Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:46:42.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Issue for the Americas: Non-Intervention v. Human Rights and the Preservation of Democratic Institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

M. Margaret Ball
Get access

Extract

The problem of squaring the circle is not confined to mathematics. A somewhat similar task confronts the members of the Organization of American States (OAS) as they seek to enlarge respect for human rights and to create a firmer basis for democratic institutions in the life of the western hemisphere while maintaining the treasured principle of non-intervention. Not a new problem, it has increased in urgency in the last few years with the mounting opposition to dictatorships throughout the continent, with the increasingly communist orientation of Castro's government in Cuba, and with the political unrest elsewhere in Latin America to which Castro's victory appears to have contributed. Faced somewhat obliquely at the Sixth and Seventh Meetings of Foreign Ministers in Costa Rica in August 1960, it will have to be confronted more directly at the Eleventh International Conference of American States to be held in Ecuador in May 1961. The agenda for the Eleventh Conference contains items relating both to the protection of human rights and to the preservation of representative democracy.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , Winter 1961 , pp. 21 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1961

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 For the full text of this instrument, see The International Conferences of American States, First Supplement, 1933–1940 (Washington, D. C., Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1940), p. 122Google Scholar. Needless to say, Latin American opposition to intervention extended to intervention for the protection of nationals abroad (see the Calvo Doctrine). It also resulted in efforts to gain acceptance of the principle that all de facto governments should be recognized (see also the Estrada Doctrine). Lack of space precludes a review of these matters here.

2 For text, see ibid., p. 191. Resolution XXVII (Declaration of Principles of Inter-American Solidarity and Cooperation) of the same conference reiterated this condemnation of non-intervention and declared the forcible collection of debts to be illegal—thereby reaffirming the Drago Doctrine. The text of this resolution may be found in ibid., p. 160–161.

3 The general principle of non-intervention was reiterated by the Eighth Conference in the Declaration of American Principles (Resolution CX) in 1938 (ibid., p. 309), and by the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace (1945) in the Declaration of Mexico (Resolution XI). For the text of the latter, see Acta final de la conferencia interamericana sobre problemas de la guerra y de la paz (Washington, D. C., Pan American Union, 1945), p. 67–68Google Scholar.

4 For the Guatemalan draft resolution, see Diario de la conferencia interamericana sobre problemas de la guerra y de la paz (Mexico, D.F., 1945), p. 130Google Scholar. In the light of subsequent Mexican attitudes, it is interesting that the Mexican government introduced a resolution in a similar sense; this resolution was subsequently withdrawn. Ibid., p. 82–83, 138.

5 Ada final, Resolution XXXVIII, p. 94.

6 New York Times, November 24 and 28, 1945.

7 Arts. 15 and 16. See Novena Conferencia Internacional Americana, Adas y documentos, 6 vols., Vol. 6 (Bogotá, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Colombia, 1953), p. 21Google Scholar. The provisions of Art. 16 are repeated in Art. 8 of the Economic Agreement of Bogotá. Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 142.

8 Art. 19. Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 22.

9 Resolution XXXII (The Preservation and Defense of Democracy in America). Ibid., Vol. 6, p. 303–304.

10 Resolution VIII (Strengthening of Internal Security). See Fourth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Proceedings (Washington, D. C., Pan American Union, 1951), p. 244–246Google Scholar.

11 “One of the principal objectives of the U. S. delegation to the Tenth Inter-American Conference was to achieve maximum agreement among the American Republics upon a clear-cut and unmistakable policy against the intervention of international communism in the Western Hemisphere, recognizing the continuing threat which it poses to their peace and security and declaring their intention to take effective measures, individually and collectively, to combat it.” Tenth Inter-American Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, March 1–28, 1954; Report of the Delegation of the United States of America with Related Documents (Washington, D. C., Department of State Publication 5692, International Organization and Conference Series 11, American Republics 14, May 1955), p. 7.

12 Resolution XCIII (Declaration of Solidarity for the Preservation of the Political Integrity of the American States Against the Intervention of International Communism), Part I. Ibid., p. 156–157.

