American Enterprise Institute

May 14, 2008

[Edited transcript from audio tapes]

1:45 p.m.	Registration
2:00	Special Remarks:	Ambassador Hector E. Morales Jr., U.S. Permanent Representative to the Organization of American States
2:30	Discussants:	Peter DeShazo, Center for Strategic and International Studies
		Carl Meacham, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
	Moderator:	Roger F. Noriega, AEI
3:30	Adjournment

Proceedings:

Roger F. Noriega:  Ladies and gentlemen, than you very much, we will get started.  I see many good friends here this morning and we thank you all for coming, particularly the Assistant Secretary General of the OAS, Ambassador Albert Romdin is here, as well as other ambassadors to the Organization of American States, including Rodolfo Hill from Argentina and other diplomats as well.  We thank you all for coming to discuss this session, at this session, the future of the Organization of American States (OAS). 

 The OAS is the world's oldest regional organization in which its thirty-four member states speak as sovereign equals.  The fact that each of these Latin American and Caribbean states and Canada share this forum with the world's lone remaining super power makes it remarkably complicated, but equally an auspicious forum.  Since the end of the Cold War, its character has changed immensely.  Issues that used to be off limits to this multilateral organization shrouded behind a curtain of sovereignty are now fair game in the OAS. 

 Member states speak openly of corruption, governability, democracy, human rights and poverty, as well as cooperation against all of these problems, as well as against drugs and terrorism.  The fact that we share a hemisphere and hold within our hands the potential solutions to all of these shared problems made it possible for us to speak openly and constructively about all of these issues. 

 What is remarkable is that the OAS and its constituent organization CICAD, the anti-drug commission, the Inter-American Commission against Terrorism, the Human Rights Commission, all forge their solutions by consensus.  In 1994 the OAS might have been eclipsed by the summit process, but instead the governments represented that a renovated activist organization had much to contribute to this process. 

 In 1991 the member states carved out a role for the OAS in defending democracy.  Ten years later, on September 11, 2001, the inter-America democratic charter asserted that the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to support and defend it.  Rather than consensus being the pursuit of least common denominators, the OAS managed to forge a consensus in pursuit of our highest common ideals.  But that works only when we actually share ideals--enter Hugo Chavez. 

 Venezuela's diplomacy has broken consensus on a host of issues, including from how we work together to fight poverty or whether we even work together to fight terrorism and drugs.  Venezuela and its petro-dollar diplomacy casts quite a shadow on the smaller states and no government wants to square off with the volatile Chavez.  Constitutional crises are brewing in several states and the organization has had very little to say about these worrisome trends. 

 The disintegration of democracy in Venezuela has happened under the OAS's nose, which even observed a highly dubious electoral process through which Chavez has consolidated his mugging of democracy and of his opposition.  The ability of the OAS to carry out its mission depends on the willingness of a critical mass of South American states to back up the Secretary General and his team in carrying out sensitive but essential missions in a credible and independent way.  Of course the Secretary General himself has to be willing to exercise personal leadership and courage in order to mobilize that support.  And if the United States leaves the heavy lifting to others, the work will not be done.  I know a little bit about this. 

 One particularly lame rationalization offered recently is that the OAS has been rescued from those in the United States who are nostalgic for interventionism.  That is, of course, nonsense.  The fact is that the OAS that does its job by organizing collective action, not by rationalizing inaction, is an essential contribution to building an inter-American community that stands together, multilaterally, behind representative democracy and the values that we share. 

 Our speakers today will explain how we can support the OAS in fulfilling its important constructive and absolutely unique mandate.  The Honorable Hector E. Morales, Jr. was confirmed on March 6th, 2008 to be the U.S. permanent representative to the Organization of American States.  Hector, I have to warn you, that “permanent” is just a figure of speech.  My mother heard that I was moving on after two years to be Assistant Secretary of State and she said, “What happened to this permanent part?” 

In addition, Ambassador Morales is confirmed as a member of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation, an independent foreign assistance agency of the U.S. government working to promote equitable and responsive grass roots development in Latin America and the Caribbean. 

 Previously, Ambassador Morales served as the U.S. Executive Director to the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and as alternate U.S. Executive Director to the IDB.  He has nearly twenty years of experience in U.S. Commerce in the Americas, both as an entrepreneur and a lawyer.  Prior to his positions at the IDB, Ambassador Morales served as a consultant to companies, focused on providing financial services to Latin America and the U.S. Hispanic markets.  We welcome him here this morning.  He will be making some brief comments and then take questions.  Ambassador Morales?

 Hector Morales, Jr.:  Good afternoon, everyone.  It is especially nice to see so many of my new colleagues from the Organization of American States here with us this afternoon.  As Roger indicated, I have been at the organization for a whopping two months, but it has been a very interesting two months.  So Roger, it really is an honor to be here and give some initial reflections.  You know, as I was looking at the dais and listening to Roger and listening to what Roger talked about in terms of relationships. 

 If you look at who is up here, look at Peter who was a deputy to Roger.  You look at Carl Meacham who has a position at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a position that Roger also held.  You look at me.  I am someone who is holding a position that Roger formerly held.  The conference could very easily be six degrees of separation from Roger Noriega or how many degrees of separation do all of you have to Roger.  But I am very happy to be here. 

 I was a little surprised, I have to say, when I saw the title of the conference, but let me answer.  The answer to the question, “Is the OAS falling down on the job?”--no.  You probably would like for me to expand on that a little bit, so I'm going to do that.  Let me put it simply.  The position and the view of this administration is that the Organization of American States has a critical role to play in addressing key hemispheric concerns as the premiere multilateral political institution of the region. 

 And let me give you some reasons to substantiate this.  One--and they are not in any particular order of importance, but I think it's important to underscore this--one, President Bush has visited the OAS more times than any other president in recent memory, including during the first few months in office.  He has continued to address the important issues facing the hemisphere, including questions of poverty, excluded in marginalized populations and the need to invest in people through education.  Under this administration, the United States has hosted the General Assembly.  This is the first time in more than three decades. 

 Secretaries Powell and Rice have addressed the OAS on several occasions and with the help of our friends in Congress, the U.S. voluntary contributions to the OAS budget have increased under Bush's administration.  The U.S. remains deeply committed to the success of the OAS in advancing our shared agenda to increase and enhance democracy, security, social and economic opportunities in the Americas. 

 Let me begin with a little bit of a brief observation, which perhaps may surprise some of you, but I think this is a significant and hopeful moment in the region.  I think there is a lot of opportunity before us.  I say this partly because we have had an opportunity to build on last year's important engagement in the Americas by the United States and based on that, I certainly look forward to our General Assembly, which is going to take place in Medellin, Colombia next month. 

