OAS RECOMMENDATIONS IN PERU ARE MET WITH SKEPTICISM

  
Three weeks after the OAS General Assembly agreed to send a special mission to Peru, a group headed by Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy and OAS General Secretary César Gaviria arrived in Lima for a visit that has been subject to many differing interpretations.

For some observers, the mission missed the central point: the legitimacy of Peru's presidential elections. Gaviria has stated that "it is not this mission's mandate to discuss new elections…This is an aspiration, expectation or demand of the country's opposition groups….We respect their position. They undoubtedly will not abandon their agenda, but that is a request or goal that this mission will not address," he added.

The specific goal of the mission was "to explore, with the government of Peru, other sectors of the political community and civil society, options and recommendations aimed at further strengthening democracy in that country, in particular measures to reform the electoral process, ensure the independence of the judiciary and the constitutional tribunal, as well as strengthening freedom of the press." The official OAS report on the mission lists five basic topics: reform of the administration of justice; freedom of expression and the media; electoral reform; supervision and balance of powers; and other aspects related to the strengthening of democracy (including the establishment of adequate and transparent mechanisms to ensure appropriate civilian control of the activities of the intelligence services and the armed forces).

Many analysts have greeted the proposals made in each of these areas with a degree of skepticism. They argue that the recommendations are ambitious, but destined to become a dead letter. The director of the Peruvian news magazine Caretas, Enrique Zileri, commented that "President Fujimori could accept the proposals in theory, but intentionally delay putting them into practice." Alejandro Miró Quesada, director of the newspaper El Comercio, expressed hope that the proposals will produce real results, but his optimism was tempered by the fact that El Comercio itself is facing judicial action because of its critical and independent reporting.

"Our mission will not consider its work done until its recommendations are effectively adopted," Gaviria has claimed. To ensure that this is done, the OAS plans to install a permanent office in Peru to monitor implementation of the mission's proposals, establish mechanisms and timeframes for addressing the different parts of the recommendations, and assuring that deadlines are met. "If in the course of the coming months we see that any of the parties involved has not shown a concrete will toward progress, we will report this fact to the governments of the Americas so they can re-examine the situation," Gaviria promised. However, he made it clear that the OAS mission itself will not be involved in executing the proposals; Peru alone will be responsible for their implementation.

The OAS estimates that most of the reforms it has proposed could be implemented within two years. "The mission has not set a specific time frame for completing the entire package of reforms, but we hope to see the first results as soon as possible," Gaviria said. "In 18 months perhaps Peru will be on its way toward democracy." Some areas-such as judicial reform-will take more time, he noted, but "others can be resolved relatively quickly, given a little political will on the part of the government."

Special consideration was given to the need for reform of Peru's national intelligence service. The OAS recommended that the role of the agency should be circumscribed through a redefinition of the concept of national defense and state security. In particular, the intelligence service should not intervene in politics, the mission noted. President Alberto Fujimori publicly defended the intelligence service and its director, Vladimiro Montesinos. He told the media that he will keep Montesinos in charge of the agency and stressed that "this is an 'internal issue' that cannot be part of the OAS agenda." An editorial in the Miami Herald described Fujimori's attitude as a worrying indication of the Peruvian government's commitment to complying with the OAS recommendations.

All the evidence seems to suggest that Peru's political crisis will not be resolved in the short term, rooted as it is in elections which the OAS's own observer mission deemed "neither free nor fair." The OAS carries out its work within a diplomatic framework that limits its role to that of a mediator that can facilitate dialogue. The organization's attempts to address the Peruvian crisis come at a time when Latin America is invoking principles of nonintervention and absolute sovereignty over democratic values. This attitude has given Fujimori free rein, and his example could yet be imitated by other leaders in the region. The experience has proved that democracy in Latin America remains all too fragile.