History
The Inter-American Defense Board is part of a group of institutions that form the Inter-American system. Accordingly, the Inter-American Defense Board has an institutional relationship with the Organization of American States, the nature of which we will attempt to describe below. To this end, this document presents the general framework of the collective security system of the Organization within which the Inter-American Defense Board originated, pursuant to the decisions of the different organs that have played a part in its creation, and the powers that were assigned to it; it explains the structure of the Board and the activities that it has undertaken and it describes the status of the institutional relationship between the Organization and the Inter-American Defense Board; it also presents the most important aspects of the current reflection on this relationship that is taking place within the OAS, and in the context of the process to renew and strengthen its institutions. Lastly, it should be recalled that this document is linked to the other aspects of the collective security system, in particular, inter-American agreements in this area.
The general framework of the OAS collective security system
The Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) originated in the resolution adopted by the Third Meeting of Consultation (Rio de Janeiro, 1942), in which the Ministers of Foreign Affairs recommended "the immediate meeting in Washington of a commission composed of military and naval technicians appointed by each of the Governments to study and to recommend to them the measures necessary for the defense of the Continent." The decision was taken after the Second Meeting of Consultation (Havana, 1940), which met immediately after Germany had invaded the Netherlands and France; this was a cause of concern to the American States owing to the possibility that Germany might claim the American colonies of the countries it had invaded. This situation gave rise to Declaration XV, "Reciprocal Assistance and Cooperation for the Defense of the Americas," which reaffirmed the procedure of consultation among the States and the concept that "any attempt on the part of a non-American state against the integrity or inviolability of the territory, the sovereignty, or the political independence of an American state should be considered as an act of aggression against all.?
The war in Europe and in the Pacific formed the backdrop for the process taking place in America at that time. In that setting, the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace (Mexico, 1945) laid the foundations for what would later become the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR) in the resolution "Reciprocal Assistance and American Solidarity." In the part that is relevant to this document, the resolution mentioned some of the measures that the American States could adopt, including "the use of military force to avoid or repel aggression."
Origins of the Inter-American Defense Board
Further to the aforementioned resolution of the Third Meeting of Consultation, the Administrative Council of the then Pan American Union?the immediate predecessor of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States?created a Special Committee composed of the Ambassadors of Brazil, Panama, and Venezuela to examine all aspects of the establishment of the Inter-American Defense Board. Based on the report of this Special Committee, the Administrative Council adopted a report in which it decided, in the final paragraph, that "the Inter-American Defense Board will be of a permanent nature, and will perform its duties as long as the present emergency lasts.?
The Inter-American Defense Board was officially established on March 30, 1942; its work would be "gradually to prepare the American republics to defend the hemisphere, by conducting studies and recommending courses of action to this end.1 At the above-mentioned Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Resolution IV, entitled "Creation of a Permanent Military Agency," was adopted and the relevant preamble paragraphs state that
The Republics of the Continent have declared their solidarity to the extent that any threat or attack against one of them constitutes a threat or an attack against all;
The existence of a permanent military agency for the study and solution of problems affecting the Western Hemisphere is indispensable;
The Inter-American Defense Board has proved to be a valuable agency for the exchange of views, the study of problems and the formulation of recommendations relating to the defense of the Hemisphere, and for the promotion of close collaboration on the part of the military, naval and air forces of the American Republics.
Based on these conclusions, the Inter-American Conference recommended:
That the Governments consider the creation, at the earliest possible time, of a permanent agency formed by the representatives of each of the General Staffs of the American Republics, for the purpose of proposing to the said Governments measures for a close military collaboration among all the Governments and for the defense of the Western Hemisphere.
That the Inter-American Defense Board continues as an agency of inter-American defense until the permanent body provided for in this recommendation is established.
The Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace also adopted Resolution IX "Reorganization, Consolidation, and Strengthening of the Inter-American System," in which it stipulated that the following bodies created by the Meetings of Consultation should continue to operate: the Inter-American Juridical Committee, the Emergency Advisory Committee for Political Defense, and the Inter-American Defense Board (operative paragraph 6). This situation would persist until the Ninth International Conference of American States met in Bogotá to create or confirm "the various agencies of the American system." Pursuant to the resolution, the Administrative Council of the Pan-American Union would supervise the inter-American agencies related to it, receiving and adopting their annual reports (operative paragraph 4.c.).
On June 13, 1945, the Inter-American Defense Board prepared a project for the creation of the permanent agency envisaged in the aforementioned Resolution IV of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, which it called "Inter-American Military Defense Council." Likewise, when preparing the "Project of the Organic Pact of the Inter-American System," as a basis for what would be the Charter of the Organization, the Administrative Council of the Pan American Union included the "Inter-American Defense Council"2 among the organs of the Council of the OAS.
This was the situation at the time of the Ninth International Conference of American States, held in Bogotá in 1948, at which the Organization of American States was created with its current legal and institutional structure. During this Conference there was opposition to transforming the Inter-American Defense Board into a permanent organ of the Organization. It was indicated that:
The creation in the Charter of a Council of this sort assumed a permanent need for a military body within the inter-American system, and that this would sound a discordant note in its purpose of peace and moreover, would make it difficult for any changes to be made in the future, or to put an end to the Board?s work. It was argued that the specific nature of the activities and background of this body was not appropriate to the nature of the Council of the Organization, and as a result of this opposition, the Board was not included in the provisions of the Bogotá Charter.3
The Ninth Conference dealt with the issue of hemispheric collaboration on military matters by incorporating the Advisory Defense Committee into the Charter in relation to the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs in order to provide advice on this issue to the Organ of Consultation (Article 66); it provided that this Committee would be composed "of the highest military authorities of the American States participating in the Meeting of Consultation" (Article 67); it would be convoked under the same conditions as the Organ of Consultation when the latter deals with "matters relating to defense against aggression" (Article 68) and that it could also meet when the General Assembly, the Organ of Consultation, or the governments, "by a two-thirds majority of the Member States, assign to it technical studies or reports on specific subjects" (Article 69). It is worth noting that this Committee has never been convoked.
