The Latin American Economic System was founded a quarter of a century ago, in Panama, to serve as a regional organization for cooperation, coordination and consultation. All Latin American countries were to be members and Venezuela was chosen as SELA’s headquarters. Changes in Latin America and Caribbean politics and economics since October 1975 have been many and SELA has been present throughout in a direct manner as well as an observer of the phenomena. The Latin American Council Meeting recently held in Caracas commemorated this 25th anniversary.  On this occasion, the incumbent Permanent Secretary of SELA, Ambassador Otto Boye Soto, of Chile, was accompanied by the former Permanent Secretaries of SELA, including the first Permanent Secretary of SELA, Jaime Moncayo, of Ecuador; Carlos Alzamora, of Peru; Sebastián Alegrett, of Venezuela; Salvador Arriola, of Mexico; Carlos Moneta, of Argentina.

The reflections that emerged from this meeting contributed significantly to determining the organization’s future.  It would be of the utmost importance that the regional Ministries of Foreign Affairs take the time needed to consider the conclusions drawn by this meeting and examine what SELA has meant and can still mean in the years ahead.  Unlike many others, and according to the trends of international bodies, SELA has forged ahead without succumbing to bureaucratization.

SELA was created at a time when Latin America deemed it necessary to have a forum of its own to represent the region without any room for others to meddle in the regions matters; a forum where the interests of the region could be discussed and decisions reached under equal conditions.  The organization was not created to confront the OAS, as one critic presumed; others were equally wrong in assuming that SELA brewed anti-American sentiments. In essence, the organization was simply responding to a regional need, and differed not only from the OAS but also from the IDB and ECLAC.  SELA was conceived and began to carry out its mission 25 years ago.  Mexico and Venezuela were the two countries that backed SELA’s creation most enthusiastically.  Cuba, which had been excluded since the sixties from the Inter-American system, was one of the first countries to benefit from the organization which in fact reinstating it into the regional community.

SELA enjoyed ample political support during its first decades of existence. SELA’s utility is in fact directly related to the force its Member States confer upon it. SELA’s  contributions are likewise commendable. Its views and analyses of the region’s economic concerns are marked by a renewed awareness of Latin America and the Caribbean, the problems and alternatives of integration processes and the challenges these pose.  Carlos Alzamora, of Peru voiced an important truth when he stated that in comparison with what had taken place in Europe, and in the Arab and African nations, SELA was already late 25 years ago.  If it was already behind then, what conclusions can be drawn from its performance at this moment in time?  And what factors influenced the initial vigor to lose ground to a certain amount of indifference towards the organization?

SELA’s history has been the framework for highly meaningful stages of the region.  When the Latin American countries’ debt problem erupted, SELA was the most active of the fora for analyzing said debt.  A meeting of Heads of States held in Quito approved document, Bases for the response of Latin America and the Caribbean vis-à-vis the international economic crisis, which was prepared by SELA and ECLAC.  The Quito Declaration and Plan of Action exemplified the achievements that are within the reach of countries providing there is political will. At the same time, this very same Declaration and Plan of Action became clear evidence of what countries can lose when they are not assisted by the political will to carry out what has been agreed.  Former Secretary, Sebastián Alegrett shed light upon this fact while examining the more important stages, achievements and frustrations of the region in connection with SELA and its capacity as a policy-coordinating body.  An analyst with ample knowledge of our realities phrased it as follows: “The history of the Latin American Economic System is to some extent both the history of an ideal as well as the history behind an effort to surpass these realities.” All of the foregoing clearly points to the existence of bases suggesting that at a time when initiatives and proposals such as the FTAA emerge, the governments of Member States should also devote time to reflect upon SELA’s role and decide its future.  In this respect, fragmentation is certainly not the path to follow.