Nobel Laureates to OAS leaders: "Vitally important to strengthen" the Inter-American Human Rights System

Ed: The OAS is meeting today to decide on measures to reform the Inter-American Human Rights System. The Nobel Women's Initiative, JASS, Movimiento Autónomo de Mujeres in Nicaragua and other Americas Program partners have been active to preserve the vital functions of the Inter-American Commission and Court on Human Rights that have been important in exposing violations and protecting human rights defenders. The Permanent Council was stuck on language about non-governmental funding to the System after a long series of meetings this week and last, but a meeting of nations that have signed the American Convention on Human Rights (San José Pact) agreed to remove proposals that would have seriously weakened the System. 

A group of center-left governments led by Ecuador objected to aspects of the precautionary measures and sentences against their governments. They have accused the U.S. of exercising excessive control over the operations of the system and argued that States that have not signed the Pact should not have representation on the Commission. The U.S. and Canada, among others, have not signed the regional human rights commission and  that lack of basic commitment to the System undermines regional efforts to guarantee human rights. Civil society organization and especially women's organizations that we work with have responded saying that the flaws should be addressed by strengthening, not weakening, the system. The draft resolutions call on all nations to sign the Pact and governments to fund all Rapporteurs adequately and equally.

Here is the press release and letter issued yesterday from Nobel Peace Prize Laureates Jody Williams and Rigoberta Menchu, from the Nobel Women's Initiative.

Nobel Women's Initiative: On the eve of a deadline for defining the future of the Inter-American human rights system, six Nobel Peace Laureates have sent an open letter to leaders in this hemisphere calling on them to strengthen both the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Tomorrow members of the Organization of American States (OAS) will be presenting proposals for reforming the regional justice system created in 1948, and which primarily oversees compliance with the American Convention on Human Rights adopted in 1969.

In their open letter to OAS leaders, the six Nobel Laureates—Jody Williams, Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Shirin Ebadi, Leymah Gbowee, Mairead Maguire and Tawakkol Karman—note that the Inter-American Human Rights System has "proven to be an effective tool" for defending the basic rights of women and others threatened by rising levels of violence in some places in the region. They say the OAS mechanisms have been important in giving "voice and protection" to women and others at-risk.

The Nobel Laureates sent the letter in response to concerns from human rights groups in the region that some countries within the OAS are trying to weaken the power and effectiveness of the Inter-American Human Rights System. In 2011, Nobel Laureates Rigoberta Menchú Tum and Jody Williams led a delegation to Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala to investigate rising violence against women human rights defenders. The delegation heard testimony from women and organizations that had turned to the Inter-American Human Rights System after hitting walls in their own countries.

"It was really important that the Inter-American Court took [our] case," said Imelda Marrufo, whose organization denounced rising femicides in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.  "Authorities [in Mexico] were calling the femicides a 'myth'. The case led to the formal recognition that the killings existed."

Last week the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights heard the case of 11 women from Atenco, Mexico who were sexually assaulted by police in 2006 when Mexico's current President—Enrique Peña Nieto—was Governor of the state where the assaults occurred. A day after the Inter-American hearing got started in Washington, the Mexican government finally offered the women of Atenco a "friendly solution" to the case. The "solution" includes a public apology and reparations for the psychological and other damage caused by the sexual assaults.

The women of Atenco have since rejected the Mexican government's offer, instead opting to move forward with their case. "We are never going to be victims," said one of the Atenco women. "We are survivors full of hope."

Read the full text of the open letter below.

For more information, please contact:
Rachel Vincent, Media Manager
Nobel Women's Initiative
rvincent@nobelwomensinitiative.org
Mobile +1 613 276 9030

STRENGTHEN INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

An Open Letter from Nobel Peace Laureates to All Member States of the Organization of American States

On the eve of the Extraordinary General Assembly on March 22, 2013, we are writing to call on all member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) to join together to strengthen the Inter-American Human Rights System.

The Inter-American Human Rights System—made up of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court on Human Rights—has proven to be an effective tool for the defense of basic rights, especially for groups that face discrimination in the justice system: women, indigenous peoples, Afro-Americans, migrants and displaced persons, members of the LGBT community, leaders of political opposition and the poor. The System also plays a critical role in cases where state actors are in complicity or directly involved in committing human rights violations.

The Inter-American Human Rights System has protected women human rights defenders and survivors of violence by making the work of such defenders visible, investigating complaints and contributing to prevention.  This is vital work in a region where threats against some women and their communities are a daily fact of life.

