The Inter-American Defense Systemscm.oas.org/pdfs/2012/InterAmerican Defense System Study.pdf- the...

The Inter-American Defense System………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1/55


Index

I. OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

II. METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................... 3

III. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

IV. HEMISPHERIC SECURITY AND THE SYSTEM OF INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE ................................................ 9

V. ANALYSIS OF THE TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND OTHER LEGAL INSTRUMENTS........................................ 10

A. TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND OTHER LEGAL INSTRUMENTS OF IADS ......................................................11B. THOUGHTS ON THE TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND OTHER LEGAL INSTRUMENTS....................................18

VI. ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT BODY COMPONENTS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE SYSTEM................. 20

A. BODIES OF THE IDS .......................................................................................................................................20B. THOUGHTS ON THE BODY COMPONENTS OF IDS.........................................................................................38

VII. FUTURE OF THE MISSION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE SYSTEM .......................... 42

A. INITIAL THOUGHTS ..........................................................................................................................................42

B. MISSION AND FUNCTION OF THE PARTS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE SYSTEM..........................................44

C. ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW LEGAL INSTRUMENT ..............................................................................................46

VIII. CONSULTED WORKS.............................................................................................................................. 48

APPENDIX “A”: THE IDS WORKSHOP.............................................................................................................. 50

A. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THIS STUDY ...............................................................50B. MAJOR ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTIONS ...........................................................................................................50

APPENDIX “B”: ACRONYMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT .................................................................................. 55


INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE BOARDOFFICE OF THE SECRETARIAT

THE INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE SYSTEM

I. OBJECTIVEThe objective of this document is to present a critical analysis of the Inter-American

Defense System (IDS) that provides a complete description of the System’s different tools andcomponents that currently exist and to investigate if those tools and components can beinterconnected and/or if they can exist on their own, and if so, how?

Finally, the analysis will identify suggestions and recommendations with respect to theoptions and alternatives regarding the future mission and functions of the tools andcomponents of the IDS.

II. MethodologyThe following is the methodology of this report:- an analysis of the question posed by the Canadian Delegation before the Organization

of American States (OAS) through the Inter-American Defense Board’s (IADB) Council ofDelegates;

- the establishment of a work calendar;- the organization of the Work Group in order to complete the objectives;- the establishment of the principle areas of investigation;- the division of the Work Group in order to cover all areas of investigation;- the presentation of the proposed report to the Inter-American Defense Board’s Council

of Delegates;- the incorporation of the Delegates into the Work Group;- the elaboration of the initial version in June;- the distribution of the inital version to the Inter-American Defense Board’s Council of

Delegates and to civilian investigators and experts from the Hemisphere’s academic centers;- holding a workshop with the civilian experts in order to improve the report;- conducting a workshop with the Inter-American Defense Board’s Council of Delegates

in order to finalize their contributions to the report;- presenting the final version to the Inter-American Defense Board’s Council of

Delegates.


III. Historical BackgroundAccording to historians, Simon Bolivar and other great thinkers grounded the framework

for the Inter-American System. Bolivar called for an assembly (The Congress of Panama) whichtook place in Panama City from June 22 to July 5, 1826, to create a federation of newlyindependent countries. Gran Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, and Guatemala took part in thisassembly. In this historic moment, a treaty forging a union and a confederation was signed,creating an Inter-American Military for common defense.

As time progressed, the republics of the Continent made progress in the pursuit of unity.However, they were not able to confront the challenges of war and the menace of territorialaggression. It became clear that unilateral action could not safeguard the territorial integrity ofthe American nations from external aggressions and conflicts between American states, makingthem even more vulnerable.

Despite this, it was during World War II that the first decisive action towards theconsolidation of the Inter-American Defense System took place.

During the Second Conference of the Council of the Foreign Relations Ministers, 1940, inHavana, Cuba, concerns against a possible German invasion were raised. This fear producedDeclaration XV, “Declaration of Reciprocal Assistance and Cooperation for the Defense of theAmerican Nations,” which established for the first time, the concept of collective security onthe continent, in which an attack against an American state would be considered an attackagainst all.

In the Third Meeting of the Council, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1942, the Ministers ofForeign Relations recommended the “immediate meeting in Washington, DC of a commissionto study and recommend the necessary means for defending the continent.” As a result, theSecretary General of the Pan-American Union decided to create the Inter-American DefenseBoard as a permanent body which could perform its duties in cases of emergency.

On March 30, 1942, at Pan-American Union headquarters, now located at the OAS, theInter-American Defense Board began to execute its first goal: to “prepare the Republics of theAmericas for the defense of the continent by means of studies and recommending measures tothat end.” 21 member states of the Pan-American Union composed the Inter-American DefenseBoard.

The 1945 Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, which took placein Mexico, concluded, “the existence of a permanent military organism was necessary" and theInter-American Defense Board was a valuable organization for the exchange of ideas, for thestudy of issues and recommendations regarding Hemispheric Defense, and for promoting closecollaboration between the militaries of the American Republics. Resolution VIII passed andrecommended the creation of a treaty designed to prevent and eliminate threats and acts ofaggression against any of the American states.

In 1945, the United Nations Charter was also signed. The Charter’s principles should berespected as a fundamental foundation for the security of the American hemisphere.

As a result of the 1945 Inter-American Conference, on September 2, 1947, in Rio deJaneiro, Brazil, The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR), also called the Rio


Treaty was created. The treaty defines a hostile attack by a state against an American State asan attack upon all American States. As a result, every member of the treaty pledges to defendthe innate right of legitimate individual or collective defense as recognized in Article 51 of theUN Charter. The TIAR went into effect on December 3, 1948, signed by 19 countries. Fourcountries also followed suit and signed the TIAR afterwards. In 2002, Mexico withdrew from thetreaty. In 2012, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela withdrew as well.

On April 30, 1948, the 21 nations of the Pan-American Union met in Bogota, Colombia,to adopt the Charter of the Organization of American States (the origin of the OAS). Its mainpurpose to: “strengthen peace and security of the Continent” and “organize collective action incase of aggression.” Articles 28 and 29 of the Charter define the concept of Collective Security.The OAS Charter grants the Permanent Council with the power to approve the AdvisoryMeeting of Foreign Ministers to consider urgent problems and common interests of theAmerican States and to serve as an advisory body. If necessary, a Defense Advisory Committeewill be established to advise the Advisory Body on issues of military collaboration that may ariseout of the application of the existing special treaties on collective security. The DefenseAdvisory Committee will be integrated with the higher military authorities of the AmericanStates that participate in the consultation meeting. In this conference The American Treaty forPacific Settlement (also known as the Pact of Bogota) was signed in order to require a pledgefrom the signatories to solve their conflicts through peaceful means. Although the IADB was notintegrated into the OAS, it provided technical advisory services and consulted on militarymatters to the OAS as necessary.

In 1951, the Fourth Advisory Meeting took place in Washington and adopted the Pan-American Military Cooperation Resolution which defined “the military defense of the Continentas essential for the stability of its democratic institutions and the welfare of its people.” Theresolution also recalled the obligations of the American Republics under the UN Charter and theTIAR to “act together in the common defense and in maintaining peace and security on theContinent." This resolution strengthened the IADB and its existence as a permanent body.

In 1958, the United States and Canada formally established the North American AirDefense Command (NORAD) to manage bilateral air defense against Soviet attacks.

In 1959, The Inter-American Naval Conference (NIC) was created to provide an exchangeof ideas and knowledge to better understand maritime issues of the continent and promotinghemispheric solidarity.

In 1960, The Conference of American Armies (CEA) was created to serve as a discussionforum for the exchange of the experiences of common interest matters in the defense field, toincrease military-military collaboration and to contribute from a military standpoint, securityand democratic development in member countries.

In 1961, The System of Cooperation of the American Air Forces (SICOFAA) wasestablished to serve as a system of cooperation and to help integrate the American Air Forces,provide the exchange of experiences, resources, training, and instruction of personnel, and tofacilitate the development of procedures.

In 1962, based on the recommendation of the CNI, RITN, the Inter-American NavalTelecommunications Network was created.

On October 9, 1962, the Board of Delegates created the Inter-American Defense College(CID) to offer academic courses for military personnel and civilians from all countries of the


American Hemisphere and to provide a unique opportunity to exchange ideas and create a solidfoundation to promote a better understanding of the Inter-American System. Since its creation,more than 2,434 students from 24 countries have graduated from CID, and many graduateshold important management positions in the Americas.

In 1965 and 1966, the OAS sent a peacekeeping force to the Dominican Republic.In 1967, the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the

Caribbean (The Treaty of Tlatelolco) was signed. This treaty set the stage for thedenuclearization of the Latin America and Caribbean signatory countries.

In 1969 and 1976, the OAS sent military observers to the crises in Honduras and ElSalvador; in 1972, observers were sent to Belize; and in 1979, observers were sent to the crisesin Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

Since the early 1980s with the end of the Cold War, new threats and common challengeshave emerged, which demand multilateral reactions and a stronger concept of collectiveresponse, unity, and cooperation among American states. This new reality led to the revisionand modernization of all activities developed within the Inter-American System.

In 1982, the Regional Security System (SSR) was created from a need for collectiveresponse to security threats and in order to ensure the stability and well-being of EasternCaribbean countries through mutual cooperation.

In 1991, the Santiago Commitment to Democracy and the Renewal of the Inter-American System was signed to initiate a study of hemispheric security in order to give anupdated and comprehensive perspective in light of new global and regional realities.

In 1991, the Central American Integration System (SICA) was formed with its goal beingthe integration of Central America into a region of peace, liberty, democracy, and development.In this context the Presidents of Central America signed the Framework Treaty on DemocraticSecurity, 1995, which created the Central American Model of Democratic Security. This modelupholds the supremacy of and calls for strengthening the civilian authority; the reasonablebalance of forces; the security of people and their property; the alleviation of poverty andextreme poverty; the promotion of sustainable development; the protection of theenvironment; the eradication of violence, corruption, impunity, terrorism, drug trafficking, andarms trafficking. Furthermore, the Framework Treaty created a Commission on the Security ofCentral America which has three subcommittees: a Security Subcommittee, a DefenseSubcommittee and a Judicial Subcommittee.

In the early 1990s, the Military Legal Committee of the Americas (CONJUMA) emergedas the first cooperative and information exchange forum between military and legal realms.

In 1992, the IADB provided technical support to the Bahamas when it was hit by ahurricane.

In 1994, the IADB organized a meeting on natural disasters in Barbados.From 1994 until 2010, the IADB provided technical advisory services to Nicaragua

through the Mine Removal Assistance Mission in Central America (MARMINCA). This resulted inthe world’s first successful de-mining effort.

In 1995, the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas (CDMA) was created toprovide a collaborative forum for nations of the Hemisphere in the areas of defense andsecurity as agreed in the Principles of Williamsburg.


In 1995, the Commission on Hemispheric Security (CSH) was established under the OASwith the function of study and formulation of recommendations about hemispheric securitymatters. In particular, the commission promotes cooperation in this field.

In 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) wasestablished.

In 1997, the Conference of the Armed Forces of Central America (CFAC) was created, aninternational specialized military organization with the mission of promoting a permanent andsystematic effort of cooperation, coordination, and mutual support between the Air Forces forthe collegiate study of common interest issues and providing an optimal level of defenseagainst threats to democracy, peace, and freedom.

The 1998 Summit of the Americas in Santiago, Chile, was entrusted to the OAS, throughthe CSH, to "follow up and deepen measures to enhance confidence and security, perform ananalysis of the meaning, scope and projections of international security concepts in theHemisphere, to develop more appropriate common approaches to manage various aspects,including disarmament and arms control, and to identify ways to revitalize and strengthen theinstitutions of the Inter-American system related to the different aspects of hemisphericsecurity." The summit culminated in a Special Conference on Security from the OASperspective.

The 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec, Canada, was requested by the CSH toreview all issues related to the Common Approach on International Security in the Hemispherein order to hold the Special Conference on Security.

In 2001, the OAS General Assembly adopted the Inter-American Convention on theTransparency of Conventional Arms Acquistions (CITAAC).

Also in 2001, the Security and Defense Network of Latin America (RESDAL) was createdto promote the institutionalization of state security and defense within a democraticframework in Latin America by strengthening civilian capabilities.

During the 32nd period of the ordinary session of the 2002 OAS General Assembly,which took place in Bridgetown, Barbados, the following topic was considered: “Multi-dimensional focus on hemispheric security." In its declaration, the Assembly recognized threats,concerns and other challenges to security in the Hemisphere as diverse in nature. The Assemblyrecommended a multi-dimensional scope to confronting new and non-traditional threats,which included political, economic, social, health, and environmental aspects.

In 2002, the Lima Commitment, also known as, "Charter for Peace and Security,Limitation and Control of Expenditure on External Defense," was signed.

In 2003, the Special Conference on Security took place in Mexico City, which spawnedthe Declaration of Security in the Americas. A new multi-dimensional concept of hemisphericsecurity emerged. This concept included traditional and new approaches to emerging threatsand the discussion of challenges to the security of states in the Hemisphere, taking into accountthe priorities of every state. It was based on democratic values and respect, the promotion andthe defense of human rights, solidarity, cooperation, and respect for national sovereignty. Thenew approach contributed to the consolidation of peace, integrated development, and socialjustice. The Conference recommended CHS to coordinate the cooperation between bodies,organizations, entities and mechanisms of the OAS related to security and defense in theHemisphere. They must hold in special regard their mandates and the scope of their powers


and to evaluate and follow-up on the Declaration. In the same context, the CHS maintainsnecessary liaisons with other institutions and sub-regional organizations as well as regional andinternational mechanisms related with the diverse aspects of security and defense in theHemisphere.

In 2003, the Mine Clearance Assistance Mission of South America (MARMINAS) wascreated in the border region between Peru and Ecuador, within the Comprehensive Actionagainst Antipersonnel Mines Program (AICMA / OAS) and with the technical expertise of theIADB.

In 2004, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) unanimously approved Resolution1540 (2004), acting in accordance of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, whichexplains that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, just as their meansof delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security.

On March 15, 2006, with the goal of defining the legal and institutional relationshipbetween the IADB and the OAS, the OAS General Assembly approved the new status of theIADB, effectively making it an entity of the OAS. The main purpose of the IADB is to providetechnical, consultative, and educational support to the OAS and member states in military anddefense issues in the Hemisphere and to contribute to the OAS Charter and the preservation ofthe Inter-American Democratic Charter. As well as basing their activities in the supervision andsubordination principals of the military institutions to the civilian authorities.

In 2006, the Colombia Monitoring Mission Group (GMI-CO) in support of PlanColombia's national demining effort was created within the AICMA/OAS Program and with thetechnical expertise of the IADB.

In 2008, the CHS decided to create a task force in charge of combining the resolutionsadopted in the Declaration of Santiago (1995), San Salvador (1998), and the Consensus ofMiami (2001). As a result, a consolidated list of 36 measures to promote confidence andsecurity, which must report annually, according to the resolutions of the General Assembly ofthe OAS, was created.