 And then looking forward to the 2009 Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago whose theme is going to be securing our citizens' future through human prosperity, energy security and environmental sustainability.  So I see this year, 2008, as a year to deepen our partnerships in the region and our engagement in the OAS and through the summit process as a way to underscore this view. 

 I think what is at stake and the success of what I call today is our Pan-American community.  The vision of a hemisphere of independent nations living in liberty, prosperity and peace where U.S. leaders of both parties have nurtured since the founding of our republic.  So to understand the true value of the OAS, I think it's probably important to take a step back and look broadly at our hemisphere.  The United States has always believed that the success in the region is linked to the success of our neighbors. 

 In a way, and this is looking, perhaps, even more broadly, the situation in our region recalls that of Western Europe during the last century.  It was a time where old ideological conflicts had given way to growing agreement in support of political and economic liberty.  A time where democracies were struggling to fight poverty and create lasting development.  And most importantly, a time where we in the United States expanded our security, diplomatic and development assistance, and opened our markets and made strategic bipartisan and sustained commitment to the success of our allies. 

 As I alluded to earlier, my positive assessment of the region may not be immediately evident if you read the press or listen to the television programs or listen to some of the analysis.  But I do think that the hemisphere, with the critical support of the OAS, has made real and tangible progress in recent years to the expansion of democracy, the rule of law and economic reforms.  This is something that I think we should commend. 

 At the same time and I think this is equally important, we need to rededicate ourselves to the challenges that remain.  In recognition of what President Bush called effective multilateralism, the U.S. has been working alongside our hemispheric partners at the OAS to advance a shared vision where democratically elected governments govern democratically and generate opportunity and where the peoples of the Americas can reap the benefits of democracy. 

 Today we live in a region where all of the countries in the region are democracies except one--Cuba.  The region overwhelmingly has made a decision for democracy.  The region overwhelmingly has committed itself to a certain economic model.  Nevertheless, as I said, we still face challenges.  Politically, democracy needs to be consolidated.  Economically, poverty, inequality and exclusion are still prevalent. 

 The one very significant example of how the region has sought to deal with these very real challenges politically and social, economically, is through the inter-American democratic charter.  Acting under the democratic charter or in the spirit of the charter, the OAS has helped and is helping those member states where democratic practices and institutions are challenged.  It has been actively involved in observing elections, mediating conflicts, advancing promotion and protection of human rights and advancing President Bush's social justice agenda through his development and education related efforts. 

 Let me give you some examples--Haiti.  When President Aristide resigned, the OAS was able to ensure that the country had a constitutional successful government.  So the OAS, our focus has been on returning the country to full democracy at the earliest possible opportunity. 

 The recent food riots that forced the resignation of Prime Minister Alexis, although now seemingly under control, very much alerts us to the fact that we need to continue to be actively engaged in Haiti by the OAS, as well as other international actors to ensure that they remain on the path of democracy.  I think it's also important to note that the Western Hemisphere or partners in the Western Hemisphere provide approximately half of the United Nation's stabilization mission in Haiti, that is MINUSTAH, and it is led by a Brazilian major general.  MINUSTAH serves as a very clear and strong example of hemispheric cooperation in support of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. 

 I will give you another example in Colombia.  The OAS plays a critical role to the OAS mission to support the peace process by helping Colombian government institute a transparent internationally monitored peace process that results in a cessation of hostilities and a demobilization, disarmament and reintegration of illegal armed groups as an important means of promoting human rights for all Colombians.  The OAS is also actively involved in assisting the arduous task of reintegrating demobilized para-military members into society. 

 The OAS is also playing a key role in reducing the tension on the border with Ecuador.  While we hope that the border issue is on the resolution, other important issues remain such as the security threat posed by narco trafficking and the best, and actually worse example is the FARC and its influence in the region.  In thinking about broader security and development environment in Colombia, I think it's also important to underscore the relevance and the sheer importance of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which is currently before Congress.  The successful passage of the Free Trade Agreement is essential for our broader strategic and economic interest in the hemisphere, as well as our ability to sustain partnerships and maintain our influence in the region, which are critical elements to our work at the OAS. 

 In Bolivia, the mediation effort by the OAS regarding the question of regional autonomies has been crucial to maintaining peace and democratic order.  In Venezuela the OAS has worked to address challenges to that country's democratic institutions.  Has Venezuela's political polarization faded away due to the OAS efforts?  No.  Political tensions still exist, human rights concerns still abound, particularly in the area of freedom of expression and the concentration of power within the Executive Branch remains worrisome.  But the OAS member states remain engaged. 

 For example, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, which remains vigilant despite repeated denials by Venezuela to allow the Commission to conduct a site visit.  It is imperative that the OAS continue to work and help the Venezuelans strengthen and defend their democracy under the Inter-American Democratic Charter.  Let me turn to electoral observation.  The OAS has a long-standing and well-deserved reputation for impartiality and technical competence in this field.  The OAS played a key role in the recent Paraguayan elections and is playing an important observer role in this Sunday's elections in the Dominican Republic. 

 Let me turn to human rights.  The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights currently chaired by a U.S. citizen, Paolo Carozza, is often referred to as the crown jewel of the Inter-American system.  Our continued support for the Commission stems from our firm belief in the unique value and utility of the Commission as a defender of human rights and fundamental freedoms. 

 And lastly, let me turn to hemispheric security.  This is another area where the OAS has led the way in public safety and national security.  These are critical elements in our hemispheric agenda, to preserve democratic order and to promote economic opportunity.  As Roger mentioned, in 1999 the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism, or CICTE, was established to coordinate member states' activities against terrorism.  CICTE seeks to strengthen border and financial controls, increase cooperation among enforcement authorities and address threats to airports, seaports and cyber security.

 Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the OAS member states took the lead with dramatic and effective steps to coordinate the region's response to fight terror in the Americas.  Less than a year later in facing a common threat to our security and prosperity.  The OAS adopted the inter-American convention against terrorism that expands our legal obligations to work together to both prevent and respond to terrorist actions. 

 On another front with regard to our hemisphere from new and traditional threats is the ongoing effort to combat drug trafficking and drug abuse in the Americas.  Leading the charge in this regard is the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission or CICAD.  Also in 1999, as mandated by the Second Summit of the Americas, CICAD established a multilateral evaluation mechanism.  The OAS has also produced internationally acclaimed model legislation on precursor chemicals and money laundering control. 