At this juncture in history—when human rights are all too often taking a back seat to corporate and other interests—the goal should be to broaden and strengthen the System and ensure full funding for its important functions.  This support should extend to all eight of the thematic Rapporteurs and the country Rapporteurs.

We urge the member states that have not ratified the Convention to do so as soon as possible to send a strong signal that human rights are a priority. We also strongly encourage the member nations to strengthen the system by fully and promptly complying with the recommendations and decisions of the Commission and the Court, and contributing to funding their operations at an adequate level.

The Inter-American Human Rights System has given voice to and protection to human rights defenders throughout the region, as well as at-risk populations.  At this critical moment in it development, we call on all OAS countries to reaffirm their commitment and support for the important work of the Inter-American Rights System.

Respectfully,

Jody Williams
Chair, Nobel Women's Initiative
Nobel Peace Laureate, 1997

Rigoberta Menchu Tum
Nobel Women's Initiative
Nobel Peace Laureate, 1992

Rule of Law: Drug cartels threaten Latin American democracy - OAS

BBC News: "Cartels are influencing elections by threatening politicians and even running their own candidates, OAS Secretary for Multidimensional Security Adam Blackwell said.

He was speaking at an OAS conference on transnational crime in Mexico City. The two-day meeting brings together prosecutors from across Latin America.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon told delegates that countries in the Americas needed to work together to defeat gangs."In the face of transnational organised crime, we must create an international front where societies and governments are not faced with resolving this challenge alone," he said." read more

Honduran Crisis Tests Commitment to Democracy

What could have been a military coup in Honduras seems to have been defused by the intervention of the international community. The opposition to President Mel Zelaya seems to have backed down for the time being and a more conciliatory president has announced that the situation is under control.

The acid test comes tomorrow, when the nation votes in a national poll called by the president and opposed by the legislature and the courts.

The events that led to the Honduran political crisis began with a simple question: Do you agree to install a fourth urn in the November 2009 general elections to decide on calling a National Consitutent Assembly that would approve a political constitution?

This question will be placed before the public in a non-binding poll that has caused an uproar within parts of the government and powerful sectors of society that have tried to block it.

Both the Honduran Congress and the courts ruled against holding the poll in recent days. The rulings sparked a crisis when the head of the armed forces, General Romeo Vasquez, refused to allow the army to distribute the urns and other materials for the June 28 poll.

As Commander in Chief, Zelaya fired Vasquez on June 24 for disobeying an order. The following day, organized citizen groups led by Zelaya went to the army base where the materials had been delivered to recover and distribute them.

The army then occupied strategic points in the streets of the capital city of Tegucigalpa, reportedly including the presidential residence. Playing chicken with the executive branch, the Supreme Court ordered that Vasquez be reinstated.

That’s when the situation began to smell like a military coup d’ etat. The presidency charged that the army mobilization was supported by “the media and economic oligarchy” and warnings of a coup circulated around the world.

Today, the country moved back from the brink of open conflict. Zelaya said in an interview that Vasquez will remain in his post, stating, “It’s true, I announced his removal, but I have not named anyone. He remains in charge of the Armed Forces and has expressed his obedience and discipline.” He also announced that he will ask the army to withdraw to its quarters.

At the time of this writing, the army remains in the streets and it is unclear if it will try to obstruct the process. Vasquez was reported as saying that the armed forces were standing by “to guarantee order in the country and respect for the Constitution”, according to EFE press.

International Support and the OAS Role
The Organization of American States (OAS), Bolivarian Alternative (ALBA), the United Nations, Mercosur and the European Union have all expressed support for dialogue and respect for democratic institutions in Honduras. In a highly charged geopolitical context, the content and effects of the endorsements differed in important ways.

The nine-nation ALBA bloc, to which Honduras belongs, stated unequivocal support for President Zelaya:
“We manifest our firmest support for the government of [Zelaya], in its just and decided actions to defend the right of the Honduran people to express their sovereign will and advance a process of social transformation in the framework of democratic institutions."

It went on to warn of consequences in the event of a coup:
"We will mobilize ourselves... in the event of any attempt by the oligarchy to break the democratic and constitutional order of this sister Central American republic."
This had the contradictory impact of signalling that the Honduran government could not be isolated in the conflict and of inflaming the anti-Zelaya factions in the country, especially the press, which has consistently criticized the president for his ties with Chavez.

