The 6th Summit of Americas’ Presidents ended up almost sensationally. It’s not only the agenda of the Summit that hadn’t been agreed but for the first time in its history it failed to adopt a final declaration. The “two Americas” split over practically all the issues that were nevertheless discussed at the forum.
The 6th Summit of Americas’ presidents which took place from April 13 to 15 in Cartagena de Indias (Colombia) differed dramatically from the previous ones above all in the absence of an agreed agenda, with an unbridgeable gap between 32 Latin-Caribbean leaders on the one hand and USA and Canada on the other gaining prominence.
The 6th Summit of Americas’ Presidents ended up almost sensationally. It’s not only the agenda of the Summit that hadn’t been agreed but for the first time in its history it failed to adopt a final declaration. The “two Americas” split over practically all the issues that were nevertheless discussed at the forum.
The 6th Summit of Americas’ presidents which took place from April 13 to 15 in Cartagena de Indias (Colombia) differed dramatically from the previous ones above all in the absence of an agreed agenda, with an unbridgeable gap between 32 Latin-Caribbean leaders on the one hand and USA and Canada on the other gaining prominence.
It’s Cuba again
While regional heads of state practically unanimously agreed to include into the agenda two major issues:
1) On Cuba’s participation in Americas Summits and
2) On the development of regional strategy for combating drug-trafficking, the U.S. Administration supported by Canada vehemently denied both proposals.
As a result, Ecuadorian President E. Correa refused to participate in the forum justifying his decision by the absence of Cuba. Moreover, the members of the left-wing radical group ALBA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Americas), which includes eight countries, such as Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador and a number of small Caribbean states, decided not to take part in the next summit in case Cuba is not invited.
The explanations provided by the American side were trivial enough. According to them Cuba had failed to take efficient democratization measures what prevented it from normalizing the relations with the USA. Besides, Cuba refused to return into inter-American framework although in 2009 the invitation was made to it at the Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly. The position of the U.S. President in the run-up to elections was easy to predict. The other one could negatively tell on presidential campaign, taking into account the influence of the Florida Electoral College on the outcome of elections.
Is the USA a cartel?
As regards specific measures aimed at combating drug-trafficking, the Obama Administration tried to downplay the issue in order to avoid sharp criticism for inaction from the majority of Latin-American counterparts. It should be reminded that annual drug consumption in the USA amounts to $60 bln. (Peter Hakim “YI Cumbre de las Americas: El lugar de hablar de drogas”- El Analisis de Infolatam, Madrid, 29 marzo, 2012)
Besides, U.S newspapers published articles sarcastically criticizing the Democrats’ Administration for inability to deal with this problem. Suffice it to give as an example the article by A. Oppenheimer entitled with the question “Is the USA a cartel?” published in Miami’s paper “El Nuevo Herald”. It says that the U.S. National Armourer Society, with 4.3 m. members, resisting limitations on selling weapons and thus facilitating arms smuggling by Mexican drug cartels turns out to be more influential than the White House. In 80% of cases a real war being waged lately by drug cartels the northern parts of Mexico which has already claimed more than 50 thousand lives employs U.S. made arms. (“El Nuevo Herald”, Miami, 04, 04, 2012”).
An empty portfolio
It explains why the U.S. President came to the summit with an empty portfolio. Moreover, his calls for embarking on a “new era” in relations with Latin America were as empty and produced only sarcastic smiles of the majority of participants.
That said, despite the obvious failure of the 6th Summit it would be wrong to say that that the trend towards geo-political divide of the Western Hemisphere into the North and the South is gaining momentum. Amidst aggressive penetration in the regional markets of China which has already replaced the U.S. in the capacity of the main trade partner of Brazil the “two Americas” continue to be closely tied by economic bonds. The region is sees robust economic growth and keeps on, according to the U.S. President, building up its political and economic weight in the global context. Despite the onslaught of extra-regional players (Western Europe, China, India, to a lesser extent Russia) USA continues to be major investor into Latin America and one of the main trade partners. It’s hard to challenge these arguments made by B. Obama. Suffice it to say that over the last two years U.S. export to Latin America has grown by almost 50%. Basically, 40% of all U.S export is supplied to this region.
Washington- Brasilia relations
The Summit in Cartagena could be viewed in a broader context. The United States, with the contemporary balance of power in the international arena and active penetration of non-regional actors in Latin America, should strengthen its positions in the region. The Summit due to the afore-mentioned reasons failed to contribute to it. That said, the quest for strategic partnership with the leading countries of the region will undoubtedly be continued as well as there will be new attempts made to neutralize autonomous trends in their foreign policies.
The country in question is, of course, Brazil. It’s premature to speak about establishing of a geo-political axis Washington-Brasilia but its contours can already be seen. It’s extremely important for the USA to make the Latin-American giant lose touch with BRICS and thereby weaken this group. According to the statement made by Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff during her visit to Washington in April 2012 right on the eve of the Summit, the country is also interested in strategic partnership with the USA but on principally new conditions of mutual equality.
China’s trade expansion is in this regard a strong consolidating factor. Not accidentally that at the end of 2011 a representative of the Brazilian Ministry of Commerce went to Washington with the mission to elaborate “joint trade defense”.
It should be noted, however, that objectively for the majority of Latin American countries trade with the U.S. is more beneficial than, say, with China which regards the region as strategic materials and agricultural production supplier and vehemently refuses to purchase in Latin America goods with added value. On the contrary, the USA does not erect barriers in the way of industrial products import from this region.
Rainbow over the Pacific
The issue of the Pacific was not discussed in Cartagena. Nonetheless, the statement made earlier by Barack Obama about shifting the focus of the U.S. foreign policy towards Asia-Pacific Region produced strong impression on regional leaders. Four Pacific countries – Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chili – have already announced the creation of integration association the “Pacific Rainbow” that should promote their interests in Asia-Pacific Region and facilitate their joining the Obama-proposed Trans-Pacific Association of Cooperation project.
Formally, Russia has been sidelined in the process of the two Americas interaction and does not participate in these summits. However, it should keep abreast of developments because in the course of discussions at such kind of forums there get revealed lacunas that Russia can fill, as is the case of cooperation with the countries of the region on combating drug-trafficking.
Conclusions
On the whole the Summit in Cartagena de Indias demonstrated that Latin America started to take more and more consolidated stance regardless of political orientation of its regimes. It also indicated that not only left-wing radicals but moderate and center-right regimes can uphold a principle position running counter to the Washington’s stance.
However, the desire to inject fresh blood in the relations with the USA still seen by the majority of the region’s countries as a strategic partner is not put into question. Anyway, it would be wishful thinking to believe that the United States is “abandoning Latin America”.