 In addition, the OAS has been a leader in humanitarian mine action programs and strengthening cooperation mechanisms through confidence and security building measures and in the adoption of inter-American treaties on the illicit trafficking of firearms and transparency in conventional arms acquisitions. 

 This year as we mark the 60th anniversary of the 1948 OAS charter and the American declaration on the rights and duties of man, which was the first international expression of human rights adopted even prior to the universal declaration on human rights is an important time to ask and continually assess the role of the OAS.  But it is also important to keep in mind that the OAS has been a pioneer in many fields. 

 It was the first international organization to draft a convention to combat violence against women, the first to condemn the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the first to adopt an international convention against corruption in 1996.  So I would like to conclude my brief remarks by echoing the relevance and the centrality of the Democratic Charter.  It is my view that there is a strong and enduring consensus around democracy, social and economic development, as well as free markets and economic integration in the Americas. 

 This consensus is clearly reflected through the regional commitments of the work of the OAS, as well as in the Summit of the Americas process over the last eight years.  These now serve as keystones to our common approach in support of democracy and the benefits that we all expected to deliver.  We have a comprehensive agenda to improve the conditions of the hemisphere within a framework of democracy, peace and security. 

 The task then is how to continually to challenge and in this sense, I think Roger is right.  To strengthen institutions like the OAS in line with President Bush's call as a multilateral institution that is effective in addressing the world's problems.  To do this, this means working with the OAS to make it a more powerful vehicle for positive change.  Our engagement is vital to preserve the gains and achievements accomplished by the countries in the region. 

 Does more need to be done?  Of course, but the OAS is the preeminent regional political multilateral institution.  There is no other body in the hemisphere that brings all thirty-four democratically elected governments to the table and no other institution has its record of achievements.  Our commitment to the OAS is also consistent with President Bush's policy of active and consistent engagement.  The President has a solid record of building relationships with democratic governments, both left and right, throughout the hemisphere.  President Bush has made more trips to the region and received Latin America and Caribbean leaders than any other president in U.S. history. 

 What is the point?  My point quite simply is this.  That this administration understands that in order to be influential in the hemisphere, the United States must remain engaged.  We need to be prepared to work bilaterally and multilaterally with our hemisphere partners in order to advance our shared hemispheric agenda.  Thank you very much for your attention and I look forward to your questions.

 Roger F. Noriega:  Thank you, Ambassador.  You can be seated if you would like or you can stay at the podium.  I will ask if there are people who have their cell phones on to turn them off.  We have people with microphones in the back of the room--actually, one person.  Before asking your question, identify yourselves, please and direct your question to the Ambassador.  Any questions? 

 Let me--I always am ready to go on questions.  I appreciate very much your remarks, Ambassador and I think they were very useful.  You talked about the U.S. contribution being the largest voluntary contribution.  How do we ensure, how do you ensure, really, that others in the U.S. government, particularly even in the State Department, continue to invest in organizations like CICTE and CICAD.  I have noted--it was always a fight when I was there to keep up the level of interest.  Have you been able to make this priority to ensure that the U.S. is contributing to these valuable multilateral programs?

 Hector Morales, Jr.:  Well, as I said, I have been in the job for just a few months, but clearly the work that SECTE does and the work that CICAD is doing are critically important.  It is why I highlighted it in my remarks.  So in my discussions with my colleagues, the State certainly, they understand the critical role that these committees play and certainly we want to see the support that it can receive.  It is, as you well know, whenever you talk about budgets, it is a challenge.  My view is to underscore the importance of the work that they do.  I think the results that they are achieving and make the case that we need to continue to support them because they play such a critical role. 

 Roger F. Noriega:  Other questions, please--Ambassador Towell?

 Timothy Towell:  Timothy Towell, a retired foreign service officer.  Globalization is the watchword of international exchange and activity.  It is a word that didn't exist when I was in the State Department.  The world is changing and we have wonderful global institutions like the OAS, the United Nations, all of these wonderful institutions.  The concept around when I was in the State Department, sort of invented it, at the Treaty of Westphalia of sovereign states, national states.  And there was always a conflict or tension between those two. 

 Why is that certain states, unnamed, of course, can go galloping off to Iraq and Somalia and Afghanistan across borders and do fun things in sovereign territories and a nation in hot pursuit, does one kilometer across a border that is not marked, it is in the middle of the jungle and a portion of the global international community goes ape.  What is this double standard in historical terms all about? 

 Hector Morales, Jr.:  I think obviously the respect for the sovereignty of any country is critically important.  But I also think, and I think we ought to put the question into the context of the issue that greeted me when I arrived at the OAS, and you are referring to the issue between Colombia and Ecuador.  This was an extremely serious situation.  And while other organizations in the region, sub-regional organizations I think did important work, there was really only one institution, one organization in the hemisphere that could reach a hemispheric solution, and that was the OAS.  And the role of the OAS was to mediate that conflict, which it did. 

 But the resolution also indicated that there was an ongoing obligation to address future threats, security threats specifically as represented by narco trafficking.  So I think there was a recognition that it was important to address the issue, the issue was addressed.  The issue was not the United States, the issue was between two countries. 

 And the other is that there is an ongoing obligation to face this very serious threat.  In terms of the United States, as you well know, our view was that it was important to reflect the issue of self-defense and it's why we requested and asked for the footnote in the resolution.

 Roger F. Noriega:  Ambassador Chohfi.

 Osmar Chohfi:  Thank you so much.  I am the not so permanent representative of Brazil in the Organization of American States.  And I totally agree with the answer that he gave to the panel--I totally agree with the answer, it's no.  But I would like you to dwell about it a little bit more about that.  Because you are recently arrived to the OAS and you have to confront two important moments of the organization--the crisis between Colombia and Ecuador and then the crisis in Bolivia.  So I would like you to tell our audience how you saw OAS working--is it efficient?

 Roger F. Noriega:  Take all of the time you need on this.

 Hector Morales, Jr.:  I said at the beginning that it was great to have my colleagues from the OAS here.  I may want to clarify that.  No, I am kidding.  Multilateral diplomacy, and many of you have done this for many years longer than I have, but the time that I've been in Washington, both at the IDB and now at the OAS, it is very, very difficult to reach agreement, whether it's among thirty-four countries or at the IDB it was forty-seven countries. 

 So what is clear is that you have to be an advocate, but you also have to listen.  Listening doesn't mean that you are not persuasive and determined on positions that you think are important.  And that has certainly been my approach and that is the approach that I will continue to exercise.  But you have to be able to work within the organization.  It is, from what I've seen, at least in the two examples that Ambassador Chohfi has just asked me to talk about--in the case of Ecuador and Colombia, a resolution was reached.  And in the case of Bolivia, the Bolivian government came to the OAS.  The Prefects [phonetic] also asked for the assistance of the OAS. 

