PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THEOEA/Ser.G
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATESCP/CSH-746/06 rev. 1 corr. 1
28 February 2006
COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITYOriginal: Spanish/English
REPORT OF THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY
ON THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES AND
THE INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE BOARD
- 1 -
REPORT OF THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITY
ON THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES AND
THE INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE BOARD
I. BACKGROUND
I.1.Establishment of the Inter-American Defense Board and the Inter-AmericanDefenseCollege
In 1942 the Third Meeting of Consultation of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the AmericanRepublics created the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) as a body tasked with planning the defense of the Hemisphere from extra-hemispheric aggression.[1]/
Six years later, Articles 66 to 69 of the newly adopted Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) created an “Advisory Defense Committee to advise the Organ of Consultation on problems of military cooperation.” The Charter stipulated that the Advisory Defense Committee would consist of the “highest military authorities” of the American states, and could be called upon to not only advise, but also provide “technical studies or reports on specific subjects.”The Advisory Defense Committee was never convoked, however, and since the 1940s expertise on defense issues in the Inter-American system has been concentrated in the IADB.
The Inter-American Defense College (IADC), which was founded as a subsidiary of the IADB in 1962, provides an academic component to defense and security in the Inter-American system. To date, some 2,000 students from a majority of the OAS member states have graduated from the institution, 20 percent of them being civilians. The curriculum of the College has evolved recently to include crisis management, civil-military relations, peacekeeping operations, natural disaster relief, and transnational threats.
I.2.History of the Analysis of the Relationship between the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Defense Board
The relationship between the OAS and IADB has been debated extensively in the past, and many OAS studies and resolutions have expounded on the legal and institutional aspects of that relationship. The conclusion has consistently been that the IADB is a body subordinate to the OAS,[2]/ substantiated by the fact that, since their creation, the IADB and IADC have been dependent upon the Organization and the host government, the United States, for budgetary and other necessary support.
In 1992, the General Assembly addressed this issue and instructed the Permanent Council “toprepare recommendations intended to define the legal-institutional relationship between the Inter-American Defense Board and the Organization of American States.”[3]/
There was a significant development in the characterization of that relationship in 1993, when the General Assembly, through its resolution AG/RES.1240 (XXIII-O/93), allowed the OAS to call upon the Board for “advice and delivery of consultancy services of a technical-military character which in no case may have an operational nature.”
At the Second Summit of the Americas (Santiago de Chile, 1998) the Heads of State and Government recommended that the OAS, through the Committee on Hemispheric Security (CSH), “pinpoint ways to revitalize and strengthen the institutions of the Inter-American system related to the various aspects of hemispheric security” in preparation for the Special Conference on Security. That same year, the OAS endorsed that recommendation in its resolution AG/RES.1566 (XXVIII-O/98). It should be mentioned that several of these institutions, among them the IADB, are involved in providing the OAS and its member states with technical, advisory, and educational expertise on matters within their competence.
The study was conducted in several phases including with a Questionnaire on the Concepts of Security developed in 2001 in order to elicit information from Member States which could form the basis for the way forward in this analysis.[4]/ In this Questionnaire Member States were requested, inter alia, to express their position with respect to related institutions and processes, among them the IADB.
The Committee continued to address this topic in the following years, and in June 2003, the General Assembly, anticipating the holding of the Special Conference on Security in October 2003, urged the Permanent Council to complete, through the Committee on Hemispheric Security:
“… the study and recommendations on the modernization and changes needed to provide the OAS with technical, advisory, and educational expertise on defense and security issues in order to support the ongoing examination of the institutions of the inter-American system related to hemispheric security.”[AG/RES.1940 (XXXIII-O/03)]
The Committee did not reach consensus on the relationship between the OAS and IADB prior to the Special Conference on Security with the result that in the Declaration on Security in the Americas, adopted at that Conference (Mexico, October 2003), the Member States stressed “… the need to clarify the juridical and institutional relationship between the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) and the OAS” and recommended that:
“…the Permanent Council, through the Committee on Hemispheric Security, taking into account what is stated in Article 54, subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the OAS Charter and in accordance with the criteria set forth in the General Assembly resolutions on this matter, … complete the analysis of the relationship between the IADB with the OAS and that it submit recommendations to the thirty-fourth regular session of the General Assembly so that it can determine the norms that govern that relationship and the mandate of the IADB.”[5]/
In keeping with the various General Assembly mandates, the Committee on Hemispheric Security examined the relationship between the OAS and the IADB through a series of working groups beginning in 2002.[6]/ Progress has been made in this area each year.[7]/ Most noteworthy is that, in the spring of 2005, during the term of office of the Permanent Representative of Nicaragua, Ambassador Carmen Marina Gutiérrez, as Chair of the Committee on Hemispheric Security, the member states arrived at a consensus on the fundamental aspects of the nature, purpose, and functions of the Board.[8]/ These agreements formed the basis for the final draft Statutes, prepared in September 2005 and February 2006.[9]/
I.3.Current mandate
In 2005, through its resolution entitled “Follow-up to the Special Conference on Security” [AG/RES.2117 (XXXV-O/05)], the General Assembly mandated the Permanent Council to conclude, through the Committee on Hemispheric Security, the analysis and discussions on the juridical and institutional link between the OAS and the IADB and to prepare and approve, by no later than December 31, 2005, ad referendum of the General Assembly, a statute for the IADB to replace its current regulations and amend its basic structure and its relationship with the OAS.