The Ninth Conference also adopted resolutions on the Inter-American Defense Board. In resolution XXXIV, the Conference considered that "it is desirable for the American States to be in a position to ask Inter-American Defense Board for information on measures aimed at the collective security of the American Continent"; it therefore resolved that the Board "shall continue to act as the organ of preparation for collective self-defense against aggression until the American Governments decide by a two-thirds majority to consider its labor terminated."
Since the Conference had decided that the Inter-American Defense Board should continue to operate, resolution VII of the Ninth Conference declared that the budget referred to in the Organization?s Charter should include "funds required by the Secretariat of the Inter-American Defense Board."
The Fourth Meeting of Consultation of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs (Washington, 1951) adopted resolution III entitled "Inter-American Military Cooperation", which is particularly relevant to the topic of this document and will therefore be transcribed in extenso. In it, the Meeting of Consultation affirmed that "the military defense of the Continent is essential to the stability of its democratic institutions and to the well-being of its peoples" and recalled the obligations assumed by the American Republics under the OAS Charter and the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance to "act together for the common defense and for the maintenance of the peace and security of the Continent." This resolution also makes specific reference to the fact that "the expansionist activities of international communism require the immediate adoption of measures to safeguard the peace and the security of the Continent," declaring:
That the present grave international situation imposes on the American Republics the need to develop their military capabilities in order, in conformity with the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance: (1) to assure their individual and collective self-defense against armed attacks; (2) to contribute effectively to action by the Organization of American States against aggression directed against any of them; and (3) to make provision, as quickly as possible, for the collective defense of the Continent; and
That, in its resolution XXXIV, the Ninth International Conference of American States assigned preparation for legitimate collective defense against aggression to the Inter-American Defense Board, which, as the only operative technical, military organ is the appropriate organ to prepare military plans for legitimate defense against aggression.
Based on these considerations, the Fourth Meeting of Consultation resolved:
To recommend to the American Republics that they orient their military preparation in such a way that, through self-help and mutual aid, and in accordance with their capabilities and with their constitutional precepts, and in conformity with the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, they can, without prejudice to their individual self-defense and their internal security: (a) increase those of their resources and strengthen those of their armed forces best adapted to the collective defense, and maintain those armed forces in such status that they can be promptly available for the defense of the Continent; and (b) cooperate with each other, in military matters, in order to develop the collective strength of the Continent necessary to combat aggression against any of them.
To charge the Inter-American Defense Board with preparing, as vigorously as possible, and keeping up to date, in close liaison with the Governments through their respective Delegations, the military planning of the common defense.
That the plans formulated by the Inter-American Defense Board shall be submitted to the Governments for their consideration and decision. To the end of facilitating such consideration and decision, the Delegations of the American Republics shall be in continuous consultations with their governments on the projects, plans, and recommendations of the Board.
To recommend to the Governments of the American Republics: (a) that they maintain adequate and continuous representation of their armed forces on the Council of Delegates, on the Staff of the Inter-American Defense Board, and on any other organ of the Board that may be established in the future; (b) that they actively support the work of the Board, and consider promptly all the projects, plans, and recommendations of that agency; and (c) that they cooperate in the organization, within the Board, of a coordinated system of exchange of appropriate information.
The preceding paragraphs allow us to observe that the Inter-American Defense Board was established in an international context characterized by a confrontation of the States of the hemisphere with powers outside the region in the framework of the Second World War. The function granted to the Board relates to cooperation on military issues between the American States. The situation of confrontation continued after the Organization of American States had been created, when it was considered that there were other threats from outside the Hemisphere that could result in an aggression against the Organization?s member states. This idea and function are reflected in the structure and activities of the Inter-American Defense Board, and we will examine this aspect below.
Structure and activities of the Inter-American Defense Board
Organs
According to its Statutes, the President of the Inter-American Defense Board is a military representative of the host country, which is the United States. The Board is composed of four main organs: the Council of Delegates, the Staff, the Secretariat, and the Inter-American Defense College.
The Council of Delegates is the Board?s principal organ and is responsible for decision-making and providing advisory services to the governments of the states. The delegates who make up the Council are representatives of the armed forces directly appointed by the states that have decided to become members of the Board. Each delegation has one vote and there is no veto power. The Council of Delegates sets the policies and governs the activities of the other organs, either directly or through specially appointed committees. The Council of Delegates meets in regular bimonthly sessions; however, special sessions may be called when deemed necessary.
The Staff develops and updates military plans, prepares studies, performs the advisory and planning functions needed to respond to changes in matters relating to hemispheric security, and carries out any other task referred to it by the Council of Delegates. The work is accomplished by the permanent divisions (Plans, Logistics, and Intelligence) or through standing committees. The Staff is multi-national and made up of Army, Navy, and Air Force officers of several member nations. Delegations may assign as many officers as desired to the Staff, as there is no numerical limit.
According to information provided by the Inter-American Defense Board, the Staff officers conduct analyses and formulate proposals to resolve problems that are considered of concern to the entire Hemisphere in the following areas: demining, natural disasters, measures to promote confidence and security, drug abuse control, peacekeeping, environment and sustainable development, human rights, hemispheric security and continental defense.
The Secretariat of the Inter-American Defense Board carries out all the administrative, logistical, financial, interpretation, protocol and public relations, and information management functions.
The Inter-American Defense College prepares military personnel and civilian officials from the American States to occupy positions of responsibility in the Hemisphere. The College offers a postgraduate study program complemented by different academic programs, research and publications.
Members
Of the 34 OAS members, the following 22 nations are active members of the IADB: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Costa Rica, Panama, Haiti, and Suriname are inactive IADB members.
Activities
The activities of the Inter-American Defense Board may be classified in three categories: those deriving from the function of preparing a legitimate defense against eventual aggressions from outside the hemisphere and the activities of military cooperation advisory services; activities requested by organs of the Organization, and those which are referred to it by individual states. In the first category, it is worth mentioning that the Board provided military advisory services to the Organization during the peace negotiations in the Dominican Republic, it provided military observers to the Organization during the 1969 Honduras-El Salvador crisis and also during the 1972 Belize affair, and it provided military observers and advice during the 1976 border incidents between Honduras and El Salvador. Currently, the Inter-American Defense Board has emphasized the last two categories of activities in the following areas: removal of antipersonnel land mines, measures to promote confidence, disaster mitigation and prevention, and publications. It also carries out the normal training activities specific to the Inter-American Defense College.
