on paper, the agenda of the ninth Summit of the Americaswhich is installed this Monday in Los Angeles, should revolve around four central axes that concern the region: economic prosperity, climate change, the migration crisis and strategies to continue facing the covid-19 pandemic.
(Read here: The counterweight that the Alba Summit wants to make to the Summit of the Americas)
And although the issues will undoubtedly be discussed throughout the week, the prospects of the important event have been darkening in the midst of the intense controversy that has been unleashed by the exclusion of Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba from the conclave.
(See also: The Summit of the Peoples: the event protests the exclusions of the USA.)
In fact, there is already talk, even without being installed, of a resounding failure that would leave the Hemisphere more divided than ever. Several countries, including Mexico, Brazil, Ecuador Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and others from the Caribbean They haven’t even confirmed their attendance and are threatening to boycott the event. Which would mean a slap in the face from President Joe Biden, who will serve as host.
Although Managua and Caracas have already been ruled out, the administration was still flirting, even at this point, with the idea of inviting a representative from Cuba, a country that was present at the 2015 (Panama) and 2018 (Peru) Summits.
This week, top Democratic administration officials tried to play down the debate and asked to focus on the underlying issues.
They also announced that the Democratic president will present five ambitious initiatives which include economic assistance and two new regional pacts on immigration, the environment and energy.
Despite this, all eyes continued to point to the list of attendees, amid a gale of criticism against the White House, including allies, for the handling they have given to the situation.
The prospects of the important event have been darkening amid the intense controversy that has been unleashed by the exclusion of Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba from the conclave.
And that range from choosing distant Los Angeles as its venue, to not anticipating the emergence of this conflict and imposing an “American” agenda on the Summit.
The truth, despite this, is that for Biden the appointment poses an enormous challenge and many believe that it was doomed from the beginningwhen former Vice President Mike Pence offered the United States as the venue, after Donald Trump canceled his assistance to Peru a day before the last meeting.
To delve into the subject, EL TIEMPO consulted six experts, including former officials, with extensive experience in the region.
Kevin Whittaker
Former Undersecretary of State for South America
Part of this was a landmine planted by Donald Trump by promising that the next Summit would be held in the United States. It was obvious that this was going to generate conflict over the invitations.
The most complicated of all was undoubtedly Venezuela, since there is all this precedent of a government in exile that has been recognized as legitimate by many States, people and entities, even in the same party as Joe Biden.
But it is equally true that the United States meets with other leaders, in this type of summit, without them being the most democratic, and that poses a contradiction.
In this hemisphere we have committed ourselves to democratic values that must not be abandoned
I understand that in this hemisphere we have committed ourselves to democratic values that should not be abandoned. But it is also true that with these countries there are issues to discuss that affect us all, such as climate change, migration, energy and health. From my perspective, one course of action was to invite them to discuss, but making clear the rejection of the path they have chosen and take advantage of the meeting to expose their shortcomings.
In any case, pFor Biden himself it was difficult to bridge those conceptsbecause he has spent a life defending these principles and therefore extending invitations to autocrats and dictators was a crossroads.
Jose Miguel Vivanco
Former director for the Americas at Human Rights Watch
What is on the table today as a result of the Summit and the debate about who is coming and who is marginalizing themselves is a symptom of the deep crisis and setback that the region is experiencing. We are far from those summits, like the one in Quebec, when the Democratic Charter was enshrined.
Unfortunately, given the disrepute of democracy in meeting the demands of the majority, the ideal conditions have been created for the proliferation of authoritarian regimes that manipulate and elect themselves. Making a regional appointment in this context is an impossible challenge.
Especially because the most powerful countries like Mexico and Brazil are headed by this type of leader and have little or no interest in defending democratic principles.
Just the fact that we are discussing whether or not these tyrants are going speaks for itself at the moment.
Just the fact that we are discussing whether or not these tyrants are going speaks for itself at the moment.. Here all the options are bad and it was preferable not to do the Summit.
Biden’s attitude is a light of hope for those who believe in democracy, not only in the region but in the world, because it makes it clear that these values to which we have committed ourselves are not negotiable, because they are structural.
Muni Jensen
Senior Advisor at Albright Stonebridge Group
The Summit of the Americas started off on the wrong foot. They organized it very late, in the least suitable city, and without a clear strategy. The controversies that have arisen around the exclusions are not surprising, knowing US foreign policy, and the adverse reaction of some countries was also predictable.
