Advertisement

Regional Organisation Outside Europe

  • David Armstrong
  • Lorna Lloyd
  • John Redmond
Chapter
Part of the The Making of the 20th Century book series

Abstract

There is now a vast number of regional and subregional organisations with a range of functions embracing military, economic, political and cultural cooperation. Rather than attempting to discuss all or even many of these — a task which in one chapter would produce little more than a list of names — I will confine myself here to considering briefly the history and functions of three of the more important regional organisations together with some of their offshoots.

Keywords

Regional Organisation Economic Integration Uruguay Round Free Trade Area ASEAN Member 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Membership currently comprises 35 member states from Northern, Central and Southern America. Cuba was suspended in 1962 but at the OAS Assembly in Brazil in June 1994, Costa Rica urged the opening of discussions on Cuba’s readmittance, warning that the Organisation ‘can no longer ignore the Cuban case’. Canada joined in January 1990 and Belize and Guyana in January 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Pope Atkins, Latin America in the International Political System (New York, 1977) p. 308.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Margaret Ball, The OAS in Transition (Duke University Press, 1969) p. 5.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cited ibid., p. 10.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Connell Smith, The Inter-American System (London, 1966) p. 15.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pope Atkins, Latin America, pp. 322–5.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bryce Wood, ‘The Organisation of American States’, in The Yearbook of World Affairs, 1979 (London, 1979) p. 150.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Connell-Smith, ‘The Organisation of American States’, in A. Shlaim (ed.), International Organisations in World Politics, Yearbook 1975 (London, 1976) p. 201.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    In the amended Charter of 1967, which came into force in 1970, the relevant Articles are numbered 18 to 22.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Viron P. Vaky and Heraldo Munoz, The Future of the Organization of American States (New York, 1993) p. 10.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cited in Connell-Smith, ‘The Organisation of American States’, p. 207.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    I.L. Claude, ‘The OAS, the UN and the United States’, International Conciliation (March 1964).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pope Atkins, Latin America, p. 332.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ball, The OAS in Transition, pp. 471–2.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ibid., pp. 479–80.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pope Atkins, Latin America, pp. 330–1, Bryce Wood, ‘Organisation of American States’, pp. 157–9.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Calvert (ed.), Political and Economic Encyclopaedia of South America and the Caribbean (Longman, 1991).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ibid., p. 12.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    It is, however, fair to note as some observers have that the key to progress was not Charter reform but agreement among members on what should be done and commitment to do it. R. J. Bloomfield and A. F. Lowenthal, ‘Inter-American Institutions in a Time of Change’, Internationaljournal (1990).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Declaration of Managua for the Promotion of Democracy and Development. Adopted at the fourth plenary session of the 23rd regular session of the OAS General Assembly, June 8 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    For a discussion of the work of the OAS in the field of technology transfer, see E. B. Haas, ‘Technological Self-reliance for Latin America: the OAS Contribution’, International Organisation (Autumn 1980) 541–70.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vaky and Munoz, The Future of the OAS, p. 16.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bloomfield and Lowenthal, Tnter-American Institutions’, p. 886.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bryce Wood, ‘Organisation of American States’, p. 153.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Article 1 of the revised Charter. Text in A. J. Peaslee, International Governmental Organisation, vol. 1, part 1 (The Hague, 1974) pp. 1222–6.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    F. Parkinson, ‘International Economic Integration in Latin America and the Caribbean’, The Yearbook of World Affairs, 1977 (London, 1977) p. 255.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pope Atkins, Latin America, p. 288.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
    Parkinson, ‘International Economic Integration’, p. 243.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    P. Gunson, G. Chamberlain and A. Thompson, The Dictionary of Contemporary Politics of Central America and the Caribbean (London, 1991) p. 194.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Keesing’s Record of World Events, vol. 36, p. 37502.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    K. J. Middlebrook, ‘Regional Organisations and Andean Economic Integration 1969–75’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 17, no. 1 (September 1978) 78–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    E. S. Milenky, ‘The Cartagena Agreement in Transition’, The Yearbook of World Affairs, 1979 (London, 1979) p. 168.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
    Parkinson, ‘International Economic Integration’, p. 249.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. Vargas-Hidalgo, The Crisis of the Andean Pact: Lessons for Integration among Developing Countries’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 17, no. 3 (March 1979) 213–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Keesings Record of World Events, vol. 38, Reference Supplement, 1992.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    G. C. Abbott, ‘Integration and Viability in the Caribbean’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 29 (1991).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ibid., p. 331.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ibid., pp. 333–5.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    I. Wallerstein, Africa: the Politics of Unity (New York, 1967).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    I. Wallerstein, ‘The Early Years of the OAU’, International Organisation (Autumn 1966) 775.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    N.J. Padelford, ‘The Organisation of African Unity’, International Organisation (Summer 1964) 526.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    J. Mayall, ‘African Unity and the OAU: The Place of a Political Myth in African Diplomacy’, The Yearbook of World Affairs 1973 (London, 1973) p. 120.