OUCH! THE SUMMITS
by
Julio-María Sanguinetti *
It was Mateo de López Bravo, a formidable jurist and thinker, mayor of Casa y Corte in mid-17th century Spain, who, amongst many wise things, said that “of everyone who is excluded an enemy is made.” Nothing more fitting to remember when, on the eve of the Summit of the Americas, we find ourselves embroiled in a massive turmoil as a result of the decision by the host, the United States, not to invite Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The reasons for excluding them are obvious, but not helpful because they’ve set the stage for a revolt led by the president of Mexico, Andrés López Obrador, who has stated that either everyone attends, or no one attends.
Writing this column on Thursday, barely 10 days before a meeting of heads of state and government, with all it entails regarding the coordination of agendas and logistics, it is already clear that – whatever the final list of attendees may be – we are in a great mess, that our Latin America is a collection of collapsed or degraded democracies, and that, unfortunately, the United States no longer commands the leadership it once did. That leadership enjoyed its greatest splendour under Roosevelt and Truman during World War II, but was later eclipsed by interventions, invasions, and coups, and had a few glimmering sparks under John F. Kennedy when he launched the Alliance for Progress, and even under Ronald Reagan, who –although not always recognized– helped win the Cold War when he forced the Soviet Union to compete in industry and science, leading it almost into bankruptcy.
All leadership is based on trust, which is an intangible asset. As in most areas of life, it is built slowly, step by step, but it can be quickly destroyed.
I have often written in these pages that sometimes a great power, such as the United States, does not exercise leadership in keeping with its power, since it lacks sufficient influence amongst its potential allies and that, conversely, a medium-sized power, like Russia, with an economy smaller than that of Brazil and Italy, can exercise leadership such that it becomes a great power, without actually being one. Indeed, despite its unexceptional military force, which seems only capable of harming its neighbours, it has acquired the appearance of a major power, keeping the entire world on edge with its aggressive nationalism of the old czarist variety.
Let us take a simple look at matters. On the one hand the United States excludes Venezuela from the Summit of the Americas for quite respectable and democratic reasons. But at the same time it openly resumes negotiations in the face of the oil crisis. Those are principles; these are interests… So, how does one build trust? On the other hand Mexico, the great partner of the United States, remains silent in the face of Nicaraguan and Venezuelan outrages and is now leading the Animal Farm rebels against President Biden’s invitations.
These summits began in 1994 with the purpose of launching a huge free trade area (FTAA). But the following year all was upended with the arrival of the Chávez tempest. Did his presence then become absolutely useless? Not necessarily, if we take into account the appropriate context and margin for maneuver. A summit is not a meeting of the OAS, an international organisation based on a treaty and constituted as a permanent institution with clear objectives, so it makes little sense for those who do not share them to be part of it. There the relationship between the United States and Canada and the countries further South is based on indisputable legal commitments. The summits are much less institutional; they provide opportunities for political dialogue whose content will depend on specific circumstances. Discussions limited to certain issues can then be held, such as the environment, immigration, or intellectual property, for example, to make them less ambitious but more effective, or, more broadly, as instances of debate, whose purpose must be clearly defined. Democracy? China in the region? Energy and food security?
In any case the weaknesses of this whole process has already been exposed, despite the efforts of Chris Dodd, an experienced and much appreciated Latin American hand, whose father made all his children learn Spanish, certain they would be living with very many Latinos both within and beyond US borders.
Returning to the beginning of this column: does it make any sense to exclude people and make enemies, as the old Spanish sage would have it? In some cases yes, and in others no. Because in politics everything is possible, except not knowing which port one is heading to and which route one will follow, as Lucius Annaeus Seneca, the eminent Roman born in Córdoba, in Hispania, would have it. That is, in essence, the problem of the web of organisations and arrangements, which relate us to the world; the three Americas, Latin America, Ibero-America, the Pacific, Mercosur... whatever.
Rarely have results been aligned with expectations. Perhaps the Inter-American Development Bank has been the greatest success story. It was created at the initiative of Juscelino Kubistchek, that notable Brazilian president of the 1950s, and has been the largest source of funding for Latin American development projects. It has had its ups and downs, but its capital has grown, as have its member countries and international partners, in great measure because its objectives have always been clear.
A Summit of the Americas makes sense; indeed, a lot of sense, as long as it is held with a clear understanding of the topics to be discussed. However, there has been a lack of more vigorous bilateral exchanges between the United States and governments from the region in order to create the necessary environment.
At the end of the day, although flexibility is an essential component of politics, it has its limits. Knowing what one wants and who one wants to spend time with are a couple of those limits. Disorder, vagueness, contradictions, confusion between principles and interests, only breed frustrations. As well as distrust, when trust is needed more than ever so that citizens do not distance themselves even further from democracy and the wider world, and do not become yet more alienated from them.
___________________________
* Julio-María Sanguinetti (b. 1936) was twice President of Uruguay (1985-1990 and 1995-2000). Before that he served as a Representative and a Senator in the Uruguayan parliament, as well as a Cabinet Minister. He is a lawyer, journalist, and art historian. He writes often for Buenos Aires’ La Nación, Madrid’s El País, and Montevideo’s Correo de los Viernes.
Attachment:
JMS. Ay con las cumbres. Eng..docx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document