FREE TRADE–THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM’S OLDEST AND NEWEST GOAL: THE EVOLUTION OF
ECONOMIC THEMES IN INTER-AMERICAN RELATIONS FROM THE 1800s TO THE PRESENT
Christian J. Maisch
American University
In loving memory of Professor John J. Finan
The promotion of regional commercial and economic cooperation has been one of the oldest and most belabored
objectives of inter-American relations. Although the American republics have recently pursued free trade with great
impetus (both at the sub-regional and regional levels), they have had a very long history of negotiations about economic
cooperation and commercial integration, a history that actually precedes the formal emergence of the Pan-American
Movement in 1889-90. As the events detailed in this study will show, the recent effort of the American Republics to
turn the Western Hemisphere into a regional free-trade area is, in fact, the newest phase of the painfully slow and
difficult evolution of commercial and economic themes in the Inter-American System.
One can identify at least two other phases that occurred prior to the current push to turn the Inter-American System into
a free-trade area: the early pioneering (and, perhaps, somewhat premature) attempts to promote regional trade from the
nineteenth century through the late 1920s, and a second wave of efforts to promote a fairly ambitious agenda of regional
cooperation for development through multilateral assistance programs and agencies from the 1930s through the 1980s.
This study will examine each of these three phases by identifying and chronicling their most salient initiatives in order
to demonstrate the uneven and somewhat circular evolution of economic themes in inter-American relations.
The First Phase: Pioneering Calls for Regional Trade
The origins of the Inter-American System can be traced at least as far back as the First American Congress held in
Panama City in 1826. While Simón Bolívar’s primary objective for this Congress was the establishment of a system of
collective security, he and other Latin American leaders also realized that the sense of regional solidarity that had
emerged from their common struggle against colonial rule should be extended to promote economic cooperation. This
included specific efforts to foster intra-regional trade, such as a proposed agenda for the Congress of Panama that called
for the drafting and signing of treaties of commerce and navigation (Inman 1965, 4). In May of 1825, Bolívar himself–
at the time in charge of the government of the newly independentRepublic of Peru–instructed his delegation to the
Congress to seek the negotiation of a regional treaty of commerce.
Although the Congress of Panama did not establish a hemispheric-wide trade system and most subsequent meetings of
the American republics during the nineteenth century dealt mainly with political and military security issues, the
objective of promoting economic cooperation remained on the regional agenda. In 1844, the Argentine diplomat Juan
Bautista Alberdi (1920, 6:19-20) lent considerable intellectual support to this goal by calling specifically for a
Continental Commerce Union to establish customs uniformity, a regional currency to facilitate trade, and a Continental
Bank to provide development aid to the American republics. In 1856, Chile,Ecuador, and Peru signed a Continental
Treaty of Union (and left it open for adherence by other American republics). In this Treaty, the signatories identified
the promotion of their material progress as one of its purposes (Burr and Hussey 1955, 1:135), and specified various
commitments of regional economic cooper¬ation and commerce (1:135-138). At the 1864 Second Lima Congress,
Argenti¬na, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador,Guatemala, Peru, and Venezuela signed not only a Treaty of Alliance for
their collective security (Sánchez i Sánchez 1943, 180-181), but also other multilateral treaties covering reciprocal trade
and navigation (Inman 1965, 28).
Similarly, when the First International Conference of American Republics gathered in Washington, DC, from October
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
of 1889 through April of 1890, economic and commercial issues dominated the agenda. Specifically, six of the eight
topics on the agenda proposed by the United States referred to economic and commercial initiatives similar to those
proposed earlier by Alberdi and others. These included proposals to form “an American customs union to foster . . .
reciprocal commerce among the American nations”; to adopt a “uniform system of customs regulations . . .”; to adopt a
common system of weights and measures, patents, trademarks, and copyright laws; and even, quite ambitiously and
with great foresight, to adopt a common currency (“a common silver coin”) to be used in all regional trade transactions.
While the far-reaching goal of establishing a Pan-American Customs Union was not achieved at this time, the First
Inter-American Conference did lay the foundation for greater regional economic cooperation by creating the
Commercial Bureau of American Republics (the predecessor of the International Union of American Republics, the
Pan-American Union, and the Organization of American States). The main function of the Commercial Bureau was to
gather and disseminate commercial information about the American republics to foster intra hemispheric trade
(Conferencias 1938, 36-39). This Conference also recommended the establishment of a Pan-American bank, the
signing of reciprocal tariff-reduction treaties among the American republics, and the creation of a regional monetary
commis¬sion (33-35, 40; Burr and Hussey 1955, 2:41 43; Fenwick 1963, 401 402). As a result, the Pan-American
Monetary Commission was established and met for the first time in Washington, DC, in 1891, starting a succession of
spe¬cialized Inter-American conferences dealing with a variety of economic issues (Fenwick 1963, 361; OEA 1967,
283-284).
Part of the reason why the most ambitious economic and commercial objectives of the first Inter-American Conference
(such as creating a Pan-American Customs Union, a common currency, and a regional bank) were not achieved was that
the agenda of this Conference also called for the consideration of a hemispheric-wide arbitration treaty. The Conference
organizers rightly believed that establishing a stable mechanism for the peaceful settlement of regional disputes would
facilitate progress in other areas of hemispheric cooperation. Indeed, arbitration and other similar legal and political
issues, such as sovereign equality and non-intervention, dominated most of the earlier inter¬ American conferences and
eclipsed many of the pioneering economic and commercial objectives.
Even though the goal of promoting regional commercial cooperation was overshadowed by other issues during the first
half of the twentieth century, it still remained very much on the agenda of inter-American relations. According¬ly, the
Second Inter-American Conference, held in Mexico City in 1901 02, endorsed the First Conference’s proposal to create
a Pan-American Bank and called for a Customs Congress of American Republics (Conferencias 1938, 88-91; OEA
1967, 284). Pursuant to the latter Resolution, the First Customs Congress met in New York in 1903. This Congress
sought to facilitate hemispheric commerce by laying the foundations for the creation of a permanent continental customs
commission and approving the principle of free interna¬tional transit of goods across American frontiers (OEA 1967,
284). Subsequently, the Third Inter-American Conference, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1906, continued efforts to
facilitate greater regional trade. The Conference ordered a detailed study of the monetary systems of the American
republics in order to determine the impact of fluctuating exchange rates on trade and development (Conferencias 1938,
145). It also recommended the creation of a special section of Commerce, Customs, and Commercial Statistics within
the existing International Union of American Republics to carry out studies on the simplification, standardization, and
codification of customs and consular laws among the American republics (137-138; OEA 1967, 284).
Commercial and economic issues were likewise present on the agendas of the Fourth (1910), Fifth (1923), and Sixth
(1928) Inter-American Conferences, and were the subjects of several specialized inter-¬American conferences. Some
of the specialized conferences included the 1911 and 1919 Pan American Commercial Conferences held in Washington,
DC; the 1915 and 1920 First and Second International Finan¬cial Congresses of American Republics; and the 1930 First
Inter-¬American Conference of Agriculture held in Washington, DC (OEA 1967, 286-288). Although the American
republics were sadly unable to implement all of their own initiatives, they did discuss several remarkably
groundbreaking proposals during these meetings that would later become integral elements of the structure of
worldwide economic cooperation established toward the end of World War II. For instance, the 1920 Second Financial
Congress of American Republics passed a resolution recommending the creation of an international gold fund to
stabilize trade, an innovative idea that was eventually implemented at the broader global level with the creation of the
International Monetary Fund at the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944 (286).
The Second Phase: The Broadening and Deepening of the Inter-American Economic Agenda
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
The Great Depression of the 1930s not only forced the American republics to push commercial and economic issues
even closer to the top of the agenda of inter American relations, but also provided an impetus for the broadening and
deepening of the hemispheric economic agenda. First, there was U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor
Policy toward Latin America, one pillar of which was the granting of preferential tariff treatment in the U.S. market to
Latin American exports. Then, the 1933 Seventh Inter-American Conference (held in Montevideo, Uruguay) approved
two very important resolutions that sought to promote greater regional economic cooperation. In Resolution V, the
American republics committed themselves to lowering their tariffs to increase trade and to create an inter American
organization that would oversee the overall process of tariff-reduction negotiations (another novel proposal that was
eventually realized at the global level with the establishment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and its
successor the World Trade Organization) (Conferencias 1938, 476-478). In Resolution XXXVIII, the American
republics recommended the creation of an inter¬-American organization to foster economic and financial coopera¬tion
among them (a precedent for the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank) (520-521; Álvarez 1942, 8384; Bustamante y Sirvén 1942, 158; Fenwick 1963, 362; OEA 1967, 288).