The worst scenario, and today the most likely, is that beyond the controversy, the Summit of the Americas in the US is irrelevant.
In any case, it was a very big challenge for any government to try to find agreements at a summit where there are deep differences, both politically and economically.
Historically, successful agreements between the countries of the Americas have been almost impossible.
In any case, it was a very big challenge for any government to try to find agreements at a summit where there are substantive differences.
In recent years, attempts have been made to create subregional economic blocs, such as the Pacific alliance and others with a more political tinge, such as Mercosur at the time. The Summit is a redeemable effort, but the expectations of generating change are low.
Biden also faces a delicate internal situation where he does not have ample room for maneuver, as Barack Obama did when he reestablished relations with Cuba, participated in the Summit of the Americas in Peru and shook hands with Raúl Castro.
Dan Restrepo
Former National Security Advisor for the Western Hemisphere
The Summit of the Americas, since its very creation, has failed in its objective of advancing the common interests of the entire region. Rather than insist on them, Biden should take advantage of this appointment in Los Angeles to make sure it is the last one.
The reason for this failure has little to do with the US In fact, the other two forums that exist in the region, and which do not include Washington, do not usually produce improvements for the millions of inhabitants either.
But it should not surprise us. If we look at how diverse the 34 members of this Hemisphere are, from a US perspective, there is very little in common other than the geography that unites us.
Instead of continuing with the wear and tear that comes with holding this Summit every three years, Biden should propose separate annual meetings with leaders of the subregions
And as the eight previous summits have shown us, trying to find a consensus among so much disparity inevitably leads to declarations without real effect.
But there is another way. Instead of continuing with the wear and tear that comes with holding this Summit every three years, Biden should propose separate annual meetings with leaders of the subregions: one year with Central America, another with the Caribbean and then with South America. These separate meetings will allow the discussion to focus on the issues of interest to the US and to these subregions in particular and not waste time and energy trying to reach consensus among so many differences.
Cynthia Arson
Senior Advisor at the Woodrow Wilson Center
When it was decided to hold the next Summit in the US, it was foreseeable that the assistance of Cuba, and to a lesser extent Venezuela, would be impossible for reasons of domestic politics.
That said, it is disheartening that the Biden administration is almost alone in defending the principle of democracy, in a period of much deterioration both in the region and in the US.
Secondly, It seems to me that it is a mistake to define US policy towards Latin America around competition with China.. The countries of the region have no interest in being in the middle of this fight.
If Washington wants to compete with China, it has to find the financial resources to do so.
Worse yet is trying to convince countries to turn their backs on Beijing when nothing is being offered in return.
The needs for economic recovery in Latin America are gigantic, as are its needs in infrastructure. If Washington wants to compete with China, it has to find the financial resources to do so.
On the other hand, there is free trade, unpopular within the Democratic Party and increasingly questioned by Republicans since the Trump era.
All this in front of a region for which international trade is a very important part of the GDP and of the possibilities of economic growth.
This is an issue that must be resolved and hopefully important announcements will be made at the Summit on the need to bring together the production chains that are currently in Asia and emphasizing the so-called near shoring.
Juan Cruz
Senior Advisor at the Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS)
At a time when the region needs strong commitment and strong leadership to help with post-pandemic recovery, address democratic backsliding, improve citizen security, and respond to growing food insecurity as a result of the ongoing war in Ukraine, the Summit of the Americas seems focused on a fight over who is invited and who is not.
Many voices in the region have also criticized that the Summit’s agenda is only a reflection of the national political priorities of the United States..
In the long run, therefore, it may not meet its objectives. But that does not mean that there is no space to debate and seek answers to three key issues: reviving trade and investment in infrastructure, addressing the growing problem of illegal economies and the empowerment of criminal groups in the region, and promoting the educational and technological exchange. Things that suit everyone.
The countries of the hemisphere can gain much more by attending the Summit and expressing their positions on some of these issues than by boycotting the event.
Hopefully the Summit will mark the beginning of a more fruitful dialogue with Latin America, thus creating an opportunity to establish a long-term strategy for the region. The countries of the hemisphere can gain much more by attending the Summit and expressing their positions on some of these issues than by boycotting the event.
SERGIO GOMEZ MASERI
TIME CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON
More news
#Summit #Americas #puts #region #check #due #intense #controversies