In 2008, the South American Defense Council of UNASUR (SADC) was established toconsolidate South America as a peace zone, a base for democratic stability, and integral for thedevelopment of the people, and to contribute to world peace. It also serves to build a SouthAmerican identity on matters of defense, taking into account sub-regional and nationalcharacteristics, and to contribute to the strengthening of the unity of Latin America and theCaribbean. It is also designed to generate consensus in order to strengthen regionalcooperation on defense.

In 2008, the 8th CDMA, which took place in Banff, Canada, was requested by the OASGeneral Assembly to grant the IADB the responsibility of maintaining the Institutional Memoryof the CDMA. This was confirmed by Resolution 2446 of the AG/OAS.

In 2010, the 9th CDMA, which took place in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia,recommended the OAS to convene a conference on the future of the mission and function ofIDS components. In the same conference, the CDMA requested the OAS General Assembly togrant the IADB the capacity to act in support of the Secretary Pro Tempore of the CDMA. Thiswas confirmed by Resolution 2631 of the AG/OAS.

In 2011, during the 41st period of ordinary sessions of the OAS General Assembly in SanSalvador, El Salvador, Resolution 2631 was issued: "Support for the Activities of the Inter-


American Defense Board." Resolution 2632 was also issued: "Future of the Mission andFunction of the Instruments and Components of the Inter-American Defense System."

Also in 2011, the IADB assisted in the specialized conference of the CDMA, in Costa Rica,with the topic: “Strengthening alliances in support of humanitarian assistance and naturaldisaster."

On the "natural disaster" issue, the IADB developed in March 2011, its firstHumanitarian Disaster Assistance Exercise in the Casa del Soldado with the participation of itsdiverse members’ delegates. In December 2011, the IADB organized a Task Force to develop aplan to improve the advisory function of the IADB in cases of disasters, pursuant to Resolution2631. The Task Force had the participation of representatives of defense ministers, regional andsub-regional military and defense organizations of the hemisphere, as well as governmentaland nongovernmental organizations.

At the end of 2011, the IADB finished its Strategic Plan, which defines the vision for thefuture and the strategic objectives of the organization for the 2011-2016 periods.

In early 2012, the IADB enacted three exercises for the consolidation of the “plan toimprove the advisory function of the IADB Inter-American System in cases of disasters," whichwas approved by the Council of Delegates in March. This exercises had the participation of thedefense ministers and regional and sub-regional military and defense organizations of thehemisphere as well as governmental and nongovernmental organizations. The events tookplace with the support of the Center of Hemispheric Defense Studies (CHDS) and theUSSOUTHCOM.

In May 2012, the IADB received two requests from the Permanent Missions of Argentinaand Canada in the OAS to execute studies about the Inter-American Defense System.

IV. HEMISPHERIC SECURITY AND THE SYSTEM OF INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE

In general terms security is when a state, society, or an individual do not feel exposedto risks or threats. Specialists, convened by the United Nations (UN) in 1990, in Tashkent,defined security as “a condition in which states believe that there is no danger of militaryattack, political pressure or economic coercion, so that they are able to pursue freely their owndevelopment and progress.”1

At the Special Conference on Security in Mexico City, Mexico, held October 27 – 28, 2003,there was an analysis of the significance, scope, and projection of international security in theHemisphere. The analysis’s purpose was to revitalize and strengthen the institutions of IDSrelated to the different aspects of hemispheric defense.

The Declaration on Security in the Americas, approved during the Third Plenary Session onOctober 28, 2003, was a result of this conference. This declaration is the thoughtful consensusof the member-countries and states the mutual respect of understanding on hemisphericsecurity.

1Política de Defensa Nacional de Brasil. 2005. pag. 5.


Hemispheric security has as its base respect for the principles enshrined in the UN’sCharter and the Charter of the Organization of American States.

The idea of hemispheric security possesses a multidimensional scope that includesboth traditional and emerging threats, traditional fears and other types of provocations to thesecurity of the Hemisphere. It incorporates the priorities of each country; it contributes to theconsolidation of peace, intergal development, and to social juctice. Its basis is in democraticvalues; in the respect, defense and promotion of human rights; solidarity and cooperation; andthe respect of state sovereignty.2

On the American continent, there exists a set of institutions, legal instruments, andestablished norms for confronting common, traditional, and emerging threats, fears, and otherprovocations.

The coordinated and integrated action of these connected institutions, legalinstruments, and norms contribute to the obtaining of the stated wish of hemispheric securityat its highest level.

The OAS is the regional political branch of the highest level, charged to promote thepolitical actions that will maintain peace and security between American states.

Together these institutions and norms involve all areas that contribute tohemispheric security: defense, public safety, civil defense, health, economics, socialdevelopment, the environment, etc.

The IDS is the aggregation of bodies, treaties, agreements, conventions, legal norms,and laws, among others that contributes to the neutralization or reduction of the effects oftraditional and emerging threats.

The fundamental base of IDS is the armed forces and the ministers of defense fromthe countries of the Hemisphere. The armed forces are employed to act against traditionalthreats and also to cooperate in actions against emerging threats.

Confronting the threats that extend beyond national borders, known as transnationalthreats, led countries to establish legal instruments and ways to streamline efforts, to shareexperiences, to create subregional and hemispheric bodies, and to promote cooperation in theareas of military issues and defense. All of these strengthen mutual trust and peace betweenstates.

In reality IDS is a complex network, composed of national, subregional, regional, andhemispheric bodies, guided by legal instruments that contribute to hemispheric security in theAmericas.

In this work, IDS is defined by the connected bodies that work strictly in the areas ofmilitary and defense. The ministers of defense represent the highest authorities in the systemand are responsable for defense policies in their respective countries and for cooperationbetween American states in the areas of military and defense.

The OAS should have policy responsibility for the actions of IDS in case of a crisis thataffects the peace and security of the Hemisphere.

V. ANALYSIS OF THE TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND OTHERLEGAL INSTRUMENTS

2Declaración sobre Seguridad en las Américas. Párrafo II Valores Compartidos y enfoques comunes. Numeral 2.


A. TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND OTHER LEGAL INSTRUMENTS OF IADS

Historically, states have been exposed to circumstances that disrupt and attempt todisrupt peace and development. The causes can be internal or external, and they come in theform of traditional and non-traditional threats and with multidimensional charateristics.

Based on this background, the states have seen it necessary to protect and developinternal structures and strategies to achieve the necessary ends, but the needs and geopoliticalconditions also make it essential to count on international tools that tend to regular harmonyand peaceful coexistence among countries and their respective peoples. With these beliefs,there exist the conditions for a developed and sustainable peace.

In the American Hemisphere the main international tools are:

1. GLOBALLYa. UN Charter

The UN Charter, signed on June 26, 1945, in San Fransisco, California, endedthe Conference of United Nations on Internal Organization. It entered into effect on October24, 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter.

This charter is fundamental in saving future generations from the scourge ofwar that twice in a thirty year period inflicted undescribable sufferings onto humanity. Itreaffirmed fundamental human rights, the dignity and value of each person, and the equalrights of humans and of small and large countries. It created the basic conditions necessary tomaintain justice and to respect the obligations arising from treaties and other sources ofinternational law, and it promoted social progress and raised the goal of life to a large conceptof freedom. Finally, it urged the practice of tolerance and to live in peace with your neighbors,unite our forces for the maintaining of peace and of international security, to ensure, throughthe acceptance of principles and the adoption of methods that armed force will never be usedexcept in the service of the common interest, and to employ an international mechanism forthe promotion of economic and social progress among all the peoples of the world. Thesepurposes are to maintain the peace and the security of the international community to thisend: to take effective collective action to prevent and eliminate threats to the peace, and tostop acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace; and to achieve, through peacefulmeans, and while conforming to the principles of justice and international law, solutions tocontroversies of international situations that threaten to breach the peace; build betweennations relations of friendship, based in mutual respect for the principle of equal rights and theself-determination of people, and to take other appropriate actions to strengthen the universalpeace; to realize the need for international cooperation in order to solve internationalproblems of economics, society, culture, or humanity, and in the development of andstimulation of the respect for human rights and fundamental liberties of all persons, withoutdistinctions of race, sex, language, or religion; and to serve as the center of harmonizing effortsbetween the nations in order to achieve these common purposes.

The principles that keeps alive the UN Charter are: 1) the organization isbased on the principle of equal sovereign status of all member states; 2) UN members ensurethe rights and inherent benefits of membership to all nations participating; 3) members fulfilltheir obligations as stated in the Charter; 4) UN members work to fix their international


controversies through peaceful means, and those means should not endanger the peace andsecurity nor should those means violate international law; 5) the members of the UN in theirinternational relations abstain from threatening or using force against the territory or politicalstructure of any nation. Furthermore, member states shall abstain from any action that isincompatible with the objectives of the UN; 6) that the members of the UN will lend all meansof needed support in whatever actions that conform to the objectives of the charter, and UNmember states will not provide aid to any state against which the UN takes preventive orcoersive action; 7) the UN will make states, not part of the charter, to act in accordance withthese principles so far as it is necessary to maintain the peace and security of the internationalsystem. However, this charter does not authorize the United Nations to intervene in internalmatters of states; and 8) members submit matters requiring resolution under the presentCharter.

We consider the UN, which wrote this charter, to be a body of worldcharacter whose scope is global and is focused on security and defense.

b. UN Security Council Resolution 1540On April 28, 2004, the UN Security Council voted unanimously in favor of

Resolution 1540, which was filled with the spirit of the UN Charter’s Chapter VII. The resolutionaffirmed that the profileration of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons along with theirrespective delivery systems, constitute a threat to international peace and security. Theresolution forces states among other things to abstain from supplying any type of support tonon-state-actors whom try to develop, acquire, create, possess, transport, sell, or use weaponsof mass destruction and/or their respective delivery systems.

Resolution 1540 imposes binding obligations on all states to approvelegislative action in order to prevent the profileration of weapons of mass destruction and theirdelivery systems. The resolution also requires states to implement control mechanisms todissuade any illicit sale of similar weapons. States are also encourged to build internationalcooperation in order to achieve said ends. The resuolution affirms support for multilateraltreaties that aim to eliminate or prevent the profileration of weapons of mass destruction andthe importance of all states to work to this end. It is important to note that none of the dutiesexpressed in Resolution 1540 contradict or modify the rights and obligations of states under theNon-Profileration Treaty, the Convention on Chemical Weapons, or the Convention onBiological Weapons and Toxins. Resolution 1540 will not modify the duties of the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency or the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapns.

The resolution has a world scope and is focused on the the principle ofmaintaining peace and security.

2. IN THE HEMPISPHEREa. INTER-AMERICAN TREATY OF RECIPROCAL ASSISTANCE

The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR) was signed in Riode Janeiro, Brazil, in 1947, by the represented governments at the Inter-American Conferencefor Maintaining Peace and Security on the Continent. The objective of treaty was to strengthenrelations and build friendships among the countries in attendance.


This treaty was in reference to Resolution VIII from the Inter-AmericanConference on the Problems of War and Peace, which took place in Mexico City. TheConference recommended the creation of a treaty designed to prevent and combat threats andhostile acts against any American nation. The objectives and principles found in the treatyshould align with those of the UN that are concerned with maintaining peace and security inthe region. The treaty also needed to adhere to the principles of inter-American solidarity andcooperation. Furthermore, it needed to affirm the thoughts and declarations of theChapultepec Act. The Chapultepec Act and the principles of inter-American solidarity and of theUN Charter must be upheld because they have come to define the relationships betweencountries and the basis of legal authority in the inter-American system.

The treaty is to prevent and comat threats and hostile acts committedagainst a country of the Americas. It is also designed for the countries of the Americas to stayunited within an inter-American system that is consistent with the principles and purpose of theUN. It reaffirms the use of regional action on matters concerning the preservation of peace andsecurity in the Hemisphere. It perfects the procedures that allow for peaceful solutions disputeresolution. Finally, the treaty allows for self-defense should the UN Security Council not takenecessary stops to maintain international peace and security.

In accordance with Article IV of the Treaty, the scope is hemispheric. When athreat to the peace emerges in the Hemisphere, a body of American states should meet andagree upon appropriate means it should take to help the attacked nation or to maintain thepeace and security of the Hemisphere. In a case of conflict between American states, the stateswill work in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter to find a way to suspend hostilitiesand to re-establish the status quo. The hemispheric countries will work to mediate these ends.Furtheremore, the antagonistic and mediating nations will use any available means toreestablish and maintain hemispheric peace and security. To determine the aggressor,mediating states will look to see if either antagonist refuses to participate in or implement thepeace plans.

The Consulting Body has at its disposal the following and can use thefollowing to force an end to hostilities: 1) removing a country’s heads of missions; 2) endingdiplomatic and/or consular relation; 3) interrupting partially or fully trade relations; 4)disrupting railway, maritime, air, postal, tele-/radio- communications; and/or 5) the use offorce.

This treaty defines an attack of aggression as an armed attack withoutprovocation against the terrioty, population, or armed forces of a state. It is further defined asan invasión by the armed forces of a state into the territory of another American state. Aninvasion is constituted when a country’s armed forces cross a border identified by a treaty,judicial decision, or arbitration or cross an undemarcated border but into an area under thejurisdiction of another state.

All signatory countries are registered with the Secretary General of theOrganization of American States through the Pan-American Union. There are 23 signatorycountries to this treaty that is indefinite and hemispheric.

b. Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS)


The OAS is a pan-American as well as a regional organization. The OAS wascreated in May 1948. Its objective was to be a forum of political and multilateral discussion. TheOAS was intended to integrate and make decisions concerning the American Hemisphere. In itsDeclaration, the OAS states that it works to strengthen peace and continental security, spreadand strengthen democracies, to promote human rights, to support social and economicdevelopment, and to promote sustainable growth in the Hempisphere. The OAS looks tocreate strong relations between the countries and peoples of the Hemisphere. To that end, thefour official languages of the OAS are Spanish, Portugese, English, and French. The OAS’s mainoffice is in Washington, D.C., but it maintains regional offices in each of its member countries.The OAS is has a long and honorable history as a regional body and has 34 signatory countries.

c. American Treaty on Pacific SettlementAlso known as the “Pact of Bogota,” the Treaty was signed in Bogota on

April 30, 1948, by the represented governments at the 9th International Conference ofAmerican States. The Treaty fulfilled Article XXIII of the Charter of the Organization of AmericanStates.

The Treaty seeks that countries, when trying to solve problems, not usethreats, force, or any other mode of coercion. Instead, countries should always seek peacefulmeans to resolve international controversies before bringing them before the Security Councilof the UN.

In cases of conflict between two or more signatory states where theinterested parties are unable to reach agreement through direct, diplomatic negotiations, theparties will agree to participate in the procedures established in the Treaty. The establishedprocedures are: mediation through third-parties, investigation and dispute resolution, judialproceedings, and, finally, arbitration.