The process of broadening and deepening the hemispheric economic agenda continued at the Inter-American
Conference for the Maintenance of Peace (held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1936) and at the Eighth Inter-American
Conference (held in Lima, Peru, in 1938). Although the primary purpose of the Buenos Aires Conference was to
strengthen the regional traditions of peaceful settlement of disputes (in the wake of the Chaco War) and of collective
security (in the event of future regional or external threats to hemispheric peace), the Latin American states also
expressed concern that the persistence of poverty in the region was a source of instability and conflict and called for
collective measures to raise the region’s standard of living (Ball 1969, 525). Subsequently, concerned with the potential
economic hardships that would result from the likely outbreak of a general war in Europe and Asia, the American
republics continued their effort to foster closer hemispheric economic and commercial cooperation at the 1938 Lima
Conference. At this Conference, they not only formally established the Meeting of Consultation of Foreign Ministers as
the mechanism for collective security, but also approved several measures reaffirming their commitment to seek closer
commercial and economic relations, including the following resolutions:
1) Resolution II, calling upon the American republics to increase regional trade by further reducing their tariffs and
non-tariff barriers to commerce (Conferencias 1943, 20-21; OEA 1967, 289-290);
2) Resolution VI, recommending that the Pan-American Union broaden its activities in the field of economic relations
and study the feasibility of establishing an inter American organization dedicated to economic and financial activities.
These proposals materialized later with the creation of the Inter American Economic and Financial Advisory Committee
and its successor body, the Inter-American Economic and Social Council, as well as with the creation of the InterAmerican Development Bank (Conferencias 1943, 23; OEA 1967, 290; Ball 1969, 525); and
3) Resolution CVII, recommending the extension of the procedure of consulta¬tion to economic issues of common
interest (Conferencias 1943, 96; OEA 1967, 290; Ulloa y Sotomayor 1938, 2:343-348).
The Lima Conference also witnessed a major initiative to institutionalize a system of regional free trade when the
Colombian delegation presented a draft Treaty on Inter American Trade Liberalization and Economic Non-Aggression
(Caicedo Castilla 1970, 146; 1947, 28; González Muñoz 1948, 74-75). Al¬though this draft Treaty was not approved,
being far ahead of its time, it represented another milestone in the evolution of economic themes within the InterAmerican System. Most notably, one of its provisions attempted to codify the somewhat vague concept of “economic
aggression,” a concept that the Inter-American System has struggled to define for years. The preamble of this draft
Treaty asserted that “. . . economic aggression . . . violated the true spirit of the principles of non-aggression and of
peaceful settlement of international disputes. . . .” Subsequently, Article 5 of this draft Treaty would have committed the
American republics to “. . . condemn economic aggression in their mutual relations and repudiate the use of any method
of economic coercion as a means . . . to influence in any way the course and resolution of any differ¬ences that may
emerge among them” (Caicedo Castilla 1970, 146; 1947, 28; González Muñoz 1948, 74-75). One of the key problems
that scuttled this draft Treaty and continues to prevent the accep¬tance of this concept until the present time, has been
the absence of agreement among the American republics on a clear definition of what constitutes “economic
aggression.” This conceptual (and practi¬cal) problem is exemplified by the diffi¬culty in differentiating between
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
commercial and economic measures purposely taken by one country to pressure or punish another country, and
measures taken by one country purely to protect its own domestic producers and market, but which may unwittingly
cause a negative impact on other countries (Caicedo Castilla 1947, 146).
In September 1939, shortly after the outbreak of World War II, the American republics gathered in Panama City for the
First Meeting of Consultation of Foreign Ministers of the American Republics. Concerned not only with their physical
security but also with their economic stability, the American republics approved several additional measures to foster
hemispheric trade and economic cooperation. Resolution IV of this Meeting specifically called upon the American
republics to cooperate closely to protect their economic and financial institutions, to maintain their fiscal equilibrium, to
secure the stability of their currencies, to expand their industries, to increase their agricultural production, and to
develop their regional trade (Conferencias 1943, 112-114). Resolutions XIV and LXIV sought to institutionalize this
emerging tradition of multi purpose Inter American economic cooperation by creating the Inter American Economic and
Financial Advisory Committee and by recommending periodic meetings of the Finance Ministers of the American
republics (69, 123; OEA 1967, 291).
The resulting First Meeting of Finance Ministers of the American Republics (held in Guatemala City in November
1939) called again for the creation of a regional bank and a regional development commission to promote joint U.S.Latin American ventures to develop new lines of Latin American products. The creation of the Inter-American
Development Commission was endorsed by the 1940 Second Meeting of Consultation of Foreign Ministers of the
American Republics (held in Havana, Cuba).
The 1942 Third Meeting of Consultation–held in Rio de Janeiro shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had
brought the United States into World War II–intensified hemispheric economic cooperation among the American
republics as an expression of their solidarity with the United States in the conflict. Accordingly, they agreed on several
measures of economic cooperation, including a concerted campaign to increase the region’s supply of strategic raw
materials and other goods to support the U.S. war effort.
At the 1945 Inter-American Conference on the Problems of War and Peace, held in Chapultepec (Mexico City), the
American republics sought to reorganize the Inter-Ameri¬can System so as to strengthen its economic dimension.
Accord¬ingly, they adopted the Economic Charter of the Americas and called for a special Inter American Techni¬cal
and Economic Conference. The Economic Charter of the Americas represented a blueprint for the process of regional
coopera¬tion for development through multilateral programs and institutions that was eventually launched in the late
1950s and 1960s. In this Charter, the American republics affirmed their conviction that raising the standards of living of
their peoples was essential for the peace, security, and freedom of the Western Hemisphere, and made several specific
multilateral commitments to achieve this goal. Among these specific commitments, the most important were:
1) To grant equal non¬discrimina¬tory commercial access to all countries, to all goods, and particularly to the goods
needed for industrialization and development;
2) To reduce tariffs and other non tariff barriers and to stabilize currencies in order to increase regional commerce;
3) To prevent the formation of any cartels restricting trade;
4) To rationalize production of primary products through treaties between producing and consuming countries and the
facilitation of the international distribution of production surpluses; and
5) To conclude the treaties necessary to establish a new cooper¬ative international economic system.
This Conference also extended the wartime Financial and Economic Advisory Committee by converting it into the
permanent Inter-American Economic and Social Council, which became an adjunct to the Pan-American Union and
later an integral organ of the Organization of American States.
While the main objective of the 1947 Inter American Conference for the Maintenance of Continental Peace and Security
(held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) was to institutionalize the inter-American wartime alliance, the Latin American states
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
also intro¬duced economic issues onto the agenda. They argued that raising the standards of living of their peoples was
as important an obligation as collective military security. Accordingly, this Conference not only produced the InterAmerican Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (known as the Rio Pact), but also declared that greater regional economic
cooperation was essential for hemispheric security. More specifically, Resolution IX of this Conference declared that
“economic security, indispensable for the progress of all [the] American [republics], . . . will be, at all times, the best
guarantee of political security and of the success of their joint efforts for the maintenance of conti¬nental peace.” This
Resolution also enlarged the staff and role of the Inter-¬American Economic and Social Council, instructed the Council
to prepare a draft convention on Inter American Economic Cooperation, and called for a special Inter American
Economic Conference (Ball 1969, 527; Caicedo Castilla 1947, 101-102; Conferencias 1956, 102).
At this 1947 Rio Conference, the Latin American states also re-introduced the concept of economic aggression. More
specifical¬ly, the Cuban delegate, Ambassador Guillermo Belt, argued that the provisions against aggression of the Inter
American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance should also specifically ban acts and threats of economic aggression.
However, in the continued absence of consensus on what constituted economic aggression, this concept was not
included in the Rio Pact.
An examination of inter-American meetings from the mid-1940s into the 1980s shows that the American republics (first
under the leadership of the Latin American governments and then with the temporary endorsement of the United States
government in the late 1950s and 1960s) pushed forward an ambitious agenda that sought to transform the InterAmerican System into a regional alliance to foster economic progress through multilateral development assistance
programs and agencies. This drive was inspired by the belief that every country has a right to develop and that all
countries–particularly the more industrialized countries–have an obligation to assist in promoting the economic progress
of the less-developed countries (LDCs). This progressive idea has since evolved into the current concept of the right to
development. Accordingly, the American republics sought a much more formal multilateral obliga¬tion that would bind
legally the more-developed countries (primarily the United States) to provide aid and assistance to promote the integral
develop¬ment of the LDCs in the Western Hemisphere.