The United Nations statement confined itself to stating “it is important for the country's leaders to act with full respect for the rule of law and democratic institutions, and to seek consensus on the pressing political issues through a peaceful and inclusive dialogue” and clarified that the institution was not sending observers to the June 28 vote.

The OAS actions went farthest in defusing the conflict. Honduras took its case before the Permanent Council on June 26. Honduran representative, Carlos Sosa, made a plea for support in upholding the country’s democratic institutions. Sosa noted that his government "had reason to believe that democratic institutions and legitimate exercise of power are at risk, are being threatened.”

Following deliberations over a draft resolution, the OAS pronounced its support for the rule of law and agreed to send a mission to Honduras to investigate the situation.
OAS involvement deflects the possibility that the military will force a scenario in which Zelaya is replaced, since this would clearly be interpreted as a break with democratic institutions. It also opens up space for a mediated dialogue among the warring factions, using the shared diplomatic arena to avoid unilateral outside intervention either in favor of or against the administration.

The OAS commitment, welcomed by the Honduran government, also lessens regional fears that the U.S. government will intervene against the Zelaya government. In The long history of intervention in the region and the Bush doctrine have left great skepticism about the U.S. role that has not disappeared with the election of Obama. Honduras served as the staging grounds for the illegal U.S.-supported war against the Nicaraguan government and hosts a U.S. military base.

The Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras(COPINH) charged in a communique on June 24 that the U.S. ambassador “alerted beforehand of the events denounced here, left the country and called on the directors of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and other institutions close to the U.S. government to abandon the country, thus demonstrating his complicity with the forces attempting the coup.”

The Americas Program has contacted the State Department to confirm or deny the alleged departure of the ambassador but has received no response.

The United States undeniably has the military capacity to intervene and impose a solution. Moreover, Honduras has grown deeply dependent on the U.S. economy. Remittances from the U.S. were $2.56 billion in 2007--more than one-fifth of GDP--and the U.S. is by far the country’s major trade partner. In recent years the U.S. government has threatened to cut off visas, withdraw trade privileges or block remittances when it felt its interests negatively affected.

If the crisis came to a head, would the U.S. intervene militarily or through economical sanctions to pressure the left-leaning president?

Especially given its support of the OAS role, the answer is “very unlikely”. The Obama adminstration has repeatedly voiced its commitment to multilateral diplomacy. State Department spokesperson Phillip Crowley affirmed the position to work within the OAS, while avoiding specific mention of supporting the Honduran president:

“We urge all sides to seek a consensual democratic resolution in the current political impasse that adheres to the Honduran constitution and to Honduran laws consistent with the principles of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. And we think that the OAS has an important role to play here, and we urge the OAS to take all appropriate actions necessary to uphold the provisions in the charter.”

Although the U.S. representative to the OAS, Hector Morales, hinted at criticism of Zelaya, stating that “no branch of government can be above the law” and emphasizing the separation of powers, the U.S. joined other countries in supporting the OAS decision by acclamation.

Zelaya thanked the international community for support for the democratic institutions, calling it “healthy” and crediting their actions for staving off an attempt to break from institutional rule.

It is ironic that Honduras is once again on center stage at the OAS. Just weeks ago, the nation hosted the General Assembly where after protracted negotiations the organization agreed to repeal the suspension of Cuba. At that time, the ability to reach a difficult consensus revived hope that the OAS could play a strong and less biased role in the hemisphere than it has in the past.

Today’s decision reinforces that hope.

Just the Beginning
If Honduras gets through tomorrow’s poll without violence or political rupture, no matter what the results are it will be only the beginning of a long and tempestuous political process. This week’s crisis concentrated on the presidency, the balance of powers and the public’s right to voice its opinion on a national issue.

But if, as many expect, the results of the poll show strong support for a Constitutional Assembly, then the real hard part starts.

What the mainstream press has avoided reporting is that Zelaya has widespread popular support and the proposal to create a new constitution in the country has even wider support.

Depending on the source, the per capita gross national income in Honduras runs between $1,635 and around $4,000 dollars. Forty-four percent of the population lives on under 2$ a day, according to the United Nations.

State Department figures show 38 percent of the population unemployed or underemployed, not counting the over one million who have migrated to the United States in search of a livelihood they could not find at home.

Honduras is not only a poor country; it is 16th in the world in inequality. The top 10 pecent of households receives 42 percent of the wealth while the lowest 10 percent receives only 1.2 percent.