II. PROCEEDINGS
II.1.Working Group to Conclude the Analysis of the Legal and Institutional Relationship between the OAS and the IADB
This mandate having been entrusted to the Committee by the Permanent Council on July 20, 2005, the Committee set up a Working Group to Conclude the Analysis of the Legal and Institutional Relationship between the OAS and the IADB, under the Chairmanship of the Committee, Permanent Representative of Chile, Ambassador Esteban Tomic Errázuriz, Chair, and the Permanent Representative of Grenada, Ambassador Denis G. Antoine, Vice-Chair.
This Working Group met 15 times between September 6, 2005 and February 10, 2006.
The texts considered were Appendix II to the Report of the Chair on the Recommendations of the Committee on Hemispheric Security concerning the Mandates entrusted to it (CP/CSH-717/05 corr.1), and the “Proposed Documents for Defining the Relationship between the Organization and the Inter-American Defense Board:Specialized Organization Option and Entity Option” (CP/CSH-680/04 rev. 1).
The Chair of the Working Group reported to the Chair of the Permanent Council in December 2005, informing of the progress made to date, and of the expected conclusion of the task early in 2006.[10]/ On December 15, 2005, the Permanent Council took note of that report.
The Working Group met three more times in 2006, on January 13 and 23 and February 10. At it last meeting, the Working Group finally approved, by consensus, the Draft Statutes of the Inter-American Defense Board, as set out in document CSH/GT/JID-15/05 rev. 12. It was agreed to forward the Draft Statutes to the Committee on Hemispheric Security for consideration.
The Group also approved a draft resolution entitled “The Inter-American Defense Board as an Entity of the Organization of American States and Approval of its Statutes,” through which the Permanent Council adopts the Draft Statutes ad referendum of the General Assembly (document CSH/GT/JID-28/06 rev. 2). There was however, no consensus with regard to the final operative paragraph of that Draft Resolution which states:
“To include the consideration of this resolution in the agenda of the Thirty-Sixth Regular Session of the General Assembly.”
It was agreed to forward the Draft Resolution, with this paragraph in brackets, to the Committee on Hemispheric Security for consideration.
II.2.Committee on Hemispheric Security
At its meeting of February 10, the Committee on Hemispheric Security received the oral report of the Chair of the Working Group, as well as the abovementioned Draft Statutes and Draft Resolution.Both documents were approved by the Committee as presented (CP/CSH-742/06 and CP/CSH-743/06).
There was no consensus with respect to the outstanding issue on operative paragraph 4 of the Draft Resolution.
It was agreed to submit both documents to the Permanent Council for is consideration on March 1, 2006, with the recommendation that they be adopted in accordance with the terms of the General Assembly mandate set out in operative paragraph 5 of resolution AG/RES.2117 (XXXV-O/05).
The Committee also established a Sub-Committee on Style to Review the Draft Statutes of the Inter-American Defense Board.
II.3.Sub-Committee on Style to Review the Draft Statutes of the Inter-American Defense Board
The Sub-Committee on Style was established with the following members:Brazil, Canada, Chile, and Trinidad and Tobago, and was open to participation by the other member states. The Sub-Committee was slated to meet on February 16 and 17.
The Chair of the Sub-Committee then presented its report, attached as Appendix II hereto, which indicates that the work was duly performed and completed on February 17.[11]/ The document as reviewed by the Sub-Committee was duly published with the classification CP/CSH-745/06 rev. 1.
III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It gives me great satisfaction to submit to the Permanent Council, this report on the work of the Committee on Hemispheric Security in the past six months, which culminated in the successful conclusion of the analysis of the legal and institutional relationship between the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Defense Board. I am also pleased to present to the Permanent Council the Committee’s recommendation for approval of the draft resolution “The Inter-American Defense Board as an Entity of the Organization of American States and Approval of Its Statutes” (CP/CSH-743/06 rev. 1), provided in Appendix I.
With respect to this Draft Resolution, as was pointed out in my oral report to this Council on February 10th, there is a pending issue in operative paragraph 4. The Committee considers that this issue can only be resolved by the Council and recommends that, once that has been done, the Draft Resolution be adopted, so that the Draft Statutes can go into effect.
I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the representatives of the delegations to the Committee on Hemispheric Security and its Working Group who participated in this negotiation, for their constant diligence and commitment to find compromise on each and every aspect of the subject.It must be noted for the record, that positions were mostly presented by the regional sub-groupings which lent itself to frank discussion and enlightening debate on historical and current realities and demands of the Hemisphere.
Note should be taken of the member states’ efforts to reach a consensus on questions that, for many, were politically sensitive. The debate lasted almost 60 years, but its conclusion heralds greater transparency, confidence, and security among the nations of the Hemisphere. With the agreed text, the IADB can be proud to be not only the oldest defense institution in the Americas but also a fully democratic entity, truly integrated into the OAS family, with a clear mandate.