IV. The institutional relationship between the Inter-American Defense Board and the OAS
As described in sections I and II of this document, it would appear that, from a regulatory and institutional point of view, the relationship between the Inter-American Defense Board and the inter-American system has been marked by ambiguity since its creation. As of the first report of the Special Committee of the Administrative Council, the "permanent" character of the Board is mentioned, but it is also said that it will operate "as long as the present emergency lasts." Resolution IV of the Third Meeting of Consultation determines that the Board shall continue operating until a permanent body is established. This permanent body?the Advisory Defense Committee?is constituted in relation to the Meeting of Consultation, as part of the collective security system, although it has never been convoked. The organs of the Organization recognize that the Inter-American Defense Board has the function of organizing cooperation on military matters but do not grant it the standing of an organ of the OAS; on the contrary, they continue applying the resolution adopted by the Third Meeting of Consultation regarding the direct appointment of the delegates to the Board by the governments, to whom the Board independently submits plans relating to common defense. This ambiguity is accentuated by the Ninth Conference?s decision to include the budget of the Board in the general budget of the Organization of American States.
Based on some of these elements, the Inter-American Defense Board considered that "as an inter-American agency, (it) is directly subordinate to the American Governments, by virtue of all the resolutions pertaining to its creation" and that, from these resolutions, "it can be ascertained that the Board is not an integral or constituent part of the Organization of American States. This consideration is expressly established in the Charter of the Organization of American States." In 1966, the President of the Board forwarded a note to the President of the Permanent Council, and one of the annexes included the following statements:
The American States have evidenced their concern about the defense of the Continent by adopting measures relative to its preparation.
The Organization of American States has been concerned by the problem of continental defense, as a result of various situations of conflict and because of the threat of the expansionist activities of international communism.
The American Governments did not carry out the recommendation of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace to create a permanent agency to deal with problems of military cooperation as a replacement for the Inter-American Defense Board.
No organ with the continuing functions of continental defense planning has been established within the Organization of American States. The existing organs show duplication and, as well, a conflict of jurisdiction between themselves and with those assigned to the Board.
The Inter-American Defense Board is a permanent military planning organ for the defense of the Continent that has no organic relationship with the Organization of American States and its component parts, and is directly linked with the American Governments.
The Governments have been continuously represented on the Inter-American Defense Board and, since its creation, the Board has produced studies and recommendations for them.
The Organization of American States has recognized the work of the Inter-American Defense Board by charging it with continuing its studies and, in addition, with special tasks for defense, and by recommending to the Governments that they support the Board?s work and carry out the measures it recommends.
The need to define the legal and institutional relations between the Organization and the Board led to the preparation of the legal opinion contained in the document mentioned above, "Status of the Inter-American Defense Board vis-à-vis the Organization of American States, which concluded as follows:
As we have seen, the Inter-American Defense Board is an entity that was created by competent organs of the OAS, that received instructions from them and provides them with services; furthermore, its budget is included in the program-budget of the Organization, which is approved by the General Assembly.
In legal terms, all the organs, agencies, and entities that may be established on the basis of provisions of the OAS Charter or other inter-American juridical instruments, or that may be created by the General Assembly, the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs or any other organ competent to do so, must be considered to be linked to the Organization of American States.
The decision by the Bogotá Conference not to include the Inter-American Defense Board in the Charter is not sufficient reason to maintain that the Board is an independent entity without organic links to the OAS.
The arrangement whereby the Inter-American Board depends directly on the governments of the American States, which is sometimes invoked in this connection, represents an operational modality, but is not incompatible with the existence of an organic link between the Board and the Organization.
Furthermore, resolutions VII and XXXIV of the Bogotá Conference, together with the statements contained in several documents prepared and approved by representatives of the member states of the OAS, allow us to determine that it has been the governments? wish that the Board form part of the Organization.
In view of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the Inter-American Defense Board is an integral part of the Organization of American States, despite the fact that it is not expressly included in the Charter of the Organization.
Events that have taken place on the international and hemispheric scene since the 1980s led to a review of all the Organization?s activities in a process known as the renewal and strengthening of the Organization of American States. In the area of collective security, the Special Committee on Hemispheric Security was created; this was preceded by the work of the Working Group on Cooperation for Hemispheric Security. The present Committee on Hemispheric Security was later established as a committee of the Permanent Council.
In the above-mentioned Working Group, a rapporteur was appointed and asked to examine the situation of the Inter-American Defense Board in the general context of the activities of the organs, agencies, and entities of the Organization. His report6 was an important element in the reassessment of the question of the Board. On May 28, 1993, the Report of the Special Committee on Hemispheric Security on the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) was published; the appendix to this report refers to the institutional relationship between the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Defense Board.7 On September 15, 1993, the Chair of the Special Committee on Hemispheric Security presented a document entitled "Inter-American Defense Board: Legal-Institutional Linkage/Competence/Functioning."
The new international circumstances and their effect on the Hemisphere
The observations in the above-mentioned Report of the Rapporteur (pages 43 to 46) regarding the "ambit and circumstances surrounding this reflection on the Board and in particular, with respect to its relations with the OAS," are of particular interest for this document. According to the Rapporteur, the salient factors are as follows: "the overthrow of Marxist socialism and with it the end of the Cold War, as such, and its well-known influence on certain subversive movements in the region"; restoration of democratic systems in the countries of the region; the entry into the Organization of new member states; the new powers granted to the Secretary General in current Article 110 of the Charter by the Protocol of Cartagena; the design of a new OAS agenda, which includes issues such as: "representative democracy; incentives, preservation and strengthening of the democratic system; security in the hemisphere; strengthening of the inter-American system for protection and defense of human rights; environment; technical cooperation; ? and drug trafficking." The Rapporteur also mentions an "explicit interest on the part of the Board, reflected in its work plan, presented to the Permanent Council in 1991, in participating in the work of the OAS," and also the "willingness of several delegations of member states to the OAS to consider the matter of Board relations with the Organization in an effort to define more precisely the nature and scope of those relations." Another factor that the Rapporteur mentions "is the interest in military matters and greater understanding of them by Latin American political leadership ranks," as well as the importance of eliminating certain prejudices or what have been called 'antibodies' between civilians and military persons."