 And what we were able to do, Dante Caputo is here with us, was to help facilitate an opportunity for dialogue.  I think what nobody wanted to see was violence and there was a very real possibility that that could happen.  And in fact, while there was some incidents in which are lamentable, the type of violence that people were expecting was prevented.  I believe that it is directly attributable to the work and the engagement of the OAS. 

 So in two examples I think positive outcomes have happened, but I also think that obviously, and as I indicated in my remarks, much more can be done, much more needs to be done.  And while I am the permanent representative, I don't know how long I'll be there.  But as long as I'm there, I am going to be committed to working to strengthen the organization.  Because if you have a stronger OAS, it's going to - down to the benefit of not only the countries in the region, but also to the United States.  And as I said, if our neighbors are strong, that also helps us. 

 Roger F. Noriega:  In the back of the room?

 Ernie Prigue:  Thank you.  Ernie Prigue [phonetic], I am representing the Haiti Democracy Project here today.  I agree with your comments earlier about the excellent elections.  Three rounds in 2006 surprised people, free and open elections with great help from the OAS, technical help.  I should say Haiti Democracy Project, we had observers at all three rounds, mostly Haitian-Americans. 

 But aside from the recent humanitarian food problem, we see serious problems in recent months about the democratization process in Haiti.  As you know, the senate elections have now been six months behind, and next week the senate goes from thirty down to eighteen members.  The President has rewritten the bylaws for the elections, which we see as making it extremely difficult to have open elections. 

 And in fact, the able Director General of the Commission resigned as a result, a very respected person.  And there is a new electoral provisional commission, which is made up entirely of supporters of the President.  One last thing--we have a group of Haitians, Americans and Haitians, distinguished people tomorrow here in Washington making several calls on the Hill, Executive Branch expressing our deep, deep concern and worry about deterioration of the democracy process in Haiti.  So I wondered whether OAS is fully aware of this or what your feelings are on what has been happening on the political front in these last six months.

 Hector Morales, Jr.:  Sure.  Well, let me say that we are extremely aware of those issues and very vigilant.  In fact, many of the colleagues that are here with me today traveled recently to Haiti specifically to meet with the government, government officials, to talk about the concerns.  It was led by Assistant Secretary General Ramdin who is here with us today.  Ambassador Chohfi was on that visit. 

 The former chair of the permanent council, Ambassador Smith, I think Ambassador Hill was also there, among others.  And then more recently, Secretary Insulza led a high level delegation which included Assistant Secretary Shannon.  There were members with Canada, as well as Brazil and others to not only underscore the interest and willingness to work with the government, but also to support the government, but also to express concern about certain weaknesses. 

 My point is, is that continual engagement is what we have to do.  The food riots that I mentioned have also caused significant challenges.  The Pan-American Development Foundation is in the process of providing rice.  Our friends from Brazil and Argentina have also been very good at donating.  Obviously the U.S. government is doing quite a bit as well.  So I would say on a bilateral, as well as multilateral, we are extremely interested, obviously concerned and following this. 

 I guess the last point that I would make is our friends on the Hill have also been very good at providing feedback.  And in fact when the first mission that I referred to came back to Washington, they were asked to go up to the Hill to provide briefings and we were able to get, I think, some very good feedback from Congress. So I think the challenges in Haiti are very significant.  It's going to require extraordinary effort.  I certainly saw this when I was at the Inter-American Development Bank, so it's going to take continual engagement from a lot of different parties. So I would--the bottom line is that yes, the OAS is very focused on this.

 Roger F. Noriega:  Let me tell you what, this lady has had her hand up, so let's go over here.

 Viviana Giacaman:  Hi, I am Viviana Giacaman with Freedom House.  You underscored the importance of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and we all know how critical it is for the future of democracy in the region.  My question is what concrete steps the U.S. mission is supporting in order to fully implement the charter and what do you think the role of [indiscernible] society should be in that process?

 Hector Morales, Jr.:  Well, you are absolutely right about the critical role that the charter plays and that's why I made several references to it in my remarks.  In democracy, if you look at the very beginning of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, it underscores that democracy is a right.  It also underscores that governments have an obligation to promote and defend it.  And then it goes on to say that through democracy is how there can be political, social and economic development. 

 So all of the programs of the OAS I think are designed to compliment this broader vision.  And certainly from the United States and from my perspective, I couldn't agree more.  Keep in mind, I come from the development side.  I'm now on the democracy side or the political side.  If you want to see democracies sustained, to consolidate, they also have to be providing benefits to the peoples of those countries.  So that is what we are keeping in mind, that is what we are advocating.  And I think from what I've seen, many of my colleagues believe in that but go even more broadly.  All thirty-four members of the OAS agree to the democratic charter. 

 Now there are other important stakeholders--civil society, critically important, the private sector, critically important.  Recently I was in Miami to host help, rather talk to civil society to get their views on the upcoming Summit of the Americas.  I think we need to be willing to listen to different voices.  It is what makes the institution stronger and they have an important role to play. 

 Roger F. Noriega:  Okay, we will take one more question here.

 Frank Fletcher:  Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.  Frank Fletcher, STS Group.  My question is related to external actors in Latin America for a number of years Hezbollah and now probably Al Qaeda have been active there, not only in the tri-border region in South America.  What level of recognition is there of this problem among the member states, what measures or even discussions with respect to this are taking place?

 Hector Morales, Jr.:  As far as other members, I don't know what kind of discussions they have been having.  What I can remark upon is--now clearly there are security threats throughout the region and potentially destabilizing forces.  We need to be very aware of that.  Certainly what we don't want to see is any of these forces threaten the democracies.  I mean, so many gains have been made, but obviously there are challenges and this is certainly one of them.  So far, that has not been a question that has been raised.  Certainly from our perspective, we take it very, very seriously and I appreciate you raising the point.

 Roger F. Noriega:  Unless there is somebody with a burning question, I want to thank very much Ambassador Morales for his contribution this morning to our discussion.  I know that your staff expressed concern about the title of the conference.  For those of you who don't know, the title of the conference that people have been commenting is “The OAS:  Falling Down on the Job?”  Now I agreed to put a question mark at the end--I'm just teasing about that.  But I think you've made a strong case with some support from some of your co-conspirators in the audience here in asserting that the OAS is an important actor, an indispensable actor, I think we can all agree on that.  Thank you very much, Ambassador. 