The 1948 Ninth Inter-American Conference (held in Bogotá, Colombia) marked a major milestone in this effort. At this
Conference, the American republics re-organized the Pan-American Union by signing the Charter of the Organization of
American States (OAS), called once again for a specialized Inter-American Economic Conference to consolidate a
hemispheric system of multilateral cooperation for development, and signed the far-reaching Economic Agreement of
Bogotá. The original Charter of the OAS included several legally binding provisions committing the American
republics to cooperate multilaterally to promote the region’s development. For instance, Article 4, paragraphs d and e,
identified the joint solution of economic problems and the promotion of the American republics’ economic, social, and
cul¬tural development through cooperative action as two essential purposes of the Organization. Article 5, paragraph i,
listed as a basic principle of the OAS the recognition that “[e]conomic cooperation is essential to the common welfare
and prosperity of the peoples of the conti¬nent.”
The original OAS Charter also had several other provisions pertaining to intra-hemispheric economic relations. For
example, Articles 15 and 16 categorically prohibited economic intervention and economic coercion. Articles 26 to 31
set a long list of specific economic, social, and educational standards and objectives the American republics agreed to
achieve. Finally, Article 63 cited as the principal purpose of the Inter American Economic and Social Council “. . . the
promotion of the economic and social welfare of the American nations through effective cooperation for the better
utilization of their natural resources, the development of their agriculture and industry and the raising of the standards of
living of their people. . . .”
As noted earlier, the Ninth Inter-American Conference also produced the Economic Agreement of Bogotá. Although
this Agreement remained un-ratified, it represented one of the most ambitious efforts to turn the inter-American
tradition of multilateral cooperation for development into a legally binding commitment. By the terms of this
Agreement, the American republics would have assumed a collective “. . . duty to cooperate in the solution of their
economic problems . . .” (Article 1); condemned economic aggression (Article 8); and acknowledged an obligation to
accelerate their economic development through technical and financial cooperation, private investment promotion,
industrialization, balanced trade, and the provision to their peoples of basic social guarantees and labor rights. This
Treaty was, indeed, a precedent for all the hemispheric multilateral aid and assistance agreements that the American
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
republics assumed a decade later with the creation of the Inter-American Development Bank in 1959 and the launching
of the Alliance for Progress in 1961.
The process of broadening, deepening, and trying to codify inter-American economic cooperation for development
continued in earnest in the 1950s through several inter-American meetings and initiatives. The First and Second
Extraordinary Meetings of the Inter American Econom¬ic and Social Council (held in Washington, DC, in 1950 and in
Panama in 1951, respectively) focused on–among other things–discussing the Program of Technical Cooperation of the
OAS, preparing studies for the Inter American Economic Conference, and taking several emergency cooperative
measures to address the scarcity of strategic raw materials during the Korean conflict (OEA 1950, 1951). Subsequently,
the Fourth Meeting of Consultation of American Republics (held in Washington, DC, in 1951) reaffirmed the principle
that economic prosperity was essential for continental security and approved several key resolutions seeking to
formalize a system of regional economic cooperation for development. Indeed, of the more than thirty resolutions
adopted by this Meeting of Consultation, almost half dealt with economic and social issues. Resolution I, entitled
“Declaration of Washington,” reas¬sert¬ed “. . . the faith of the American Republics in the efficacy of the principles set
forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States, and in other inter American agreements, for pro¬moting
their economic progress” (OAS 1953, 126; Conferencias 1956, 231-232). Resolutions IX and X re¬newed the
commitment of the American republics to improve the social, economic, and cultural levels of their peoples in general
and to raise the standards of living of their working classes in particular (Conferencias 1956, 240-241). Finally,
Resolution XII, entitled “Economic Develop¬ment,” called upon the American republics “. . . to continue cooperating
actively and with even greater impetus on economic development programs and technical cooperation programs. . . .”
(242-243; OAS 1953, 126-128).
This effort to turn the Inter-American System into a regional alliance to foster multilateral cooperation for development
continued at the 1953 Third Extraordinary Meeting of the Inter-Ameri¬can Economic and Social Council and at the
1954 Tenth Inter-American Conference (both held in Caracas, Venezuela). In 1953, the Inter-American Economic and
Social Council approved a resolution calling upon the Members of the OAS to intensify their reciprocal technical
cooperation programs (OEA 1967, 297). At the 1954 Inter-American Conference, the American republics reiterated
that one of the essential objectives of continental solidarity was the coordina¬tion of their economies in a spirit of unity
(298).
At this Conference, they also approved the following key resolutions:
1) Resolutions LXVII and LXVIII, committing the American republics to increase further the volume of their regional
trade and calling upon the industrialized countries to eliminate all restrictions (specifically, discriminatory barriers) to
imports of raw materials, natural goods, or semi manufactured products from the less developed American republics
(Conferencias 1956, 342-343);
2) Resolution LXXVI, recommending that the producers of raw materials, natural goods, and semi-manufactured
products should maintain a level of production responsive to the needs of world consumption, and that the importers of
the same products should maintain a balance in the terms of trade by facilitating the natural expansion of consumption
of these goods at equitable price levels (347-348; Yepes 1955, 390-391); and
3) Resolution LXXXVI, recommending that the Inter-American Economic and Social Council be given greater powers
and be convened periodically at the level of Finance Ministers of the American republics (Conferencias 1956, 356-358).
At the Fourth Extraordinary Meeting of the Inter American Economic and Social Council, held indeed at the ministerial
level in Petrópolis, Brazil, in 1954, the American republics went even further in their effort to promote hemispheric
economic cooperation by adopting regional economic integration as a long-term objective of the Inter-American
System. More specifically, the American republics agreed to coordinate their economic policies to make their
economies complementary (OAS 1953, 299). They also approved a resolution that committed them to study the
feasibility of regional and sub-regional integration and called upon the Inter American System as a whole, the
international financial institutions, and all the individual states to support economic integration (OAS 1954). Finally,
they also called for the formation of a Committee of Experts to prepare a draft treaty to establish an inter American
bank.
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
The 1956 Summit Meeting of American Presidents (held in Panama City to commemorate the 130th anniversary of the
Congress of Panama) also called for more intense and better-coordinated collective action to foster regional economic
development (Fenwick 1963, 366). The Declaration of Panama reasserted the conviction of the American republics that
the fulfillment of the Western Hemisphere’s destiny as the land of liberty, peace, and human dignity was inseparable
from the continent’s integral social and economic development (Fernández Shaw 1963, 469).
Subsequently, at the 1957 Inter-¬American Economic Conference (held in Buenos Aires), the American republics
signed the Economic Declaration of Buenos Aires, reaffirming their collective commitment to foster the region’s
development and agreeing to several specific joint measures to achieve this goal. These measures included reducing
tariffs to increase regional trade, stabilizing prices of basic products, rationalizing the handling of surpluses, accelerating
the transfer of technology and the exchange of raw materials and goods required to meet basic economic and social
needs, and increasing the flow of public development aid (Rodríguez Larreta 1962, 28-30). In addition to the Economic
Declaration of Buenos Aires, the American republics also approved several resolutions calling for closer economic
cooperation. Resolution XXVIII called for the creation of zonal commissions to foster regional trade (35). Resolution
XL recommended the study of the feasibility of a Latin American Common Market that would increase trade, pool
resources in very expensive development programs, and establish a larger regional market for some industries that
otherwise would not be profitable (OEA 1967, 305). Finally, the American republics renewed their call for the
establishment of an inter American financial institution and entrusted feasibility studies for such an institution to the
Inter American Economic and Social Council (Rodríguez Larreta 1962, 415).
In the late 1950s, the Latin American governments grew increasingly concerned with the slow progress of their effort to
turn the Inter-American System into an alliance to foster regional economic progress through multilateral development
assistance programs and agencies. The United States, which had been primarily concerned with rebuilding the
economies of Western Europe and key Asian allies since the end of World War II, had not supported either the creation
of an inter-American bank or the use of public funds for development programs in the Western Hemisphere (Levinson
and de Onís 1972). This impasse caused a growing feeling of frustration in Latin America, which culminated in violent
protests during U.S. Vice President Richard M. Nixon’s visit to the region in April and May of 1958.
Regretting this incident, Brazilian President Juscelino Kubitschek seized the opportunity to try to break the deadlock
between the United States and Latin America over the scope and nature of multilateral cooperation for development.