As preliminary conclusions, the Report of the Rapporteur then indicates the need to "prepare and develop the co-active power of the state and its subordination to legitimately constituted civil power, as well as the role that pertains to the armed forces in consolidating democracy within each of the states." In this respect, the Rapporteur considers that it is logical and natural "to determine precisely within the OAS the relationships between the policy-making bodies ? and a professional agency with advisory powers in the military field such as the Board, most especially if it is true that in the two cases the representatives of a single government are working." According to the Rapporteur, this task corresponds to the General Assembly, as the supreme organ of the Organization, and he remarks that:
Although it is a widely held view within the OAS that the status of the Board should be clarified, ? there is still no consensus on this subject. There are some who hold the respectable opinion that it is not necessary to carry out such an exercise for the Board since it could continue to function as it has in the past and as it is right now.
In the new hemispheric and international context, the Charter of the OAS is amended and the following is included as one of the essential purposes of the Organization: "To achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons that will make it possible to devote the largest amount of resources to the economic and social development of the Member States" (Article 2.h).
Options for the OAS/IADB institutional relationship
The following options for the institutional relationship between the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Defense Board have been explored:
To maintain the status quo, considering the Board to be an entity of the Organization that provides technical assistance and advisory services "of a technical-military character which in no case may have an operational nature." General Assembly resolution AG/RES. 1240 (XXIII-O/93) indicates that this is a provisional solution, until the legal and institutional relationship between the Board and the Organization has been defined.
The possibility has also been envisaged that the Inter-American Defense Board should be a specialized agency. According to the Chair of the Special Committee on Hemispheric Security,9 if this option was adopted "the Board would be constituted as a specialized organization of the OAS concerned with defense matters and technical-military advisory services. In this way, it could continue to perform the functions originally attributed to it by the Ninth Inter-American Conference and the Third Meeting of Consultation, as well as providing such professional assistance as the OAS might request." According to this report, as a specialized agency, the Board would have extensive technical and administrative autonomy and it would be able to adopt its own administrative and operational regulations, within the framework of the agreement that it would have to sign with the Organization of American States. In this capacity, the Inter-American Defense Board would be in the same category as, for example, the Pan-American Health Organization, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, the Inter-American Children?s Institute and the Inter-American Commission of Women.
10. Summary of the situation under analysis
An analysis of the situation of the legal and institutional relationship between the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Defense Board allows us to identify the following aspects:
The Inter-American Defense Board was created by organs that were the direct predecessors of the political organs of the actual Organization. It was created as part of the emerging collective security system in the context of the Second World War. In this context, the Board was assigned to act as an organ for the preparation of legitimate collective defense. Furthermore, the States believe that the Board is a useful agency for sharing opinions and points of view on military matters and for promoting close collaboration between the armed forces of the states of the Hemisphere. According to the initial decision, the states appoint their representatives to the Board directly.
From the beginning, there were those who considered that an agency of a military nature was not congruent with an institution whose fundamental objectives related to the promotion of peace and security. It was also noted that the President of the Board was a citizen of the host state (the United States). The solution adopted by the Ninth Inter-American Conference was to set up the Advisory Defense Committee, as a permanent organ, dependent on the Organ of Consultation and to leave the Board as it was at that time until the Organization?s member states should decide by a two-thirds majority to terminate its operations. It also decided to include the budget of the Board in the Organization?s program-budget.
Immediately after the creation of the Organization of American States, it was considered necessary that the Board should continue with the work of the military defense of the Hemisphere in the face of the presumed threats from the socialist regimes then in existence. The relationship between the Organization and the Board at that time led the Board, at one time, to consider itself an independent inter-American agency, linked to the OAS only through their Secretariats and owing to the adoption of the budget.
The process of change and reflection within the inter-American system in general and within the Organization of American States in particular, as of the second half of the 1980s, leads to the identification of some important elements for examining the role of the Board within the framework of the OAS, such as the following:
a. One of the new elements is the radical change with regard to the possibility of either political or hostile threats from non-American states. The end of the Soviet Union and the changes in the relations of China with the States in the Hemisphere, together with the changes in war-related technology, lead to reassessing the concept of aggression from outside the Hemisphere. This new element could affect the power granted to the Board "to prepare legitimate collective defense in the face of aggression". These changes also affect the situation of the inter-American agreements on collective security, in particular the TIAR.
b. The inclusion of "To achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons ?", as one of the Organization?s essential purposes, is a matter that compels us to consider the role played by technical elements of a military nature and elements of a legal and political nature.
c. The re-establishment of a democratic institutional framework in the member states leads to two phenomena: on the one hand, the creation of a new environment in the relationship between civilians and members of the military forces within the states, recognizing the contribution that the latter must make in order to help strengthen and consolidate the democratic regimes; and, on the other, an expressed need to subordinate military activities to the decisions of the political organs established under the constitutional system. This gives rise to proposals concerning the need to replicate this situation within the institutions of the inter-American system. These circumstances require the Organization to explore the institutional consequences of this situation on the structure and dependency of the Inter-American Defense Board.
d. The development of various sub-regional integration processes, which, in some cases, integrate the military element, originate a special momentum, particularly with regard to the design and application of measures to promote confidence and the peaceful solution of conflicts.
e. The new hemispheric circumstances reveal needs that, in many cases, incorporate a military component and, in this respect, the Inter-American Defense Board is able to offer its collaboration. Such is the case of activities to achieve the removal of antipersonnel land mines.