 We will move on to our panel discussion and will comment on Ambassador Morales' presentation and response to questions.  We are really privileged to have two of the really essential actors on these issues here in Washington and experienced observers of what the OAS is doing.  As a matter of fact, advocates of an agenda where the OAS could be doing more. 

 Ambassador Peter DeShazo was named Director of the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in September, 2004.  Previously he was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.  During his career in the Foreign Service, Ambassador DeShazo served as U.S. deputy permanent representative to the Organization of American States.  He also directed the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs of the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs at the State Department. 

 He was Area Director for the Western Hemisphere at the U.S. Information Agency and served at U.S. embassies and consulates in La Paz, Medellin, Santiago, Panama City, Caracas, and Tel Aviv.  Ambassador DeShazo is the author of Urban Workers and Labor Unions in Chile from 1902 to 1927--those are not your birth dates, is that right--University of Wisconsin Press, 1983 and various policy and academic articles.  His op eds and commentaries have appeared in leading U.S. and international media.  Ambassador DeShazo?

 Peter DeShazo:  Thanks, Roger.  I very much appreciated Ambassador Morales' presentation.  Those were many points that I would have made and fully agree with.  I went into the OAS as part of the U.S. delegation with respect for the OAS and came out with a lot more respect for the OAS and have been a big fan of the OAS.  The success of the OAS really depends on the political will of the member states on any given issue.  Decisions are made by consensus. 

 What happens at the OAS is a reflection, sometimes of that consensus and it can be a consensus that moves in one direction or another and there is always a dynamic on different issues.  But basically the OAS needs that sort of political will from the member states to move forward on any particular issue.  Overall I would say the organization is most effective on regional issues again where there is general consensus.  Human rights is an issue I think that the organization is particularly effective at. 

 I was struck with the effectiveness of the anti-drug work, the CICAD.  No region in Latin America reacted with greater alacrity to the events of 9/11 than the OAS did in revitalizing the Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism, CICTE and has been very effective in that area.  Serving as the Secretariat for the Summit of the Americas process again with as much consensus.  As there is, OAS has done an excellent job. 

 On security issues, a whole series of them, I think the OAS has made good progress also in broadening the definition of security and that is partly due to the diversity of the OAS and the role of the Caribbean countries that have brought that to the table.  In the development area, the OAS is not a development organization, but the improving the politics of development planning I think is an area that the organization has made a contribution to. 

 In terms of strengthening democracy, again, if it's on a regional basis where there is consensus, the OAS makes good progress in trying to improve the administration of justice, again, through regional cooperation.  On the anti-corruption front, through the Inter-American Convention and the follow-up mechanism, MESICIC, there has been some progress but again, there could be more.  Partly that is due to the fact that it is the member states themselves that give the input to MESICIC where there is more need, I think, for civil society to make the presentations that will help the work of that organization go better. 

 Where the organization is often judged as lacking is in the areas that have to do with domestic political developments in individual states.  And this is the most sensitive area.  It's closely related to the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which of course arose in great part because of the developments in Peru in 2000 and the failed election there.  And the reaction on the part of the member states that they wished to strengthen the mechanisms of the OAS to deal with the undermining of democracy from within. 

 The weakening of democracy either by state actors or by developments within individual states.  This is the area that is the most contentious, the most difficult and the one where often there is not consensus and the area where sometimes the organization is criticized.  But in general terms, I would say that on the key regional issues, on the issues where there is a basic consensus for starting out, the organization is extraordinarily effective, very important, deserving of more support from the member states. 

 I don't know if you could say the misfortune or the responsibility of drafting the OAS budget.  On two occasions, it was an extraordinarily difficult process.  I felt like I was trying to raise money that didn't exist and to put money out there that the organization desperately needed.  The OAS needs more support, deserves more support from the member states.  But all in all, I think the record of the OAS, especially in the recent decades, has been one of important dynamic, moving into new areas, expressing a greater political will.  But still coming up against the difficult issue of defending democracy and democratic institutions in the member states themselves when there is no political consensus to do that. 

 Roger F. Noriega:  Thank you very much, Peter.  We are going to continue now with Carl Meacham and then the panel will take questions.  Carl Meacham is a senior professional staff member for Senator Richard Lugar (Republican-Indiana), the ranking Republican on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  As such he is the most senior Republican staffer in the U.S. Congress responsible for Western Hemisphere Affairs. 

 Mr. Meacham joined the committee staff in January, 2003 and has worked in the Senate since 2000 for both Republican and Democratic senators.  Prior to that, he was a special assistant for the Deputy Secretary of Commerce and worked as a civil servant in the Cuban Affairs Bureau at the U.S. Department of State. 

 He is author of several reports to the Committee on Foreign Relations, including Playing with Fire: Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela and The Merida Initiative, Guns, Drugs and Friends.  Carl?

 Carl Meacham:  Thank you.  I want to express my appreciation to you, Roger, for having invited me today to talk about this.  I think this is a very timely issue with what we are seeing now in the region with the conflict that we've seen resolved itself, one phase of it, at least with Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador.  As Hector said and Peter, the OAS has been pretty busy lately. 

 I would say that there is an understanding, a clear understanding that leaders in the hemisphere have demonstrated their confidence in the OAS throughout the years and we have examples of activity, of specific areas where the OAS has done a lot.  You know, you have the Summit of the Americas, you have the Inter-American Democratic Charter and these are very important things.  It demonstrates that the OAS is a well structured organization, has longevity, framework to provide a lot so far as clarity of expectations and a continuity of membership.  But it remains under-utilized and we believe that it has tremendous potential. 

 But with regards to major challenges where there is strong disagreement, we think it can do better.  We think that the OAS can do better to lead regardless of whoever is at the helm because it relies too much on the absolute consensus of its members to make decisions.  In practice, though admirable as an objective, the requirement for unanimity hamstrings this organization. 

 Most recently the OAS has been under the microscope with regards to the Andean crisis that started on March 1.  It has been tested and I would say up until now, the OAS has done a good in helping calm tensions, grease the wheels of international diplomacy.  But we are entering into a new phase of this issue right now.  It has a lot of political and economic implications and we don't feel that it has done enough to develop or demonstrate the political will to deal with the next phase of the conflict. 

 This is a tough one.  It's going to center around providing member countries with the certainty that the ruling that is made by the Interpol tomorrow on authenticity of the information is explained correctly to member countries.  The other issue is going to be the content of what comes out of the computers, which hopefully is held to scrutiny because the accusations are serious. 

