Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-28T18:26:33.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Wine and Old Bottles: The Changing Inter-American System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

John C. Dreier
Get access

Extract

The year 1967 saw two inter-American conferences of major significance for the changing course of the inter-American system. One, the Third Special Inter-American Conference, held in Buenos Aires in February 1967, had as its purpose the revision of the 1948 Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS). The first conference to take such action, it culminated several years of debate over shortcomings in the OAS and ways and means of correcting them. The other principal assemblage of the year was the Meeting of American Chiefs of State at Punta del Este, Uruguay, in April. Although a regional “summit” meeting had been held in 1956, the one at Punta del Este was the first to give serious substantive consideration to major issues.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , Spring 1968 , pp. 477 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The obstacles were principally the internal political situation in Ecuador, where the government was forcibly overthrown in 1961 and 1963, the issue of Cuba, and the chronic problem of the border dispute between Ecuador and Peru. No Ecuadorian government could afford to host a conference in Quito without insisting that the border dispute be discussed, while Peru, considering the question closed, intimated it would not attend if the question were allowed to be brought up.

2 The terms “inter-American system” and “Organization of American States” are often, though incorrectly, used interchangeably. While there is no firm agreement among scholars on the definitions of these terms, the author continues as in past writings to

use the term Inter-American System to refer to [the] broad complex of juridical principles, political policies, and administrative arrangements that has grown up among the American republics over the years, and apply the term O.A.S. to die principal multilateral organization dirough which the system operates.

(Dreier, John C., The Organization of American States and the Hemisphere Crisis [New York: Harper & Row (for the Council on Foreign Relations), 1962], p. 11Google Scholar.)

3 See, for example, Whitaker, Arthur P. and Jordan, David C., Nationalism in Contemporary Latin America (New York: Free Press, 1966)Google Scholar; and Silvert, Kalman H. (ed.), Expectant Peoples: Nationalism and Development (New York: Random House, 1963)Google Scholar.

4 Duggan, Laurence, The Americas: The Search for Hemisphere Security (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1949), p. 8Google Scholar.

5 See, for example, the speech of the Foreign Minister of Chile at the Second Special Inter-American Conference at Rio de Janeiro in November 1965, contained in Actas y Documentos (OAS Document OEA/Ser.E/XIII.3) (Washington: Pan American Union, 1965), Vol. II, pp. 153–170Google Scholar.

6 Proposals advanced by the individual countries may be found in the documents of the Second Special Inter-American Conference at Rio de Janeiro, published by the OAS Secretariat. For a series of nine proposals reflecting a generally progressive view see “Strengthening of the Inter-American System: Statement of the Secretary-General” (OAS Document OEA/Ser.G/V, C-d-1258 Corr.15, October 1964).

7 See the author's “The Council of the OAS: Performance and Potential,” Journal of Inter-American Studies, 07 1963 (Vol. 5, No. 3), pp. 297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 The new Permanent Council will continue to carry out the functions of the present Council of the Organization with respect to the application of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty) in cases of acts or threats of aggression. No change in these procedures is involved in the Charter amendments.

9 As of February 21, 1968, Argentina, Guatemala, and Paraguay had deposited their instruments of ratification; Brazil, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico were reported to have completed legislative action on their ratifications.

10 Tercera Conferencia Interamericana Extraordinaria, Documentos (OAS Document OEA/Ser.E/XIV.1) (Washington: Pan American Union, 1968), Vol. I, p. 282Google Scholar.

11 Declaration of the Presidents of America (signed at the Meeting of American Chiefs of State, Punta del Estc, Uruguay, April 14, 1967) (Washington: Pan American Union, 1968), p. 2Google Scholar.

12 Valdées, Gabriel, “Ni Bloques Ni Recelos,” Life en Español, 05 22, 1968 (Vol. 29, No. 10), p. 45Google Scholar. (Translation by author.)

13 Meeting of American Chiefs of State: Punta del Este, Uruguay, April 12–14, 1967 (OAS Document OEA/Ser.C/IX.1) (Washington: Pan American Union, 1968), p. 158Google Scholar.

14 Ibid., p. 213.

15 Ibid., p. 144.

16 For an account and analysis see Wainhouse, David W. and others, International Peace Observation: A History and Forecast (Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966), pp. 86–214Google Scholar.

17 See Whitaker and Jordan.

18 Such sentiments are widespread. For three examples see: Castañeda, Jorge, Mexico and the United Nations, trans. de Urquidi, M. (New York: Manhattan Publishing Company [for El Colegio de México and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace], 1958), Chapter 7Google Scholar; Germán Arciniegas, “Haciauna Organización de Estados Latinoamericanos?” Cuadernos, 09 1965 (No. 100), pp. 5–11Google Scholar; and “Reformas de la O.E.A.,” Política y Espíritu, 09–10 1964 (18th year, No. 286), pp. 7–9Google Scholar.

19 Signed at Mexico City, May 1967.

20 Gordon, Lincoln, “Punta del Este Revisited,” Foreign Affairs, 07 1968 (Vol. 45, No. 4), pp. 637–638Google Scholar.