The specific format of the institutional organization of the Inter-American Defense Board within the framework of the Organization of American States, of which it forms part, will be the result of the analysis of the objectives arising from the new hemispheric and international circumstances and the history and operating arrangements of both the OAS and the Board. In this respect, the institutional format that is adopted?specific entity or specialized agency?should correspond to the functions that the states consider that the Board should exercise in the current hemispheric context. This is a matter that the states should resolve within the framework of the General Assembly, following the process which is currently underway and in which the Inter-American Defense Board itself is taking part.
The general framework of the OAS collective security system
The Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) originated in the resolution adopted by the Third Meeting of Consultation (Rio de Janeiro, 1942), in which the Ministers of Foreign Affairs recommended "the immediate meeting in Washington of a commission composed of military and naval technicians appointed by each of the Governments to study and to recommend to them the measures necessary for the defense of the Continent." The decision was taken after the Second Meeting of Consultation (Havana, 1940), which met immediately after Germany had invaded the Netherlands and France; this was a cause of concern to the American States owing to the possibility that Germany might claim the American colonies of the countries it had invaded. This situation gave rise to Declaration XV, "Reciprocal Assistance and Cooperation for the Defense of the Americas," which reaffirmed the procedure of consultation among the States and the concept that "any attempt on the part of a non-American state against the integrity or inviolability of the territory, the sovereignty, or the political independence of an American state should be considered as an act of aggression against all.?
The war in Europe and in the Pacific formed the backdrop for the process taking place in America at that time. In that setting, the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace (Mexico, 1945) laid the foundations for what would later become the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR) in the resolution "Reciprocal Assistance and American Solidarity." In the part that is relevant to this document, the resolution mentioned some of the measures that the American States could adopt, including "the use of military force to avoid or repel aggression."
Origins of the Inter-American Defense Board
Further to the aforementioned resolution of the Third Meeting of Consultation, the Administrative Council of the then Pan American Union?the immediate predecessor of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States?created a Special Committee composed of the Ambassadors of Brazil, Panama, and Venezuela to examine all aspects of the establishment of the Inter-American Defense Board. Based on the report of this Special Committee, the Administrative Council adopted a report in which it decided, in the final paragraph, that "the Inter-American Defense Board will be of a permanent nature, and will perform its duties as long as the present emergency lasts.?
The Inter-American Defense Board was officially established on March 30, 1942; its work would be "gradually to prepare the American republics to defend the hemisphere, by conducting studies and recommending courses of action to this end.1 At the above-mentioned Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Resolution IV, entitled "Creation of a Permanent Military Agency," was adopted and the relevant preamble paragraphs state that
The Republics of the Continent have declared their solidarity to the extent that any threat or attack against one of them constitutes a threat or an attack against all;
The existence of a permanent military agency for the study and solution of problems affecting the Western Hemisphere is indispensable;
The Inter-American Defense Board has proved to be a valuable agency for the exchange of views, the study of problems and the formulation of recommendations relating to the defense of the Hemisphere, and for the promotion of close collaboration on the part of the military, naval and air forces of the American Republics.
Based on these conclusions, the Inter-American Conference recommended:
That the Governments consider the creation, at the earliest possible time, of a permanent agency formed by the representatives of each of the General Staffs of the American Republics, for the purpose of proposing to the said Governments measures for a close military collaboration among all the Governments and for the defense of the Western Hemisphere.
That the Inter-American Defense Board continues as an agency of inter-American defense until the permanent body provided for in this recommendation is established.
The Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace also adopted Resolution IX "Reorganization, Consolidation, and Strengthening of the Inter-American System," in which it stipulated that the following bodies created by the Meetings of Consultation should continue to operate: the Inter-American Juridical Committee, the Emergency Advisory Committee for Political Defense, and the Inter-American Defense Board (operative paragraph 6). This situation would persist until the Ninth International Conference of American States met in Bogotá to create or confirm "the various agencies of the American system." Pursuant to the resolution, the Administrative Council of the Pan-American Union would supervise the inter-American agencies related to it, receiving and adopting their annual reports (operative paragraph 4.c.).
On June 13, 1945, the Inter-American Defense Board prepared a project for the creation of the permanent agency envisaged in the aforementioned Resolution IV of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, which it called "Inter-American Military Defense Council." Likewise, when preparing the "Project of the Organic Pact of the Inter-American System," as a basis for what would be the Charter of the Organization, the Administrative Council of the Pan American Union included the "Inter-American Defense Council"2 among the organs of the Council of the OAS.
This was the situation at the time of the Ninth International Conference of American States, held in Bogotá in 1948, at which the Organization of American States was created with its current legal and institutional structure. During this Conference there was opposition to transforming the Inter-American Defense Board into a permanent organ of the Organization. It was indicated that:
The creation in the Charter of a Council of this sort assumed a permanent need for a military body within the inter-American system, and that this would sound a discordant note in its purpose of peace and moreover, would make it difficult for any changes to be made in the future, or to put an end to the Board?s work. It was argued that the specific nature of the activities and background of this body was not appropriate to the nature of the Council of the Organization, and as a result of this opposition, the Board was not included in the provisions of the Bogotá Charter.3
The Ninth Conference dealt with the issue of hemispheric collaboration on military matters by incorporating the Advisory Defense Committee into the Charter in relation to the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs in order to provide advice on this issue to the Organ of Consultation (Article 66); it provided that this Committee would be composed "of the highest military authorities of the American States participating in the Meeting of Consultation" (Article 67); it would be convoked under the same conditions as the Organ of Consultation when the latter deals with "matters relating to defense against aggression" (Article 68) and that it could also meet when the General Assembly, the Organ of Consultation, or the governments, "by a two-thirds majority of the Member States, assign to it technical studies or reports on specific subjects" (Article 69). It is worth noting that this Committee has never been convoked.
The Ninth Conference also adopted resolutions on the Inter-American Defense Board. In resolution XXXIV, the Conference considered that "it is desirable for the American States to be in a position to ask Inter-American Defense Board for information on measures aimed at the collective security of the American Continent"; it therefore resolved that the Board "shall continue to act as the organ of preparation for collective self-defense against aggression until the American Governments decide by a two-thirds majority to consider its labor terminated."