On May 28th, 1958, he wrote to President Eisenhower suggesting that “. . . the hour . . . [had] come for us [the
American republics] to undertake jointly a thorough review of the policy of mutual understanding on this Hemisphere
and to conduct a comprehensive reappraisal of the proceedings already in motion for the furtherance of Pan American
ideals. . . .” President Eisenhower, equally shocked by the poor reception given to Vice President Nixon, responded by
sending his younger brother Milton on a fact-finding tour of Latin America and his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles
on an official visit to Brazil.
In August 1958, the Brazilian government sent a second diplomatic note addressed to all the member states of the OAS
proposing Operation Pan America. Declaring that continental security and hemispheric development were inseparable
objectives, the Brazilian government argued that raising the standard of living of the less-developed American republics
was a common regional responsibility and called for reshaping and strengthening the agencies of the Inter American
System to spur a renewed multilateral drive for development (Caicedo Castilla 1947, 473-475).
Concerned that continued U.S. opposition to public-sector involvement in development programs was souring U.S.Latin American relations (and opening an opportunity for greater communist influence in the Western Hemisphere),
President Eisenhower embraced President Kubitschek’s call for Operation Pan America and convened an immediate
Meeting of Consultation of Foreign Ministers of the American Republics. This Meeting (held in Washington, DC, in
September 1958) represented a major turning point in U.S. policy toward Latin America and sharply accelerated the
process of broadening, deepening, and codifying the commitment of the Western Hemisphere to a network of
multilateral development assistance programs and agencies. At this gathering, the American republics endorsed
Operation Pan America, agreeing to establish a multilateral program of economic cooperation to foster regional
economic development, and created a special commission (known as the Committee of Twenty-One) to study new
measures to accomplish this objective.
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
At its first meeting in November and December of 1958, the Committee of Twenty-One agreed to create a development
fund for the Latin American republics and referred the drafting of the statute for such a fund to a subcommittee. Four
months later, in April 1959, the American republics approved the resulting Articles of Agreement creating the Inter
American Development Bank (IDB) and the Fund for Special Operations (the administration of which was entrusted to
the IDB) (Fernández Shaw 1963, 483). The creation of the IDB represented a major step in the campaign to
institutionalize a broader and deeper agenda of regional multilateral cooperation for development. The IDB was
established to channel financial resources and provide technical assistance to the Latin American countries and to serve
as a forum for the exchange of views on development strategies, policies, and programs. The Fund for Special
Operations was created to provide the IDB with the financial capability to grant soft loans both for development projects
in member countries with limited resources and for social service projects and programs in all member countries.
In April and May of 1959, the Committee of Twenty-One held its second meeting in Buenos Aires, producing thirty
three draft resolutions on economic cooperation that were submitted to the Council of the OAS (485). In addition, in
1959, the American republics reorganized the Inter American Economic and Social Council, requiring it to hold two
regular annual meetings to make the Council more responsive to the dynamic campaign to promote regional
development (Fenwick 1963, 366).
In addition to the inter-American efforts to foster hemispheric-wide economic development and integration, there were
also several parallel sub-regional efforts. These included the 1958 Treaty of Tegucigalpa establishing the Central
American Common Market (CACM), the 1960 Treaty of Montevideo creating the Latin American Free Trade
Association (LAFTA), the 1968 Treaty of Antigua creating the Caribbean Free Trade Association (CARIFTA), and the
1969 Treaty of Cartagena creating the Andean Common Market. Through these treaties, the respective member states
sought to reduce tariffs to increase trade and foster economic development (376-377).
The third meeting of the Committee of Twenty-one (held in Bogotá in September 1960) produced another milestone
document in the effort to codify a multilateral commitment to promote Latin American development, the Act of Bogotá.
In this Act, the American republics not only declared that economic development was crucial to the strengthening of
their democratic institutions, but also reaffirmed their commitment to cooperate in the acceleration of their social and
economic progress. The Latin American states assumed a number of specific commitments, including agreeing to
improve their land tenure, credit, and taxation laws; their infrastructure; their technical support to producing sectors; and
their social services (Rodríguez Larreta 1962, 44). Conversely, the more developed countries agreed to provide greater
public and private financial assistance in soft or concessionary terms and greater technical cooperation to foster Latin
American development, and to speed up the actual establishment of a multilateral financial fund for social development
within the Inter American Development Bank. In the Act of Bogotá, the American republics instructed the Inter
American Economic and Social Council to organize, beyond its regular meetings, an additional annual advisory meeting
to assess the social and economic progress of the member states and to exchange ideas as well as prepare development
plans for the future. Furthermore, it instructed the Permanent Council of the OAS to call a special meeting of high
ranking officials of the member countries to help improve the capacity of the Inter American Economic and Social
Council to assist the member governments in their collective drive for development (45-46, 48-51).
Shortly after assuming the presidency of the United States, John F. Kennedy endorsed the Act of Bogotá as well as
Operation Pan America and proposed within the framework of the latter the Alliance for Progress. In a speech to the
Latin American ambassadors in Washington, DC, on March 13, 1961, he put forth a very ambitious decade long,
multilateral plan for development. Kennedy promised massive U.S. public and private financial and technical assistance
to promote Latin American development and called upon the Latin American states to undertake major social and
economic reforms to guarantee equitable distribution of the fruits of aid and development (53-58).
The Latin American states welcomed this U.S. initiative and, at a Special Meeting of the Inter-American Economic and
Social Council (held in Punta del Este, Uruguay, in August 1961), signed along with the United States both the
Declaration to the Peoples of America and the Charter of Punta del Este. In the Declaration to the Peoples of America,
the American republics committed themselves to accelerate Latin America’s economic and social development by
reducing excessive price fluctuations in their primary exports, intensifying Latin American regional economic
integration, and increasing external financial assistance (OAS 1961, 3-4).
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
To implement this Declaration, the American republics also signed the Charter of Punta del Este, which formalized the
Alliance for Progress as a multilateral commitment. Its preamble proclaimed their “. . . decision to unite in a common
effort to bring . . . [their] people accelerated economic progress and broader social justice within the framework of
personal dignity and political liberty” (Levinson and de Onís 1972, 352). Subsequently, Chapter I of the Charter
described the purpose of the Alliance for Progress as being “. . . to enlist the full energies of . . . the American
Republics in a great cooperative effort to accelerate the economic and social development of . . . Latin America. . . .”
More specifically, the Charter committed the Latin American states to a long and detailed list of very ambitious
objectives, including:
1)
“[T]o achieve [a] . . . rate of economic growth of . . . [no] . . . less than
2.5 percent per capita per year . . .”;
2) “[T]o make the benefits of economic progress available to all citizens of all economic and social groups through a
more equitable distribution of national income . . .”;
3)
“[T]o achieve balanced diversification in national economic structures. . .”;
4)
“[T]o strengthen existing agreements on economic integration . . .”; and;
5) “[T]o develop cooperative programs designed to prevent the harmful effects of excessive fluctuations in the
foreign exchange earnings derived from exports of primary products” (352-355).
The Charter of Punta del Este also committed the United States to support Latin American development by allocating
financial resources “. . . adequate to realize the goals envisaged in this Charter” and by “help[ing] in the financing of
technical assistance projects. . . .” (359). Finally, the American republics also agreed to conduct annual multilateral
evaluations of the operation of the Alliance for Progress, as well as fairly intrusive country-by-country evaluations of
domestic measures taken to achieve the Alliance’s goals of social reform and economic progress.
As part of these annual multilateral evaluations, the OAS convened a series of Special Meetings of the Inter¬-American
Economic and Social Council, each of which were held at both the financial expert and finance minister levels. At the
first Special Meeting (held in Mexico City in October 1962), the American republics strengthened hemispheric-wide
economic cooperation for development and called for greater coordination of the various Latin American and Caribbean
sub-regional integration groups (OEA 1967, 316; Thomas and Thomas 1963, 389-391).
At the Second Special Meeting of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council (held in São Paulo, Brazil, in
October and November of 1963), the American republics not only stressed the need to accelerate the processes of Latin
American integration, but also created the Inter-American Committee for the Alliance for Progress. This meeting also
established the Special Commission for Latin American Coordination to prepare a unified Latin American position for
the upcoming 1964 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (OEA 1967, 316-317).