The treaty has a hemispheric scope and 16 signatory nations. Its focus isdefense and peaceful solutions to controversies and conflicts.

d. Measures of Consolidation to Foster Trust and SecurityIt was held during the 4th Pleanry Session of the OAS in Washington on April

15, 2008. AG/RES. 2398 (XXXVIII-O/08) on the Commission of Hemispheric Security of the OASfound the following: The informal work needed to stop and instead formal work on theunification of criteria for reporting on measures of confidence-building and security adopted inthe Declarations of Santiago, San Salvador, and Consensus of Miami needed to begin. Thesefindings would be critical for an organization with a hemispheric scope and which ischaracterized by the themes of security and defense. It was considered principle in order tostregthen trust and transparency.

e. The Inter-American Democratic Charter of 2001Approved by the OAS member states during a special session of the General

Assembly on September 11, 2001, in Lima, Peru, the charter affirms that democracy is andshould be the form of government and that this charter acts as a collective pledge to maintainand strengthen the democratic system in the region. It is based on the historical precedents setforth in the Quebec Declaration, April 2001, and the tools already in existence: the OAS Charter


(1948), the Cartagena Protocol (1958), General Assembly Resolution AG/RES. 1080 (XXI-O/91),adopted in Santiago, Chile (1991), and the Washington Protocol (1997).

The principle purpose is to strengthen and preserve the democraticinstitutions of American nations. The values of the Charter are:

Respect for human rights and fundamental liberties; Regular elections, free and just; Respect for the integrity of civil society; Exercise of power based on the rule of law; Plural political system of multiple parties and political organizations; Separate and independent public powers; Elimination of all forms of discrimination; All citizens should have the right to participate in decisons affecting their

own development.To achieve the objectives of this study, it is necessary to state parts of this

Charter:RECOGNIZING the contributions of the OAS and other regional and sub-

regional mechanisms to the promotion and consolidation of democracy in the Americas;BEARING IN MIND that existing democratic provisions in regional and

subregional mechanisms express the same objectives as the democracy clause adopted by theHeads of State and Government in Quebec City;

CONSIDERING that solidarity among and cooperation between Americanstates require the political organization of those states based on the effective exercise ofrepresentative democracy, and that economic growth and social development based on justiceand equity, and democracy are interdependent and mutually reinforcing;

BEARING IN MIND that the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties ofMan and the American Convention on Human Rights contain the values and principles ofliberty, equality, and social justice that are intrinsic to democracy;

RECOGNIZING that all the rights and obligations of member states under theOAS Charter represent the foundation on which democratic principles in the Hemisphere arebuilt.

The constitutional subordination of all state institutions to the constitutionalcivil authorities and the respect of the state to all entities and sectors of society are equallynecessary for the continuation of democracy.

f. INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON TRANSPARENCY IN CONVENTIONALWEAPONS ACQUISITIONS (CITAAC)

CITAAC was realized in 2001. It contibutes to more openess and transparencyin the regional acquisition of convential weapons by means of sharing information about saidacquisitions for the purposes of encouraging increased trust between American states. Itincludes information about weapon imports and exports, the existence of armed forces, andacquisitions through the national production of important weapons systems.

CITAAC is important to reach the goal of effectively limiting conventionalarms that will then permit the dedication of a large number of resources to the economic andsocial development of the signatory states. The Convention has 18 signatory nations, and its


content is focused on security, defense and transparency. Its issuing body is the GeneralAssembly of the OAS.

g. Statement on Security in the Americas (DSA)The statement on Security in the Americas was formally inacted in Mexico on

October 27 and 28, 2003, by the 33rd Ordinary Session of the OAS’s General Assembly. It hadbeen adopted on June 10, 2003.

The mandate was to prepare for a Hempispheric Security Commission workprogram in preparation for the Special Conference on Security. The mandate was to promoteand strengthen peace and security in the Hemisphere. The mandate also welcomed thestatements declared at the Conference on Problems of War and Peace in Chapultepec; theSantiago Commitment to Democracy and Renewal of the Inter-American System, 1991; Summitof the Americas, Quebec; and the Bridgetown Statement. Its scope is hemispheric and it ischaracterized by multidimensional security. It has 34 signatory nations.

3. SUB-REGIONAL SCOPEa. Tlatelolco Treaty (Intergovernmental Organization for the Prohibition of

Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean)This treaty is for the prohibition of nuclear weapons in Latin America and the

Caribbean. The Tlatelolco Treaty was initially signed by 33 countries on February 4, 1967, inMexico. Among the Treaty’s ideas are: it has to be permament, it must have an unlimited timeframe, and it must be accepted by all signatory countries without any restrictions.

Through this treaty, the signatory countries agree that nuclear installations intheir respective nations be used for peaceful means and they also agree to prohibit or stop: a)the testing, use, development, production, or acquisition, through whatever means, whetherdirectly or indirectly, any type of nuclear weapon; b) on behalf of a third party, the use,development, or production of any sort of nuclear weapon; and c) any attempt to authorize orencourage, whether directly or indirectly, the testing, use, development, production,possession, or monopoly of any nuclear weapons. Countries may also not particpate in suchattempt by another country. In solving conflicts the concerned parties, unless seeking apeaceful solution through other means, will submit the conflict to the Internation Court ofJustice. The treaty cannot be the source of conflict.

18 signatory countries ratified the Treaty. Its scope is considered subregionalbecause its geographic scope is Latin America and the Caribbean. It is characterized by a focuson defense and security, and it is under the mandate of the Intergovernmental Oraganizationfor the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean.

b. Framework Treaty on Democratic SecurityThe governments of the republics of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,

Honduras, Nicarauga, and Panama realize the fundamental objective of the integration ofCentral America and of the Alliance for Sustainable Development is to make Central America


into a consildated region of peace, liberty, democracy, and development. They therefore signedthe Treaty on Democratic Security in Central America, which complements the TegucigalpaProtocol.

It emphasizes the following principles:a) The state of law, which reflects the sumpremacy of the rule of law, a

protected and effective judiciary, and the exercise of civil liberty;b) The mutual strengthening of and updating of democratic institutions

within the borders of each of the signatory states, through a continual and sustainableprocess, which will strengthen civil authority and limit the power of armed forces and publicsecurity to what the respective constitutions allow. It also promotes a culture of peace,dialogue, understanding, and tolerance based on common democratic values;

c) The principle that the armed forces, police, and public safetydepartments are subordinate to civil and constitutional authorities. These authorities areproduced from free and honest elections;

d) The maintaining of a flexible, active, heartfelt, and collaborative dialoguethat seeks to guarantee the continuation of regional democracy.

It references principles and recommendations found in the followingresolutions of the UN’s General Assembly:

a) 40/34 Declaration of Basic Principles for Victims of Crime and Abuse ofPower.

b) 43/173 Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Detained or inPrison.

c) 45/113 Rules for the Protection of Detained Minors.d) 3452 (XXX) Declaration for Protecting People from all forms of Torture

and all other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Punishments.e) 34/169 Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement.It is a subregional treaty focused on defense and security. The Treaty is

indefinite and was signed in the city of San Pedra Sula, Departamento de Cortés, Republic ofHonduras, on December 15, 1995.

c. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory Commission(CTBTO)

CTBTO was founded on November 19, 1996, during the Meeting of SignatoryNations (18). Under the CTBTO, each signatory state agrees to not conduct any nuclearweapons test or any sort of explosive nuclear test. Furthermore, each state agrees to prohibitor prevent any sort of nuclear test in any area under their jurisdiction or control. Edited duringthe Disarmament Conference in Ginebra, the CTBTO was adopted by the General Assembly onSeptember 10, 1996, and it was able to be signed beginning on September 24, 1996. Thecustodian of the CTBTO is the Secretary General of the UN. To come into existence, the Treatymust be ratified by the countries listed, whose ratification is mandatory. It is a subregionaltreaty and is focused on maintaining peace and security.

d. The Lima Agreement


It is known as the Andean Charter for Peace and Security, Limitation andControl of Expenditure on Foreign Defense. It is from a Conference of Ministers of ForeignAffairs and Defense of the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, andVenezuela). The Lima Agreement was signed on June 17, 2002. Its objective is to analyze theproposal of President Alejandro Toledo, which is to promote a common conception of security,peace, and of perfecting and enlarging the means used to foster increased trust. Furthermore,the president wanted to begin a set of initiatives that would promote limiting foreign defensespending. The compromise is based in the following principles:

1) The preservation of the rule of law and democracy as the system ofgovernance; 2) the promotion and protection of human rights; 3) the application ofinternational humanitarian law; 4) the abstention from threats of force in diplomaticrelations; 5) the seeking of peaceful solutions to controversies; 6) respect of territorial andsovereign integrity of each member-state; 7) a refusal to intervene in the internal matters ofmember-states; 8) respect for international law and international obligations; 9) observanceof the UN’s and the OAS’s collective security agreements; and 10) cooperating in order todevelop and strengthen the integration process.

The Agreement contains the following themes:1) A pledge to formulate a political community for Andean security; 2) a

pledge to define a peace zone within the Andean community; 3) a subregional pledge tocombat terrorism; 4) a pledge to limit foreign defense spending, to control conventionalweapons, and to be transparent; 5) a pledge to promote the idea of Latin America being anarea free of air missiles – both beyond visual range missiles and medium and long rangestrategic missiles; 6) pledges to strengthen the prohibition against nuclear, chemical, andbiological weapns; 7) pledges to end illicit arms sales of guns, ammunition, explosives, andother related material; 8) pledges to end the use of and find and destroy existing anti-personnelmines; and 9) pledges to increase and reinforce the means (continual methods to verify the saidpledges) by which trust is encouraged. The characteristics and themes of this declaration makeit one of security and defense.

B. THOUGHTS ON THE TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND OTHER LEGALINSTRUMENTS

The OAS is a representative political body of the American states that is responsiblefor the adoption of mechanisms necessary for the promotion of hemispheric development andsecurity. It also maintains the peace and strengthens peaceful ties between member-states.

This analysis shows that in the world context, these treaties and agreements are vitaltools to continental security. We can infer that these agreements and treaties constituted amilitary alliance as they were created after World War II and were looking to halt the advanceof communism into the Hemisphere.

Since their beginnings, 90 years ago, the concepts of collective security have evolvedinto cooperative security due to changes in the world. Whereas the focus of collective securityis on confronting threats, cooperative security aims to prevent the emergence of threats.

The new threats that affect the Hemisphere’s security environment, especiallytransnational drug trafficking, illegal weapons, cyber attacks, terrorism, illegal border crossings,and concerted defense measures between countries, facilitate the need for cooperation.


In June 2012, at the General Assembly of the OAS in Conchabamba, the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR) was under fervent discussion because of theeffects produced by the exit of 4 signatory countries (Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, andVenezuela) in addition to Mexico’s exit back in 2002. The discussion took place because themove by these countries demonstrated that some nations consider the treaty inadequate forthe needs of today’s world. It also induces the need of a new instrument that will orientcountries’actions in order to contribute to hemispheric peace and security.

During the analysis of the legal agreements and treaties, it became clear that a set ofprinciples existed in the Americas, and these principles guide the relations between states andcontribute to hemispheric peace and security. The highlighted principles are:

- Strengthening of democracy in the Hemisphere;- Repecting the sovereignty of all states;- Equal sovereignty among all states;- Respect for all human rights;- Peaceful solutions to conflicts;- No profileration of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons;- Maintaining of peace and security in the Hemisphere;- Police and armed and public security forces are subordinate to the established,consitutional civil authorities;- Strengthening trust and transparency between states;- Hemispheric cooperation.

The last two meetings of the CDMA (VIII and IX) had as their central issue to “supportthe means that stregthen cooperation on matters of defense and security between all thestates of the Americas.”

In regards to the other components of IDS, particulary to the conferences of thearmed forces, a unity of vision is clear amongst the defense ministers: all countries need to lookto integrate, to cooperate, and to provide mutual asístanse.

The motivation exists for every country in the Hemisphere to strengthen security andpeace through cooperation with other American states.

This study of the IDS signals to us the need to formulate a new way, adapted to thecurrent hemipheric environment, and founded in the established principles that encouragepeace and security for the continent. Furthermore, this new way must recognize the need forcooperation among the American nations in order to transform the Americas into a space ofsecurity and peace. There are suggestions to replace or repeal the current instruments of theIDS; however, the new way is seen as a complement to the current instruments. To that end,within this report there is a new strategic concept, adapted to the current environment.

The desire here is the adoption of preventive measures to strengthen peace andsecurity, and not to adopt corrective means in order to restablish any compromised peace andsecurtiy.


VI. ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT BODY COMPONENTS OF THEINTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE SYSTEM

A. BODIES OF THE IDS

1. COMPOSED OF:a. Components at the National Level

- Ministries of Defense- Armed Forces

b. Components at the Sub-regional Level- Conference of the Central American Armed Forces (CFAC)- Regional Security System (SSR)- Steering Committee of the Joint Chiefs of the Caribbean Community

(CARICOM)- South American Defense Council (CDS)- North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)

c. Components at the Regional and Hemispheric Levels- Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas (CDMA)- Inter-American Defense Board (IADB)

d. Cooperative Bodies among the Armed Forces of the Americas- Inter-American Naval Conference (CNI)- System of Cooperation among Air Forces of the Americas (SICOFAA)- Conference of American Armies (CEA)

e. Specialized Components- Military Legal Committee of the Americas (COJUMA)- Inter-American Naval Telecommunications Network (RITN)

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSESYSTEM

a. Components at the National LevelThe defense ministries and their respective armed forces are the national-level

components of and the fundamental base of IDS. The current system could not exist withoutthose two bodies.

In the majority of countries, the concept of national defense is a fundamentalpart of their respective constitutions and it involves all of society protecting their respectivesovereignties and national interests. At this time, the constitutions assign the mission to thearmed forces to guarantee the sovereignty and independence of the countries, defend theirrespective territorial integrities, and be subordinate to the constitutions.


A country’s conduct on military and defense matters as they relate to nationalsecurity are a part of that nation’s sovereignty, and each country has legal norms that guide itsactivities to defend against traditional and non-traditional threats.

National defense is not solely a matter for the armed forces or militaryorganizations. It is a concern of all parts of a state, including society and public authorities.

In a recent study by the IADB, concerning the participation of the armed forcesin public security activities, the IADB found that the majority of countries in the Hemispherealready have ministries of defense or security led by civilians.

There are 7 countries that do not have armed forces: Costa Rica, Dominica,Grenada, Haiti, Panama, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Saint Lucia.

The result is that the defense and security of these 7 countries is supportedthrough sub-regional systems, and they are dependent on cooperation, collaboration, andexternal assistance. So it is evident that integrating the sub-regional structures into a singlestructure of the highest level is of particular interest to these 7 states. In the end, countries willhave a higher level of security through large and extended collaboration.

