In particular, calls for reform of the human rights organs of the OAS have increased over the course of the Summit process, with its strong orientation towards economic integration. The Summit process presents new problems and opportunities by bringing to the fore issues of governance, the role of civil society on a hemispheric level, and the impact of increasing economic integration on the protection of human rights.
Peter Quilter began his presentation with a brief overview of the Summit process to date. In particular, he mentioned recent developments, including: the December meeting of the Summit Implementation Review Group preparing the agendas for the different themes to be covered at the Santiago Summit; a January meeting in Cancún where a political declaration on the Summit Action Plan was drafted and institutional mechanisms for follow-up and institutionalizing the Summit process were discussed; and two meetings scheduled for March and April to finalize the Summit agenda. On the whole, the Summit process has been closed and poorly publicized.
He then went on to discuss certain problems with the "Human Rights and Democracy" agenda, drafted for the Santiago Summit under Canadian and Brazilian leadership. The document reveals very little progress in terms of follow-up steps to the Miami Summit in this area. The agenda also lacks "visionary" appeal and appears instead to be the result of a cobbling together of diverse national priorities. This is due in part to a notable lack of "new voices" and fresh perspectives on the issues in question. This lack of voices may also in part be the consequence of giving overburdened functionaries the primary role in the Summit process, with little opportunity for input by outside organizations.
NGOs should continue to lobby their own governments to influence the final stages of the drafting of the Santiago agenda. In particular, Canadian NGOs should work to cultivate "civil society voices" throughout the hemisphere using Canada's credibility in the international community. Such groups should be focusing on the processes being established for post-summit action in order that they provide NGOs with greater access to the creation of future summit agendas.
With respect to issues relating to the reform of the inter-American human rights system would benefit from being placed on the agenda of a high-profile meeting of political leaders. These leaders have the power to change budgetary allocations and bring about other reforms that go far beyond the procedural and internal competence and focus of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission and Court functionaries.
Michael Shifter began by remarking on the irony that he had to travel from Washington to Montreal to be brought up to date on the current state of Summit preparations. He outlined the Inter-American Dialogue's recent work on multilateral governance issues, including suggestions for institutional change within the OAS and specific recommendations with respect to trade, human rights, security, and democracy.
With respect to the Summit process, Mr. Shifter recognized the possible benefits of regularizing a process bringing together heads of states for the Americas. This would tend to mobilize political and bureaucratic bodies with respect to Inter-American issues. Nonetheless, there are two dangers relating to the process:
The process might become overly bureaucratized. There is, on the contrary, a need to humanize the Inter-American system.
The process has tended thus far to be fragmented, overly ambitious, and lacking priorities. The Summit process may generate an unrealistic list of promises and plans of action which could give rise to public disenchantment with the process.
Mr. Shifter then turned to the related issues of Summit monitoring and follow-up. Human rights and democracy issues were very slow in developing in the wake of the Miami Summit. Whereas the OAS was minimally involved in the planning stages of the 1994 Miami Summit process, it was assigned a disproportionate burden to follow-up on mandates. This situation may weaken the OAS given that it is primarily asked to implement tasks, rather than assigned any planning responsibilities. The 1997 Lima resolution has since given the OAS a greater role in planning the Santiago Summit. The upcoming Summit will therefore be a test of the OAS's capacity to take on additional responsibilities. This will also test governments' willingness to relinquish a certain amount of control over the process.
With respect to the human rights and democracy agenda for the upcoming Santiago Summit, Mr. Shifter had the following recommendations regarding items to be brought to the attention of the Heads of State:
They should be asked to reinforce and reaffirm their commitment to strengthening the role of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court.
They should be reminded of the work of the Inter-American Development Bank and other OAS-related institutions on issues of judicial reform — an area which has been identified as a priority in the human rights and democracy agenda for Santiago.
They should be asked to recognize the need for greater input in the Summit process by NGOs and other voices of civil society.
They should be asked to endorse and provide further support to national ombudsmen (defensorías públicas) given their importance as institutions facilitating and enhancing access to justice for all.
They should be asked to recognize that freedom of the press is not yet fully consolidated in many countries. A mechanism could be established to monitor this important component of a working democracy.
