This is the 10th year of Canada's membership in the Organization of American States [OAS] and, indeed, as an active member of the inter-American community.

To mark this rite of passage, a number of major hemispheric events have been or will be held on Canadian soil: the Pan-Am Games last summer, the meetings of hemispheric trade ministers and the spouses of hemispheric leaders last autumn, and the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City next April.

The most recent of these celebrations was the OAS annual General Assembly held in Windsor a little less than two weeks ago. It was an event that had a higher profile than usual because a number of protesters threatened to turn it into another Seattle, and because foreign ministers had to wrestle with the issue of democracy in Peru as the "hot" topic on their agenda.

For both reasons, Windsor attracted attention -- and gained importance -- as a way of reviewing the state of the hemisphere, and in particular the OAS, as the pre-eminent regional institution.

Old hemispheric hands may not find recent events all that revealing or instructive -- been there, done that. But for Canadians, Windsor was not only a rite of passage but also a coming of age -- both for ourselves and, I believe, for the institutions and players in our neighbourhood. I hope its results set the stage for major steps forward.

Let me begin with Peru. We are all aware of the concerns: the serious critique by the OAS mission (under Eduardo Stein) about major irregularities in the election process, the pull-out by the Opposition candidate, and claims of a flawed election -- in short, about the prospects for democracy in that country.

But the vote has wider meaning than for just Peru. Since the heady days of the early 1990s, when democracy was on the rise and the OAS -- including through the application of resolution 1080 -- acted as an agent for change, there have been less encouraging trends: more centralized power, less judicial independence, an erosion of the rule of law, a breakdown of governance with resulting violence and instability.

Clearly, the election in Peru carries with it wider portents about the consolidation of democracy in the region.

As a result, resolute and creative action from the OAS was needed.

However, the situation in Peru did not exactly meet the strict criteria -- in terms of a clear-cut violation of the Peruvian constitution -- for the application of resolution 1080, which carries with it stiff regional sanctions. This fact, accompanied by a well-established aversion to outside intervention, presented a quandary about what the response should be -- especially for those concerned about the state of democracy in the region.

After many hours of debate and many corridor conversations, the foreign ministers agreed to send a high-level mission to Peru. Secretary-General Gaviria and I will travel to Peru from June 27 to 30. It is an important result and a departure from tradition, reflecting a different kind of role for the OAS as the representative of the collective will of its diverse membership.

This is not an electoral observation mission, nor a mission to deal with the specific outcome of the election itself.

What Secretary-General Gaviria and I have been mandated to do is to examine options and make recommendations aimed at further strengthening democracy in that country -- in particular the electoral process, judicial and constitutional tribunals, and freedom of the press.

In effect, the mission is being asked to go beyond the mechanics of the election alone and to address how to support democratization -- in terms of protecting the rights of people against arbitrary and unfair use of government power.

Let's be clear. No one should expect quick fixes or easy solutions. Putting in place the building blocks of democracy is a painstaking, slow process. It takes time, attention and resources, in Peru, as elsewhere.

Yet the mandate has been set and a precedent established, which gives the OAS, and through it other inter-American institutions, the role of promoting the local and national democratic capacity that underpins the electoral process.

This democratic vocation provides new focus for the widely different groups and institutions within the OAS, such as the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Indian Institute, the Inter-American Development Bank and others.

For those who missed the point in their commentary and critique: this mission is not about applying post hoc punishment or sanctions, but about investing in the future, for Peru and for the region.

It is, in fact, a further step by the OAS -- through its member states -- toward taking ownership of the democracy agenda.

This progress is reflected in other decisions and discussions taken at Windsor, while refuting the protesters' claims and cries that this was simply one more international meeting of the corporate establishment and its handmaidens.

First, by way of process, the OAS began to open its doors to full participation in its work.

Meetings were transparent and televised.

Some 70 non-governmental organizations [NGOs] were recognized and registered, held their own forums and exchanged views with the Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly.

Young people were involved. A declaration was brought to the Assembly from the 450 youth of the OAS Model Assembly.

For the first time, parliamentarians were given direct standing and they will hold the first meeting of the OAS Inter-American Parliamentary Forum early next year.

And for purposes of planning the Quebec City summit, we invited all the heads of the other key inter-American bodies to join the foreign ministers for an afternoon discussion on the interplay between economics, investment, governance and human rights.