Additionally, there are countries of the Americas that participate in otherinstitutions of defense. This fact is the case with the memberships of Canada and the UnitedStates to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Other local initiatives share the same spirit of cooperation and collaboration,like South America with the South American Council of Defense as a part of the Union of SouthAmerican Nations (CDS/UNASUR), the System of Regional Security (SSR), which is aninternational agreement for the regional defense of the Caribbean, or Central America with theConference of Central American Armed Forces, which began in order to contribute to thesecurity, the development, and the military integration of Central America.

There was collective defense in the past. Today, however, the system is veryflexible, and countries are not pushed into these arrangements by any external force. Today thefocus is on national interests and the defense of states’ sovereignties.

There is a general perception that new threats interfere with society todifferent degrees in each country and that each state has a particular vision around matters ofdefense and security.

In reality, there is unanimous agreement among the experts in the areas ofnational defense across the Hemisphere. A few agreements of note are the maintainence ofstate and territorial sovereignty; support of operations to combat transnational crime andterrorism; the security of large-scale events; the management, security, and destruction ofarsenal stockpiles; cyber defense; the protection of natural resources; and the support ofsystems that contribute to national security, like population health, environmental health, civildefense, and public security.

With respect to the last item, the IADB’s recent work on the participation ofarmed forces on public security activities found that 100% of the Hempisphere’s countries’armed forces worked with their respective states in preventive measures aimed at populationsafety.

A ministry of defense as a political body, both strategically and administratively,designs and issues policies for the defense and for the administration of the armed forces. Itacts to guarantee and maintain the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state as well as


support the state’s national development. Recent studies indicate that the vast majority of theHemisphere’s armed forces are involved in national supportive actions, civil defense, cyberdefense, and public security.

A majority of states believes that consensus between military officers and civilservants is necessary in order to mitigate regional tensions and strengthen cooperation alongborders on a sub-regional level and on a hemispheric level.

In general, ministers of defense develop and execute defense policy. Theministers advise their presidents in the strategic direction of military operations and direct theaction of the armed forces under their commands. Additionally, they determine and executemilitrary policies, direct the military administrations, develop guidelines and regulations, andexecute directives for foreign negotiations that affect dense policy.

Therefore, the ministries and ministers of defense (or of security and/or ofsimilar ministries) of the Hemisphere’s countries play important roles in the Inter-AmericanDefense System. They play important roles because they represent the national levelcomponents of the system. As such, they control the national armed forces. As the ministers ofdefense, they are the voices of government in matters of national, subregional and hemisphericdefense.

Based on the information presented, the national level of the Inter-AmericanDefense System has been the object of much improvement and is fully functioning as it should.The national defense institutions offer excellent conditions under which to strengtheninstitutions of the Inter-American Defense System.

B.Subregional Level ComponentsThe Conference of Central American Armed Forces (CFAC) began with the

signing of the Agreement for the Creation of the Conference of Cental American Armed Forceson November 12, 1997. It was signed by the presidents of El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,and Nicaragua.

The Conference is both a military and a technical body with connections to theSystem for Central American Integration, which is a political body working towards the regionalintegration of Central America. The System for Central American Integration was created byCosta Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.

Later, Belize became a full member of the System for Central AmericanIntergration. Additionally, the Domican Republic participates as an associate member; theUnited Mexican States, the Republic of Argentia, the Republic of Chile, the Federal Republic ofBrazil act as observers; and the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of China in Taiwan, the FederalReoublic of Germany, the Italian Republic, and Japan act as extra-regional observers.

The UN General Assembly recognized the System for Central AmericanIntegration on December 10, 1993, through Resolution A/48 L. The Tegucigalpa Protocol wasregistered under the System. This recognition allowed it to be internationally known, and therecognition allowed the components and the institutions of the System to have diplomaticrelations witht the UN.

The principle objective of CFAC is to contribute to the security, development,and military integration of Central America. As its final goal, it seeks a permament andsystematic effort of mutual cooperation, coordination, and support between the armed forces


for study of common issues and to provide a defense against threats to democracy, peace, andliberty.

Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic arethe member-states of this conference.

The first main objective of the Conference is to provide an optimal level ofdefense by recommending concrete actions against threats to democracy, peace, and liberty.The second main objective is to exchange information and experiences in all aspects ofcooperation, and through that cooperation, increase the mutual trust between the membercountries. The third objective is to participate in political, economic, social psychological, andmilitary forums of interest in order to achieve more integrated defense, democratic security,and regional peace and freedom. The forth objective is to promote, through specializedacitivities, the study, discussion, and reflection of military and other issues of common interest.The final objective is assist in studies that support the development of the region and reducethe impact of natural disasters.

The main programs of the organization are: 1) Regional Military Integration inorder to execute programs to the following specialized activities: personnel, intelligence,doctrine, logistics, civil issues, air force issues, and naval issues, among others; 2) build andmaintain international status by communicating with international organizations and militariesas well as attending by-invitation events; and 3) promote trust – the member countriesdesigned an annual program of methods to promote regional trust and extra regional militarycharacter in order to strengthen transparency, confidence, and cooperation.

In the last year, CFAC achieved a number of successes. These successesincluded: 1) the implemention of the Annual Program of Measures to Encourage Confidence ofthe Military Character of CFAC, which is part of CFAC’s yearly evaluation; 2) the incorporation ofthe armed forces of France, Spain, Germany, the U.S., the United Kingdom, the Republic ofChina in Taiwan, the Russian Federation, the Federal Republic of Brazil, Canada, Belize,Colombia, Chila, and Argentina as military observers; 3) the devlopment of CFAC’s Annual Planof Integral Cooperation for the Prevention and Fighting of Terrorism, Organized Crime, andRelated Activities; 4) the set-up of permament communication of CFAC with the PermamentSecretary General of the System of Central American Integration, the Inter-American DefenseBoard, and the Conference of American Armies; 5) the signing of Cooperation Agreements withinternational bodies, such as the Central American Court of Justice, the International Red Cross,the Center for the Prevention of Natural Disasters in Central America, the Human RightsAnalysis Studies and Training Center, and the Organization of American States; 6) theimplementation of an exchange program of education officials and implementing specializedactivities to strengthen regional integration; and 7) the incorporation of the Conference ofCentral American Armies into the Conference of American Armies.

Having a list of achievements, objectives, and programs, the Conference ofCentral American Armies is a body very active in the protection of the regional interests ofdefense and security for its member countries. On top of these accomplishments, theConference is looking to coorperate and collaborate with other organizations in the region andthe Hemisphere. The Conference has liason offices in all countries of the system and it interactswith subregional and hemispheric defense bodies. It therefore presents as a successful exampleof collaboration and cooperation on the subregional level.


The Regional Security System (SSR) is an international agreement for theregional defense of the eastern Caribbean. The RSS was created as a response to security issuesthat threatened the stability of the region toward the end of the 1970s and continuing throughthe 1980s.

In October 1982, four members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States(Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Santa Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) signed amemorandum of understanding with Barbados, which provided for “mutual assistance in a caseof need.” Saint Kitts and Nevis joined the agreement shortly after their independence in 1983,and Grenada joined two years later. The memorandum was updated in 1992 and the RSSacquired legal status in March 1996, under the treaty signed at Saint Georges.

The Council of the SSR is composed of ministers responsible for the defenseand security of the member states, other ministers, and Plenipotentiary who can be designatedby the member-states’ heads of governments. As reflected by its make-up, the SSR is a politicalbody.

The Joint Orgnanization and Planning Committee was established as anoperative part of the SSR. It is composed of heads of Caribbean armed Forces. Joint operationsare coordinated through the operations room, which is located at the headquarters of theArmed Forces of Barbados or at another determined appropriate site. The SSR is a “hybrid” inthat its security forces are comprised of military and police under the mandate of theirrespective forces.

The purposes and functions of the SSR are to promote cooperation betweenthe member states in order to prevent and stop the ilegal trafficking of narcotics; to conductsearch and rescue during situations of national emergency; to protect fishing resources; to be incharge of controls and tariffs; to function as maritime police; to respond to natural disastersand other incidents; to control environmental contamination; to combate threats againstnational security; to prevent contraband; and to protect offshore installations and exclusiveeconomic zones.

To achieve the Treaty’s purposes, the member states commit to maintain anddevelop the individual and collective capacity to assist each other, seperately or in conjuction,through self-help and mutual assistance. They further agree to concede, to the personnel of amember-state, participating in operations of another member-state, who is in their territorialwaters or exclusive economic zone, the rights, powers, obligations, privileges, and immunitiesconferred to the personnel of the said member-state.

Also according to the Treaty, the interests of a member-state are the interestsof the other member-states, and consequently, the member-states shall have the right to takeimmediate action against a ship that committed an illicit act in the territorial waters or exclusiveeconomic zone of another member-state.

The member-states agree that in the case of an armed attack perpetratedagainst a member-state, from whatever origin, is considered an attack against all member-states. The member states agree that in the case of said attack they shall exercise their inherentrights of self- and collective defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter and determine theresponse that should be adopted to immediately assist the attacked state. They will take


whatever individual or collective action is deemed necessary, which includes the use of armedforce, in order to reestablish the peace and security of the attacked member-state.

Article 20 of the SSR Treaty affirms that the System can seek to establishrelations with other states and with other international organizations that they believe helpfulin promoting the Treaty’s objectives, and to that end, the Council can conclude agreements orestablish working relations with other states and organizations.

The SSR as a political body also functions as an operating and active subregionalbody for defense that attends to the local interests of its member-states and that can integrateinto other defense networks without having to loose its main characteristics. The stability andreliability of the SSR as well as its desire to interact with others is a strong point in support ofstrengthening hemispheric security.

The Steering Committe of the Military Chiefs of Caribbean Community wasdisigned to combat activities that represented a direct threat to regional security, which arosefrom new forms of crime, like illegal drugs, arms trafficking, and money laundering.

Although it did not have direct institutional relations with the EconomicCommunity of the the Caribbean (ECC), this Military Steering Committee acted in the samegeographic region, in the same economic block, and in general, composed of the samecountries.

In 1973, ECC was officially established and put into effect with the Treaty ofChaguarmas. Barbodos, Jamaica, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago were the signatorymembers. At present, the following countries are members of ECC: Antigua and Barbuda, theBahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat (GB), Saint Lucia, Saint Kittsand Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Belize, Costa Rica, ElSalvador, Guatemala, Guyana, and Suriname.

The region agrees to participate in building stronger inter-state institutions,developing shared vigilance, and other forms of cooperation between member-states, ECC, thelarger Caribbean region, and the international community.

As it conceives it, the organization defines public security as the state orcondition, within a constitutional setting, in which freedom is exercised without fears ofvictimization or harrassment. It further defines public security as the ability of the elected,consitutional government to function without interruption or being inhibited by a criminalaction.

According to these principles, a regional response to security threats requirespolicies that insist upon capacity building and the strengthening of institutional and legalframeworks.

The Steering Committee recommended a model of regional coordination thatrevolves around a regional strategic plan that incorporates sub-regional, instutional frameworks(CICAD, CCALA, ACCP, and GAFIC, etc.) into a viable project. This plan will function as acoordinating mechanism for the exchange and mobilization of resources in order to combatcrime and to eliminate threats to security.

As a central hub, the Steering Committee looks to develop capacities related tothe establishment of a virtual and regional policy research unit focused on the currently extant


resources and the refining of the justice system in order to take the most effective action in theapplication of the law and in the prevention of crime.

A review of the activities of this committee demonstrates it is fulfulling animportant role in terms of sub-regional defense and effectively confronting common, localthreats to its members. The convergence of interests of this group and its experiences can be ofuse for other cooperative defense relationships.

The North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) is a bi-nationalorganization composed of the United Statees and Canada. It is charged with the missions ofdetecting airspace instrusion and airspace control of North America.

In September 1957, the two countries agreed to create NORAD, headquarteredin Colorado Springs, and they formalized the agreement on May 12, 1958. NORAD centralizedoperational control of continental air defense against the threat posed by Soviet bombers. Theagreement includes 11 governing principles the oganization and the operation of NORAD. Theagreement also states for its renewal in 10 years, which occurred in March 1968. Since 1968,NORAD has been revised, renewed, and expanded multiple times.

In 1996 another renewal redefined NORAD’s mission. The new mission focusedon warnings and control of North American Airspace. The new agreement includes consultativeabilities to answer questions related to North American Airspace defense and cooperation.

A maritime alert mission was added with the renewal of the NORAD Agreementin May 2006. The mission reflects a shared understanding of activities carried out in the U.S.and Canada.

The aerospace warning system includes the monitoring of man-made objects inspace, and the detection, confirmation, and warning of a plane or missile attack from the air orspace against North America. This warning system is supported by different commands thathave agreements of mutual support.

Other NORAD missions include close collaboration with national defense,security, and law enforcement partners; preventing air attacks against Canadian or U.S.airspace; safeguarding the sovereignty of the U.S. and Canada; and responding to unknown andunauthorized air activity.

For the aerospace warning mission, the commander of NORAD provides anintegrated tactical warning and assessment of attack on the governments of Canada and theUnited States.

Together with its mission to control North American Airspace, NORAD helps todetect and control aircraft suspected of trafficking illicit drugs. The information is passed on tocivil agencies in order to help combat the flow of ilegal drugs to North America. Furthermore,NORAD command has developed an initial idea for the implementation of its new maritimealert mission.

NORAD continues to play an important role in the defense of Canada and theUnited States through evolving how it confronts changing threats. The events on September11, 2001, showed the continued relevance of NORAD for North American security. Today,NORAD provides civil authorities with a powerful military response capability to counter threatsagainst North American airspace if all other options are exhausted.


NORAD is a North American, sub-regional defense command that has hadsuccess with sub-regional efforts to integrate on the issue of defense.

North America, different from South America, Central America, and theCaribbean, does not have a sub-regional defense body. However, Canada and the United Statesare part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). With well-prepared armed forces,these two countries can actively participate in cooperative and collaborative efforts on mattersof hemispheric defense.

The South American Defense Council (SADC) has its origins in the UNASUR. Itwas approved in Costa do Sauípe, Brazil, at the Special Summit of UNASUR in December 2008.The Council was negotiated through a Working Group created by and composed ofrepresentatives of the ministers of defense and of foreign relations of twelve countries. Theyworked under the president of Chile.

UNASUR has as its legal basis in the Constitutive Treaty of the Union of SouthAmerican Nations and the Additional Protocol to the Constitutive Treaty of UNASUR. Also, theUnion made SADC its technical-military arm to manage defense matters.

The South American Defense Council is an advisory, cooperative, andcoordinating entity for matters of defense in compliance with the provisions of the ConstitutiveTreaty of UNASUR.

SADC is composed of defense ministers of UNASUR countries, who take part inannual meetings. Furthermore, the SADC has an executive body, composed of deputy ministersof defense. The presidency, which is in charge of the Council’s activities, is held by currentPresident Pro Tempore of UNASUR.