In conclusion, Mr. Shifter suggested the need to ensure greater coordination among the various inter-American political processes including the OAS, the Summits and other parallel processes such as the "defence Ministerials" which also take place independently of the OAS. While it is important to avoid over-bureaucratization under a central authority, it is also necessary to establish a more rational integration of the many multilateral processes dealing with inter-American issues such as human rights, democracy and security.
Andrew Reding sought to present a broader and more critical perspective on development in the Americas as it is being carried out through the Summit process and other international mechanisms. While human rights and democracy are to some extent interdependent, they in turn depend on underlying social structures and values. Specifically, stable democracies tend to be found in countries with a dominant middle class and relatively egalitarian social structure. Such social conditions are not yet to be found in many countries of the Americas. This situation has given rise to precarious and fragile political situations which are often deliberately ignored at multilateral meetings.
Human rights treaties and instruments have their genesis in the recognition by people such as Franklin D. Roosevelt that to achieve the freedoms and human rights associated with democracy, one also has to achieve "freedom from want". This calls for attention to economic and social rights, as well as to civil and political rights. With respect to the OAS and the Summit processes, this points to the need for a greater focus on mechanisms such as the Protocol of San Salvador, which could be used to improve social and economic standards (see for example article 8(a) of the Protocol securing the right to organize and establishing this right as the basis for a petition to the IACHR; and article 11 establishing a right to a healthy environment phrased in more obligatory language than most other international treaties).
Mr. Reding pointed to the absence of any democratic check on the relatively closed and elitist negotiations driving the Summit process. He suggested that, similar to the European experience, the creation of an inter-American parliament would ultimately provide a response to the democratic deficit of the multilateral, state-driven process of integration in the Americas.
Moreover, the Summit process has not yet dealt with the "hard issues" currently facing many countries in the region, including: rising GDPs accompanied by increasing disparities in individual wealth; social instability and discontent manifested in high levels of violent crime and a weakened rule of law; continued high spending on military forces, while spending on health and education remains insufficient. Until these issues are addressed, American democracies will remain unstable given that they are still far from any form of egalitarian social structure.
Mr. Reding concluded by raising the spectre of increased instability for all countries of the Americas, as their economies become increasingly interdependent, if grave social problems continue to be ignored at high profile meetings such as the Summits. Instead, more efforts should be made to ensure that "membership" in the integrated Americas require adherence to existing OAS human rights instruments. However, until the United States and Canada ratify the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, they are in a relatively weak position to demand that other countries do so.
III. Questions and Comments
Jennifer Proudfoot, Canadian Council for International Cooperation, asked for the presenters' views on the possible openings for NGOs and other organizations to become part of a more integrated discussion on issues of free trade, economic integration, human rights, and democracy.
Joe Gunn, Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America, gave a brief account of the consultation process, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs, that had taken place in Canada in anticipation of the Santiago Summit. He mentioned that the process had not allowed participating groups much time to prepare. He then read a passage from the final report on the consultations, which emphasized the importance of strengthening the participation of civil society in the Summit process through government funding and by creating a process allowing for a two-way flow of communication, rather than simply a one-way flow of recommendations with no feedback. Mr. Gunn also raised the difficulty of making the OAS and Summit process relevant to Canadian society, given the absence of media coverage and the closed nature of the process.
Sheila Katz, Canadian Labour Congress, International Affairs Branch, mentioned current efforts by NGOs to organize a parallel Summit in Santiago. She questioned the willingness of governments to listen to the participants who will attend the parallel Summit, and asked whether the Summit process may be viewed realistically as a process which will open doors to civil society participation.
In response to these questions and comments, Mr. Quilter noted that the round-table had come to focus on issues of participation and NGO access, therefore overlapping with Round-Table C, unfortunately taking place concurrently. With respect to the promise of the Summit process for increasing NGO participation, Mr. Quilter suggested that any steps by countries to consult their populations already constituted significant progress. Pressure could be exerted by NGOs on countries where such consultations have not taken place to ensure that they are done in the future. He also cited the model of the international campaign to ban land mines as an interesting example of how to use issue-specific partnerships and communication technology to galvanize international media attention and thereby to exert significant influence over international affairs. He conceded, however, that as of yet, there is little possibility for participation by civil society within the OAS system — one might look to the UN as a model for more formal and frequent NGO participation. Finally, NGOs should focus on the Summit implementation and review process currently underway in order to ensure greater participation in the next Summit meeting.