 But we are going to have to explain those things well and hopefully the leadership at the OAS explains it and takes it upon themselves to explain these issues well to the member countries.  In this regard, I think that Secretary Insulza offered assistance at the beginning of this process and we would encourage the Secretary to take a lead role to ensure that the OAS continues to play an important and decisive role, objective role, in this difficult situation. 

 Regarding the United States and the OAS and the United States and its role in the OAS--and I guess I speak more from the perspective of someone in the legislative branch so we have a little more freedom than the folks in the Executive Branch to give our opinions.  I would say that the U.S. is in a very difficult situation and this doesn't really correspond to the current administration only and how it is viewed in Latin America.  I mean, we've had this situation for a long time. 

 If anyone is a student at--I am assuming that all of you are students of Latin America.  There is a history of the United States in Latin America, its involvement, its intervention in Latin America.  On the one hand, we are viewed as being too pushy if we do get involved.  On the other hand, we are viewed as neglecting if we don't get involved. 

 With regards to the OAS, on the one hand we are too pushy if we want to take a leadership role, but on the other hand when it comes time to pay or to contribute to the OAS, everybody wants that contribution.  So I think that that's an important issue here and I would emphasize that in this regard, member nations should consider what more they can contribute to the OAS to overall operations.  In many cases, the contributions are financial, but in lots of cases the contributions may involve political support, information.  That's for personnel or other commitments. 

 So I think that this love/hate relationship with the United States could be blunted if Latin countries pony up a little bit more and made the OAS more of a Latin organization.  After all, and my boss says, you get what you pay for.  And I think that that's an important issue to raise with folks.  I look forward to hearing your feedback to my comments.  I am keeping them brief.  I think those are two very important points that I would like to put out there for you to ponder.  Thank you.

 Roger F. Noriega:  I want to thank our panelists and invite questions.  Let me start out, again--I always have one handy.  Carl, how do you think the OAS is perceived by the Congress, those who are sort of watching the Congress?  I know that the Secretary General was up there recently, rather unusual appearance as a witness, I think.  Which I think is kind of unprecedented that the head of an international organization would participate in it as a witness or be asked to.

 Carl Meacham:  What was it?

 Roger F. Noriega:  It was a briefing. 

 Carl Meacham:  They called it a briefing, but it was under the same circumstances.

 Roger F. Noriega:  Which was very strange, I thought, unless it were private.  But at any rate, there was this exchange over whether the OAS, whether the FARC is a terrorist organization.  I think there was pretty much consensus in terms of the U.S. government about what the FARC is.  How do you think the OAS's credibility is perceived today by the U.S. Congress?

 Carl Meacham:  I think that--that's a great question.  I think that to begin with, there is a very small group of folks in Congress that follow Latin America issues.  We would hope that there would be more.  But I would say that with regards to the OAS, there is a lot of misunderstanding of what the OAS does, but there is criticism with regards to the leadership role.

 Again, when you look at the UN, you have a Security Council.  You have a set of countries that can make decisions or give at least the pathway to a decision and then begin a process and try to persuade other member countries.  You don't have that in the OAS.  A lot of folks wonder how decisions get made.  If you take a principled role or a position on a controversial issue in order to get, the resolution is watered down to such a version that really doesn't make a difference one way or another is how I would say most of the folks in this country or in the Congress would look at it, the few. 

 There are a lot of questions as to why isn't there reform going on in the OAS in order to maybe have a system where you have a majority vote or a three-quarters vote.  That is something for the OAS countries to ponder on.  That is, I would say, the perception that we get from the outside.  With regards to the FARC, I understand the position that other countries have taken on the FARC. 

 I understand that they like to define them or as a belligerent group, an irregular group, a group that commits acts of terrorism.  We have our way of viewing things, countries in the rest of the region will have their ways of viewing things.  But I think that we should focus on an area here where we can all agree on, which is we can't have actors in sovereign states receiving support from foreign governments disrupting democracy, disrupting the everyday lives of people.  Whatever you call that is up to you, but I think we should reach the consensus that this is not good for democracy, it's not good for stability, it's not good for all of our interests. 

 So I think on the FARC we are going to agree to disagree with a lot of the folks in Latin America, but I think we should be trying to find areas where we can find agreement and move forward on those areas. 

 Roger F. Noriega:  Could you just explain two minutes or so what you were talking about, the Interpol report that is at issue?

 Carl Meacham:  I am sure that all of you are familiar with what happened on March 1st.  The Colombian military went into Ecuador to eliminate a FARC target, a gentleman by the name of Raul Reyes.  This has led to a lot of controversy with regards to issues of sovereignty, but also with regards to issues of how the community of nations views groups like the FARC.  At the raid, a large amount of information was collected. 

 From Mr. Reyes, three computers were collected and a process began to try to authenticate, figure out if the computers and the information of those computers that were allegedly at this point collected by the military of Colombia on Ecuadorian soil, if they are real, if they were planted.  If the information is fraudulent, which will come out later.  Because the only role that the Interpol will play in this process is to determine if the computers were actually computers that were picked up at the raid, if the information in the raid was tampered with or doctored by anyone.  That is what is going to be determined by the Interpol tomorrow, supposedly. 

 There are different views on this information.  There have been many news articles in the press, El Pais has done many articles on this issue.  That is the content.  We are looking to ensure that the content of the computers also receive the same kind of scrutiny that we would want the computers themselves to receive.  These accusations are serious accusations and we want to make sure that there is a process to ensure the credibility of the information collected, as well as the content of that information. 

 Roger F. Noriega:  Great, thank you very much.  There is a question right here.

 Mary Blanca Rojas:  Hello, I am Mary Blanca Rojas from VOA, Voice of America.  My question is about that, the Raul Reyes computer.  What must be the next step in the U.S. Congress with this evidence about the relationship between Chavez and President Correa on Colombian guerrillas.

 Carl Meacham:  Well, as I mentioned, we have to begin a process where we verify that the information that was collected--first that the equipment that was collected is the equipment that they say it is.  That we confirm that the equipment, the computers were Raul Reyes' computers.  There is a whole process here--the serial numbers from the computers, the Colombians have had all of this videotaped.  You want to be able to match what is in the videotape to what the Interpol has.  That the dates and the signatures of the information that is in the computers hasn't been tampered with.  Interpol is going to make its pronouncement tomorrow on that. 

 The second phase then would be to look at the content in the computers and ensure that the content is not fake, is not made up.  We believe that this is an important process because you want to be able to demonstrate proof, verifiable proof.  For instance, you have in one situation information that was in the Reyes computer that said that there was a quantity of uranium in Colombia.  That the FARC had stored this uranium, that it was going to sell it to other terrorists, other bad guys, pretty much.  That information is matched to the find of the uranium.