The Council is composed of 12 countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia,Chile, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Surinam, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The SantiagoDeclaration of Chile in 2009 presented initiatives seeking cooperation on defense matters, toovercome differences of military spending, to convert SADC into a dialogue platform duringconflicts between members, and to coordinate the external security of nations.

The Council is subject to the principles and purposes established in the UNCharter and the OAS Charter as well as to mandates and decisions of the Council of the Headsof State of the Governments of UNASUR.

The main principles of SADC are: 1) the unconditional respect for territorialsovereignty and integrity, which includes non-intervention in internal affairs and self-determination of peoples; 2) the promotion of peace and peaceful solutions to controversies; 3)strengthening dialogue and consensus building on matters of defense through buildingtransparency and trust; 4) safeguarding the full application of international law in accordancewith the principles and norms of the UN Charter, the OAS Charter, and the Constitutive Treatyof UNASUR; 5) recognizing that, consitutionally, defense institutions must submit authority tolegal and consitutional civil authorities; 6) to promote the reduction of asymmetries that existbetween defense systems of the member-states of UNASUR in order to stregthen the regionalcapacity in the area of defense; 7) to recognize the need to gradually and flexibly develop theinstitution of the UNASUR. Also, to promote cooperation initiatives in the area defense, whileunderstanding the different national realities; and 8) the confirmation that all peoples can livetogether peacefully, the confirmation of the protection and operation of democratic forms of


government, and in maters of defense, to confront threats and external or internal actions witha framework of national norms.

The general principles of the SADC are: 1) to construct a South Americanidentity on defense matters, which takes into account the sub-regional and regionalcharacteristics and which strengthens Latin American and Caribbean unity and 2) to generateconsensus to strengthen regional cooperation on defense matters.

The specifc objectives of the South American Defense Council are: 1) togradually advance the analysis and discussion of the common elements of a joint vision ondefense matters; 2) to promote the exchange of information and analysis on regional andinternational situations. The goal of promoting the excahnge of information is to identify riskand threat factors which can affect regional and world peace; 3) to contribute to thearticulation of joint regional positions through multi-lateral forums on defense. This objective isfrom the framework of Article 14 from the Constitutive Treaty of the UNASUR; 4) to strengthenthe adoption of means to increase confidence and the spread of information from lessonslearned; 5) to promote the exchange and cooperation among those in the defense industry; 6)to encourage the exchange of information in regards to educating and training militaries, tofacilitate training processes between nations’ armed forces, and to promote academiccooperation at defense research centers; and 7) to share expierences and to supporthumanitarian actions such as demining and preventing, mitigating, and assisting victims ofnatural disasters.

In a sub-regional context, supervise the Annual South American DefenseLeaders Conference, which is a meeting of regional leaders of armed forces. At the conference,the leaders discuss transforming the region’s armed forces in order to confront new threats andthey help in the development of common military activities.

The SADC is fulfilling all the objectives for which it was designed. It is anexample of a system that is modernizing the ministries of defense at a sub-regional level of theparticipating countries. It also is acting as a mechanism for the region to articulate commonpositions in multilateral defense forums. Furthermore, it is consultative body that canimmediately take in and evaluate information that pertains to threats to regional peace. All ofthese functions are in agreement with the UNASUR Treaty. At the same time, the Annual SouthAmerican Defense Leaders Conference, which acts at the operational level, can take action oncooperative activities on the hemispheric level.

It must be emphasized that in 2010 the SADC created a Center for StrategicDefense Studies. The objectives of which are to contribute to, through ongoing analysis, theidentification of challenges, threat and risk factors, opportunities, and relevant scenariosconcerning regional and world-wide security.

c. Hemispheric Level BodiesAt the hemispheric level, OAS has the directive mandate within the Inter-

American Defense System. The policy branches of OAS are the General Assembly (GA), thePermament Council (PC), and the Hemispheric Security Commission (HSC).


The HSC functions to study and formulate recommendations for the PCconcerning topics like hemispheric security, and in particular, the promoting of cooperationwithin it, which are then entrusted to the PC or the GA.3

Within this framework, the HSC supports training, investigating, and theactivities that allow the sharing of lessons learned and best practices in the creation ofhemispheric defense and security. It develops educational initiatives about peace; it promotesand spreads ways to trust in terms of security, and to that end, it promotes transparency andcooperation. It promotes control of convencional weapons and non-proliferation of destructiveweapons in mass. It manages institutional and cooperative initiatives to strengthen anintegrative approach to deal with disasters and complex emergencias. The HSC has in the IADBa body of technical, consultive, and educational advisors on matters of military and defense.

Hemispheric military and defense issues are characterized by cooperationbetween countries in order to strengthen continental peace and security. We can emphasizethe principles of this interaction: peaceful operations; the study of hemispheric problems andsensitive areas; in case of disaster, humanitarian asístanse operations; humanitarian demining;measures of transparency to promote trust; search and rescue; and maritime transportprotection and to combat piracy.

An important point to this study is to bear in mind the evidence that says thatAmerica is currently a peaceful zone with low military expenditures and is considered apeaceful region by measure of the global peace index. The population of the Americas, exceptin some countries, does not perceive the current threats to security as important as their otherproblems, which is the wrong view.

At the hemispheric level, there are two important and recognized bodies thatcan fulfill the fundamental role of articulating and facilitating cooperation and collaborationbetween the national defense systems at the sub-regional and regional levels. They are theConference of Defense Ministers of the Americas (CDMA) and the Inter-American DefenseBoard (IADB).

The CDMA was created as a forum for countries of the Hemisphere in orderto increase collaboration in the areas of defense and security as agreed upon in the 1995Williamsburg Principles. It is designed to provide defense ministers with a forum to discussissues, such as measures to promote trust and safety, operations to support peace, civil-militaryrelations, and emerging threats, including organized crime and terrorism.

The thirty-four participating and hemispheric member-states of the CDMA are:Antigua y Barbuda, Argentina, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia,Chile, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, the United States of America, Grenada,Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, theDomican Republic, Santa Lucia, Saint Vincent y the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Suriname,Trinidad y Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Under its by-laws, “The Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas is aninternational, multilateral political summit, integrated and directed by the ministers of defenseof the American continent under the authorization of their respective governments.”

3Rules of the Permament Council. Art. 20.


Another important point is that despite its by-laws, “This ministerial summit isthe principle meeting of the defense sector on the American continent and its goal is debate,analysis, and the exchange of experiences on the ‘Set Agenda Topics,’ which arise from theproposal of the host country and the consensus of its members.”

Thus far, nine conferences have convened: Williamsburg, Virginia, 1995;Bariloche, Argentina, 1996; Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, 1998; Manaus, Brazil, 2000;Santiago, Chile, 2002; Quito, Ecuador, 2004; Managua, Nicaragua, 2006; Banff, Canada, 2008; ySanta Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, 2010. The Tenth Conference was held in Montevideo, Uruguay,in 2012.

The country hosting the Conference of Defense Ministers organizes aSecretariat Pro-Tempore which bears the responsibility of a coordinating body. The memberstates of the CMDA discussed and considered that in order to preserve the institutionalmemory and continuity between Conferences, the American Defense Board (IADB) should assistthe work of the Pro-Tempore.

Under Title II – “Principles and Purpose of the Rules of the CMDA,” membercountries must meet the "Williamsburg Principles" agreed to in 1995, which include: 1) torecognize that armed and security forces play a fundamental role in the defense of thelegitimate interests of democratic, sovereign states; 2) to reaffirm the understanding of thearmed forces to subordinate themselves to democratic, institutional authority, to act within thelimits of national constitutions, and to respect human rights in both theory and practice; 3) toaugment defense transparency, through the exchange of information and the communicationof defense expenditures, and to foster dialogue between civil authority and the military; and 4)to establish as a goal for our Hemisphere, the resolution of disputes through negotiation andthe ample adoption of confidence measures.

The Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas has as its exclusive goalthe promotion of reciprocal knowledge; analysis, dialogue, and the exchange of ideas in thefields of defense and security; and any other mean of interaction that leads to achieving itsmission.

The effects that have come about are: an increase in collaboration andintegration and in terms of defense and security and a contribution to the devlopment ofmember countries.

In its rules the CDMA established the following general principles to guide theconference in terms of function, structuring the agenda, and setting activities: 1) Scope of Work– the ministries participate in this organization within the established powers of their respectivelegal frameworks and within their legal ability at the policy level; 2) Permament Interaction – tomaximize the capacity and the speedy transfer of information through the use of modernmangaement systems in order to maintain a permament interaction among the defenseministers; 3) Projection – the CDMA should amplify the spectrum of contacts it has with otherorganizations connected with its function, and this idea already has resulted in commonproposals, which will benefit CDMA’s members.

To stimulate the increase in bilateral contact the ministers should have theConference promote and facilitate this type of contact; the type of contact that “providessupport in order that the CDMA can fulfill its objectives.”


Additionally, the same document states the conference should be held everytwo years with an earlier preparatory meeting.

The CDMA does not have a financing system to cover its activities. Its activitesare financed by the host country and the member countries.

A very detailed examination of the CDMA’s protocols concludes that nothingnear cooperation exists between the CDMA and other bodies, such as the IADB and the OAS.No channels of communication or of interaction exist that would allow for the transmission ofimportant data and information in order to develop a collaborative environment at thehemispheric level.

As observed in its rules, the CDMA is a conference that meets every two years,does not have a budget, and does not propose binding decisions. It should be noted that theCDMA in its areas of action follows the guidelines set by its superiors, the Heads of State at theSummit of the Americas.

Thus, the themes of interest around the IDS that are debated at the Summitand in the GA of the OAS should be the same themes elevated to the level of evaluation bydefense ministers. Continuing with this idea, a communications network should be establishedbetween the political bodies of the foreign relations ministers of the OAS and the defenseministers of the CDMA.

In reality, such functioning connections or active communication does not existbetween the CDMA, the largest hemispheric body of defense policy, and the OAS.

The last two conferences of the CMDA took place in Banff, Canada, and in Santa Cruz dela Sierra, Bolivia, 2010.

The topic of the Eighth Conference in Banff, Canada, was “improving regionaland sub-regional defense and security of the hemisphere: forging confidence through means ofcooperation and collaboration.”

The CDMA in Banff established a firm desire to recognize the CDMA as well asits principles and commitments as a key element of IDS. It also made the decision to instructthe Executive Secretariat of the CMDA to take note of the work of the Inter-American NavalConference (CNI), the Conference of American Armies (CEA) and the System of Cooperationamong the American Armed Forces (SICOFAA), and to encourage and strengthen other existingforums such as the Conference of Central American Armed Forces (CFAC), the SteeringCommittee of Military Chiefs of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and the RegionalSecurity System (SSR), and to encourage these and other bilateral, sub-regional and regionalcooperative partnerships in defense matters.

The 8th Conference also expressed its thanks to the OAS Secretary General foroffering to host a conference on the history of the CMDA and for the OAS’ decision to explorethe areas of support and alternatives to enact it with the goal of immediately strengthening theinstitutional memory of the CMDA. The Conference evaluated, later in December 2008, modesof cooperation between it and the OAS, including through the IADB.

The 9th Conference in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, established the following:1) to recognize the importantance of cooperation in the areas of regional defense and security;2) to request the General Assembly of the Organization of the American States to grant theInter-American Defense Board the capacity to act in support of the Secretariat Pro-Tempore ofthe CMDA at the request of the host country in achieving the tasks set out in Article 25 of the


bylaws of the CMDA; 4) to recommend the OAS in the framework of this Organization to call fora conference on the future of the mission and functions of the entities and components of theInter-American Defense System with the participation of the representatives of the Ministers ofDefense; and 5) its support to the on-going international, regional, and sub-regional initiativesin order to strengthen coordination, skills and hemispheric cooperation in the area of naturaldisaster response.

After a brief examination of the documents and the protocols that govern theCDMA, there are some noteworthy comments that continue below.

First, the CDMA can assume a role of encouraging organizational collaborationand cooperation on a hemispheric level.

Second, the CDMA does not have established permament connections with theOAS, why are fundamental to communication between the OAS and components of IDS.

Third, the CDMA does not have connections with the IADB, which as theHemisphere’s defense representative to the OAS, could serve as the nexus between the CDMAand the OAS.

Fourth, there is not any other example within the Inter-American DefenseSystem of a multilateral, defense organization with the legitimacy that the CDMA possesses. Itleads a process of collaborative and cooperative integration of the actors within theHemisphere’s defense system, while respecting individual, national, subregional, and regionalinterests. It did all of this without establishing a hierarchy within the existing system.

Finally, the CDMA should consider beginning a process of building the IDS withnew architecture that fits the different parts together and reflects the new hemisphericenvironment.

On March 15, 2006, according to document AG/RES. 1 (XXXIIE/06), the Inter-American Defense Board received its charter and officially became an entity of the OAS asdefined in the last paragraph of Article 53 of the OAS Charter.

The IADB is characterized as a public, international body that conforms to thelaws of the host country. As an entity, it is an independent international organization of theOAS. It has technical autonomy to represent the defense ministers of member countries, takinginto account the mandates, related to the IADB’s functions, of the General Assembly of theOAS, Consulting Meeting of Foreign Relations Ministers of the OAS, and the Permament Councilof the OAS.

The governments that compose the IADB have permament representation, andthe delegates represent their respective ministries of defense and governments at the IADBthrough their participation at Council meetings and at other activities. The Heads of Delegationare also the official links between their respective governments and the IADB and between theIADB and their respective countries’ OAS Permament Representatives.

The structure and operations of the IADB are inspired by the principles of civilsupervision and subordination of military institutions to civil authority, in observance of Article4 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the principle of democratically forming itsauthorities in order to to ensure consistency with the democratic values of the member statesand their equal participation.


In regards to its budget, it is important to highlight that the IADB’s resourcesoriginate from the contributions of member-states to OAS funds.

The IADB completes specific and requested services of technical, consultive,and education advice that are related to military and defense issues of the member-states ofthe OAS. In turn, the member-states are to inform the Permanent Council of the OAS inadvance, through the Hemispheric Security Commission, about the contents of the request andcommunicate in the same manner the results of the services offered by the IADB.

The IADB should promote the interaction and cooperation with other similarregional and international bodies in regards to technical questions on the topic of military anddefense affairs.

The IADB’s statute can be amended by the General Assembly of the OASthrough its own initiative or by the Permament Council’s recommendation.

The IADB is composed of three main bodies: the Council of Delegates, theSecretariat, and the Inter-American Defense College.

The Council of Delegates is the principal body in charge of providing advisoryassistance to the states’ governments and to make decisions of the Board. The delegatescomposing it are representatives of the military hierarchies of their respective countries andare directed to serve by the States that have decided to participate in the Board. This council iscomposed of 27 member states and 23 delegates: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados,Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The countries thatmake up the group of observer countries are Spain, France, the Netherlands, and China.