The skewed power and wealth lies at the basis of the current conflict. The labor, farm, indigenous and poor organizations supporting tomorrow’s poll want to see a new constitution that redistributes resources in such a way as to balance wealth and halt forced migration to the United States.

The Citizen Movement to Restore Honduras notes the commitment these grassroots movements have to their cause: “The poll is very popular, and has sparked the widespread mobilization of party activists and progressive sectors, in which we include ourselves, and the people in general who see an opportunity to make structurally change some of the many inequities in Honduras, and throw out, by means of new Constitution, institutions built on the corruption and privilege of the national and internationally powerful.”

Forces opposing the poll have rarely touched on this issue. In an effort to portray the conflict as a problem of a lone, crazed megalomaniac, the media rarely interview popular organizations and interpret the constitutional assembly as merely a mechanism to prolong the Zelaya presidency. While a change in term limits may or may not eventually be proposed, this leaves out issues that lie at the crux of the current conflict and seriously distorts the information coming out of the beleaguered country.

Laura Carlsen

Diplomacy Buries the Cold War as OAS Lifts Cuba Exclusion

Draft Resolution on Cuba. Opening remarks by Patricia Rodas, President of General Assembly

Laura Carlsen

After some tough negotiations, the General Assembly of the Organization of America States (OAS) passed a resolution to rescind its 1962 decision to exclude Cuba. The decision was hammered out by a working group over several days of talks and accepted in the plenary session Jun 3, to a standing ovation.

On Jun 4, papers from across the Hemisphere celebrated the decision and reflected the sense of satisfaction that characterized the plenary (videos available here). Nation after nation expressed “joy” and spoke of righting an historical wrong.

“Today we put the nail in the coffin of the cold war”, the Antiguan representative stated. She echoed the words of Pres. Manuel Zelaya of host country Honduras who officially announced the “end of the Cold War in San Pedro Sula.”

Both the ALBA countries and the Obama administration accepted the resolution after a seeming impasse over conditioning.

The decision represents a new stage of diplomacy for the region. For the first time in years, the OAS actually took up an important issue, negotiated with a U.S. delegation willing to hear other views, and reached a consensus. The United States, which funds 60% of the organization’s budget and represents a huge part of the regional economy, declined to use its invisible veto, instead opting for compromise.

The result is an historic decision that removes what was a huge thorn in the side of the regional organization and its member nations.

It would be hard to overestimate the resentment that built up in Latin America over the U.S. Cuba policy. For decades, a majority of 33 to 1 was forced to accept the exclusion of Cuba against its will and against the supposed principles of the organization itself. At the same time, the populations had important relationships with Cuba, historic ties and, as mentioned several times in the speeches, received Cuban doctors and teachers. With even dialogue on the issue ruled out by the U.S. government, Cuba’s empty seat was to many a reminder that regional diplomacy still carried a big stick.

What Exactly Happened in San Pedro Sula?

It’s not easy to get at the back-story of the talks because press reports and official statements reflect the political motivations of the media and politicians speaking.

Although everyone has a particular spin, the facts are straightforward enough. On June 3, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States decided by consensus, or “acclamation”, to lift the 1962 resolution that “suspended” Cuba’s participation in the interhemispheric body. This is now a done deal; there are no pre-conditions, intermediate steps or further negotiations involved.

That Cuba is no longer barred form the assembly does not mean that Cuba will be taking a seat at the next regional meeting. For that to happen, several prior steps must be taken that are not at all assured.

Article 2 of the resolution states that Cuba’s reintegration would follow a “process of dialogue to be initiated at the request of the Cuban government and in compliance with the practices, goals and principles of the OAS.”

The Cuban government has stated that it does not want to rejoin the OAS, which Fidel Castro called an accomplice to the crimes committed against Cuba and a Trojan horse. After the impasse broke and the resolution was accepted, an official statement celebrated the decision, calling it “an historic day and the reaffirmation of the independence of Latin America in spite of pressures from the United States” while repeating their determination to seek other forms of regional representation.

The second step regards the vaguely worded “process of dialogue.” Shannon noted that in fact a two-part process would determine the extent of reform on the bilateral level and in the OAS. Venezuela noted that ending the embargo remains a strong demand within the organization. The U.S. pointed to new talks on immigration and communication with the Cuban government while calling for reforms. All this will play out on many levels and with international, regional and domestic politics each playing ensemble roles. Of course, the whole “process of dialogue” will be a moot point in the likely case that Cuba maintains its position not to seek re-entry.

