After a four-year recess, a Summit of the Americas is again organized. For the second time since 1994 (Miami), the United States is the host. However, enthusiasm is limited. The Biden administration prepared the summit late and poorly, and Latin American interest centers on whether the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela will be invited. Several presidents have threatened not to attend, with the Mexican president at the forefront. In this context, the question arises of whether it is worth having three worn-out and dictatorial regimes at the center of a question of principle. Little is said about the contents of the summit.
Despite the ups and downs, the Summits of the Americas have survived. Originally it was assumed that they should support the process of creating an FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas), later the strengthening and consolidation of democracy in the region was added. However, the FTAA is long dead and fewer and fewer governments in the region seem interested in defending democracy.
What is the need for the Summits of the Americas? Latin American governments have several regional forums, with CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) being the most inclusive. Issues that affect the entire western hemisphere can be discussed within the framework of the OAS (Organization of American States) but we can also imagine CELAC inviting the US to a CELAC-US summit. In that case, it would be up to the US government to decide whether or not to participate.
Protection of democracy versus sovereignty from repressors
With its policy of not inviting overtly undemocratic governments, the Biden administration appears to have fallen behind in time. But the question also arises of whether times have changed for better or worse. Twenty-one years ago, in the “Declaration of Quebec” resulting from the 3rd Summit of the Americas, all participating governments agreed that “maintaining and strengthening the rule of law and unrestricted respect for the democratic system are, at the same time, a goal and a common commitment, as well as constituting an essential condition for our presence at this and future Summits.
Consequently, any unconstitutional change or interruption of the democratic order in a state in the hemisphere constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to the participation of the government of that state in the Summits of the Americas process.”
At that time, even the government of Hugo Chávez, which had reservations about other formulations, supported the paragraph related to democracy. Today, however, this democratic consensus no longer exists. Criticizing political repression in a neighboring country is considered inappropriate.
Mexican President Manuel López Obrador even questions whether it is appropriate to call this aggressors, torturers and repressors in neighboring countries, as this could violate the principles of people’s self-determination (to be oppressed) and non-intervention. It is worth asking whether AMLO would have relativized the crimes of Pinochet and Videla at the time with the same speech.
Many Latin American governments seem willing to sacrifice democratic principles on the altar of misunderstood brotherhood and Latin American solidarity. What is being defended is not the sovereignty of peoples, but the sovereignty of governments, or more precisely of presidents, in order to be able to restrict democracy in their countries and oppress political opponents.
Integration without democratic values and material basis
The Mexican president’s speech combines criticism of the exclusion of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela with vague promises of Latin American integration without material basis or shared values. For AMLO, the time has come for a new coexistence to ‘build something similar to the European Union’ in Latin America. But such a project lacks a solid economic base. Latin American intra-regional trade reached 13% of total trade in 2021, with Mexico disconnected from the rest of Latin America and dependent on the United States.
Furthermore, the European Union is based on common values, such as a commitment to the protection of human rights and democracy, and relies on community institutions to defend it. In contrast, with their proposal to replace the OAS (Celac would be an option) efforts by AMLO and other Latin American governments aim to abolish the only regional organization with an operating system for the protection of human rights in the region.
Therefore, the result would not be greater autonomy for Latin America, but greater autonomy for oppressors and repressive regimes. CELAC will not comment on threats to democracy in Latin American countries, nor will it defend the protection of human rights in non-democratic regimes.
The turnaround: United States without direction and leadership
Problems leading up to the summit show that US influence in Latin America has waned and Latin American governments are becoming more assertive. To regain influence in Latin America, the US government must offer its southern partners economic incentives and support, as China does. So the invitation to a US-organized summit (regardless of what the event is called) would be a privilege, and non-participation would be associated with economic and political disadvantages.
However, such a policy lacks the necessary support in Congress. In fact, it seems symptomatic that eight ambassadorial posts in Latin America are vacant before the summit, including embassies in Brazil, Chile and for the OAS, mainly due to the obstructionist policies of the Republican senators.
The main causes of the problems in US policy towards Latin America are not found in Beijing, Mexico City or Buenos Aires, the problems are domestic. And in this sense, the question arises whether this vacuum of leadership on the part of the North American power in Latin America should not be used for more productive, realistic goals focused on the challenges of the future, instead of demanding international rehabilitation and reintegration. of worn-out dictatorial regimes.