The Secretariat of the Inter-American Defense Board conducts all of theadministrative functions, logistics, finances, translation, protocol, and public relations. It alsoprovides information to the public.

The Inter-American Defense College prepares civil servants and militarypersonnel of American states to hold positions of responsibility in the Hemisphere. The Collegemeets its mission by providing a plan of post-graduate studies complemented by diverseacademic programs, research, and publications.

Currently, the Organization concentrates its activities on the humanitarian de-miningprogram on the Ecuador-Peru border and in Colombia as well as reports on confidence-buildingand security measures. It also provides advisory input on disasters and advises on theemployment policy of armed forces, and aides small states that request its services.Furthermore, it provides educational programs in regional security matters among other things.

In the last few years, the IADB has developed its work on technical assistance, advisory,and educational efforts in topics related to military matters and hemispheric defense.

Among its most notable initiatives, the IADB developed in 2011/2012 ahumanitarian support exercise for planning capacity and assistance-cooperation in case ofnatural disasters in the Hemisphere when military support was necessary for huminitarianactions. The exercise was a success and served to reveal severe deficiencies in interaction,coordination, and cooperation among the participating bodies – conferences, regional, sub-regional organizations, and other civilian entities. All the components at an individual levelconducted themselves excellently.


Thus, the IADB sought the interaction and integration with other bodies withthe goal of sharing information and capabilities with regional and sub-regional forums andconferences, which has meant systematically intensifying the processes of cooperation andadvisory services.

Within the context of the IDS, the IADB is the only permament defenseorganization on the hemispheric level that deals with military and defense issues. It is also theonly permament defense organization with a body of delegation whom are representing theirministries of defense.

The IADB is the oldest regional and miltary and defense organization in theworld, and it is an important component of the IDS. It is incomprehensible that it does not havefunctioning and solid institutional connections with the CDMA.

The IADB supports the CDMA by preserving the institutional memory of thatconference and maintaining is webpage. However, preserving its webpage is the onlyconnection between the IADB and the CDMA. To that fact, it should be noted that a proposalunder discussion at that conference is for the IADB to cooperate with and execute the work ofthe CDMA, and to take on the role of Permament Technical Secretariat.

If the IADB comes to fulfill the role of the CDMA’s Permament TechnicalSecretariat, the IADB can complete a great amount of important work. The IADB as amultilateral cannel for hemispheric communications on matters of defense may become moreproductive and work within the network of other bodies on all levels. It can do this withoutinterfering with the operations of existing structures.

The opportunities for cooperation are immense in consideration of the workthat can be done in conjuction with civilians and the military for the common purpose ofbettering the quality of information and identifying solutions for current defense and securityproblems.

d. Cooperative Bodies between the Armed Forces of the AmericasThe Inter-American Naval Conference (CNI) was created in 1959 to provide a

forum to exchange ideas, knowledge, and understanding of mutual problems that affect theAmerican Continent with the fundamental goal of establishing permanent professional contactsbetween the navies of the participating countries and promoting hemispheric solidarity.

Furthermore, this conference aims to contribute to the improvement ofcontinental cooperation systems through the exchange of knowledge and strengthening ofregional solidarity.

The CNI is the principal hemispheric forum of cooperation and naval interactionthat unites principal commanders of American navies, and it is composed of 18 countries of thehemisphere.

Members of the CNI are the navies of: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile,Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, the United States, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua,Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay and Venezuela, and the Inter-American Naval Telecommunications Network (RITN.)

From the CNI, came a series of specialized conferences that includes the Inter-American Naval Conference of the Directors of Intelligence, the Inter-American Naval EducationConference, the Inter-American Naval Conference on Naval Control of Shipping, the Inter-


American Naval Conference of Telecommunications, the Inter-American Naval Conference onInteroperability, and the Inter-American Naval Conference on HOSTAC.

During the last session of the CNI, which took place at the end of May inCancun, Mexico, emphasis was placed on the need to common work procedures in order tostrengthen the exchange of information and cooperation in naval security matters.

The Naval Conference also aimed to improve interoperability mechanisms withthe goal of establishing security and peace between the nations and to recognize maritimeborders.

The central theme of the Conference was directed at Inter-American maritimesecurity, specifically supporting humanitarian missions and situations, such as disasters oremergencies, in countries which suffer the effects of any type of natural phenomenon.

A review of the Conference’s activities show that it fulfills an important role onthe Hemisphere’s defense level in regards to the matters in its area of operation. However, itdoes not have solid, functioning nexuses with other independent, defense bodies. The level ofcooperation and collaboration with other bodies is minimal. At the CNI’s 2012 meeting inCancun, the CNI did not approve a measure to send an observer of the Conference to the IADB.

The Conference of American Armies (CEA) was created in 1960 by a decision ofthe Commanders of the Armies of the three Americas with the goal of creating a discussionforum for the topics of mutual interest of the land forces on the continent.

The aim of the CEA is the analysis, debate, and exchange of ideas andexperiences related to matters of common interest within a defense framework. From the pointof view of military doctrine, it provides to the security and democratic development of themember militaries’ states.

Within the objectives of the organization, it is important to highlight both thecommonalities between the armies and the practical initiatives to improve interoperability. TheCEA also ensures that creative products of current and practical use are known to the memberarmies.

The army headquarters of the CEA changes each biennium and it has aPermanent Executive Secretariat (PESCAA) that accompanies the new headquarters. The mainpurpose of this Department is the faithful compliance with the regulations of the CEA and theagreements signed by the commanders in the previous cycle, so the cyclical nature of thePESCAA acts as a catalyst for future events.

20 member militaries, 5 military observers, and 2 military organizationsparticipate in CEA. The two international observer organizations are the Conference of theCentral American Armed Forces and the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB).

The Conference of the Commanders is the cumulative event of the CEA.Commanders or Chiefs of Staff of member armies and of observer armies and the presidents ofthe Inter-American Defense Board and of the Conference of Central American Armed Forces allparitipate.

The cycle of activities of the CEA provides among other initiatives theconducting of specialized conferences, exercises, "ad-hoc" committee, a preparatory meetingand the Conference of Commanders.


For each cycle, the commanders of the prior CEA establish a topic to serve as aplatform to guide the process of analysis, debate and exchange of ideas, and to develop thedifferent events held by the organization.

The central theme, approved by the Commanders, constitutes a generalapproach to specify with depth and flexibility the material and topics which, being of commoninterest, should shape the inputs in the process of operation in the CEA’s next cycle.

For the 2012/2013 cycle, the central theme is: “the CEA and its contribution toPeacekeeping Operations (developed under the mandate of the United Nations), in NaturalDisaster Assistance Operations, through the means of creating and applying mechanisms andprocedures that allow for improvements of collective capacities of their members and theirinteroperability.”

The Conference of American Armies as a military entity, international in nature,considers as a principal task the promotion of the integration between the Armies of theAmericas and allows the organization to reach goals of great importance which translate as: 1)developing a permanent exchange of information related to the common defense interests; 2)strengthening integration and collaboration between armies of the Americas; and 3) thepromotion of unity.

These successes allow the Conference of the American Armies to successfullyface new scenarios of challenges occurring in the hemisphere, the same that are characterizedby a complex nature, derived from the new focuses and tendencies that are present in theworld.

An examination of the Conference’s activities demonstrates that the bodyfulfills an important role on the hemispheric defense level in regards to matters in its area ofoperation. However, it does not have solid and functioning nexuses with other independentlyoperating bodies of defense. The level of cooperation and collaboration with other bodies hasimproved as the CEA assigned a representative to the IADB. That move is an importantdevelopment in terms of the interaction and cooperation between the two organizations.

System of Cooperation between the American Air Forces (SICOFAA) wascreated in 1960 as the principle forum of cooperation and coordination between the Air Forcesof the Americas. Its Constitutive Charter was signed in July of 2006.

The System has an ample range of action that goes from the coordination andstrengthening of search and rescue (SAR) to joint exercises. The members of the System are theair forces of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, the UnitedStates, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the DominicanRepublic, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

SICOFAA is a non-partisan, voluntary organization whose goal is to promote andstrengthen friendly ties and mutual cooperation and support between its members.

According to the SICOFAA Strategic Plan, the organization is an integrativesystem of cooperation between American air forces or their equivalents, based onstrengthening friendly ties between the members.

Its mission is to exchange experiences, means, training and instruction ofpersonnel; all of which will facilitate the generation of procedures in order for its members toact integrally, while respecting their individualities and independence. The integration of action


is in compliment to what is provided by the respective governments in order to promote andstrengthen the bonds of friendship and mutual support.

Within the vision of SICOFAA, the use of airspace is of vital importance for thedefense and development of the countries. The members of the system are the organizationsthat are qualified to advise their respective governments in the use of an effective and efficientuse of airspace resources in defense and national security

The agreements and activities of SICOFAA are apolitical and do not affect thesovereignty of the member-states as it is essential to maintain and strengthen an atmosphereof trust and professional cooperation. This atmosphere will develop connections, procedures,communications, and capacities, between the member-states, to be employed in the future.

SICOFAA has participated in IADB exercises and contributed in a significantmanner with the creation of the Response Plan in the Case of Disasters. The Conference hashighly encouraged the participation of the Conference of the American Armed Forces (CEA) andthe Inter-American Naval Conference (CNI) in their exercises as observers.

A quick evaluation of the activities of this system shows that this body fulfills animportant role on the level of hemispheric defense in regards to matters of its area ofoperations. Given all this, however, it does not have concrete functioning nexuses ofcommunication with other bodies operating within the same area. The level of cooperation andcollaboration with other organizations is low. At the 2012 meeting of SICOFFA, it did notapprove to senda n observer from its system to the IADB.

e. Specialized BodiesThe Military Legal Committe of the Americas (COJUMA) came about in the

1990s as the first forum of cooperation and exchange of information among military legaloperators. The initiative was promoted initially by the Air Force of the United States and yearslater, was accepted at the regional level.

The Committee began with 13 countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia,Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela and theUnited States.

In its search, exchange, and promotion of good practices, CONUMA’s mainactivities include the exchange of judges and military lawyers, as well as legal counsel.Additionally there have been a series of training initiatives seeking to strengthen theinstitutional capacities of the military legal entities of the hemisphere. The United StatesSouthern Command has taken a role in promoting and supporting CONJUMA.

COJUMA describes the composition of the committee, which includes militaryand civilian lawyers of an ever-increasing number of countries from the Americas.

The organization originated from a formal proposal to create a permanent legalcommittee within SICOFAA to address common interest questions for the Air Forces of theAmericas. The chiefs of the American Air Forces examined the proposal and decided to createthe judicial committee, which identified that it could address issues of concern to theConference of the Heads of the Armed Forces of the Americas (CONJEFAMER).

The Legal Committee also provides necessary legal advice in developing amanual of aircraft accident investigation in order to establish the manner in which to record theinvestigation of a plane crash, involving aircraft from a country operating in the airspace of


another state. Difficult questions of sovereignty, national security, and the interface betweencivil and military authorities are treated in depth.

COJUMA currently consists of 20 nations and its principal goal is to provide anacademic environment in which the members of the Committee can exchange ideas,understand each other, and establish a variety of appropriate responses for legal matters facedby the military commanders.

Like other components of IDS, collaboration and interaction of the Committeewith other defense bodies can be increased.

The Inter-American Naval Telecommunications Network (RITN) was created in1962 for the exchange of critical information for American navies. In its initial stages, itoperated a radio frequency (HF), which was replaced in 1994 by the VSAT satellite system. In2008, the Network migrated to the communications system "CENTRIXS" allowing simultaneousconnection of the 17 countries of the Network.

The Naval Conference takes place every two years and the nations of the Inter-American Naval Telecommunications Network participate as well. During these conferences,experiences, observations, and recommendations are exchanged with the aim of improving andoptimizing the use and operation of the Network.

At the last RITN conference, matters related to "Using the Network to Supportthe Continental Cooperation for Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Response" and "LessonsLearned from February 27, 2010 Earthquake in Chile" were discussed.

This Network has provided since 1989, an award, which among other points,encourages members to make maximum efforts to operate the network efficiently and strivetowards self-improvement. RITN operates in three languages (English, Spanish and Portuguese),and it shall ensure faithful obedience to communications doctrine.

The experiences and knowledge of this network can be bettered shared withother IDS bodies through cooperative agreements and other means of collaboration.

B. THOUGHTS ON THE BODY COMPONENTS OF THE INTER-AMERICANDEFENSE SYSTEM

The partial analysis of the contents presented in this paper leads to somepreliminary thoughts concerning the existing Inter-American Defense System (IDS) model.

The IDS is part of a larger hemispheric security that is led by the Organization ofAmerican States (OAS), through the Commission on Hemispheric Security (CHS).

For the purposes of this study, we analyzed the IDS on three levels in terms ofdefense. We considered national interests and the geographic make-up of the Continent whenlooking at how the current components appear and how they, together, dileneate the currentIDS. The three levels are the national level, the subregional level, and the hemispheric level.That is how we structured and developed our analysis.

On the national level, the principle of civilian oversight of the armed forces iscompletely implemented throughout the Continent. The great majority of countries have aministry of defense, led by civilians, which controls the armed forces. In their behaviors, thearmed forces have adapted to the changes within their countries and outside of them.


The armed forces still fulfill important roles in matters related to public security, andwithin all countries in the Continent, they participate in actions to prevent and stop illicitactivities although their involvement varies by country.

On the national level, the IDS is fully operational and provides adequate responsesto stop local conflicts related to new tretas. However, the complexity and the breadth of thecontemporary threats suggest a need for joint efforts and cooperation with other agencies.

There is a tendency to celebrate bilateral agreements and treaties, includingmultilateral treaties, as the way to address common threats to national interests. In this way,we can see the construction of a network to integrate structures to divide up similar problems.

Over time the words “collabortion” and “cooperation” begin to dictate the relationsbetween countries on matters of defense. Through this edict comes a general understanding toestablish a network of multilateral relationships without obedience to one hierarchy.

Therefore, many opportunities exist for national bodies to cooperate andcollaborate with other subregional and hemispheric agencies. For a new type of architecture todesign the hemispheric defense system, the national system will indoubtedly be of fundamentalimportance. Prexisting on the national level are the major conditions for strengtheningcooperation and interoperatibility in terms of hemispheric defense.

On the subregional level, there are some unique aspects, which need to behighlighted, because they were inferred during the analysis.

First, it is noteworthy that on this level exists political bodies of defense and theirrelated operational parts, very well structured, which are intended to provide subregionalresponses adapted to local needs. Examples are, provided in the body of this document, fromthe South American subregion, the binomial UNASUR/SADC; from Central America, SICA/CFAC;from the Caribbean, CARICOM/Steering Committee of Military Chiefs of the CaribbeanCommunity; and from North America, OTAN/NORAD. Please note that OTAN is no longer a partof the IDS.