Since the Conference had decided that the Inter-American Defense Board should continue to operate, resolution VII of the Ninth Conference declared that the budget referred to in the Organization?s Charter should include "funds required by the Secretariat of the Inter-American Defense Board."
The Fourth Meeting of Consultation of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs (Washington, 1951) adopted resolution III entitled "Inter-American Military Cooperation", which is particularly relevant to the topic of this document and will therefore be transcribed in extenso. In it, the Meeting of Consultation affirmed that "the military defense of the Continent is essential to the stability of its democratic institutions and to the well-being of its peoples" and recalled the obligations assumed by the American Republics under the OAS Charter and the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance to "act together for the common defense and for the maintenance of the peace and security of the Continent." This resolution also makes specific reference to the fact that "the expansionist activities of international communism require the immediate adoption of measures to safeguard the peace and the security of the Continent," declaring:
That the present grave international situation imposes on the American Republics the need to develop their military capabilities in order, in conformity with the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance: (1) to assure their individual and collective self-defense against armed attacks; (2) to contribute effectively to action by the Organization of American States against aggression directed against any of them; and (3) to make provision, as quickly as possible, for the collective defense of the Continent; and
That, in its resolution XXXIV, the Ninth International Conference of American States assigned preparation for legitimate collective defense against aggression to the Inter-American Defense Board, which, as the only operative technical, military organ is the appropriate organ to prepare military plans for legitimate defense against aggression.
Based on these considerations, the Fourth Meeting of Consultation resolved:
To recommend to the American Republics that they orient their military preparation in such a way that, through self-help and mutual aid, and in accordance with their capabilities and with their constitutional precepts, and in conformity with the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, they can, without prejudice to their individual self-defense and their internal security: (a) increase those of their resources and strengthen those of their armed forces best adapted to the collective defense, and maintain those armed forces in such status that they can be promptly available for the defense of the Continent; and (b) cooperate with each other, in military matters, in order to develop the collective strength of the Continent necessary to combat aggression against any of them.
To charge the Inter-American Defense Board with preparing, as vigorously as possible, and keeping up to date, in close liaison with the Governments through their respective Delegations, the military planning of the common defense.
That the plans formulated by the Inter-American Defense Board shall be submitted to the Governments for their consideration and decision. To the end of facilitating such consideration and decision, the Delegations of the American Republics shall be in continuous consultations with their governments on the projects, plans, and recommendations of the Board.
To recommend to the Governments of the American Republics: (a) that they maintain adequate and continuous representation of their armed forces on the Council of Delegates, on the Staff of the Inter-American Defense Board, and on any other organ of the Board that may be established in the future; (b) that they actively support the work of the Board, and consider promptly all the projects, plans, and recommendations of that agency; and (c) that they cooperate in the organization, within the Board, of a coordinated system of exchange of appropriate information.
The preceding paragraphs allow us to observe that the Inter-American Defense Board was established in an international context characterized by a confrontation of the States of the hemisphere with powers outside the region in the framework of the Second World War. The function granted to the Board relates to cooperation on military issues between the American States. The situation of confrontation continued after the Organization of American States had been created, when it was considered that there were other threats from outside the Hemisphere that could result in an aggression against the Organization?s member states. This idea and function are reflected in the structure and activities of the Inter-American Defense Board, and we will examine this aspect below.
Structure and activities of the Inter-American Defense Board
Organs
According to its Statutes, the President of the Inter-American Defense Board is a military representative of the host country, which is the United States. The Board is composed of four main organs: the Council of Delegates, the Staff, the Secretariat, and the Inter-American Defense College.
The Council of Delegates is the Board?s principal organ and is responsible for decision-making and providing advisory services to the governments of the states. The delegates who make up the Council are representatives of the armed forces directly appointed by the states that have decided to become members of the Board. Each delegation has one vote and there is no veto power. The Council of Delegates sets the policies and governs the activities of the other organs, either directly or through specially appointed committees. The Council of Delegates meets in regular bimonthly sessions; however, special sessions may be called when deemed necessary.
The Staff develops and updates military plans, prepares studies, performs the advisory and planning functions needed to respond to changes in matters relating to hemispheric security, and carries out any other task referred to it by the Council of Delegates. The work is accomplished by the permanent divisions (Plans, Logistics, and Intelligence) or through standing committees. The Staff is multi-national and made up of Army, Navy, and Air Force officers of several member nations. Delegations may assign as many officers as desired to the Staff, as there is no numerical limit.
According to information provided by the Inter-American Defense Board, the Staff officers conduct analyses and formulate proposals to resolve problems that are considered of concern to the entire Hemisphere in the following areas: demining, natural disasters, measures to promote confidence and security, drug abuse control, peacekeeping, environment and sustainable development, human rights, hemispheric security and continental defense.
The Secretariat of the Inter-American Defense Board carries out all the administrative, logistical, financial, interpretation, protocol and public relations, and information management functions.
The Inter-American Defense College prepares military personnel and civilian officials from the American States to occupy positions of responsibility in the Hemisphere. The College offers a postgraduate study program complemented by different academic programs, research and publications.
Members
Of the 34 OAS members, the following 22 nations are active members of the IADB: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Costa Rica, Panama, Haiti, and Suriname are inactive IADB members.
Activities
The activities of the Inter-American Defense Board may be classified in three categories: those deriving from the function of preparing a legitimate defense against eventual aggressions from outside the hemisphere and the activities of military cooperation advisory services; activities requested by organs of the Organization, and those which are referred to it by individual states. In the first category, it is worth mentioning that the Board provided military advisory services to the Organization during the peace negotiations in the Dominican Republic, it provided military observers to the Organization during the 1969 Honduras-El Salvador crisis and also during the 1972 Belize affair, and it provided military observers and advice during the 1976 border incidents between Honduras and El Salvador. Currently, the Inter-American Defense Board has emphasized the last two categories of activities in the following areas: removal of antipersonnel land mines, measures to promote confidence, disaster mitigation and prevention, and publications. It also carries out the normal training activities specific to the Inter-American Defense College.
