The Summit of the Americas began in 1994 in Miami, Florida, when former U.S. President Bill Clinton called all democratically elected heads of state throughout the Western Hemisphere together to discuss issues of common interest. The Summits were intended as forums for American presidents and their delegates, but over time the participation of Civil Society has increased. According to the Organization of American States (OAS), Civil Society includes organizations that are understood to mean national or international institutions, organizations, or entities made up of natural or juridical persons of a non-governmental nature.

Organizations representing Civil Society are now formally included in the preparatory meetings as well as the Summit’s official agenda. This inclusion, however, has not translated into substantive Summit participation for all Civil Society organizations – not even for those officially registered with the OAS or those that have participated in formal pre-Summit meetings and past Summits of the Americas. Such was the case for CRIES, a regional non-governmental organization (NGO) that coordinates interaction between research centers, other NGOs, and social movements throughout Latin America.

CRIES, a Spanish acronym that stands for “Regional Coordinator of Economic and Social Research” is a Civil Society organization that was active in the first three inter-American Summits. Due to frustration with the Argentine Foreign Ministry’s administration of the pre-Summit meetings, CRIES decided not to participate in the official Fourth Summit of the Americas’ in early November 2005. Instead, this OAS-registered NGO joined the crowds to protest at the anti-Summit led by the rebellious Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Argentine soccer star Diego Maradona.

Andrés Serbin, President of CRIES, explains here why his organization decided to join the anti-Summit in protest rather than participate in the formal Summit of the Americas proceedings.

Janie Hulse: What is CRIES?

Andrés Serbin: CRIES is an NGO that was founded in 1982 in Nicaragua to help unify research centers, other NGOs, and social movements that after Central American conflicts were promoting regional integration and Civil Society participation in the Central American regional agenda. Later CRIES expanded to all other parts of Latin America and today we have 80 member organizations in our region-wide network. The mission of our organization is to promote Civil Society participation in the regional and hemispheric agenda.

"...if we are talking about strengthening democratic governance (the third Summit theme) and promoting democracy, Civil Society becomes important. It is critical to learn from the experiences of organizations working years at the regional level on these issues."

JH: How involved has CRIES been in the Summit of the Americas process and other inter-American assemblies?

AS: CRIES has a history of participation in diverse regional organizations. We have been registered as an NGO with the OAS since 1998 and we have participated as part of a larger network of international organizations in various OAS assemblies including the Summit of the Americas process.

JH: Were you actively involved in the recent Summit in Mar del Plata, Argentina?

AS: Yes. Since 2002, we had been working to get the issue of conflict prevention on the 2005 Summit agenda as we believe there have been too many ad-hoc responses to regional conflicts that could have been prevented. We proposed a project together with other Civil Society organizations for an early warning system to detect conflict breakout. We promoted this plan during a meeting organized by the Summit Implementation Review Group (SIRG) in January and April of this year. We have also participated virtually with Partners of the Americas, the Civil Society lead for the Mar del Plata Summit, and other organizations between April and June of this year. We were confident that our ideas regarding conflict prevention were being heard, but when we attended the SIRG meeting here in Buenos Aires in September we were surprised to see that our proposal was not even included in one of the three topical areas chosen by the Argentine government. In contrast to the other Summit preparation meetings that we attended where Civil Society collaborated, the Argentina government just presented us with an agenda without consultation. Some Civil Society organizations had the opportunity to present recommendations, but they were hand-picked by the Argentine government.

JH: Perhaps it was more of an issue of prioritizing than purposeful exclusion by the government?

"The political discourse says that Civil Society is important, but in practice the reality is different."

AS: I understand that the Summit’s agenda included more relevant issues like the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) that have a greater impact on the first two Summit themes of decent work and poverty alleviation and where Civil Society has less of a role to play. However, if we are talking about strengthening democratic governance (the third Summit theme) and promoting democracy, Civil Society becomes important. It is critical to learn from the experiences of organizations working years at the regional level on these issues. An excluding, sectarian attitude does not make sense.

The political discourse says that Civil Society is important, but in practice the reality is different. We have worked well with the OAS and the Argentine Foreign Ministry in the past, but during this year’s Summit preparation we felt like the Argentine government was trying to marginalize us, and we do not know if it is due to ignorance, inefficiency, or political manipulation.

JH: Why do you think CRIES’ participation was not prioritized by the Argentine government?

AS: I believe that Civil Society has lost some of its political importance in Argentina. Two years ago at an OAS assembly in Quito, Ecuador, Argentine Foreign Minister Bielsa spoke emphatically in favor of Civil Society participation and this helped his government win the election with 21 percent of the vote. Today, the Civil Society representatives that are fully embraced are those that respond to a corporatist vision of government, for example, the businessmen and unions. Other organizations, with perhaps the exception of those representing women and indigenous rights, do not seem very important to the government.

JH: How does your experience at this year’s Summit differ from your experience with the Summits in the past?

AS: There was more space for dialogue and recommendations in the past and our ideas were more readily incorporated by the governments. The key themes for the Argentine summit –work and poverty – fit well with the agenda of businessmen and unions, but not necessarily other groups. These themes also reflect a parochial view rather than a vision of regional issues. A real space for dialogue and input was not provided.

Before, the OAS had a bigger role in organizing meetings and providing information to Civil Society organizations. Now, the OAS has almost disappeared from the map limiting its participation to sending some observers to preparatory meetings and forwarding web links that we cannot access. This OAS absence has left the convocation of preparatory meetings to the host government –in this case the Argentine government.

JH: Why do you think the OAS has withdrawn from the Summit preparatory process?

"...is not always clear what organizations that pressure and mobilize want. It is clear what they are against, but often less clear what they seek."

AS: It could be that a new Secretary General for the OAS was elected recently and the organization is not yet prepared organizationally to take on such a big Summit role. However, this could not be the entire reason as the OAS has an established bureaucracy capable of handling such planning. Another reason could be the seldom mentioned financial problems of the organization. The OAS is an organization on the brink of bankruptcy. Perhaps it chose to not get more involved in the Fourth Summit’s administration because of financial reasons. We will see how the new Secretary General manages these issues in the future.

JH: There seem to be two types of Civil Society organizations: those that cooperate with governments and others that protest against governments and globalization in general. What is your opinion of this dichotomy within Civil Society?

AS: It is true that Civil Society organizations have different strategies and objectives. There are those that want to gain something with the government through negotiations and those that have no other recourse and/or prefer pressure and mobilization. The problem is that it is not always clear what organizations that pressure and mobilize want. It is clear what they are against, but often less clear what they seek.

My organization looks for dialogue and negotiation but we do not discard confrontation or pressure. However, we believe in exhausting the channels of dialogue because it is there were we can gain small victories that add up to change. However, when the door to dialogue is closed, as it was for my organization during the recent Summit’s preparation, there are no alternatives but to resort to confrontation and mobilization. That is why CRIES decided to participate in the anti-Summit in Mar del Plata.




Contributed by Janie Hulse, a freelance writer for Mercy Corps. Ms Hulse is a Rotary World Peace Fellow in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She has a Masters degree in Politics of Development in Latin America from the London School of Economics (1998) and has worked extensively with and in the region in both the public and private sectors.

For more information and background on the Summit of Americas see, “Summits of the Americas; Past and Present”.



Return to top