From the old days of the OAS as a closed shop, there is now without question a welcome and new spirit of inclusiveness. No doubt there is still a way to go, but we're on the right path.

As important as the process was the product, the outcomes and the decisions.

The overarching theme was that of human security: how to shift the perspective from one fixed solely on the nation-state to one that focusses on people and tackles threats like drug trafficking, corruption, landmines, the small arms trade -- all those corrosive forces that directly endanger their security and eat away at the future and fabric of hemispheric society.

And the fact is that the OAS is a leader in these fields, sharing and shaping initiatives, developing relevant conventions and taking concrete action -- for example, with regard to the problem of illicit traffic in and abuse of drugs, strengthening CICAD [Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission] and establishing the Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism, by which countries of the region are co-operating to assess progress in the battle against this scourge.

Through these efforts, the region as a whole can meet the test of human security, which, in turn, ultimately ends up serving the needs of democracy. As University of British Columbia Professor Max Cameron has observed, "Common wisdom holds that human security is necessary for democracy to flourish. Insecure citizens are less likely to care about democratic institutions."

At Windsor, foreign ministers took the same forthright approach used to discuss human security concerns to their efforts to grapple with the interplay between commercial and social progress.

Ministers did not buy into the street cliché that trade and commerce was bad for people. In fact, for the developing countries it was seen as good -- as long as its benefits and dividends were equitably divided and shared.

The fact is that there has to be a symbiotic connection between trade, investment and good governance.

To this end, there must be far more attention to how governments can deliver public goods -- schools, training, infrastructure and environmental protection.

This was especially true for the smaller states, who made the case that there cannot be progress on the trade front unless and until there is progress on meeting their needs for fair trade laws -- and for public investment.

This led to one of the more important outcomes of Windsor, and one of the more significant steps in taking ownership of the democracy agenda -- recognition of the need to promote corporate responsibility.

The behaviour of corporations affects governance -- for good and bad. That is a growing, undeniable fact. The emergence of an inclusive, equitable system of governance depends on their contribution and partnership on human rights, on environmental issues, against corruption, and for the promotion of democracy.

Recent work done by the extractive industries in developing a code of conduct is one very useful device -- among many -- to this end. The openness of the OAS to forging links with the private sector could be one of the most promising avenues in meeting the fear and anxiety about globalization felt by many in the region.

This concern was most pointedly displayed in discussions in Windsor about the digital divide. The proliferation of information technology can be either a curse or a blessing.

The message of the ministers to hemispheric leaders as they prepare for the summit was: let's be ahead of the curse, let's make it a blessing.

Let's see how we can develop a connectivity agenda that utilizes the power of the new information technology to help bridge the economic divide, to give people in our region a capacity to become part of the cyber-revolution, and to leave the handicap of poor resources behind.

Let's apply the same creativity that goes into e-commerce or dot.com companies to assist in opening up governments, promoting human rights and supporting the battle against the drug trade, money launderers and gun-runners.

People were excited by the potential that could be harnessed to break down barriers and establish new enterprises.

Indeed, in the display tent in front of the conference hall, there were living demonstrations of just how the future could unfold.

Grade seven children from Mexico and Canada were demonstrating how, through the Internet, they were joining forces to combat the eventual extinction of the monarch butterfly.

Canada's IDRC [International Development Research Centre] had set up a pilot Internet program to help kids on the streets in Ecuador and Colombia.

And there was a model of a Web-based information-sharing program on drug trafficking and drug abuse being set up for authorities throughout the Caribbean.

The potential is unlimited -- if the resources, will and technology can be mobilized to benefit the people of the hemisphere.

On many fronts, in many ways, the ownership of democracy in its broadest sense is finding expression and voice through the OAS and its partner organizations in the hemisphere.

It is part of the larger force driving international organizations to renew themselves, to find new life and direction around the axis of human security -- a new diplomacy involving NGOs and parliamentarians, with people at its core. It is part of a strong momentum for action that gives as much attention to the elements of democracy as to the elements of commerce.

Collaborative efforts to secure the future of the people of the region is the goal. That is the story of Windsor.

Thank you.

2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips



Last Updated: 2006-10-30	Top of Page	Important Notices