The Summit of the Americas: A Major Disappointment

The Summit of the Americas, the largest gathering of leaders from the Latin American and Caribbean states plus the U.S. and Canada, ended last week in Cartagena, Colombia with no joint declaration or statement.

The reason is two-fold. First there was no consensus with regard to the status of Cuba in the forum. Second, there was no agreement regarding Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands.

The United States and Canada are opposed to the inclusion of Cuba. President Obama stated that he “will welcome a free Cuba in the next summit” (scheduled for 2015 in Panama,). Concerning the issue of the Falklands Islands, the U.S. maintained its neutrality on the conflict. Since final summit statements require unanimous consent, a statement on the Falklands could not be formulated.

These disagreements did not go without consequences. Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador stated that they will not participate in the next summit if Cuba is not included. The presidents of Nicaragua and Ecuador did not even attend the summit due to the same reason.

With regard to the Falkland Islands, the Argentinean president, Cristina Kirchner, left the summit early in what many interpreted as an “angry mood”.

The summit’s host, Colombian president, Jose Manuel Santos downplayed these controversies by stating that “for the first time there is a deep and heated discussion about Cuba. “The discussion itself sparks closer relations (between the countries) and bridges that will enable us, God willing, to include Cuba in the next summit”

Santos also tried to hide the fact that President Kirchner upbraided him over his failure to mention the Falkland Islands in his opening speech.

These two issues dominated the summit (at least in public). Since the gathering ended without a statement and since the United States and Canada were the only two dissenting voices on the Cuba issue, the two countries seemed to have been somewhat isolated during the summit.

Colombia also seemed to have been weakened. Observers and academics in Colombia pointed out that this conference “was the biggest failure in Colombian diplomatic history” According to these observers, everyone expected events in Cartagena to develop the way they did since no sound strategy had been developed to avoid such a fiasco.

If that is the case, who benefitted from this summit?

Of course, the big winners of the summit were the countries of the Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA) led by Venezuela.

Bolivarian countries have been lobbying for the inclusion of Cuba for a long time. They have included Cuba in other Latin American forums while excluding the United States and Canada. (E.g. the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States or CELAC)

On the other hand, President Obama rightly stated that Cuba must be democratic before the U.S. agrees to include it in the Organization of American States (OAS). However, the U.S., Canadian and Colombian presidents failed to push the issue of democracy and articulate a clear message in support of democracy. Had they done so and brought every country to discuss the meaning of the Inter-American democratic charter, it would have been the ALBA countries that would have been isolated. The OAS charter plainly states that “representative democracy is indispensable for the stability, peace, and development of the region, and that one of the purposes of the OAS is to promote and consolidate representative democracy”. It is not clear whether this was poor planning, lack of imagination or mere indifference on the part of the leaders of these three countries.

In very simple terms, the reason why ALBA countries want to include Cuba is precisely because they aspire to become dictatorships like Cuba not because the latter has turned more democratic or more respectful of human rights. In fact, Cuba rejected all the overtures President Obama offered.

The biggest victory of the ALBA countries was precisely that they succeeded in making sure that Latin American countries supported the inclusion of Cuba without objections. Furthermore, ALBA countries have done remarkably well in maintaining their own violations of democracy and human rights under the radar.

Drugs and Drug Trafficking

The Summit also dealt with the important issue of drugs.
Drug trafficking is a very serious problem, particularly in Central America and Mexico. Not long ago, the Guatemalan president proposed the legalization of drugs as a means to stop their illegal trade. This proposal was rejected by certain countries in Central America, particularly Honduras and Nicaragua.

The reason the proposal was put on the table in the first place is because of a set of common arguments raised all the time by Latin American leaders. The first is that U.S. drug policies are a failure and secondly that the United States is the main consumer of drugs and the principal provider of weapons to the cartels.
Of course, nobody has raised the argument that the Drug Enforcement Administration has been expelled from the ALBA countries or that the leaders of these countries are linked to the drug cartels or that they encourage the cultivation of cocaine.

At this point, Latin American leaders agreed to give a mandate to the OAS to examine the possibility of developing alternatives and new ideas to combat drug trafficking and drug consumption.

It is highly doubtful that Latin American countries will bring any creative or positive idea.

The Case of Brazil

On April 9th, the Brazilian president, Dilma Roussef, visited the United States and met with President Obama for two hours at the White House.

The New York Times stressed the existence of an element of tension between the two countries. The Brazilian president was not honored with a special dinner at the White House, as happened when the Chinese and Indian leaders visited the United States. During the press conference both leaders looked tense and aloof.

Indeed, there are some disagreements between the two countries. Brazil still does not support international sanctions against Iran, and, contrary to the United States, it supports trade with Cuba.

The U.S. also objects to the inclusion of Brazil as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Roussef also complained about U.S. monetary policies which she believes may hurt Brazil’s economy.

Despite this, Ms. Rousseff stressed oil and gas production as “a tremendous opportunity for further cooperation,” as the U.S. can supply equipment and knowledge to extract these materials and then buy the products.

This, of course, could be a tremendous opportunity not only to cooperate with Brazil in terms of energy but also to help the U.S. solve its own energy problem and dependency on Middle East countries or rogue states such as Venezuela.

Furthermore, during the Summit of the Americas, Rousseff pointed out something of extreme importance. In her own words: “In our region, we have to recognize the importance of the United States. The United States has features that are crucial in this emerging multi-polar world: it has flexibility; it has leadership in science, technology and innovation; and; it also has democratic roots”.

In other words, Rousseff wants to be a U.S. partner and ally and contrary to her predecessor, Jose Inazio Lula Da Silva, she is less engaged in ideological quarrels with the U.S. or with foolish and hyperbolic expressions of solidarity with tyrannical leaders in the third world, particularly in the Arab world. Rousseff is a former prisoner who was tortured and knows the evils of tyranny.

Contrary to Lula, she has been very outspoken about Iran’s human rights violations, ruthless executions, and treatment of women. She values human rights and democracy.
Brazil could be an economic and political asset and could partner with the United States on economic and democracy promotion policies, particularly in Latin America. Brazil is a growing economic power and is moving in the direction of consolidating democracy. It has the potential to be an ally almost like the European Union in the global arena. It could potentially help on issues such as drugs, terrorism, rogue states and others. It is important to look at Brazil beyond Lula and his curious and misguided foreign policy.

During the Summit as well as during personal meetings, the White House seemed to have missed an opportunity to develop good partnerships and to clearly identify potential friends from those who are not. What is worse the United States did not bring any item to the agenda that was really important, like the crisis of democracy in the region. Instead, it granted Chavez and the ALBA a victory, and failed to strengthen actual friends such as Colombia or engage new friends like Brazil. A real missed opportunity.