IV. The institutional relationship between the Inter-American Defense Board and the OAS
As described in sections I and II of this document, it would appear that, from a regulatory and institutional point of view, the relationship between the Inter-American Defense Board and the inter-American system has been marked by ambiguity since its creation. As of the first report of the Special Committee of the Administrative Council, the "permanent" character of the Board is mentioned, but it is also said that it will operate "as long as the present emergency lasts." Resolution IV of the Third Meeting of Consultation determines that the Board shall continue operating until a permanent body is established. This permanent body?the Advisory Defense Committee?is constituted in relation to the Meeting of Consultation, as part of the collective security system, although it has never been convoked. The organs of the Organization recognize that the Inter-American Defense Board has the function of organizing cooperation on military matters but do not grant it the standing of an organ of the OAS; on the contrary, they continue applying the resolution adopted by the Third Meeting of Consultation regarding the direct appointment of the delegates to the Board by the governments, to whom the Board independently submits plans relating to common defense. This ambiguity is accentuated by the Ninth Conference?s decision to include the budget of the Board in the general budget of the Organization of American States.
Based on some of these elements, the Inter-American Defense Board considered that "as an inter-American agency, (it) is directly subordinate to the American Governments, by virtue of all the resolutions pertaining to its creation" and that, from these resolutions, "it can be ascertained that the Board is not an integral or constituent part of the Organization of American States. This consideration is expressly established in the Charter of the Organization of American States." In 1966, the President of the Board forwarded a note to the President of the Permanent Council, and one of the annexes included the following statements:
The American States have evidenced their concern about the defense of the Continent by adopting measures relative to its preparation.
The Organization of American States has been concerned by the problem of continental defense, as a result of various situations of conflict and because of the threat of the expansionist activities of international communism.
The American Governments did not carry out the recommendation of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace to create a permanent agency to deal with problems of military cooperation as a replacement for the Inter-American Defense Board.
No organ with the continuing functions of continental defense planning has been established within the Organization of American States. The existing organs show duplication and, as well, a conflict of jurisdiction between themselves and with those assigned to the Board.
The Inter-American Defense Board is a permanent military planning organ for the defense of the Continent that has no organic relationship with the Organization of American States and its component parts, and is directly linked with the American Governments.
The Governments have been continuously represented on the Inter-American Defense Board and, since its creation, the Board has produced studies and recommendations for them.
The Organization of American States has recognized the work of the Inter-American Defense Board by charging it with continuing its studies and, in addition, with special tasks for defense, and by recommending to the Governments that they support the Board?s work and carry out the measures it recommends.
The need to define the legal and institutional relations between the Organization and the Board led to the preparation of the legal opinion contained in the document mentioned above, "Status of the Inter-American Defense Board vis-à-vis the Organization of American States, which concluded as follows:
As we have seen, the Inter-American Defense Board is an entity that was created by competent organs of the OAS, that received instructions from them and provides them with services; furthermore, its budget is included in the program-budget of the Organization, which is approved by the General Assembly.
In legal terms, all the organs, agencies, and entities that may be established on the basis of provisions of the OAS Charter or other inter-American juridical instruments, or that may be created by the General Assembly, the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs or any other organ competent to do so, must be considered to be linked to the Organization of American States.
The decision by the Bogotá Conference not to include the Inter-American Defense Board in the Charter is not sufficient reason to maintain that the Board is an independent entity without organic links to the OAS.
The arrangement whereby the Inter-American Board depends directly on the governments of the American States, which is sometimes invoked in this connection, represents an operational modality, but is not incompatible with the existence of an organic link between the Board and the Organization.
Furthermore, resolutions VII and XXXIV of the Bogotá Conference, together with the statements contained in several documents prepared and approved by representatives of the member states of the OAS, allow us to determine that it has been the governments? wish that the Board form part of the Organization.
In view of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the Inter-American Defense Board is an integral part of the Organization of American States, despite the fact that it is not expressly included in the Charter of the Organization.
Events that have taken place on the international and hemispheric scene since the 1980s led to a review of all the Organization?s activities in a process known as the renewal and strengthening of the Organization of American States. In the area of collective security, the Special Committee on Hemispheric Security was created; this was preceded by the work of the Working Group on Cooperation for Hemispheric Security. The present Committee on Hemispheric Security was later established as a committee of the Permanent Council.
In the above-mentioned Working Group, a rapporteur was appointed and asked to examine the situation of the Inter-American Defense Board in the general context of the activities of the organs, agencies, and entities of the Organization. His report6 was an important element in the reassessment of the question of the Board. On May 28, 1993, the Report of the Special Committee on Hemispheric Security on the Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) was published; the appendix to this report refers to the institutional relationship between the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Defense Board.7 On September 15, 1993, the Chair of the Special Committee on Hemispheric Security presented a document entitled "Inter-American Defense Board: Legal-Institutional Linkage/Competence/Functioning."
The new international circumstances and their effect on the Hemisphere
The observations in the above-mentioned Report of the Rapporteur (pages 43 to 46) regarding the "ambit and circumstances surrounding this reflection on the Board and in particular, with respect to its relations with the OAS," are of particular interest for this document. According to the Rapporteur, the salient factors are as follows: "the overthrow of Marxist socialism and with it the end of the Cold War, as such, and its well-known influence on certain subversive movements in the region"; restoration of democratic systems in the countries of the region; the entry into the Organization of new member states; the new powers granted to the Secretary General in current Article 110 of the Charter by the Protocol of Cartagena; the design of a new OAS agenda, which includes issues such as: "representative democracy; incentives, preservation and strengthening of the democratic system; security in the hemisphere; strengthening of the inter-American system for protection and defense of human rights; environment; technical cooperation; ? and drug trafficking." The Rapporteur also mentions an "explicit interest on the part of the Board, reflected in its work plan, presented to the Permanent Council in 1991, in participating in the work of the OAS," and also the "willingness of several delegations of member states to the OAS to consider the matter of Board relations with the Organization in an effort to define more precisely the nature and scope of those relations." Another factor that the Rapporteur mentions "is the interest in military matters and greater understanding of them by Latin American political leadership ranks," as well as the importance of eliminating certain prejudices or what have been called 'antibodies' between civilians and military persons."