13 Resolution XCIII, Part III. Ibid., p. 157.

14 See Tenth Inter-American Conference, Diario (Caracas, 1954)Google Scholar, report of the rapporteur for Committee I. P. 1353–1369, and the reports of the United States and Mexican delegations to the conference. See also the Declaration of Caracas (Resolution XCV), in Tenth Inter-American Conference, Final Act(Washington, D. C., Pan American Union)Google Scholar.

15 Diario de la conferencia interamericana sobre problemas de la guerra y de la paz, p. 90.

16 See Final Act of the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace (Washington, D. C., Pan American Union, 1945), Resolution XLGoogle Scholar.

17 Resolution XXX. Novena Conferencia, op. cit., Vol. 6, p. 297–302Google Scholar.

18 Mexico, Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, México en la IX Conferencia Internacional Americana (Mexico, D.F., 1948), p. 138–145Google Scholar. See also Sanders, William, “Organization of American States,” International Conciliation, 06 1948 (No. 442), p. 411–412Google Scholar.

19 final Act, Resolution XXXI. Novena Conferencia, op. cit., Vol. 6, p. 302–303Google Scholar.

20 “Annual Report of the Secretary General for the Fiscal Year 1952–1953,” Annals of the Organization of American States, 1954 (Vol. 6), p. 19Google Scholar.

21 Tenth Inter-American Conference…, Report of the Delegation of the United States…, op. cit., p. 190Google Scholar.

22 For other provisions relating to education on human rights and exchange of information, see ibid., p. 102–103.

23 Resolution XXIX of the Final Act, ibid., p. 104.

24 The resolution, introduced by Uruguay and modified by subcommittee 2 of Committee III, was formally adopted by II votes to 2, with 7 abstentions. Chile and the United States voted against the resolution; Peru, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Haiti, Argentina, and Nicaragua abstained.—Mexico, Exteriores, Secretaria de Relaciones, México en la X Conferencia International Americana (Mexico, D.F., 1958), p. 365–366Google Scholar.

25 One of the Wbereas's of Resolution VIII stated: “It has been considered essential, as a fundamental corollary to this rule [namely, that liberty, justice, and peace are based on recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of the individual] that such rights be protected by a juridical system, so that men will not be driven to the extreme expedient of revolt against tyranny and oppression.” Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Final Act (Washington, D. C., Pan American Union, 1960), p. 10Google Scholar.

26 Ibid., Resolution VIII (Human Rights).

27 Ibid., p. 18–19.

28 For text, see Eleventh Inter-American Conference, Protection of Human Rights, OEA/Ser.E/XI.1, Doc. 8, 11 5, 1959 (Washington, D. C., Pan American Union, 1959)Google Scholar.

29 Ibid., p. 36–37.

30 Resolution XCIII (Declaration of Solidarity for the Preservation of the Political Integrity of the American States Against the Intervention of International Communism), and Resolution XCV (Declaration of Caracas).

31 Fifth Meeting of Consultation.…, Final Act, p. 4–6Google Scholar.

32 Resolution IX (Effective Exercise of Representative Democracy), ibid., p. 11–12.

33 Art. 5(d).

34 Arts. 9 and 13.

35 Arts. 15 and 16.

36 Author's translation, from Tenth Conference, Diario, p. 1188Google Scholar.

37 Fifth Meeting of Consultation, Final Act, Resolution III, p. 7Google Scholar.

38 Pan American Union, The Organization of American States, 1954–1959 (Washington, D. C., 1959). P. 47Google Scholar.

39 Eleventh Inter-American Conference, Study on the Juridical Relationship Between Respect for Human Rights and the Exercise of Democracy, OEA/Ser.E/XI.1, Doc. 16 (Washington, D. C., Pan American Union, 1959), p. 8–9Google Scholar.

40 The comment of Sr. Justino Jiménez de Aréchaga, of Uruguay, in Committee I of the Tenth Conference, March 23, 1934, is interesting in the light of subsequent events in Cuba: “The day that nondemocratic, or anti-democratic, communities come to exist in the American sphere, I am sure that not one of them would be able loyally to subscribe to the principle of non-intervention, because all of them would want to expand; nor would any one of them be able loyally to subscribe to the principle of self-determination, because all of them would be imperialistic.” Tenth Conference, Diario, p. 1189, editor's translationGoogle Scholar.