The Latin American states subsequently met in Alta Gracia, Argentina, in January 1964 to coordinate their policy
positions for UNCTAD. The resulting Charter of Alta Gracia stands as a clear articulation of the changes in the
international economic system proposed by the Latin American states to accelerate the growth of the LDCs. It was one
of the first significant attempts by the Latin American states to universalize the fairly ambitious concept of multilateral
cooperation for development, now known as the right to development. Among some of the pioneering
recommendations, there was a call for the reform of the international trade system based on the notion of granting
“preferential [tariff] treatment for less developed countries.”
At the 1964 Third Special Meeting of the Inter American Economic and Social Council held in Lima, the American
republics stressed the need to coordinate the activities of their national economic planning agencies to achieve more
coherent policies for development and integration within the region. More specifically, the American republics also
called upon the members of the Latin American Free Trade Association to demonstrate a greater political commitment
to achieve its trade liberalization objectives (317).
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
At the 1965 Second Special Inter American Conference (held in Rio de Janeiro), the American republics began the
process of amending the OAS Charter. Their aim was to try to perpetuate as legally binding principles of positive interAmerican law all the multilateral commitments they had assumed in the 1950s and 1960s to promote collectively the
region’s development. Accordingly, one of the draft amendments to the OAS Charter produced by this conference stated
the following: “The member states accept the obligation, within the framework of their constitutional processes and to
the extent their resources permit, to help one another and to provide assistance, in the order of need to the less developed
countries of the system, with a view to achieving, on a national and regional level, the social and economic objectives
set forth in this Act, for the purpose of putting the countries of the hemisphere in a situation of development as soon as
possible” (Ball 1969, 537). Slightly modified parts of this statement were eventually woven into several of the
amendments to the OAS Charter approved at the Third Special Inter-¬American Conference held in Buenos Aires in
February 1967. Specifically, Chapters VII, VIII, and IX of the OAS Charter–as amended by the 1967 Buenos Aires
Protocol–des¬cribed in detail the collective commitment of the American republics to cooperate to achieve certain
social, economic, and cultural standards of development.
In April 1967, the heads of state and govern¬ment of the American republics met in Punta del Este to endorse officially
and revitalize the inter American drive for multilateral cooperation for development. At this Conference, the American
republics adopted an Action Program wherein they expressed their commitment to a continuation of multilateral efforts
to promote regional development through increased economic cooperation and trade, improved social conditions, and
greater Latin American integration.
In the 1970s, the inter-American campaign to foster Latin American development through multilateral aid and
assistance slowed down. While the United States pulled back from its massive Alliance-for-Progress-era foreign-aid
commitments, some Latin American countries responded by pushing for an even stricter codification of the principle of
multilateral cooperation for development. Accordingly, some Latin American states attempted to have the InterAmerican System label any country that failed to fulfill its commitments to provide multilateral development aid or
grant trade preferences as an economic aggressor. Moreover, these Latin American countries also proposed the
principle of “collective economic security for development.” This proposed norm sought to require that the American
republics fulfill all their pledges of foreign aid, technical assistance, and preferential tariff treatment to promote Latin
American development as an integral component of their commitment to hemispheric collective security. More
specifically, this principle would have designated as violations of the hemisphere’s collective security any failures to
meet already-established inter-American standards for multilateral economic cooperation for development, and any
actions taken by an American republic that negatively affected the development and economic stability of another
American republic.
The main problem with this proposed norm was, however, that it presupposed a much greater degree of economic
cooperation and coordination than that agreed to and achieved by the American republics. In the absence of such a
degree of integration, they could not enforce the sweeping concepts of economic aggression and collective economic
security for development because of their inability to determine, for instance, whether a country had raised tariffs to
protect its own domestic industries or to pressure or punish another country.
These problems notwithstanding, some Latin American states made several attempts to incorporate the concepts of
economic aggression and collective economic security for development into the Inter-American System. First, in 1975,
a special regional Conference of Plenipotentiaries approved the San José Protocol of Amendments to the Inter-American
Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, including two specific references to collective economic security for development.
Second, in January 1976, the Permanent Council approved a set of draft amendments to the OAS Charter that also
incorporated the same concept. Third, in June 1976, the General Assembly agreed that it should meet in a Special
Session to Review all Matters Concerning the Topic of Inter-American Cooperation for Development. Fourth, in 1977,
the OAS Permanent Council called for the drafting of a proposed Inter-American Convention on Economic Security for
Development.
During the second half of the 1970s, the American republics also focused on other aspects of their regional economic
cooperation. For instance, in 1976, the OAS General Assembly created a working group to study the establishment of a
hemispheric program of cooperation for “. . . the creation, adaptation, and transfer of technology,” and asked the InterAmerican Juridical Committee to prepare “. . . a draft convention (or conventions) for the revision and updating of the
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
inter-American conventions on industrial property. . . .” Then, in 1978, the OAS General Assembly approved a
resolution calling for periodic regional consultations on economic and financial problems and approved several key
resolutions that seemed to mark an embryonic return to the theme of trade as an instrument to promote development.
For instance, Resolution 346 instructed the “. . . [OAS] Executive Secretariat for Economic and Social Affairs to
undertake immediately a broad and general export development program.” Meanwhile, Resolutions 347 and 351
criticized growing trade protectionism in the industrialized world as an obstacle to the development of Latin America
and the Caribbean. Finally, in 1979, the American republics called again for a Special Session of the OAS General
Assembly to Review all Matters Concerning the Topic of Inter-American Cooperation for Development.
At the start of the 1980s, the Latin American states continued to push for multilateral aid programs as their preferred
approach to promote regional development. Accordingly, in 1980, the OAS General Assembly approved Resolution
465 calling for the establishment of a Regional Economic Development Fund; Resolution 466 calling for further study
and consideration of the concept of “collective economic security for development”; and Resolution 467 calling upon
the international financial institutions to review their lending policies in order to provide loans to the Latin American
and Caribbean states on softer financing terms.
All of these good intentions notwithstanding, hanging over inter-American economic relations in the 1980s was the dark
cloud of the massive debt crisis that affected Latin America from 1982 onward. As the debt crisis set back the standards
of living in most of the countries in the region by almost a generation, the first reaction of many Latin American states
was to push even harder for greater multilateral commitments of foreign aid and assistance. They also began to explore
alternative means to recover from the crisis and renew their economic growth. The debt crisis did have, thus, a
significant impact on the evolution of inter-American economic themes. It forced the Latin American states to explore
new forms of regional and sub-regional trade promotion, starting the third and current phase in the evolution of
economic and commercial themes within the Inter-American System.
The Third Phase: A Return to the Goal of Hemispheric Free Trade
In response to the debt crisis, the members of the OAS not only called for a study to determine how best to adjust the
region’s economies to the new trends of the changing world economy, but also began to sign several bilateral and subregional trade liberalization agreements to try to promote their own economic development. In this context, the
cumulative effect of a growing number of overlapping bilateral trade agreements in southern South America led to the
formation of the free-trade grouping, which later became–with the March 1991 signing of the Treaty of Asunción–the
Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR in Spanish or MERCOSUL in Portuguese). Almost simultaneously, the
bilateral Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States became the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) when Mexico joined its two northern neighbors in 1993. Then, the rapid expansion of trade
within MERCOSUR and NAFTA led the heads of state and government of the American republics–meeting at the 1994
Miami Summit of the Americas–to take the bold step of calling for the establishment of a hemispheric-wide Free Trade
Area of the Americas (FTAA) by 2005 (OAS 1994).
Embracing this new mandate, the Organization of American States has provided strong support to the regional free-trade
agenda as the best approach to promote development. In 1993, the OAS General Assembly established a Special
Committee on Trade. In 1994, it held a Special General Assembly to Review Matters Concerning Inter-American
Cooperation for Development. In April 1995, OAS Secretary General César Gaviria established the OAS Trade Unit.
