31 January 2001 U.S. Envoy Discusses New Approaches to Western Hemisphere Security The U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS) believes that Western Hemisphere governments should forge a new approach to regional security that is inclusive, reflects a common commitment to democracy, expands opportunities for joint training of security forces, and builds on the successes of existing institutions like the OAS Committee on Hemispheric Security. "In the U.S. view, it is essential that we develop a common expression of principles on hemispheric security based on existing inter-American institutions and processes," Ambassador Luis Lauredo said in a January 31 speech to the Inter-American Defense College in Washington. A common expression of hemispheric security "would provide us with a guide for the new millennium," he said in a speech that stressed the need for an overhaul of the region's generally outdated security processes. The ambassador praised the OAS Committee on Hemispheric Security, which was launched in 1995 as the region's first permanent forum for the consideration of arms control, nonproliferation, defense and security issues. It has since adopted by consensus more than 50 resolutions on key issues, and has "defined by action the concept of hemispheric security," Lauredo said. He urged a greater focus on other processes of the inter-American system, such as the Defense Ministerial and Conferences of the American Armed Forces, and added: "It is time the region provided the Inter-American Defense Board with a clear mandate to fill a defense and security technical and advisory role within the OAS structure." Following is the text of his remarks: Remarks by U.S. Ambassador Luis Lauredo "New Approaches to Hemispheric Security" Inter-American Defense College Washington D.C. January 31, 2001 In the Summit of the Americas Plan of Action, our presidents and leaders have wisely asked the question: How do we revitalize and strengthen the institutions of the inter-American system related to the various aspects of hemispheric security? Part of our hemispheric security system is built on the 1947 Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, known as the Rio Treaty. The Rio Treaty grew out of the perceived need to provide a collective security mechanism for the hemisphere during the run-up to the Second World War. Although the threat of extra-hemispheric attack that justified the system's collective defense philosophy does not currently exist, the treaty, along with the UN Charter, is part of the region's collective security mechanism. But what new realities exist today that did not exist in 1947, and what should our common response be to these new realities? New Realities Today, we face a different world than in the 1940's. It is no wonder that the inter-American system finds itself redefining its security structure. In the Americas, there are important differences in how security concerns are viewed by the various members of our hemisphere. We range after all from the United States with a population of 270 million to St. Kitts and Nevis with 40,000. The contrast in size points up one important distinction, that being for example the very different security needs of small island states in the Caribbean. Many Caribbean states do not have traditional military forces, relying instead on relatively small police forces or special security units. The Caribbean states often define their security concerns far more broadly than larger states. In addition to obvious threats, such as narcotics trafficking, additional worries of the small island states range from the devastating effects of natural disasters to the always-painful consequences of economic adjustments as a result of globalization. Likewise, the differences between Central America and South America are also significant. Even within the sub-regions different realities and security concerns exists. And more importantly different sub-regional security arrangements have been developed. In addition to sub-regional differences in the hemisphere threat perceptions also differ widely. Today, threat perceptions have changed dramatically, shattering the Cold War consensus on which threats should be the focus of cooperative hemispheric security efforts. The narrow, traditional definition of security focused on external armed attack has evolved into a multidimensional concept that includes military, political, economic, social and natural or environmental facets. The hemisphere today is not confronted by external aggression. Instead, new threats are prominent in the region that requires coordinated, cooperative, and multilateral responses. Today, in the Americas, non-traditional, transnational security threats exists such as terrorism, narcotics trafficking, natural disasters, environmental disasters, transnational criminal enterprises, and illegal immigration. These threats often require multilateral responses by governments since no one state or combination of states can address them alone. These modern threats are also crosscutting problems that require multi-faceted responses by different national organizations all acting appropriately in accordance with democratic norms and principles. So what conclusions and evaluation can we make concerning the inter-American system of hemispheric security based on the new realities and security concerns in the Americas? Conclusions First, our common commitment to democracy must be reinforced by a security architecture that reflects our common values and principles -- commitment to democracy, freedom, justice, and the protection of human rights. It must also reflect a new sense of shared responsibilities. In the security context, this includes civilian authority over the military. It requires that our nations have the appropriate means to support the hemisphere against transnational threats in ways that reinforce those common values. These are all part of our region's ongoing need to define security in the context of today's security environment. Second, we need an inter-American security system that is inclusive. At this point, of the thirty-four Member States, twenty-five are members of the Inter-American Defense Board. Only thirteen have ratified the Pact of Bogota. Only twenty-two have ratified the Rio Treaty and only seven have ratified its protocols. With a couple of exceptions, the Caribbean states are not participants in any of the inter-American security instruments; neither is Canada. Whatever we come up with from this review must be a structure that all States find relevant to their security concerns and in which they can enthusiastically participate. Third, while today there is clear consensus that the hemisphere's concept of security must be updated, we must be careful in how we define our common security threats. Too narrow a definition of security will leave us unprepared to deal with the unique concerns of smaller countries. Too broad a definition, however, runs the risk of assigning false priorities and inappropriate resources to fundamentally different types of problems. Likewise, we must guard against defining every challenge as a security issue, lest the concept become meaningless. As a region, we must be careful about labeling problems that are primarily economic or social as security issues or else we may find ourselves using the wrong tools to fix real problems. Fourth, these modern transnational threats are crosscutting problems that require multi-faceted responses by different national organizations depending on the nature and severity of the threat. More often today the response to the new security challenges are not the military but civilian entities. Each country has to work out the balance within its own national experience, in some cases a mixed civilian and military response may be required. Effective communication among national governments will be necessary to respond appropriately and increase capability for joint and combined actions. In many cases the region's response may require actions by both civilian and military elements, as directed by governments. Joint training, professionalization of security forces and a certain level of interoperability among similar government agencies will be necessary for effective multilateral cooperation. Fifth, we need to strengthen and seek better coordination among the institutions and processes of the inter-American system of hemispheric security. In 1995, the OAS established the Committee on Hemispheric Security. The Committee is the region's first permanent forum for the consideration of arms control, nonproliferation, defense and security issues. Since 1995, the OAS has built an impressive record of achievement. Over 50 resolutions on regional arms control, defense and security policy have been adopted by consensus. This body of work has defined by action the concept of hemispheric security. We should seek to continue to strengthen the Committee on Hemispheric Security. Likewise, we should seek to increase the interaction and effectiveness of other processes of the inter-American system such as the Defense Ministerial and Conferences of the American Armed Forces ensuring that they all contribute to the hemispheric security agenda. It is time the region provided the Inter-American Defense Board with a clear mandate to fill a defense and security technical and advisory role within the OAS structure. From the U.S. perspective such a role should include expanding the Board's charter to include advancing civil-military relations and contributing to dialogue and cooperation on non-traditional security concerns; seeking to broaden regional participation on the Board, especially by civilian security specialists and law enforcement agencies; and seeking ways to enable the Board to respond upon request to the special security concerns of small island states. We hope the Governments of the region can come up with constructive ways of restructuring the Board and giving it new mandates that contribute to a common hemispheric security agenda. In the U.S. view, it is essential that we develop a common expression of principles on hemispheric security based on existing inter-American institutions and processes. This document would best bring together the hemisphere's rich history and current realities. More importantly, a common expression of hemispheric security would provide us with a guide for the new millennium. I strongly believe that we share in the Americas more in common in this area than at first meets the eye. While, as they say, the devil is in the details, all of the governments, and most importantly, the people they represent in the continent of democratically elected leaders, are united in their commitment to working together to conclude a new hemispheric security vision. Thank you for this opportunity to share with you my thoughts. Thank you. (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) Return to the Washington File