41 See Secretary Herter's, Statement of August 18”OAS Condemns Government of Dominican Republic,”Department of State Bulletin, 09 5, 1960 (Vol. 43). P. 355–356Google Scholar.

42 This is borne out by Secretary Herter's statement on arriving back in Washington, August 29, 1960, after the Seventh Meeting of Foreign Ministers: “The collective measures against the Dominican Government, unanimously agreed upon, express the condemnation by the American Republics of the actions taken by the Dominican Republic against another American state and its president. These measures are intended to contribute to the establishment there of a government which will be both representative and responsive to its obligations within the inter-American system.” See “American Foreign Ministers Condemn Sino-Soviet Intervention in American States,” Department of Slate Bulletin, 09 12, 1960 (Vol. 4), p. 408Google Scholar.

43 In his statement of August 24 to the Foreign Ministers, Secretary Herter observed: “The American Republics have adopted and sanctified the principle that the Western Hemisphere is not to be regarded as an area for military or political intervention by any power external to this hemisphere or for the establishment of colonies, protectorates, or other instrumentalist of such intervention. This collective principle is a main pillar of the Organization of American States. It has been given clear expression in the Rio Treaty. In earlier times the danger was simple. It was clearly recognizable. Intervention by an external power in the affairs of the Americas meant the use or threat of armed force on a national basis.

”Since the rise of totalitarian states in the modern world, however, there has been added a new type of danger.… This is the danger of the exercise of power by agencies owing allegiance to a foreign, non-American power and expressed through indigenous personnel using indigenous language, but nonetheless agencies controlled from without.… It now presents itself under the guise of communism.

“We should, therefore, examine briefly whether or not the institution in the Western Hemisphere of a Communist regime in any one of the American Republics constitutes in effect foreign intervention. I believe the history of the last 43 years gives only one answer. This is that a Communist government is in effect the agency of a foreign power. It owes its primary allegiance not to the people of the country in which it operates but to a foreign power or powers.” See “American Foreign Ministers Condemn…,” op. cit., p. 396.

44 “Reaffirms the principle of nonintervention by any American state in the internal or external affairs of the other American states, and reiterates that each state has the right to develop its cultural, political, and economic life freely and naturally, respecting the rights of the individual and the principles of universal morality, and as a consequence, no American state may intervene for the purpose of imposing upon another American state its ideologies or political, economic, or social principles.” Ibid., p. 407.

45 See Herter's two statements of August 29. Ibid., p. 408.

46 Report of the Special Committee to Study Resolutions IX and X of the Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, submitted to the Council of the Organization of American States at the meeting held on December 15, 1959, C-1-447, Rev. 2 (Washington, D. C., Pan American Union, 1959)Google Scholar.

47 Eleventh Inter-American Conference, Protection of Human Rights, op. cit., Art. 52. Art. 49 envisages a right of individual petition which parties may accept or reject in depositing their ratifications of the Convention.

48 Arts. 55–57.

49 See Arts. 65–81.

50 Report of the Special Committee to Study Resolutions IX and X, op. cit., Art. 1.

51 Art. IX.

52 Art. X.

53 Arts. XI-XIII. The Council is to make its decisions by a two-thirds vote of the parties to the Convention.

54 Arts. XVII and XVIII. Art. XIX provides for the use of the OAS Council as provisional organ of consultation.

55 Arts. XX-XXIII. These sanctions are meant to be progressive.

56 Tenth Conference, Diano, p. 1360Google Scholar.

57 Art. XXV.

58 Eleventh Inter-American Conference, Study on the Juridical Relationship, op. cit., p. 6–7Google Scholar.

59 “American Foreign Ministers Condemn…,” op. cit., p. 402.

60 Eleventh Inter-American Conference, Study on the Juridical Relationship, op. cit., p. 4Google Scholar.