In June 1995, the OAS General Assembly formally reaffirmed the region’s commitment to inter-American cooperation
for development and called for the prompt establishment of an Inter-American Council for Integral Development. In
1995 and 1996, the OAS General Assembly called for a Summit Conference on Sustainable Development (to be held in
Santa Cruz, Bolivia). In June 1996, the OAS General Assembly adopted other key resolutions. These included
resolutions promoting sustainable development and calling on the member states to exchange technical assistance and
technology in environmental matters, reaffirming the commitment of the OAS to support the process of free trade and
economic integration in the Western Hemisphere, and establishing the Inter-American Committee on Sustainable
Development as a subsidiary body of the Inter-American Council for Integral Development. In December 1996, the
Inter-American Summit Conference on Sustainable Development produced the Declaration of Santa Cruz de la Sierra
and a Plan of Action for the Sustainable Development of the Americas. Subsequently, in 1997, the OAS General
Assembly adopted the Strategic Plan for Development 1997-2001, including the Inter-American Program for
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
Sustainable Development. This Strategic Plan for Development calls for the promotion of integral development in the
Americas by strengthening peace and security; overcoming poverty and discrimination; promoting and strengthening the
exercise of democracy and respect for human rights; supporting the areas of education, science, technology, labor,
health, and culture; fostering integration and free trade; and preserving the environment in a context of sustainable
development. More specifically, the Plan established a fairly ambitious set of priorities for the region, including not
only the promotion of democracy, social development, education, and culture, but also the creation of productive
employment as well as the fostering of economic diversification and integration, market access and trade liberalization,
scientific development, technology transfer, and environmental protection. Finally, the OAS General Assembly closed
this decade of activism in support of regional trade and economic cooperation by reaffirming “. . . the commitment of
the OAS to support the process of free trade and economic integration in the [Western] Hemisphere . . .” in 1997 and
1998, and by establishing the Inter-American Agency for Cooperation and Development in 1999.
Meanwhile, in cooperation with the OAS and the IDB, the American republics continued to push forward with
remarkable energy their FTAA agenda through four ministerial meetings, six vice-ministerial meetings, four business
fora between 1995 and 1998, and the establishment of nine working groups to negotiate several specific aspects of a
future FTAA agreement. The American republics have also reaffirmed their commitment to a Free Trade Area of the
Americas at the Santiago Summit of the Americas (in April 1998) and at the Quebec Summit of the Americas (in April
2001). Parallel to these hemispheric-wide negotiations, the U.S. and Chile signed a free-trade agreement in 2003, and
the U.S. and Central America are in the process of negotiating a free-trade agreement. Thus, block-by-block, the longenvisioned edifice of an inter-American free-trade area is finally being built.
In closing, as this study shows, the lengthy history of inter-American economic relations has gone through a somewhat
cyclical evolution during which regional financial cooperation and commercial integration have remained constant
goals. In the nineteenth century and through the 1920s, the regional economic agenda was dominated by the theme of
hemispheric free-trade promotion. Then, from the Great Depression of the 1930s and into the 1980s, the regional
economic agenda expanded and became increasingly dominated by the theme of multilateral cooperation for
development, defined first in terms of preferential tariff treatment for the exports of the LDCs and then in terms of
multilateral aid and assistance for them. In this context, the recent efforts to promote regional free trade can be seen as a
full-circle return to the original objectives of those who drafted the agenda of the First International Conference of
American Republics in 1889-90.
Notes
This article is a revised version of the paper presented by the author at the Twenty-fourth Annual Conference of the
Middle Atlantic Council of Latin American Studies held at Kutztown University, Kutztown, Pennsylvania, on February
21-22, 2003. The author wishes to express his deep gratitude to the late Professor Emeritus John J. Finan–in whose
memory this article is dedicated–for his inspiration, guidance, and friendship. The author also wishes to express his
heartfelt thanks to Mr. Luke T. Armerding, Mr. Brian G. Beard, Dr. David C. Brown, Ms. Frances R. Foster, Dr. Louis
W. Goodman, Mr. Enrique C. Maisch, Ms. Stacey K. Marsh, Mr. Ásgeir Sigfússon, Ms. Margo I. Thoresen, Professor
Margaret A. Weekes, Mr. Mark B. Williams, and Mr. Frederick J. Woods for their invaluable support and assistance in
the completion of this study. Finally, the author extends his appreciation to Ms. Stella Pérez de Villagrán and to Ms.
Jean B. Craigwell of the Organization of American States’ Columbus Memorial Library for their most gracious
reference assistance.
2 Simón Bolívar had actually expressed support for a regional union as early as 1813. Other Latin American leaders
who called for regional unity include the following: (1) Juan Martínez de Rosas of Argentina, who spoke in favor of a
regional congress in 1810; (2) Juan de Egaña of Chile, who called for a regional system of peaceful settle¬ment of
disputes and collective security in 1810 11; (3) Bernardo O’Higgins of Chile, who also advocated regional cooperation
in 1818; (4) José de San Martín of Argentina, who called for a regional union in 1818; (5) Bernardo Monteagudo of
Argentina, who appealed for regional unity in 1818; and (6) Rodrigo Pinto Guedes of Brazil, who also appealed for
regional unity in 1819. See Samuel Inman (1965, 1 3). For a more thorough study of the origin and development of the
Inter-¬American System, see also Yepes (1955). For the text of Bolívar’s December 7th, 1824, circular inviting the
American Republics to the Congress of Panama, see Conferencias (1938, xxiii-xxiv). For an English-language
translation of Bolívar’s invitation, see Burr and Hussey (1955, 1:35-37).
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
3 See “Instrucciones que han de arreglar la conducta de los ministros plenipotenciarios del Perú en La Gran Asamblea
del Istmo de Panamá–Expedidas por el General [Simón] Bolívar, el 15 de mayo de 1825,” in Conferencias (1938, xxvixxviii).
4 The Congress of Panama produced a Treaty of Union, League, and Perpetual Confederation that was signed by
Colombia, Central America, Mexico, and Peru. Yet, the regional collective security alliance and bi-annual general
assembly of representatives from the American republics envisioned by this pioneering Treaty did not come into
existence because the Treaty was not ratified. For an English-language text of this Treaty, see Burr and Hussey (1955,
1:56-61). For a Spanish-language text of this Treaty, see Conferencias (1938, xxviii-xxxiii).
5 For a thorough discussion of the Lima Congresses, see Ulloa y Sotomayor (1938).
6 For the sake of brevity, henceforth references to subsequent general International Conferences of American Republics
will be abbreviated as Inter-American Conferences. Specialized inter-American conferences or meetings will be
identified accord¬ingly.
7 See “Circular del Secretario de Estado de los Estados Unidos de América [Thomas F. Bayard] á los representantes
diplomáticos americanos acreditados a los gobiernos de México, Centro América y la América del Sur, Haití y Santo
Domingo,” in Conferencias (1938, 5-6). See also Burr and Hussey (1955, 2:33-35) and Inman (1965, 40-41).
8 For the texts of the conventions, resolutions, and motions approved by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Inter-American
Conferences, see Conferencias (1938, 151-435).
9 For the English-language text of this Convention, see Burr and Hussey (1955, 2:108-110). For the Spanish-language
text of this Convention, see Conferencias (1938, 468-471).
10 Please note that while the resolutions of earlier inter-American meetings were identified with Roman numerals, the
resolutions of more recent meetings have been identified with Arabic numerals. The author has respected the
nomenclature used in each meeting.
11 Resolution LXIII of the Eighth International Conference of American Republics in Conferencias (1943, 68-69).
12 The permanent staff of the Advisory Committee did prepare a draft convention for the creation of such a regional
bank, but only nine states (including the United States) signed it. See Fenwick (1963, 401 402, 362 363). For the text of
this draft Convention, see Inter-American Financial (1940, 2-40). See also Conferencias (1943, 271-272); Rodríguez
Larreta (1962, 415).
13 See Resolution XXV of the Second Meeting of Consultation of Foreign Ministers of the American Republics in
Conferencias (1943, 158-160). See also Ball (1969, 525 526).
14 See Resolution II of the Third Meeting of Consultation of Foreign Ministers of the American Republics in
Conferencias (1943, 180-182). Some of the other resolutions approved by this Meeting detailing regional economic
cooperation include Resolutions III, V, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV, XV, and XVI (183-185,188-195). Also at this
time, two leading Latin American scholars, the Chilean jurist Alejandro Álvarez and the Mexican Foreign Minister
Ezequiel Padilla, gave their own strong intellectual endorsement to this process of inter-American economic
cooperation. They called for the institutionalization of hemispheric economic cooperation in a network of interAmerican economic organizations. See Álvarez (1942) and Padilla (1943).
15 See Resolution LI (“Economic Charter of the Americas”) in Conferencias (1956, 64-67). See also Fenwick (1963,
363 364, 388); Ball (1969, 526); and OEA (1967, 295).
16 See Resolution IX in Conferencias (1956, 20-24). In 1996, pursuant to the Managua Protocol of Amendments to the
OAS Charter (signed on June 10th, 1993) and to the OAS General Assembly Resolutions 1314 (approved on June 8th,
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
1995) and 1443 (approved on June 7th, 1996), the Inter-American Economic and Social Council was superseded by the
Inter-American Council for Integral Development.