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cited in Peaslee, International Governmental Organisation, vol. 2 (1974) p. 1166.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    S. Touval, ‘The Organisation of African Unity and African Borders’, International Organisation (Autumn 1967) 124.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    M. Wolfers, Politics in the Organisation of African Unity (London, 1976) pp. 46–8.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    On the history of this dispute and the OAU’s role see P. B. Wild, ‘The Organisation of African Unity and the Algeria-Morocco Border Conflict’, International Organisation (1966) 18–36.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    B. D. Meyers, ‘Intraregional Conflict Management by the OAU’, International Organisation (Summer 1974) 358–9.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Keesings Record of World Events, vol. 40 (1994) p. 39944.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ibid. pp. 356–7.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    For details of the OAU’s response to the Biafran crisis, see Z. Cerven-ka, ‘The OAU and the Nigerian Civil War’, in Y. El-Ayouty (ed.), The Organisation of African Unity After Ten Years (New York, 1976) pp. 152–73.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
  54. 54.
    Ibid., pp. 165–6.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    L. T. Kapungu, ‘The OAU’s Support for the Liberation of Southern Africa’, ibid, p. 136.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wolfers, Politics in the OAU, p. 189.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kapungu, ‘The OAU’s Support’, p. 144.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ibid., pp. 138–9.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    C. Legum, ‘The Organisation of African Unity: Success or Failure?’, International Affairs (April 1975) 216.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ibid., p. 217.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    For a discussion of the work of the OAU’s specialised commissions, see Wolfers, Politics in the OAU, pp. 91–119.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Meyers, ‘Intraregional Conflict Management by the OAU’, p. 369.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Adebayo Adedeji, ‘Africa in the Nineties: A Decade for Socio-Economic Recovery and Transformation of Another Lost Decade?’, 1989 Foundation Lecture to the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, NIIA 1991, p. 7.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ibid., p. 23.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    O. J. B. Ojo, ‘Nigeria and the Formation of ECOWAS’, International Organisation (Autumn 1980) 571–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cited in T.O. Elias, ‘Economic Community of West Africa’, in The Yearbook of World Affairs, 1978 (London, 1978) p. 103.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ibid., p. 104.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    W.J. Feld and R. S.Jordan with L. Hurwitz, International Organizations: A Comparative Approach, 3rd edn (Westport, CT, 1994) pp. 97–8.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
  70. 70.
    Ibid., p. 102Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    On the history of ASA, see B. K. Gordon, The Dimensions of Conflict in South-east Asia (New Jersey, 1966) pp. 162–87.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    J. Wong, ‘ASEAN’s Experience in Regional Economic Cooperation’, Asian Development Review, 3 (1985) 83.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    H.C. Reichel, ‘The European Community and ASEAN’, Aussenpolitik, English Edition, 36, (1985) 193.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Catalogues of the reasons why non-European regional groupings have, in general, failed are provided by R. J. Langhammer, ‘The Developing Countries and Regionalism’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 30, no. 2 (June 1992) 214 and, particularly comprehensively, by A. Hazelwood, ‘The East African Community’ in A. M. El-Agraa (ed.), International Economic Integration (London, 1988) pp. 187–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    For example, according to Reichel, ‘The European Community and ASEAN’, p. 193: ‘ASEAN has essentially been a political community... from the very beginning and has, in essence, remained so to this day’.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    A. Broinowski (ed.), ASEAN into the 1990s (London, 1990) p. 18.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ibid., p. 241.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Tan Sri M. Ghazali Shafie, ‘Towards a Pacific Basin Community — a Malaysian Perception’, Conference on New Foundations for Asian and Pacific Community, Pattaya, 12 December (1979).Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    These include, for example, the questions of the feasibility of integration of countries of different sizes and at different levels of development, the complementarity of ASEAN trade, the equitable distribution of benefits and investment and the potential clashes of political ideology.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    ‘Blood and Money’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 147, no. 9 (1 March 1990) 8–9. The Malaysians also managed to upset the Thais by warning Malaysian nationals not to visit the southern Thai ‘red light’ border areas because of the risk of AIDS.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    ’stormy Weather’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 156, no. 30 (29 July 1993) 18–19.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    ‘Friction in the Club’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 155, no. 42 (22 October 1992) 67.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Indonesian economist, Mohammad Sadli, quoted in ibid. For a security-focused discussion of intra-ASEAN tensions see T. Huxley, Insecurity in the ASEAN Region (London: RUSI, 1993) Whitehall Paper 23, pp. 11–14.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    See, for example, ‘ASEAN’s Embrace’, Far Eastern Economic Review, 154, no. 46, 14 (November 1991) 19.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Huxley, Insecurity in the ASEAN Region, pp. 74–5.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    The principal disputes are outlined in ibid., pp. 11 and 29–30.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    This involved not only ASEAN but also its seven dialogue partners together with China, Russia, Vietnam, Laos and Papua New Guinea.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© David Armstrong, Lorna Lloyd and John Redmond 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Armstrong
  • Lorna Lloyd
  • John Redmond

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations