Citing Lack of Progress, Civil Society Groups Ask to Bar New Summit Commitments

 
Faced with a broad range of summit-related tasks, the Organization of American States created a Special Committee on Inter-American Summits Management after the First Summit of the Americas in Miami in 1994. The committee's original tasks were to ensure timely and appropriate follow-up to the Summit mandates assigned to the OAS, as well as to coordinate OAS participation in the preparation of future summits. This year, in addition to its traditional role of monitoring implementation work, the committee could have the responsibility of helping to coordinate the organization's ideas, proposals and suggestions for the Third Summit of the Americas, to be held in Quebec City in April 2001. The goal is to expand the committee's mandate and intensify its efforts to improve management of the Summit process.

The committee's chair is Peter Boehm, the Canadian Ambassador to the OAS. He sent a letter dated September 8, 2000 to the OAS Secretary General, the chairs of the permanent committees of the Permanent Council, and the heads of the organs, agencies and entities of the OAS requesting that they channel their suggestions for the Summit Implementation Review Group (SIRG) through the Special Committee. This seems to imply that the SIRG would now have its agenda set by the Special Committee and its chair. At the very least, it shows recognition of the need to improve the poor performance of Summit follow-up.

Boehm has also worked to give civil society a greater role in the Summit preparation process. The Special Committee held a meeting in Washington, D.C. on September 19 with representatives of civil society organizations to begin a review of possible issues for inclusion in a new action plan for the Quebec City Summit. In many ways, the meeting resembled the type of public hearing that many civil society groups, such as the Hemispheric Social Alliance, had been suggesting as an alternative to the current "mailbox" of the Civil Society Committee in the FTAA. Ambassador Boehm convened a representative group of diplomats, many of them ambassadors accredited with the OAS, to hear short presentations by a diverse group of civil society organizations. Both Boehm and many of the diplomats present commented on the presentations. Those organizations that submitted written papers had them distributed and placed on the committee's website, www.summit-americas.org.

It came as no surprise that the groups present shared a general feeling of lack of accomplishment with regard to previous Summit agendas. What was surprising was the suggestion that the Quebec City action plan contain no new commitments. Boehm had hoped to focus the debate on a discussion paper he submitted to the committee and circulated along with the invitation to the September 19 meeting (see the text of this paper, entitled "2001 Summit of the Americas: Themes," at http://summit-americas.org/CEGCI%20Docs/CE-GCI-170-00-eng.htm). Ultimately, however, the most intense comments were aimed at the lack of progress in implementation of previous Summit agendas. This feeling was clear even during the opening remarks. Dr. Jaime Aparicio, director of the OAS Office of Summit Follow-up, commented on the lack of political will to achieve such progress. Dr. Robin Rosenberg of the University of Miami's North-South Center, representing the Leadership Council for Inter-American Summitry, added the scarcity of financing to the factors responsible for this situation. He joined other presenters in emphasizing that the public is tired of Summit promises and of the Summit process itself. His suggestion, later echoed by others, was not for a new agenda, but rather for a "late harvest" of the most attainable action items of previous Summits.

Other concrete suggestions included some very specific ideas from the new director of the Latin American and Caribbean Program of the Carter Center, Dr. Jennifer McCoy, as well as strong appeals for greater attention to human rights and corruption by groups such as Human Rights Watch and Transparency International. Nancy Thede of the International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development, which sponsored a semi-official civil society meeting in Windsor, Ontario during the June OAS meetings, also had stern words for the organizers of the next Summit. She called for the parallel civil society summit being planned for Quebec City to be provided with secure meeting places and an environment in which it can contribute to the process. The massive police repression that occurred in Windsor, according to Thede, sent the wrong message to those seeking civil society participation and democracy. Karen Hansen-Kuhn of the Alliance for Responsible Trade, the US network of the Hemispheric Social Alliance, also stressed the need to bring the FTAA back into the overall picture of the Summit process. She pointed out that the issues being negotiated in the FTAA have a direct impact on the items in the Summit agenda. She cited the Hemispheric Social Alliance's campaign to "liberate" the texts of the negotiating groups so that there can be public debate on the discussions transpiring behind closed doors.

Although Ambassador Boehm, as chair of the meeting, took these comments in stride, the OAS diplomats present expressed concern. The United States delegates were silent throughout the day. In fact, no real support was voiced for the Canadians' discussion paper. Time after time, Boehm had to clarify that it was not an official document, but merely an attempt to elicit comments and promote dialogue. He insisted that he hopes to continue holding this type of meeting to seek better "consistency and coordination" in the process of developing the Quebec Summit agenda. Boehm also stressed the idea of "connectivity," while acknowledging that the term is difficult to translate into Spanish, Portuguese or French. He stressed his government's sincere wish to make the Summit process reach out in a more integrated way to the constituencies and the issues that are most important in our hemisphere.

In this spirit, the Canadian discussion paper suggested three "baskets" for discussion. "Promoting Democracy" was the theme of this first meeting. Boehm hopes to convene a second gathering in November to discuss "Creating Prosperity," and a third one in January 2001 to debate "Realizing Human Potential." These three areas are his idea of a new Summit agenda. Some observers pointed out that the" Creating Prosperity" basket attempts to bring the FTAA process back into the Summit process. Marisol Pagés of the Esquel Group Foundation praised this effort, although it doesn't answer the need of civil society groups for more input into the actual negotiations.

The effort to bring the FTAA back into focus in the Summit agenda could reinforce the thesis that José Manuel Salazar of the OAS Trade Bureau suggested at a Florida International University conference earlier this year. Salazar has been firm in his belief that the Summit process offers ample room for civil society to influence the integration process. Yet, the prevailing pessimism on the progress and political will of the Summit agenda makes undermines argument that disregards the comparative progress being made in the FTAA negotiations. The Special Committee's debates on "Creating Prosperity" in November will be an excellent moment to put these questions on one of the official "tables" that are dealing with the question of regional development and trade.