17 For the English-language text of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance see Burr and Hussey (1955,
2:171-176). For the Spanish-language, text of this Treaty see “Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Recíproca,” in
Conferencias (1956, 92-98).
18 Author’s translation from Resolution IX (“Economic Cooperation”) in Conferencias (1956, 102).
19 Notwithstanding this difficulty in defining precisely what constitutes economic aggression, it was identified by the
Fifth Conference of the Inter American Federation of Lawyers held in Lima in 1947 as one of the many forms of
intervention already banned by the 1933 Inter American Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. See González
Muñoz (1948, 91).
20 See “Convenio Económico de Bogotá,” in Conferencias (1956, 157-171).
21 For the text of the original Charter of the Organization of American States, see Burr and Hussey (1955, 179-194).
22 See also Article 2, paragraphs f, g, and h, of the current OAS Charter. Since its original signing in 1948, the OAS
Charter has been amended four times through the 1967 Buenos Aires Protocol of Amendments, the 1985 Cartagena de
Indias Protocol of Amendments, the 1992 Washington Protocol of Amendments, and the 1993 Managua Protocol of
Amendments. Some of these amendments have considerably strengthened and expanded the commitments of the
member states in the field of regional multilateral cooperation for development. See OAS (1997) “[First] Protocol of
Amendments to the Charter of the Organization of American States–`Protocol of Buenos Aires'”; “[Second] Protocol of
Amendments to the Charter of the Organization of American States–`Protocol of Cartagena de Indias'”; “[Third]
Protocol of Amendments to the Charter of the Organization of American States–`Protocol of Washington'”; and
“[Fourth] Protocol of Amendments to the Charter of the Organization of American States–`Protocol of Managua.'” See
also OAS (1997) “Charter of the Organization of American States”–(As amended by the Protocols of Buenos Aires,
Cartagena de Indias, Washington, and Managua).
23 Article 3, paragraph k, of the current OAS Charter (emphasis added).
24 Articles 19 and 20 of the current OAS Charter.
25 The 1967 Buenos Aires Protocol of Amendments greatly expanded this section of economic, social, and educational
standards. The 1985 Cartagena de Indias Protocol of Amendments consolidated these standards into one new chapter,
Chapter VII, entitled “Integral Development.”
26 This has become Article 94 of the current OAS Charter, wherein the Inter-American Economic and Social Council
has been replaced by the Inter-American Council for Integral Development.
27 The Economic Agreement of Bogotá was only ratified by Costa Rica, Honduras, and Panama.
28 See “Convenio Económico de Bogotá” in Conferencias (1956, 157-171). See also OAS (1953, 124).
29 In keeping with this recommendation, the Committee of Experts met in early 1955 and prepared a draft convention
creating an Inter American Bank for Economic Development. This draft convention was submitted to the American
republics for consideration, but it did not prosper (Fenwick 1963, 403).
30 For a history of policy convergence and divergence between the United States and Latin America within the InterAmerican System, see Wilson (1975, 47-84).
31 Diplomatic note from President Juscelino Kubitschek to President Dwight Eisenhower (May 28, 1958) as quoted in
Dell (1972, 13).
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
32 For the text of Milton Eisenhower’s report about his trip to the region, see “United States-Latin American Relations
1953-1958” Report to the President by Milton Eisenhower (Personal Representative of the President) in U.S.
Department of State (1959, 89-105).
33 In 1981, LAFTA was superseded by the Latin American Integration Association (LAIA).
34 In 1973, CARIFTA became the Caribbean Economic Community (CARICOM).
35 See also, Sistema Económico Latinoamericano (SELA), Secretaría Permanente, Guía de la integración, available at
http://lanic.utexas.edu/-sela
36 This principle of preferential tariff treatment was incorporated into Article 40 of the OAS Charter by the 1967
Buenos Aires Protocol of Amendments. For a discussion of this principle, see OEA (1967, 319 320).
37 For instance, in one of the revised articles of the OAS Charter as amended by the 1967 Buenos Aires Protocol of
Amendments, the American Republics make the very ambitious commitment of pledging “. . . themselves to a united
effort to ensure social justice in the Hemisphere and dynamic and balanced economic development for their peoples. . .
.” OAS Charter, as amended by the 1967 Buenos Aires Protocol of Amendments (ratified in 1970), Article 29 (emphasis
added).
38 This principle was put forth in the early 1970s–mainly by Chile, Ecuador, and Peru–which had serious policy
differences with the United States over the expropriation of American companies and the seizure of American fishing
vessels in the two-hundred-mile zone of jurisdictional waters claimed by these countries. These Latin American states
developed the notion of collective economic security to try to stop what they perceived to be the political use by the
United States of its economic power in a manner inconsistent with the spirit of inter American cooperation for
development. See Wilson (1977).
39 The roots of this rather ambitious proposed norm of collective economic security for development can be traced back
to several key inter American principles, proclamations, and practices. First, at the 1933 Montevideo Conference, the
American republics codified the principle of non-intervention in the Inter-American Convention on the Rights and
Duties of States. Second, at the 1938 Lima Conference, the American republics asserted that “economic aggression”
(however vaguely defined) was banned by the principle of non-intervention. Third, at the 1947 Rio Confer¬ence, the
American republics not only codified regional collective security in the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance,
but also declared that hemispheric security was directly linked to regional economic development. Finally, during the
decades of the 1950s and 1960s, the American republics turned the practice of regional economic cooperation into a
multilateral legal commitment. Building upon all of these commitments, the principle of collective economic security
for development represented thus an attempt to consolidate non-intervention, economic non-aggression, collective
security, and multilateral cooperation for development into one over-arching legal norm.
40 The fourth paragraph of the pre¬amble to the revised version of the Treaty proposed in this Protocol of Amendments
states that “. . . The High Contracting Parties wish . . . [1] to reaffirm and strengthen the principle of noninter¬vention as
well as the right of all states to choose freely their political, economic, and social organization; and [2] to recognize that,
for the maintenance of peace and security in the Hemisphere, it is also necessary to guarantee collective economic
security for the development of the American States. . . .” In addition to this declaration, the proposed new Article 11 of
the Inter American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance states that: “The High Contracting Parties recognize that, for the
maintenance of peace and security, the development of the Member States of the Organization of American States must
also be guaranteed through suitable mechanisms to be established in a special treaty.” OAS (1975, 1, 8). This Protocol
of Amendments was not ratified.
41 In January of 1976, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States approved various draft
amendments, among which one finds Chapter II Article 3, paragraph f, stating that “[c]ollective economic security for
the development of the member states must be guaranteed if peace and security are to be maintained” (OAS 1976, 2:5).
The 1985 Cartagena de Indias Protocol of Amendments to the OAS Charter did not include any specific references to
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
the term “collective economic security for development.”
42 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 232 (June 17, 1976). All OAS resolutions and executive orders cited in this
study can be found by year in Actas y Documentos published by Secretaría General de la Organización de los Estados
Americanos (Washington, DC: 1976-1999).
43 See “Draft Convention on Collective Economic Security for Development,” OEA/Ser.G CP/doc.609/76 rev.2,
December 2, 1976, in Permanent Council, Documents Submitted to the Permanent Council for Consideration, Vol 16,
1976. See also OAS, Permanent Council, Document nos. 686/77 and 688/77 rev. 1, in Permanent Council, Documents,
Vol. 21, 1977.
44 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 233 (June 17, 1976).
45 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 234 (June 17, 1976).
46 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 352 (July 1, 1978).
47 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 346 (July 1, 1978) (emphasis added).
48 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 347 (July 1, 1978); and OAS General Assembly, Resolution 351 (July 1, 1978).
49 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 437 (October 31, 1979).
50 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 465 (November 27, 1980).
51 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 466 (November 27, 1980).
52 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 467 (November 27, 1980).
53 For instance, the Latin American states called repeatedly for a Special OAS General Assembly to Review all Matters
Concerning the Topic of Inter-American Cooperation for Development in 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1987. See OAS,
General Assembly, Resolutions 521 (December 9, 1981); 645 (November 18, 1983); 768 (December 9, 1985); and 874
(November 14, 1987).
54 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 828 (November 15, 1986).