According to the draft Statutes, the IADB will lend advisory services in the technical, consultative, and educational areas to OAS organs and to member states on topics related to military and defense matters, such as: advanced academic courses, integrated action against landmines, management and destruction of weapons stockpiles, preparation of defense white papers and other studies and documents on the matter, humanitarian aid and assistance in the event of natural disasters, and implementation of confidence- and security-building measures.
One very important area for the IADB’s future endeavors will be continued promotion of linkages and cooperation among civilian staff and military officers in countries of the Hemisphere, which will be a valuable element of democratic governance.
On behalf of the Committee, I wish to express special appreciation to the legal adviser, Mr. William Berenson, for his valuable contributions and guidance in the preparation of opinions on legal options for the IADB and draft documents in pursuit of the General Assembly mandate on this subject. I also want to recognize the timely, informative contributions of the Board Chair, Major General Keith M. Huber, which helped us to understand the changes we are deciding upon for the IADB. In addition, the General Secretariat was most efficient in providing assistance to the Committee and the Working Group. I wish to place on record our appreciation to its entire staff, especially to the Committee Secretary, Ms. Gillian Bristol, for her unwavering support.
Esteban Tomic Errázuriz
Permanent Representative of Chile to the OAS
Chair of the Committee on Hemispheric Security
February 22, 2006
- 1 -
APPENDIX I
PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THEOEA/Ser.G
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATESCP/CSH-743/06
14 February 2006
COMMITTEE ON HEMISPHERIC SECURITYOriginal:English
DRAFT RESOLUTION
THE INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE BOARD AS AN ENTITY
OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
AND APPROVAL OF ITS STATUTES
(Approved by the Committee on Hemispheric Security, at its meeting held on February 10, 2006)
- 1 -
E X P L A N A T O R Y N O T E
On February 10, 2006, the Committee on Hemispheric Security, considered the Draft Resolution on the Inter-American Defense Board as an Entity of the Organization of American States and Approval of its Statutes, contained in document CSH/GT/JID-28/06 rev.2, submitted by the Chair of the Working Group to Conclude the Analysis of the Juridical and Institutional Relationship between the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Defense Board. The Draft Resolution was approved, without amendment, by the Committee, as reflected in the present text, document CP/CSH-743/06.
The Draft Statutes of the Inter-American Defense Board, to which reference is made in operative paragraph 1 of this Draft Resolution, will be submitted to the Permanent Council for consideration once its revision by the Subcommittee on Style of the Committee on Hemispheric Security is concluded.
- 1 -
DRAFT RESOLUTION
THE INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE BOARD AS AN ENTITY
OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
AND APPROVAL OF ITS STATUTES
(Approved by the Committee on Hemispheric Security, at its meeting held on February 10, 2006)
THE PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES,
HAVING SEEN the Report of the Committee on Hemispheric Security on the juridical and institutional link between the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Defense Board (CP/CSH… /06); and
CONSIDERING:
That the Inter-American Defense Board (“IADB” or “the Board”) was created by resolution of the Third Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics in 1942, and subsequently strengthened by Resolutions VII and XXXIV of the Ninth International Conference of American States, the same Conference that gave birth to the OAS and its 1948 Charter, as well as by Resolution III of the Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs adopted in 1951;
That the Board and the Organization of American States (“OAS” or “the Organization”) share common objectives under the OAS Charter and respect for the principle of civilian oversight of the armed forces within the context of representative democracy;
That by resolution AG/RES.1240 (XXIII-O/93), the General Assembly reiterated “the need to define the legal-institutional relationship between the Inter-American Defense Board and the Organization of American States”;
That in resolution AG/RES.1848 (XXXII-O/02) the General Assembly directed the Permanent Council “to examine the relationship between the OAS and the IADB and make recommendations to the General Assembly and the IADB for modifying the IADB’s basic structure and instruments to the extent necessary to clarify and obtain consensus on its status with respect to the OAS, including the principle of civilian oversight and the democratic formation of its authorities”;
That through its resolutions AG/RES.1908 (XXXII-O/02) and AG/RES.1940 (XXXIII-O/03) the General Assembly established a working group to study and make recommendations related to modernizing and changing the IADB and defining its juridical link with the OAS;
That in resolution AG/RES.1998 (XXXIV-O/04) the General Assembly instructed the Permanent Council “to conclude its analysis and discussions on the juridical and institutional link between the OAS and the Inter-American Defense Board”;
That in the resolution AG/RES.2117 (XXXV-O/05), the General Assembly took note of “the analysis and discussions on the juridical and institutional link between the OAS and the IADB, especially in connection with the nature, purpose, and functions of the IADB, as reflected in the report of the Chair of the Committee on Hemispheric Security (CP/CSH-721/05)” and requested that the Permanent Council conclude, through the Committee on Hemispheric Security, “the analysis and its discussions on the topic, and to prepare and approve, by no later than December 31, 2005, ad referendum of the General Assembly, a statute for the IADB to replace its current regulations and amend its basic structure and its relationship with the OAS”;