In the working group, U.S. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton initially sought to apply stricter conditions to Cuba’s re-entry, probably involving preconditions to lifting the resolution. The foreign ministers of Venezuela, Nicaragua and Honduras led the charge against tighter conditioning, maintaining that the 1962 resolution was an obsolete relic of the Cold War and had to be eliminated for that reason and to allow Cuba to take its place within the region.

After Clinton flew off to join President Obama in Cairo for another historic moment in dismantling Bush foreign policy, Sub-Secretary Tom Shannon (soon to be replaced by Arturo Valenzuela- pending Senate confirmation) took over. Following what were no doubt very specific marching orders, Shannon carried negotiations through to the compromise.

Judging from the result, the key objective of the U.S. team was to leave San Pedro Sula with a position of unity and a new beginning for U.S. -Latin American relations. The position in favor of constructive engagement to compel change in the Cuban political system was to be reflected and it was important for the U.S. to be a partner in the final decision. These goals were achieved.

Who compromised the most is a matter of opinion. Some, including the New York Times, say the three ALBA countries backed down to allow Article 2 that stipulates the process of dialogue. Others claim that the U.S. government softened its position to lift the ban on Cuba without preconditions.

But to pursue this line of speculation is to fall into the emphasis on who won that has replaced statesmanship with one-upmanship and eroded diplomacy. By definition, cooperation requires compromise and an eye to common good, shared goals and long-term results.

From the looks of the faces, the vast majority of the national representatives present felt triumphant when the resolution was read.

What Does It Mean?

The minister from St Vincent underlined the significance of the resolution: “(This decision) was a litmus test as to whether we have a future as a hemisphere for continued cooperation and we have passed that test. This is a new beginning, characterized by mutual respect.”

Some countries, especially Cuba itself, have questioned whether the OAS is the right forum for regional diplomacy, charging that it has always been controlled by the United States and forms part of a web of institutions including the multilateral banks that have exercized coercion and control in the region. Many have high expectations that the Rio Group meeting in Mexico in 2010 will lead to a new group that could be a counter-balance to U.S. power.

Whether or not the region creates a separate institution, the need to engage in dialogue, cooperation, confrontation and peaceful co-existence with the giant to the north means that openings in diplomatic relations mean more than the symbolism of burying the Cold War of the past. Note the change in Shannon’s words and tone from when he worked for the Bush administration:

“Today we addressed and bridged an historic divide in the Americas, while reaffirming our profound commitment to democracy and the fundamental human rights of our peoples. Together, these actions on the part of the United States signal the biggest change to our approach to Cuba in the last forty years. We are not interested in fighting old battles or living in the past. We are committed to building a better future for all of the Americas, by listening, learning, and forging partnerships based on mutual respect.”

What Happens Next?

The next steps will be interesting to watch and important to influence, but they will most likely not take place in the OAS.

In the United States the dwindling anti-Castro organizations and their representatives in Congress have reacted with rage. They have demanded defunding the OAS if Cuba is allowed to return and have presented a bill before Congress to demand that Cuba face certification for a long list of far-reaching clauses that could effectively exclude most of the countries in the hemisphere—including the United States—due to their vague and subjective terms. Even so, many members of Congress opposed to the outcome have taken a wait-and-see attitude for now.

The events of the OAS meeting leave no doubt that the cold war is buried and that the U.S. and Latin America are on a path toward more constructive engagement and more open dialogue. Does that mean that everyone lives happily ever after in the hemisphere?

Not by a long shot. And it’s that long shot—the hemispheric reach of the U.S.’s military power—that will be the next showdown in the hemisphere following Cuba policy. Here the attitude of the Obama administration is unclear. The proposed military base in Colombia, rapid militarization of the relationship with Mexico and bloated defense budget leave reason to doubt whether the balance between defense and diplomacy that the incoming government promised is even moving in the right direction.

At least, there is now room for dialogue between nations and growing space to discuss these issues at home. So much of really changing U.S. foreign policy involves cleaning up the mess that the Obama administration inherited. U.S. -Cuba policy, from the diplomatic sanctions to the economic embargo, is perhaps the most obvious and internationally repudiated mess of a policy there is. Yesterday’s resolution was another step—a deed to match the words at the Fifth Summit of the Americas—toward clearing the way for change.

For More information:

OAS videos of the session and speeches (03/06/09)

Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s statement (03/06/09)

Intervention During the Plenary Session Regarding Cuba and the OAS, Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., Assistant Secretary (02/06/09)

OAS Democratic Charter