Presidential diplomacy in Latin America always has an extra spice. It does not matter if they are Ibero-American, American or South American summits, the different personalities and orientations of their leaders generate impact and debates that, although they do not produce profound changes, provide a portrait of the conjuncture of the region and, at the same time, shape agendas. of political debate.
The Summit of the Americas, held in Los Angeles during the second week of June, was no exception. The fuse was lit when US President Joe Biden announced at the last minute and after weeks of uncertainty that the presidents of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela would not be invited to the conclave. This decision marked the event, which will certainly go down in the history of the summits due to the absences and the debates that followed.
Everyone plays their game
In the end, the summit became a space that privileged the internal –national– demands of the different representatives. Just as Mexican President López Obrador sought to consolidate his own political capital, the harshness of US President Joe Biden in the face of dictatorships can also be understood with a view to continuing to strengthen his image as an international leader, after meeting with the presidents of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) in the United States and travel to Japan and South Korea. And, of course, on the horizon are the Senate elections in November, where 34 of the 100 seats will be elected.
However, much of the underlying problem arises because the United States has also demonstrated that its lack of policy in the region has consequences. At the 2015 Summit, Obama whitewashed Cuba and invited it to participate in the event. At the 2018 Summit, Trump did not even deign to participate, and at this, again, restrictions on dictatorships appeared. This only serves to highlight the absence of a coherent policy sustained over time by the northern power for the region.
Therefore, there is no point in looking for punctual scenarios like the one offered by the presidential summit without major concerns about the practical effects. What is certain is that the issue of respect for democracy does not appear as a permanent concern on the agenda of American countries in general and of the United States in particular. And this is not only done by imposing punishments or turning a blind eye, depending on the occasion, but with continuous policies, before and after the summits.
It was also evident that the “de-democratization” that the region is experiencing is not only a concern for many American governments, but that an important part of civil society organizations has manifested itself – some more clearly than others – in defense of the three dictatorships in question.
There is a perception that the United States is no longer a leading factor in leadership or that its voice as a promoter of democracy has been greatly undervalued. Its break with the Central American countries, which were its historical allies, is a sign of this. The same applies to Xiomara Castro’s risky bet on Honduras as a way of balancing regional power. Castro’s absence and his alignment behind the region’s dictatorships was the first setback of this merely reactive policy.
What the summit showed was the existence of an empty space for democratic leadership. The United States left a void by relegating Latin America to the list of concerns. Today this vacuum is being filled by other powers, such as China and Russia. This strengthened the power and self-esteem of the authoritarian sectors, at the same time that it produced a disarticulation of the democratic sectors.
But, in addition to the negative feelings, a positive aspect that the summit left is that the debate on democracy has occupied the foreground. It was also clear who has defended the role of dictators as legitimate rulers, which highlighted the authoritarian advance in the region.
Now, what matters is how this story continues. It is about sustaining an effort to shield and protect democracies that are in crisis and permanently supporting genuinely democratic sectors that survive, sometimes under very harsh conditions.
