Summit Assessment

Apr 21, 2009 Editorial

Now that all the leaders have returned to their respective countries – with the exception of Manning, who should be mulling over whether T&T received the bang for its bucks – we can hopefully look back at the Fifth Summit of the Americas and make a dispassionate assessment as to what was accomplished.

On the eve of the Summit we were not optimistic that anything substantive would emanate from the meeting that involved “thirty-four of the freely elected Heads of Government from the hemisphere”. The results did nothing to dissipate our skepticism. The final communiqué was a hodge-podge of ninety-seven commitments that are guaranteed by their internal contradictions never to see the light of day again.
President Jagdeo, before jetting off to the summit, had bemoaned the inherent lack of focus in such an approach and had suggested that instead, a few high-priority items be selected so that the follow-up could be manageable and monitorable.

But even the innocuous “catch-all” approach failed to receive unanimous support as some (unidentified) countries expressed “reservations” about elements of the document. In the absence of unanimity, the leaders agreed that only the host, PM Manning, would sign the communiqué so as not to expose the countries that had the unspecified “reservations”. It is clear to all observers, however, that the most likely opposition would have emanated from President Hugo Chavez and his ALBA cohorts. After their conclave that directly preceded the Summit, they made it clear that they were not going to be part of an agreement that did not deal directly with the US trade blockade of Cuba.

In this regard, even though the organizers and most of the major players had hoped otherwise, Cuba dominated the Summit – even though it was not even on the agenda. But ultimately, this was not such a negative factor. Cuba represents the American response in this hemisphere to the last major schism in world politics – the Cold War with the USSR. That war is now over and the US has established relations with Russia and practically all the other “enemies” of that old “axis of evil”.

The leaders of Latin America and the Caribbean, not unreasonably, expect that the US ought to be able to also move on in this hemisphere. Cuba, in this sense, is a litmus test of America’s intentions as to whether its declarations of a “new beginning” will go beyond empty rhetoric and gestures. The lifting of some travel and currency restrictions by President Obama merely reset the Cuba-US relationship to where it was in the 1990’s. The US has now declared that the ball is in the court of Cuba and that they expect movement on the release of political prisoners in the latter country before any further forward movement. The best that can probably be expected is an intricate “minuet” because of entrenched forces within each country that oppose fundamental changes in the status quo.

While the Cubans have signaled that they absolutely desired a change in the relationship – they actively lobbied other Latin American leaders to ensure that Chavez did not derail the Summit over the blockade – it is doubtful that they will be willing to accede to the US demands in the near term.

One would have thought that the Summit could have established a small committee to facilitate the hoped-for rapprochement: in the absence of a structured approach, it is likely that progress will be desultory as especially President Obama is forced to respond to domestic opposition to such a process.
The other feature was the byplay between Presidents Obama and Chavez. Obama, the obvious star of the show eclipsed even the publicity-savvy Venezuelan President. Obama disarmed Chavez by his affability and willingness to listen – unlike his old bête noir, President Bush. Chavez was forced into a conciliatory mode so as not to come across as a boor and a bully.

Maybe, as the leaders are trying to convince us, a meeting that was all smooching and handshakes, is not such a bad thing. But was it worth T&T$1billion? One wonders how far this could advance agriculture and food security in the region.