55 In the 1970s, Brazil and Uruguay signed a Trade Promotion Protocol (Protocolo de Expansión Comercial–PEC)
while Argentina and Uruguay signed the Argentine-Uruguayan Economic Cooperation Agreement (Convenio Argentino
Uruguayo de Cooperación Económica–CAUCE). In the 1980s, Argentina and Brazil signed at least twenty-four bilateral
area-specific trade protocols and the Declaration of Foz de Iguazú establishing a High Level Joint Commission to foster
economic integration between the two countries. All of these overlapping trade agreements laid the foundation for the
emergence of MERCOSUR in 1991. For more information on the history of MERCOSUR, see
http://www.cari1.org.ar/spanish/mercosur/pasos.htm and
http://web.archive.org/web/20010821070459/www.rau.edu.uy/mercosur/origen.merco.htm (for the text of the Treaty of
Asunción, see http://www.itcilo.it/english/actrav/telearn/global/ilo/blokit/
Mercoa.htm).
56 For the text of the North American Free Trade Agreement, see http://www-tech.mit.edu/Bulletins/nafta.html
57 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 1220 (June 11, 1993).
58 This special session of the OAS General Assembly met in Mexico in February 1994. Some of its key declarations
and resolutions include one in which the American republics agreed “to promote Partnership for Development as a
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
fundamental objective of the OAS . . . and to promote cooperation for development among all the countries of the
Hemisphere . . ..” See AG/DEC.1 (XX-E/94): “Commitment on a Partnership for Development and Struggle to
Overcome Extreme Poverty”–Resolution adopted at the third plenary session, held on February 18, 1994. See also
AG/RES.1 (XX-E/94): “General Policy Framework and Priorities: Partnership for Development” –Resolution adopted
at the third plenary session, held on February 18, 1994.
59 OAS, Secretary General, Executive Order 95-4 (April 3, 1995).
60 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 1314 (June 8, 1995).
61 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 1357 (June 9, 1995) and Resolution 1370 (May 6, 1996).
62 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 1427 (June 7, 1996).
63 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 1430 (June 7, 1996).
64 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 1440 (June 7, 1996).
65 http://www.oas.org/EN/PROG/BOLIVIA/sumiteng.htm
66 See OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 1511 (June 5, 1997).
67OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 1516 (June 5, 1997). See also OAS, General Assembly Resolution 1581 (June
2, 1998).
68 OAS, General Assembly, Resolution 1686 (June 8, 1999).
69 These meetings were held in Denver (June 1995), Cartagena (March 1996), Belo Horizonte (May 1997), and San
Jose (March 1998). See http://www.summit-americas.org/FTAA/ftaaissue.htm
70 Namely, market access; investment; services; government procurement; dispute settlement; agriculture; intellectual
property rights; subsidies, anti-dumping and countervailing duties; and competition policy. See http://www.summitamericas.org/FTAA/ftaaissue.htm
References
Alberdi, Juan Bautista. Memoria sobre la conveniencia y objeto de un congreso general americano [1844]. Obras
selectas, ed. Joaquín V. ález. Buenos Aires: Librería La Facultad. 1920
Álvarez, Alejandro. Después de la guerra: La vida internacional, social e intellectual. Buenos Aires: Imprenta de la
Universidad. (Tresconferencias pronunciadas por el autor en la Universidad de Buenos
Aires, en octubre de 1941,
con motivo de su designación como doctor en jurisprudencia “honoris causa” de esa Universidad.) 1942
Ball, Margaret. The OAS in transition. Durham: Duke University Press. 1969
Burr, Robert N. and Ronald D. Hussey. Documents on inter-American
University of Pennsylvania Press. 1955
cooperation, 2 vols. Philadelphia:
Bustamante y Sirvén, Antonio Sánchez de. Manual de derecho internacional
1942
público. La Habana: La Mercantil.
Caicedo Castilla, José Joaquín. La conferencia de petrópolis y el tratado
interamericano de asistencia recíproca
firmado en Rio de Janeiro en 1947. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais Ltda. 1947
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
—–El derecho inter¬nacional en el sistema americano. Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica. 1970
Conferencias internacionales americanas: 1889-1936. Washington, DC:
Internacional. 1938
Dotación Carnegie para la Paz
—–Primer suplemento: 1938-1942. Washington, DC: Dotación Carnegie para la Paz Internacional. 1943
—–Segundo suplemento: 1945-1954. Washington, DC: Departamento Jurídico Unión Panamericana. 1956
Dell, Sidney. The inter-American development bank: A study in development
Publishers. 1972
financing. New York: Praeger
Fenwick, Charles G. The organization of American states: The inter
Kaufmann Printing. 1963
American regional system. Washington, DC:
Fernández Shaw, Félix Guillermo. La organización de los estados
Ediciones Cultura Hispánica. 1963
americanos. Segunda Edición. Madrid:
González Muñoz, Rafael P. Doctrina grau: Antecedentes, exposición y problemática de la agresión económica. La
Habana: Publicaciones
del Ministerio del Estado. (Author’s transla¬tion) 1948
Inman, Samuel Guy. Inter-American conferences 1826-1954: History and
University Press of Washington, DC. 1965
problems.Washington, DC: The
Inter-American Financial and Economic Advisory Committee. Convention for
American bank. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. 1940
the establishment of an inter-
Levinson, Jerome and Juan de Onís. The alliance that lost its way: A critical report on the alliance for progress.
Chicago: Quadrangle Books. 1972
Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA). Departamento Jurídico.
Anales. 2:254-273, no. 3. 1950
—–Departamento Jurídico. Anales. 3:378-383, no. 4. 1951
—–Comité Jurídico Interamericano, Instituto Interamericano de Estudios Jurídicos Internacionales. Problemática
jurídica e institucional de la integración de América Latina–ensayo de sistematización, Edición provisional.
Washing¬ton, DC: Organización de Estados Americanos.
1967
Organization of American States (OAS). Department of International Law. Manual of inter American relations.
Washington, DC: Pan-American Union. 1953
—–Inter-American Economic and Social Council. Financiamento y ayuda tecnica para los proyectos de integracion
economica regional. Reunion de Ministros de Hacienda o Economia en IV Sesion Extraordinaria. Vol. VI, ESSEDoc. 105/54 (Rev. 3), ES-Res. 57/54.
1954
—–Inter-American Economic and Social Council. Alliance for progress, official documents emanating from the
special meeting of the inter American economic and social council at the ministerial level, Punta del Este, 1961.
Washington, DC: Organization of American States.1961
—–General Secretariat, Treaty Series # 46. Protocol of amendments to the
inter American treaty of reciprocal
assistance, San Jose, 1975. Washington, DC: The Organization of American States. 1975
—–OAS Chronicle. (February) Vol. 2. 1976
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004
—–SICE. Miami summit of the Americas: Declaration of principles Partnership for development and prosperity:
Democracy, free trade and sustainable development.
http://www.sice.oas.org/ftaa/miami/sadope.asp. 1994
—–Department of Legal Cooperation and Information, Secretariat of Legal Affairs. Charter of the organization of
American states.
http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/charter.html. 1997
Padilla, Ezequiel. El hombre libre de américa: Un augurio para la
postguerra. México: Nuestro Mundo. Also
published in English: Padilla, Ezequiel, 1972. Free men of America. Freeport, New York: Books for
Libraries Press.
1943
Rodríguez Larreta, Aureliano C. El sistema pan¬americano desde la independencia hasta la alianza para el progreso in
Organización de Estados Americanos, Consejo Interamericano Económico y Social,
Reunión Especial a Nivel
Ministerial, Punta del Este, Uruguay, 1961, Ideario y planificación de la alianza para el progreso, 1962.
Montevideo: Editorial Norte Sur. 1962
Sánchez i Sánchez, Carlos Augusto. Curso de derecho internacional público americano. Cuidad Trujillo: Editora
Montalvo. 1943
Thomas, Ann Van Wynen and A.J. Thomas. The organization of American states. Dallas: Southern Methodist
University. 1963
Ulloa y Sotomayor, Alberto. Congresos americanos de Lima. Lima: Imprenta
Torres Aguirre. 1938
U.S. Department of State. Bulletin. Vol. XL. No. 1021. 1959
Wilson, Larman C. Multilateral policy and the organization of American
states: Latin American-U.S. convergence
and divergence. Davis, Harold E. and Larman C. Wilson, eds. 1975. Latin American foreign policies–An analysis.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1975
—–The concept of collective economic security for development and contemporary Latin American U.S. relations.
Towson State Journal of Inter¬national Affairs 12:7-41. 1977
Yepes, Jesús María. Del congreso de Panamá a la conferencia de Caracas. Cara¬cas: CROMOTIP, G.A. Reprinted ed.,
1976. Caracas: Talleres de Ávila/Arte, S.A. 1955
Journal-17-Maisch.txt[11/10/2016 5:59:17 PM]
Latin American Essays, Volume 17, 2004