 There was another situation where they claimed that there was money, FARC money in Costa Rica.  I think the amount was $430,000.  That information was matched to the $430,000.  So you want to be able to demonstrate proof of the information that is in the computer.  So you also want to corroborate. 

 If the intel community is willing to share some of the information that it has--this is us talking to our intel community--showing how their information corroborates with the information in the Reyes computer.  That probably also helps to guarantee that the information in those computers is true.  You asked me about the next step in the U.S. Congress.  Well, if folks start to look at this, if they see that Venezuela is involved, Ecuador is involved in this kind of activity, basically one supporting an actor that is interested in doing away with a sovereign government in the case of Colombia.  We have a tremendous investment in Colombia. 

 It's not only an issue of international law for us, it's not only an issue of security, it's also an investment that we have.  Taxpayers should be concerned, taxpayers should care about the effectiveness of that contribution that we make, for instance, through Plan Colombia.  So our job in the Congress is to inform our constituents that being from the state that my boss represents in Indiana, as well as other members, and informing them so they can tell their folks. 

 There probably will be pressure in the Congress to take action if this information demonstrates that the government of Venezuela, the government of Ecuador is involved in these activities and then you have a whole menu of actions that we can take.  Roger, you are familiar with happened with Helms Burton pretty clearly because you were there in the Congress at that.  Some people want to declare Venezuela a terrorist supporting country and there are sanctions that would go with that. 

 Then there are other sanctions that we can add to the sanctions that exist with Venezuela right now.  Targeting certain individuals that show up in this information in the computers and matching those accusations to proof, then we would probably target certain individuals.  There's a whole series of actions that we can take.

 Roger F. Noriega:  Let me comment on that briefly in the form of asking a question of both you and Peter.  I was down in South America about a month ago and someone said, “Gosh, I hope you guys don't declare Chavez a terrorist supporter because the response of Latin America will be leave us in peace.”  Now we're not really leaving them in peace if we are leaving them to the tender mercies of a terrorist state.  Or a person who treats the oil largesse of his country as his own petty cash fund and he's able to use this in all sorts of ways, including perhaps supporting a terrorist organization that is preying on other governments.  So we're not really leaving them in peace. 

 But I would associate myself with the notion that you really have to have this information validated by credible organizations and aired in a multilateral form like the OAS if we stand any hope of having even a modicum of support for treating Chavez as a terrorist, if that is what he turns out to be and he is caught red handed being that.  But it's a tough issue, no doubt. 

 You wrote, Carl, that you thought that that sort of designation would be really problematical from an economic, as well as a political standpoint, but that was before the Interpol issued findings.  So maybe your views changed if they would come up with some credible information that has him receiving support from the FARC over the years or giving support to the FARC recently. 

 But let me ask Peter to comment initially on where he thinks, what he thinks the U.S. should be doing with this sort of information, if he agrees that we should seek a multilateral forum to talk about these things.  If not the OAS, then the UN Security Council or whatever.  And it is really in the Colombian's hands, but what do you think about this whole debate and then we will ask Carl if his views have changed if the Interpol ratifies this information.

 Peter DeShazo:  I agreed with Carl's conclusions that he reached in his report about the importance about the United States not acting unilaterally on issues like this.  A lot depends on the--one, what Interpol says and two, what the contents of these computers say and to the extent that again, they can be backed up.  And then after that it will be very interesting to see the reaction of others in the Inter-American community and outside that community.  Because indeed, the United States in any action that it takes would be in a far stronger position if it were acting in multilateral fashion. 

 Carl Meacham:  I would stand by the conclusions in my report.  The other thing that I would say is I think it's important for us to exhaust all of the multilateral options that we have before we consider acting unilaterally.  I think that there is a limit to that. 

 Obviously if our national security is threatened, we reserve the right.  I mean, that is how we would proceed.  I think that that is very clear.  But I think that in this situation it is very important that we are able to provide the necessary information and explanations--or not us, but that the Interpol be able to provide one, how it reached the conclusion that it will reach tomorrow and two, we need to figure out how to go about the same process with the content. 

 As it relates to the OAS, I think this is an opportunity for the OAS.  The OAS can take a leadership role here and I don't think the OAS conducts hearings, I don't think they call them hearings, I think they call them something else.  But whatever you want to call them, I think that it would be very helpful for the member countries to one, have that opportunity to have the Interpol brief them on the methodology. 

 I think that getting the Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism to examine the information that comes out in the content of that information and then maybe do a report and also do a briefing.  And that would also be helpful to this process in ensuring that the member nations have transparency and have clarity and have all of the information necessary to make decisions. 

 This is not just an issue that affects the United States and its national security.  I mean, we are talking about--if these allegations are true, we are talking about the Andean region, we are also talking about other countries in South America.  We are talking about the reach of the FARC, not only in our hemisphere, but also in Spain.  I mean, this is some serious stuff.  But we have to give it the necessary scrutiny in order to ensure that it is credible to member countries, and that would be the thing that my boss, that I advocate for in the report I wrote.

 Roger F. Noriega:  Questions please from the audience?  Don't be shy.

 Jon Purdue:  Jon Purdue from the Fund for American Studies.  If there is an actual debate still going on within the organization as to whether the FARC is terrorist or not, is that not prima facia evidence of Roger's question as a resounding no?  And wouldn't the FARC themselves be offended if people were not calling them terrorists anymore?

 Roger F. Noriega:  Let's see, who is the expert on how the FARC feels about things? 

 Carl Meacham:  I think that you make a really good point, but I think the perspective from a lot of the countries, I remember the perspective of Ecuador when I was in Ecuador is why call them a terrorist country, we'll become the target.  If we call them a terrorist country, we're going to become a target.  My response to that was, “hey, they are operating in your country, you are already a target.  They are dealing drugs in your country or they are using your country to traffic drugs.  You are a target already.”  That is one issue. 

 The other issue is the general outlook that a lot of countries in the region have to their role with other countries.  A lot of the time when folks talk to the United States and they ask who are you to take the position on designating this country a terrorist or this other country a terrorist.  Look at you, look at what you've done here, here, here and here.  That's one perspective.  So I think you are dealing with the sense that many countries in the region have of themselves and their role in the foreign policy stage. 

 And I think that differs a lot with how we see ourselves and what role we should play in the foreign policy stage.  And that is why you are getting that reluctance to label the FARC officially a terrorist country, a terrorist organization.  But folks, I think there is a consensus that folks consider the actions of the FARC terrorists.  So that is how I would approach it.