Mr. Shifter reiterated the view that there is significant scope for convergence between the various parallel processes, even though there are still serious questions of institutional capacity and coherent organization to be examined. NGOs may look to other means of increasing their ability to participate in the regional processes. In particular, he mentioned the upcoming meeting of the Inter-American Development Bank, to be held in mid-March in Cartagena. The possible creation of a "Foundation of the Americas", an independent agency set up to support civil society groups, is not on the agenda but it may be considered. Governments will no doubt be reluctant to establish a truly independent bodyfor that purpose. Nevertheless, it is a sign of possible avenues for increased influence and participation.
Douglass Cassel, DePaul University, asked Mr. Quilter to expand on his suggestion that high level political leaders would be more favourable to positive changes to the inter-American human rights organs than lower-level diplomats and bureaucrats.
John Foster, University of Saskatchewan, mentioned that there are several NGOs in Latin America who are very interested in the IADB's potential project to create an independent Foundation of the Americas. He then asked whether the idea of an Inter-American parliament had been given much treatment in academic literature. Finally, he asked for speculation from the panellists on whether the U.S.A. would ratify the American Convention.
In response, Mr. Reding stated that there was no chance of an American ratification in the foreseeable future, due to resistance from the U.S. Senate and its political backers.
Mr. Quilter noted that the U.S. government is making a new, formal attempt to have the Convention ratified. He admitted, however, that the current Senate would most likely be unfavourable to the initiative. He then addressed the role of high-level politicians in the reform of OAS human rights agencies. Politicians are people, and therefore are sensitive to questions of accountability and image. The higher the politician's profile, the more he or she will be called upon to account before a wide public. This may therefore make politicians take more popular stances, even while their bureaucrats will resist due to constraints on their authority and a lack of any real public accountability.
Ms. Katz asked about the current state of the education and poverty agendas for the Santiago Summit. Mr. Quilter mentioned that the agenda has been completed; whether or not it will be viewed as satisfactory is another question. Mr. Shifter noted that some have pointed to the increasing weight given to the education agenda, because of its "feel-good" political appeal and the absence of agreement on any other priority area among the participating states. Mr. Reding commented that the education agenda could be very powerful if it causes states to address certain hard questions such as budget allocations.
Ms. Thede noted that the Canadian groups consulted on the human rights and democracy agenda for Santiago tended to see it as incomplete and somewhat incoherent. She therefore asked if there were any possibilities of exerting some influence over decisions still to be made prior to the Summit.
Mr. Quilter gave the floor to José Herrán-Lima, Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, who stated that there was little space left for any substantial changes to the agenda. Moreover, he emphasized the difficulty that the Canada-Brazil tandem had in arriving at a coherent agenda, given that the process involved decisions by consensus among many participating countries. This resulted in a tendency for discussions to move toward the lowest common denominator on fundamental issues. For this reason, the agenda became a series of discrete priorities on which the parties could agree, rather than a coherent, analytically sound whole. He recalled the importance, however, of a process which gives rise to promises by leaders on issues such as human rights and democracy, as well as to a gradual convergence around certain values and priorities. While the means of implementing these promises may still be uncertain, the increased convergence may provide the foundation for future implementation.
With respect to the possibility of creating an inter-American parliament, Mr. Herrán-Lima questioned the implications of the proposal regarding the quality of representation by national governments of civil society. Mr. Reding responded that the point of his suggestion was precisely that national governments are not well-suited to represent their populations on international issues. He then gave the analogy of trying to imagine what it would be like if there were no Congress in the United States, and if national legislation had to be drafted through consultations between the fifty states.
Mr. Cassel questioned the transparency of the Summit process regarding rules on participation.
Mr. Quilter confirmed that the rules are not transparent; hence most organizations know little about the current state of Summit preparations.
|