Within these organiztions there is a strong desire to integrate efforts, develop anenvironment of professional trust and cooperation, and discuss matters of common interest ascan be seen in the reading of their regulations and enactments.

Through analyzing the principles and objectives of these organizations, we observe aconvergence on common points, such as: 1) the promotion of peace and peaceful solutions tocontroversies; 2) strengthening dialogue and consensus on matters of defense; 3) protectionfrom external and internal threats or actions; 4) construction of an American identity in termsof defense; 5) strengthening subregional cooperation in matters of defense and strengtheningthe means to encourage trust; 6) the construction of a shared vision of the tasks for defense;and 7) the promotion of exchange within the defense industry and the development ofconcrete actions to combat threats to democracy, peace, and liberty in order to provideoptimal levels of defense.

In the final analysis, these are the challenges/goals to pursuing an active andefficient Inter-American Defense System. There is no doubt that the desired hemisphericcooperation on matters of defense has to be built from the bottom up. Furthermore, it needsto respect individual countries and their idiosyncracies and strengthen the existing systems,which is already happening.


With respect to the hemispheric level, the analysis detected some major problemsand obstacles with the IDS at this level. This detection is because of the numerous conflicts ofinterest and the high number of contrasting points of view at this level. It is in this environmentthat the CDMA and the IADB exist.

For the analysis, it is important to point out the principle characteristics necessaryfor the system to function perfectly on this level. They are: the existence of common protocolsand indepartamental relations; the practice of collaborative and cooperative actions; theimplementation of ways to encourage trust; and the presence of a body or entity that haslegitimacy and authority to jump-start and facilitate. All these elements should be part of anexhaustive International strategy.

The extant protocols from the hemispheric level of defense were signed after WWIIand during the Cold War. There is no consensus concerning the application of theseinstruments in the new international environment, particulary the instrument of TIAR.

Interdepartamental relations presuppose horizontal connections in all directions andpaths that constitute an interconnected network without any obstacles to communication,cooperation, or integration. It is in this realm that the IDS has many obstables.

Throughout this entire work, evidence highlighted the low flow of information andthe need to establish connections between the OAS, the CDMA, and the IADB, the principleactors in this structuring debate. Collaborative and cooperative actions are completelydependent on a higher flow of information. If the connections are fragile, the actions cannot beeffective.

As a measure of confidence building, indepartamental cooperation has not beenwide-spread in the Hemisphere. In 2011, only 12 countries presented inventories conforming towhat had been established in signed agreements. Only now are white books beginning to leavethe sphere of government offices and become public knowledge. All this takes time and, again,political will.

With respect to entity or body creation in order to facilitate dynamics and synergynecessary for a functioning IDS, we imagine that the CDMA can develop into this role with thesupport of the IADB as its permament technical secretariat.

At this point it is important to identify a working definition of the term “catalyst.” Inthis case it should be understood as an agent that facilitates the necessary actions andinteractions for a highly functioning IDS.

The two last conferences of the CDMA (VIII and IX) had as a central theme thesupport of measures that fortify cooperation in matters of the Americas’ defense and security.

The 8th Conference recognized the CDMA as a key element in the Inter-AmericanSystem and it expressed the intention to combine efforts with other organizations. But, beingthe highest political body related to matters of hemispheric defense, the CDMA did notestablish regular and functional relations with other integral components of the IDS.

The 9th Conference of Ministers recommended that the OAS convene a conferenceto assess the future mission and functions of the instruments and components of the Inter-American Defense System. This was an appeal by the CDMA in order to increase mutualcooperation and support between American states.


A summary study of the final declarations of these conferences indicates a firmdetermination on the part of the Defense Ministers of the Americas to search for cooperationand interaction of efforts between diverse bodies charged with subregional defense.

Still, considering the content of the statements of the Ministers of Defense, one cansee a willingness of the CDMA to utilize the experience and representation of the IADB. Anaction that points out this inclination is the presented proposal for the IADB to more effectivelywork with the CDMA.

It is in this atmosphere that this analysis appears. A succinct study of the IADB’sStatute shows that it is permitted to provide some important thoughts about the focus of thediscussions provided in this document.

The first point of the Statute is related to the principles of political bodies and thesubordination of military instituitions to the legitimate authority of elected government, whichdid not involve any discussion.

The second point is that the Statute empowers the IADB to promote interaction andcooperation with other regional bodies and global organizations of a similar nature. However,the necessary conditions do not exist to allow the IADB to develop this work as no functioningconnections exist with other organizations of regional defense.

Despite their characteristics and similarities in their respective areas of operation,the IADB and the CDMA lack strong connections with respect to managing issues related tohemispheric defense. Consequently, it could be the idea that the IADB should maintain a strongliaison with the CDMA, since the Conference is an essential link of the Inter-American DefenseSystem.

As has been pointed out, the IADB is the only liaison between the IDS and politicalcomponents on issues of defense. It should also be noted that the political component of thehemispheric defense system is comprised of two parts: the OAS and the CDMA.

There are no impediments to developing functioning relations between the IADBand these political bodies since the proposed system has the characteristics of a horizontallyconnected network without a hierarchy (as was explained amply in this study).

The IADB has all the conditions and tools to transform into a joint, combined,diversified, and multilateral agency, internationally representing the political components ofthe IDS. What the IADB could look like in the Hemisphere is similar to what occurred at thesubregional level in that a political-defense body existed, which was then supported by atechnical-advisory military body.

In its daily activities, the IADB can develop important research and investigation onthe environment in the Hemisphere; manage information; issue reports, newstories, andpublications; promote the integration of civilian and military authorities; formulate hypothesesin regards to the wide range of modern concepts of defense; collaborate on trust-buildingmeasures. All of those activities are in addition to its current ones and all of it pertinent totechnical advising the political establishment on matters of defense. The value of the entity willbe in what is made of it.

It is also important to highlight that in the current hemispheric environment, nomeeting of the chiefs of staff occurs nor one of their counterparts. This meeting could be animportant forum for exchanging experiences on technical-military matters, on joint operations,and, in particulary, it can constitute a nucleus of a body of hemispheric crisis negotiation.


The miltary conferences are the bodies of cooperation between the armed forcesof the the Americas, developed in specific areas of operation, for the exchange of experiences,resources, training and personnel instruction. All of these efforts were to facilitate theelaboration of standardized procedures that also respected the inherent pecularities of eachstate.

Aditionally, these tasks consitute a forum for the exchange of ideas, knowledge, andmutual understanding of the problems that affect the American continent. They also constitutea proposition to promote hemispheric solidarity.

However, the modern concept of defense in regards to the effective deployment ofarmed forces presupposes a joint long-term-planning process of military personnel from thenavy, army, and air force. This whole preparative process for deploying combined forcesrequires the exchange of information, joint exercises, and lengthy collaboration andcooperation in military training, the likes of which does not exist today. To better prepare statesfor combined operations and to accustom them to operating jointly with other agencies, thispath is the one to follow.

Specialized bodies, besides loaning important technical services to the IDS, canincrease the capacities and the abilities of the decision makers in the security and defenseenvironment. We can visualize many possibilities of integration, cooperation, and mutualsupport between these entities.

Finally, it is noteworthy that, to improve the existing SID, there is an urgent need forsome significant changes to the structural and institutional relations between actors involved inthe defense of the Americas, defined by the new norms of continental multilateralism.

VII. THE FUTURE OF THE MISSION AND FUNCTIONS OF THETOOLS AND COMPONENTS OF THE INTER-AMERICANDEFENSE SYSTEM

A. INITIAL THOUGHTS

A number of factors motivated the IADB to create a full and detailed study, analyzingthe make-up of the Inter-American Defense System, with views that identify options andalternatives that will allow for its effective functioning and contribute to hemispheric peace andsecurity. One was the recommendation to the OAS, by the 9th Conference of Defense Ministers,in 2010, to convene a conference to assess the future mission and functions of the instrumentsand components of the Inter-American Defense System. Another was Resolution AG/OEA/2632,passed in 2011, which was on the same subject as the CDMA’s recommendation. A third wasthe requests for technical advice from the permament missions of Argentina and Canada beforethe OAS in 2012 and finally, a motion adopted by the Council of Delegates in May 2012.

This analyis permitted us to conclude that the existing components and instrumentscomprise an Inter-American Defense System. In general, these components and instrumentsare interconnected, particulary on the national and subregional levels as you can see below.


1) The ministers of defense (or their equivalents) and the armed forces (or theirequivalents), form the fundamental base of the IDS. They inter-operate and inter-relatethrough bilateral and multilateral relations established by different countries. We see it occurwith the participation of defense ministers (or their equivalents) at the CDMA, SADC, CFAC, SSR,and NORAD. We see it with commanders of the armed forces (or their equivalents) with theCNI, CEA, and CONJEFAMER, and we see it with the delegates at the IADB.

2) The subregional bodies have common goals, such as to identify opportunities ofmutual cooperation in confronting common threats, share in common efforts, and promote theexchange of experiences that helps to contribute to regional defense and security.

3) The regional or hemispheric bodies have common goals to identify opportunities formutual cooperation that involve representatives from around the Hemisphere. On this level it isevident that the interaction between the bodies of the system can be improved, particulary theinteraction between the CDMA and the IADB, the CDMA and military conferences, and thedifferent military conferences.

4) The treaties, agreements, and other legal instruments define agreed uponassumptions between countries in an effort of mutual cooperation and looking for continentalsecurity. These legal documents connect the countries that agree to them. However, wehighlight also the absence of a legal instrument, adapted to the current environment of theHemisphere, based on established principles that encourage continental peace and security,and which recognizes that collective cooperation between our countries can transform theAmericas into a land of peace and security.

In this study we identified alternatives and options that may mitigate the effects ofobstacles and the chances of undesirable situations and in turn allow for the creation of aneffective system. Of the options and alternatives identified, we will highlight the following ones:

- That the CDMA becomes the catalyst body to facilitate change and producesynergy with the IDS;

- That the IADB is charged as Permament Technical Secretary to the CDMA,supporting the Conference’s functions as a facilitator and catalyst of efforts for cooperation,collaboration, interaction, exchange, and study of interesting hemispheric issues within the IDS.

- The organization of a conference, bringing together chiefs of staff or theircounterparts, and acting as an important forum for the exchange of experiences in military-technical matters, for joint operations, and, in particular, to constitute the nucleus of a body forhemispheric crisis-management.

- The organization of a conference of the representatives of hemispheric andsubregional bodies, cooperative military bodies, and specialized bodies, with the objective tostrengthen the interaction and interconnection of the IDS components.

- Creation of a Center for Strategic Studies that supports the OAS and the CDMAand contains similar objectives to SADC.

Considering the adoption of the presented alternatives and options, we propose thefuture missions and powers of the body components of SID below.


B. MISSION AND FUNCTION OF THE PARTS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSESYSTEM

1. THE CONFERENCE OF DEFENSE MINISTERS OF THE AMERICASBesides the current missions and ruties of the CDMA, the Ministers of Defense

should consider the possibility that the Conference act as a catalyst and promoter ofinteractions between the different compnents of the IDS. In playing such a role, it must:

a. Cooperate in order to promote hemispheric peace and security.b. Strengthen insitutional relations with the General Assembly of the OAS.c. Promote cooperation and collaboration between parts that comprise IDS.d. Promote the exchange of information and experience between parts that

comprise IDS.e. Promote the development of the study of subjects that contribute to

strengthening IDS.f. Strengthen cooperation and interaction with other similar international

organizations.g. Encourage the signing of regional, subregional, multilateral, and bilateral

defense and military agreements, with the goal of strengthening the bonds of mutual friendshipand trust between American states.

h. Propose to the OAS, a new legal tool, adapted to the current environment ofthe Hemisphere, based on established principles that encourage continental peace and securityand which recognizes that collective cooperation between our countries can transform theAmericas into a land of peace and security.

i. Support the organizing of a conference of chiefs of staff and a conference ofthe component parts of IDS.

j. Study hemispheric problems, and guide operation of crisis-management.k. Guide cooperation in the use of military means of defense against current

hemispheric threats.l. Guide the development of measures for transparency and for encouraging

trust and security in the Hemisphere.

2. INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE BOARDIn addition to its current activities and duties under of its Statute, through the

proposal of the CDMA to the AG/OAS, the IADB may act as the Permament TechnicalSecretariat of the CDMA, with the following roles:

a. To facilitate a nexus between the components of the IDS and the bodies of theOAS that act in the interest of Hemispheric Security.

b. Support the CDMA in its function as facilitator and catalyst for efforts ofcooperation, collaboration, interaction, exchange, and study of subjects of hemispheric interestin terms of IDS.

c. Provide permament technical support to the CDMA to follow-up onrecommendations issued at conferences.

d. Support the Secretariat Pro-Tempore of the CDMA with organizing theConference whenever requested.


e. Support the conference of chiefs of staff and the conference of therepresentatives of the component parts of IDS.

f. Establish a network of communications, tying together all the compnents ofIDS.

g. Support the component parts of IDS in its activities, whenever requested.h. Interact and lend technical support to the bodies of the OAS on military and

defense matters.i. Establish a mutual cooperative relationship with the Secretary General of the

OAS.j. Participate in military support activities in order to aid a country in the

Hemisphere affected by a disaster.k. Maintain a databank of military and defense matters pertaining to IDS.l. Preserve the institutional and historical memory of the CDMA and the IDS.m. Organize and maintain the webpages of the CDMA and the IDS.

The IADB, through the Inter-American Defense College, can act as an educative bodyand a body of knowledge of IDS strategy with the following missions and duties:

a. Lend educative support to the OAS and its member-states on military,defense, and hemispheric security matters and related topics.

b. Contribute to the interaction and cooperation between the educationalmilitary establishments in the Hemisphere.

c. Organize a Center of Strategic Studies and promote the interaction andcooperation between similar organizations in the Hemisphere, both offical and non-governmental ones.

d. Conduct Studies that contribute to the strengthening and perfecting of IDS.

3. SPECIALIZED SUBREGIONAL BODIES AND SUBREGIONAL BODIES OF ARMEDFORCES COOPERATION

In addition to their current missions and duties, they can:a. Act as a body of IDS.b. Cooperate within a context of hemispheric peace and security, following

guidelines established by the CDMA.c. Contribute to the strengthening of cooperation, integration, interconnection,

and interaction between the bodies that make-up IDS.d. Contribute to the exchange of information and experiences between the

bodies that compose IDS.e. Cooperate on the development of studies on subjects that contribute to the

strengthening of IDS.f. Contribute to the strengthening of cooperation and interaction with other

similar international organizations.g. Encourage the signing of regional, subregional, bilateral, and multilateral

agreements, in their respective areas of understanding, with the purpose of strengtheningbonds of friendship and mutual trust between American states. These actions will helptransform the American continent into a zone of peace and security for its peoples.


h. Encourage collective cooperation in their respective areas of competency inthe use of means of military defense in order to act against hemispheric threats.

i. Participate in the IDS’s network of communications.j. Cooperate with the IADB on the realization of an IDS databank.k. Participate at the conferences of IDS component bodies.l. If possible, always participate in the combined activities developed by the bodies

of IDS (seminars, symposiums, exercises, workshops, work groups, etc.).

C. ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW LEGAL INSTRUMENT

The modernization of the Inter-American Defense System results in the need for theformulation of a new instrument, adapted to the current Hemisphere’s environment, based onestablished principles that encourage continental peace and security and that recognizes thatcollective cooperation between our countries can transform the Americas into a land of peaceand security.

The new instrument should be based in strenghtening cooperative hemisphericsecurity. As a part of this strengthening, all states agree to maintain a state of peace andsecurity in the Hemisphere, to not provocate disequilibrium or adopt measures that may causeany sort of disequilibrium within the Inter-American System, and to cooperate with other statesin the confrontation of common threats.

The proposed synthesized agreement for this new instrument is: “To cooperate sothat the Americas will be considered the most peaceful and secure region of the world.”

Consider the general commitments to this new tool:a. Re-energize the principles established in the UN Charter, the OAS Charter, and

other instruments that guide the relations between states, and that respect the strengtheningof democracy, of peace, of security, of solidarity, and of cooperation between the Americannations.

b. Recognize the importance of cooperation in defensive actions againsthemispheric security threats.

c. Recognize the importance of strengthening relations of bilateral, subregional,regional, and hemispheric cooperation that contributes to stability, peace, and security.

d. Recognize the importance of implementing measures to encourage trust andtransparency.

e. Cooperate in actions for the restoration and maintainance of peace in theHemisphere.

f. Cooperation in actions to support populations affected by disasters.g. Cooperate with small states that are very vulnerable to traditional and non-

traditional threats.

This proposal does not include any suggestion that is meant to replace or repealthe current instruments operating in the Inter-American System. However, the proposal isguided by the hope of complementing the current instruments. It is also proposed in order topresent a new strategic conception, adapted to the current environment.


This presented proposal deals with the adoption of preventative measures inorder to strenghten peace and security in contrast to the idea of adopting corrective measuresto re-establish compromised peace and security.

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 20, 2012.

__________________________________________Gen Div JUAREZ APARECIDO DE PAULA CUNHA

Director GeneralInter-American Defense Board


VIII. CONSULTED WORKS1. http://www.erawatch-network.com/en/Members/associates/flacso-facultad-

latinoamericana-de-ciencias-sociales-.html / http://www.flacso.org.br/portal/.2. http://www.resdal.org/.3. http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/international/consensus/unasur.4. http://www.unasursg.org/.5. http://www.caricom.org/.6. http://www.midena.gob.ec/.7. http://www.mdn.gov.py/v3/inicio.html.8. http://www.mindef.mil.gt/.9. http://www.defensa.gob.es/.10. 2011 Annual Report of the Inter-American Defense Board.11. América Latina en el Sistema Político Internacional - G. Pope Atkins / Grupo

Editor Latinoamericano.12. Recomendaciones para La Continuación del Fortalecimiento de la Junta

Interamericana de Defensa (JID) y de su Capacidad de Asesorar los Estados Miembros e otrosÓrganos e Entidades de la OEA - Trinidad y Tobago, 16 Feb 2011.

13. Article: Reforma a la Junta Interamericana de Defensa - John A. Cope14. Statute of the Inter-American Defense Board – Approved by the Commission on

Hemispheric Security during its conference on February 10, 2006 and revised by the StyleSubcommittee on February 17, 2006.

15. Motion presented by the president of the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB)before the Special Meeting of the Council of Delegates on May 23, 2012 - Opciones yAlternativas respecto al Futuro de la Misión y Funciones de los Instrumentos y Componentesdel Sistema Interamericano de Defensa.

16. Document to the OAS: Sistema Interamericano de Defensa on November 15,2011.

17. http://www.cdmamericas.org/18. Regulations of the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas (CDMA).19. Regulations of the Inter-American Naval Conference (CNI)20. Integración Sul-Americana: Seguridad Regional y Defensa Nacional - Almirante

Armando Amorim Ferreira Vidigal - Cuaderno Premisas, en el 14, dic./1996, pp. 103-138.21. Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR).22. Presentation to the IADB’s Council of Delegates “Sistema de Seguridad

Hemisférica y Sistema Interamericano de Defensa” - General Omar Arturo Vaquerano / Abril,2012.

23. http://www.sicofaa.org/SICOFAA/Bienvenidos.html.24. http://www.ejercito.mil.pe/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&lay

out=blog&id=212&Itemid=769 (Secretaría Ejecutiva Permanente de la CEA)25. http://www.rss.org.bb/ (website for the System of Regional Security - RSS)26. Regulations of the Military Legal Committee of the Americas (COJUMA)


27. http://elsalvador.abogadosnotarios.com/leyes-el-salvador/leyes-de-seguridad-publica/reglamento-de-la-conferencia-de-las-fuerzas-armadas-centroamericanas (Reglamentode la CFAC)

28. http://www.oas.org/pt/default.asp29. http://iadb-pt.jid.org/30. Agreement of Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO)31. http://www.oas.org32. Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas: http://www.cdmamericas.org/





APPENDIX “A”: THE IDS WORKSHOP

A. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THISSTUDY

1. Army General DANIEL EDGARDO CASTELLÁ LORENZO – Chief of Staff ofDefense of the Republic of Uruguay.

2. Ambassador ÁLVARO BRIONES – Director of the Department of Public Securityof the OAS.

3. Mrs. MARIA DE LA PAZ TIBILETTI – President of the Security and DefenseNetwork of the Americas (RESDAL).

4. Mrs. MARGARET DALY-HAYES – Consultant on Matters of Security fromGeorgetown University.

5. Dr. FRANCISCO ROJAS ARAVENA – Former Secretary General of Latin AmericanFaculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO).

6. Naval Captain GEORGE BROWN MACLEAN – National Academy of Policy andStrategic Studies of Chile (ANEPE).

7. Division General BENITO RAGGIO – Representative of Spain before the IADBand Head of the Spanish Embassy’s Matters of Hemispheric Security before the OAS.

8. Mrs. PAOLA FUNE ZAMBRANO.9. Retired Colonel JESÚS ALBERTO RUIZ MORA – War College of Colombia.10. Retired Colonel JAY COPE - National Defense University (NDU).11. Professor GUILLERMO PACHECO - Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies

(CHDS).12. Professor LUIS BITTENCOURT - Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies

(CHDS).13. Mr. WILLIAM M. BERENSON – Legal Advisor to the OAS.

B. MAJOR ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTIONS

The objectives of the workshop were to fully achieve the following:- Presentation of the positions of the experts on the Inter-American Defense

System (IDS).- Presentation of the positions of the Delegations to the Inter-American Defense

Board (IADB).- Presentation of an evaluation by SSA advisors designated by the Director

General.- Compilation of the observations and positions of experts in the IDS.

The major contributions to the work were:1. The defense ministers and their respective armed forces are national

components of the IDS and are the fundamental base of the system.


2. On the national level, the principle of civil supervision of the armed forces iscompletely implemented throughout the Continent. All the countries have ministries of defenseled by civilians that supervise and control the armed forces. In practice, the armed forces haveadapted to the changes in their countries and abroad.

3. The structure on the national level of IDS is fully functioning and providesadequate responses to solving local conflicts related to new threats. However, the complexityand breadth of contemporary threats may suggest a need for joint efforts and cooperation inother instances.

4. Defense and security of countries is supported by regional and subregionalsystems and is therefore dependent on cooperation, collaboration, and external support.

5. In the past, defense was collective. Today defense is much more flexible withlittle to no external subordination and with a focus on national interests and on the defense ofthe sovereignty of the states (cooperative defense).

6. There is a general perception that new threats interfere in societies at differentintensities, and each state has a particular vision about defense and security matters.

7. The structure on the national level of IDS has been the object of manyimprovements and is fully functioning. The national institutions of defense offer excellentconditions to contribute to the strengthening of parts of IDS.

8. In general, the regional/subregional systems of the IDS are supported bybilateral and multilateral protocols and agreements. In regards to the components, the Systemis composed of two important structures: a political one and an operational one (technical-military).

9. On the subregional level, we should highlight the existence of political bodiesand their related operative modules of defense, very well structured, intended to providesubregional reponses adapted to local needs.

10. The regional systems’ components attend to local interests and can integratewith other defense networks without losing their characteristics. The stability and reliability ofthese systems as well as their desires to interact with other agencies is an important point forstrengthening the defense system at the hemispheric level.

11. A review of the activities of the subregional systems demonstrates that thebodies are fulfilling important roles at this level of defense and give effective answers inconfronting common local threats of their members. The convergence of interests andexperiences can be used in other instances related to cooperative defense.


12. Currently, America is a peaceful zone with low military expenditures, and it isconsidered a peaceful region within the global peace index. The peoples of the Americas,except for the populations of some countries, do not perceive current threats to security asimportant in conjuction with their own problems, which is the wrong view to take.

13. A very detailed examination of the CDMA’s protocols may conclude that thisconference does not issue binding decisions and in this instance no reference is found toeffective cooperative actions with other entities or bodies, such as the OAS or the IADB.

14. The CDMA in its area of operation follows the guidelines arising from decisionsexpressed by the Heads of State at the Summits of the Americas.

15. The topics of interest concerning IDS, debated at the Summit of the Americasand the General Assembly (GA) of the OAS, should be in tune with the issues brought by theassessment of the Defense Ministers. Following this reflection, there needs to be an establishednetwork of effective communication between the political agencies of the Foreign RelationsMinisters of the OAS and the Defense Ministers of the CDMA.

16. As of today, there are no solid, functioning nexuses nor any activecommunication between the CDMA, the highest defense policy organization in the Hemisphere,and the OAS.

17. The CDMA does not have connections with the IADB, which as the jointhemispheric defense body of the OAS, can serve as the nexus connecting the CDMA and theOAS. In the IDS, there is not any other multilateral organization in matters of defense with thesame level of legitimacy as the CDMA to facilitate a process of cooperation and collaboration,of resptecting individuality, national and subregional interests, and of not seeking to establish ahierarchy of the existing system.

18. If the IADB came to fulfill the role of Permament Technical Secretary of theCDMA, the IADB can produce a large quanity of important works. The IADB as a multilateralchannel for hemispheric communication on matters of defense can become more productiveand work in a network in conjuction with other bodies at all levels without intereference to thefunctioning of existing structures.

19. The opportunities to cooperate are many considering the work that can bedone jointly with participation of civilians and the military, united with a common purpose ofimproving the quality of information and identifying solutions for current defense and securityproblems.

20. The words “collaboration” and “cooperation” over time began to dictate therelations between countries on matters of defense. From that understanding came a generalunderstanding to establish a network, however, a network with multilateral relations andwithout obedience to a hierarchy.


21. To design a new architecture for hemispheric defense, the national system willundoubtedly be of fundamental importance. Existing in the national level are better conditionsfor strong cooperation and interoperability on matters of hemispheric defense.

22. There is no doubt that hemispheric cooperation on issues of defense has to beconstructed from the bottom up, respecting the individualities and idosyncracies of countries.Success will also require strengthening existing systems, which is already happening.

23. On the hemispheric level are the greatest problems and obstacles in terms ofthe IDS. It’s said that on this level everything remains the most difficult since it is the space thataccounts for the majority of conflicting interests and where there is a diversity of contrastingpoints of view. It is precisely in this turbulent environment that the CDMA and the IADB aresituated.

24. It’s important to point out that the main characteristics that are necessary forthe perfect functioning of the system on the hemispheric level are the existence of commonprotocols and inter-departmental relations; the implementation of measures to encouragetrust; and the presence of a body or entity with authority and legitimacy to catalyze andfacilitate. All of these elements should be inserted into the context of an exhaustiveinternational strategy.

25. Inter-departamental relations presuppose horizontal linkages in all directionscreating a reliable interconnected web without obstacles to communication, cooperation, andintegration.

26. The movements toward cooperation and collaboration of the IDS on thehemispheric level are very scarce and deficient. This is explained in part by the large number ofdissimilar interests involved in the issue and by the political will necessary in order to continuetowards integration.

27. In regards to the measures of encouraging trust, these still are notconsolidated in the Hemisphere. Right now, only the white books are beginning to leave therealm of government offices and to become public knowledge. All of this needs time and quitea bit of political will.

28. There are no impediments to the development of functional relations of theIADB, the CDMA, and the OAS given that the proposed system has characteristics of a network,linked horizontally and without a hierarchy.

29. The IADB has all the conditions and tools to transform itself into a conjoined,combined, diversified, and multilateral agency with international representation in service ofthe political components of IDS.


30. In its daily activities, the IADB can develop important research andinvestigative work on the environment of the Hemisphere, manage information, issue reports,periodicals, and publications, provide civilian and military integration, formulate hypotheses ondiverse areas pertaining to modern concepts of defense, and collaborate on measures toencourage trust. All of these abilities will be in addition to its current functions. All of thesefunctions will make all the more pertinent its technical advising to the political establishmenton defense issues. The value of the IADB will be defined by what it does and produces.

31. The modern concept of defense in regards to the effective use of armedforces, assumes large-scale joint planning with the integrated participation of navies, armies,and air forces. There are older states prepared for the current combined and joint form, whichare also accustomed to inter-agency operations with well defined purposes.





APPENDIX “B”: ACRONYMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT

GA/OAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

SADC SOUTH AMERICAN DEFENSE COUNCIL

CEA CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN ARMIES

CFAC CONFERENCE OF THE ARMED FORCES OF CENTRAL AMERICA

CID INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE COLLEGE

CITAAC INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON THE TRANSPARENCY OFCONVENTIONAL ARMS ACQUISITIONS

CMDA CONFERENCE OF DEFENSE MINISTERS OF THE AMERICAS

CNI CONFERENCE OF INTER-AMERICAN NAVIES

CONJEFAMER CONFERENCE OF THE HEADS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE AMERICAS

CONJUMA MILITARY LEGAL COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAS

CSH COMMISSION OF HEMISPHERIC SECURITY

DSA DECLARATION ON SECURITY IN THE AMERICAS

IADB INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE BOARD

NORAD NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENSE

OAS ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

UN UNITED NATIONS

RITN INTER-AMERICAN NAVAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWRORK

SICOFAA SYSTEM OF COOPERATION OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE AMERICAS

IDS INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE SYSTEM

SSR REGIONAL SECURITY SYSTEM OF THE CARIBBEAN

TIAR INTER-AMERICAN TREATY OF RECIPROCAL ASSISTANCE

UNASUR UNION OF SOUTH AMERICAN NATIONS




The Inter-American Defense Systemscm.oas.org/pdfs/2012/InterAmerican Defense System Study.pdf- the...

Documents

Transcript of The Inter-American Defense Systemscm.oas.org/pdfs/2012/InterAmerican Defense System Study.pdf- the...