 Peter DeShazo:  I would say that hemisphere-wide, the views that people have of the FARC have changed remarkably over past years.  I think whatever residual sympathy there may have been for the FARC in different corners of the hemisphere is pretty much gone and people see the FARC for what it is. 

 Roger F. Noriega:  There is a question in the back here and we will take one more question after this.

 Regzeida Gonzalez:  Regzeida Gonzalez, Embassy of Venezuela.  If you say that the OAS should play a key role in these events regarding the Interpol and if they say that everything is going to be, that everything is for real.  And you also said that they don't have a security council, something similar to the UN.  What do you think are going to be the actions that the OAS could play in this situation?

 Carl Meacham:  That is a great question.  In the Inter-American Democratic Charter, Article 17 allows for – I will just read it to you.  It says, “When the government of a member state considers that its democratic political institutional process or its legitimate exercise of power is at risk, it may request assistance from the Secretary General or permanent counsel for the strengthening and preservation of its democratic system.”

 If I am Colombian and this information that has come out is demonstrated as being true, that is within the tools that I would use, my foreign policy tools, to receive assistance in dealing with this big problem.  I mean, if it is demonstrated that your government is in collusion with a belligerent, regular foreign terrorist organization, I am probably going to do what I need to, to protect the interests of my people, my country and my national interest.  And I would assume that this would be one of the ways to involve the OAS in a system to deal with that issue.  We understand, I understand very clearly that the OAS can't really act unless a member country asks them to do so. 

 I think that this would be the way that this process could begin.  But I also think that a lot of folks, OAS member countries are paying attention to this irregardless of Colombia because they are also looking at what involvement does this information or how will this information involve their countries.  I mean, the FARC is in many countries all over the place.  So that is going to be one issue. 

 The other issue is going to be the--how do I say this nicely--the involvement of the president of your country in taking a role in the national interests or the sovereign issues that are occurring in member states.  They are going to be looking at that.  What kind of leader is President Chavez if he has affiliations with terrorist organizations and here is the proof.  That is a question that I think that a lot of the member countries are going to be looking at in this whole process. 

 Roger Noriega:  I would comment that just having a forum, a permanent council or the technical people at CICTE receive this information in an absolutely private forum would be a terrific opportunity to validate the information and give all sides an opportunity to respond and to hear it in an equal way.  And it doesn't have to be public, but it is one way to get the information out. 

 You know, I don't even trust the U.S. intelligence agencies, I don't know why anybody else would.  I mean, history will record that the last government they tried to topple was George Bush's, so I am not particularly interested in what the CIA has to say about anything.  But Interpol being able to brief this to the OAS and just brief it, just put the information out, answer all of the questions until the day is over or the coffee has run out.  Peter, would you like to comment on these tools?  For example, the OAS charter that might be used in this circumstance.

 Peter DeShazo:  Again, it depends on what the outcome of these different analyses is.  There are lots of mechanisms in which the Inter-American community can deal with problems such as these and there are lots of--member states have obligations that they have taken in signing different international vehicles.  The Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism, other mechanisms as well, that all are signatories, that are documents that are worth points of reference as the Inter-American community looks at issues such as these.

 Roger F. Noriega:  Okay, we have time for one last question and there is a young lady in the back.

 Female Speaker:  [indiscernible] from the Norwegian Embassy.  I just had to share with you, it's more something from a meeting that I just came from which was actually a meeting in the United States Institution of Peace, where Senator Luis Aladio Perez who has been hostage in Colombia was talking.  And it was quite interesting because he was also commenting on this issue of definition on being a terrorist organization or not.  And as Sarkozy was saying, as France has now become more and more involved in the hostages in Colombia, they do say that there cannot only be a military solution. 

 And of course if you want to negotiate and if you want to get to the negotiation table with an organization like FARC, it really does have a very big importance what you call this organization.  And I think if you want to be able to communicate and going to such a complicated and very delicate issue as to trying to save hostages' lives, it is important what you call them.  So I think that is something to keep in mind as one moves forward in this very complicated situation. 

 And as you say, the U.S. has a very complicated relationship with a lot of Latin American countries and it does matter how you define an organization.  And I think it matters for a lot of the countries in the region.  So I actually do think it is important.

 Roger F. Noriega:  Let me just comment on that briefly because I think that is an interesting point.  But this is an organization that is committing acts of terrorism--it's obvious.  It is murdering innocent people, slaughtering innocent people, holding a thousand people hostage.  That should sort of factor in to how you deal with it, too.  This is well beyond name calling, to put a fine point on it. 

 Carl Meacham:  May I add something?  I think you make a very good point, Roger.  When people talk about some of this, the issue of dealing with a group like this, people like to talk about what we did to deal with the IRA or what the British did with the IRA and the role of the United States.  The FARC is a very different group than the IRA was in that it's also dealing drugs.  There are some added issues here that complicate this a little bit more in the region itself. 

 So I would say if folks are prepared to say that this is a group that takes hostages, that is involved with narco-trafficking and involved in trying to do away with the sovereign states and violating some basic tenets of democracy, maybe we can all agree on that without saying that they are a terrorist group.  I understand where you are coming from, but it just seems so obvious to us on this side and to most folks in Latin America when they look at the FARC, as Peter said.  So where do we go from the label?  Do we ignore the issue of the label and move on?  I don't know if we can do that because language, as you know in diplomacy, is also important.

 Roger F. Noriega:  Well, we actually did ignore the label and move on in the Inter-American system.  We did not define terrorism in the Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism.  We just said it--thou shall not do these fifteen things that are cited by the UN as acts of terrorism.  A final word from Peter DeShazo?

 Peter DeShazo:  Well, I think the European Union has also recognized the FARC as a terrorist organization.  But again, beyond all of that, the AUC was a terrorist organization recognized as such by the United States and Colombia went ahead with the justice and peace law to demobilize that organization.  Granted, it was a process that was criticized in many circles, but under the circumstances, it was a compromise that was able to take 30,000 fighters off the books. 

 My sense is if the FARC ever reached a point in which it decided that it no longer was able to overthrow the Colombian government, that it had reached the end of the line in terms of its abilities to continue to function and it was ready to come to the table, then the talks would begin.  It wouldn't matter what the definitions were; everybody in Colombia wants to see the peace process move forward and they want to see the FARC demobilized.

 Roger F. Noriega:  I want to thank you for your interest in the OAS and I want to thank our panelists for their excellent contributions to this discussion.  Thank you.

[End Conference]

[End of Transcript]