As preliminary conclusions, the Report of the Rapporteur then indicates the need to "prepare and develop the co-active power of the state and its subordination to legitimately constituted civil power, as well as the role that pertains to the armed forces in consolidating democracy within each of the states." In this respect, the Rapporteur considers that it is logical and natural "to determine precisely within the OAS the relationships between the policy-making bodies ? and a professional agency with advisory powers in the military field such as the Board, most especially if it is true that in the two cases the representatives of a single government are working." According to the Rapporteur, this task corresponds to the General Assembly, as the supreme organ of the Organization, and he remarks that:
Although it is a widely held view within the OAS that the status of the Board should be clarified, ? there is still no consensus on this subject. There are some who hold the respectable opinion that it is not necessary to carry out such an exercise for the Board since it could continue to function as it has in the past and as it is right now.
In the new hemispheric and international context, the Charter of the OAS is amended and the following is included as one of the essential purposes of the Organization: "To achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons that will make it possible to devote the largest amount of resources to the economic and social development of the Member States" (Article 2.h).
Options for the OAS/IADB institutional relationship
The following options for the institutional relationship between the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Defense Board have been explored:
To maintain the status quo, considering the Board to be an entity of the Organization that provides technical assistance and advisory services "of a technical-military character which in no case may have an operational nature." General Assembly resolution AG/RES. 1240 (XXIII-O/93) indicates that this is a provisional solution, until the legal and institutional relationship between the Board and the Organization has been defined.
The possibility has also been envisaged that the Inter-American Defense Board should be a specialized agency. According to the Chair of the Special Committee on Hemispheric Security,9 if this option was adopted "the Board would be constituted as a specialized organization of the OAS concerned with defense matters and technical-military advisory services. In this way, it could continue to perform the functions originally attributed to it by the Ninth Inter-American Conference and the Third Meeting of Consultation, as well as providing such professional assistance as the OAS might request." According to this report, as a specialized agency, the Board would have extensive technical and administrative autonomy and it would be able to adopt its own administrative and operational regulations, within the framework of the agreement that it would have to sign with the Organization of American States. In this capacity, the Inter-American Defense Board would be in the same category as, for example, the Pan-American Health Organization, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, the Inter-American Children?s Institute and the Inter-American Commission of Women.
10. Summary of the situation under analysis
An analysis of the situation of the legal and institutional relationship between the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Defense Board allows us to identify the following aspects:
The Inter-American Defense Board was created by organs that were the direct predecessors of the political organs of the actual Organization. It was created as part of the emerging collective security system in the context of the Second World War. In this context, the Board was assigned to act as an organ for the preparation of legitimate collective defense. Furthermore, the States believe that the Board is a useful agency for sharing opinions and points of view on military matters and for promoting close collaboration between the armed forces of the states of the Hemisphere. According to the initial decision, the states appoint their representatives to the Board directly.
From the beginning, there were those who considered that an agency of a military nature was not congruent with an institution whose fundamental objectives related to the promotion of peace and security. It was also noted that the President of the Board was a citizen of the host state (the United States). The solution adopted by the Ninth Inter-American Conference was to set up the Advisory Defense Committee, as a permanent organ, dependent on the Organ of Consultation and to leave the Board as it was at that time until the Organization?s member states should decide by a two-thirds majority to terminate its operations. It also decided to include the budget of the Board in the Organization?s program-budget.
Immediately after the creation of the Organization of American States, it was considered necessary that the Board should continue with the work of the military defense of the Hemisphere in the face of the presumed threats from the socialist regimes then in existence. The relationship between the Organization and the Board at that time led the Board, at one time, to consider itself an independent inter-American agency, linked to the OAS only through their Secretariats and owing to the adoption of the budget.
The process of change and reflection within the inter-American system in general and within the Organization of American States in particular, as of the second half of the 1980s, leads to the identification of some important elements for examining the role of the Board within the framework of the OAS, such as the following:
a. One of the new elements is the radical change with regard to the possibility of either political or hostile threats from non-American states. The end of the Soviet Union and the changes in the relations of China with the States in the Hemisphere, together with the changes in war-related technology, lead to reassessing the concept of aggression from outside the Hemisphere. This new element could affect the power granted to the Board "to prepare legitimate collective defense in the face of aggression". These changes also affect the situation of the inter-American agreements on collective security, in particular the TIAR.
b. The inclusion of "To achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons ?", as one of the Organization?s essential purposes, is a matter that compels us to consider the role played by technical elements of a military nature and elements of a legal and political nature.
c. The re-establishment of a democratic institutional framework in the member states leads to two phenomena: on the one hand, the creation of a new environment in the relationship between civilians and members of the military forces within the states, recognizing the contribution that the latter must make in order to help strengthen and consolidate the democratic regimes; and, on the other, an expressed need to subordinate military activities to the decisions of the political organs established under the constitutional system. This gives rise to proposals concerning the need to replicate this situation within the institutions of the inter-American system. These circumstances require the Organization to explore the institutional consequences of this situation on the structure and dependency of the Inter-American Defense Board.
d. The development of various sub-regional integration processes, which, in some cases, integrate the military element, originate a special momentum, particularly with regard to the design and application of measures to promote confidence and the peaceful solution of conflicts.
e. The new hemispheric circumstances reveal needs that, in many cases, incorporate a military component and, in this respect, the Inter-American Defense Board is able to offer its collaboration. Such is the case of activities to achieve the removal of antipersonnel land mines.
The specific format of the institutional organization of the Inter-American Defense Board within the framework of the Organization of American States, of which it forms part, will be the result of the analysis of the objectives arising from the new hemispheric and international circumstances and the history and operating arrangements of both the OAS and the Board. In this respect, the institutional format that is adopted?specific entity or specialized agency?should correspond to the functions that the states consider that the Board should exercise in the current hemispheric context. This is a matter that the states should resolve within the framework of the General Assembly, following the process which is currently underway and in which the Inter-American Defense Board itself is taking part.
