The 7th Summit of the Americas
The reconciliation between the U.S. and Cuba dominated the stage.
The 7th Summit of the Americas gave me a strange sensation. On one hand, corruption, the topic that threatens and weighs down the most important governments in the region – Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Argentina – didn’t appear on the agenda and wasn’t even mentioned by the speakers or observers. On the other hand, Cuba and the U.S. coming together – undoubtedly endowed with huge symbolic value – completely dominated the attention of both officials and the media without even summoning up the smallest practical meaning, neither for the U.S. or Cuba, nor for the other 33 countries represented in Panama.
Let me explain. Rousseff in Brazil, Bachelet in Chile, Fernandez in Argentina, and Pena Nieto in Mexico have seen their popularity ratings plummet, their governments paralyzed, and their economies stalled in the face of their own errors and attacks from both the harsh media and opponents who day by day discover new abuse scandals. In other countries – Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua – similar cases frequently burst out. It’s a phenomenon too extensive and controversial to attribute to a simple relevant trend: Something that had not happened before was happening. The summit itself, or one of the noted similar forums in Panama, offered a magnificent opportunity to start discussions. Nothing happened.
Nothing really happened – except for pictures, greetings, haranguing speeches, and countless common areas clogged with the press bewildered by the occasion and incapable of describing it beyond the descriptive “historic” – in reference to the U.S. and Cuba. In fact, little has happened since December, when both governments decided to resume relations. Obama still can’t open an embassy in Havana as he should, nor can he allow Castro to open his own in Washington. And we won’t even talk about lifting the embargo or even facilitating commerce, investment and tourism. As The New York Times (which encouraged Obama’s initiative) stated, “The big opening [in U.S. relations] looks more like a crack.” Nice examples like Netflix and Airbnb didn’t change the essentials: While the embargo still stands, everything else, like the summit, will be more symbolic than anything else. Regular flights, sales of U.S. cellular phones, clear regulations, credit or investments, and even the small steps, like using credit cards, have not significantly advanced.
Castro won in Panama because he achieved Cuban reinsertion in the Inter-American system in exchange for nothing. But for the U.S. to be a substitute for Venezuela as a last resort for the system, at almost 60 years old, much more should happen – not just pictures, symbolism and speeches.
The 7th Summit of the Americas gave me a strange sensation. On one hand, corruption, the topic that threatens and weighs down the most important governments in the region – Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Argentina – didn’t appear on the agenda and wasn’t even mentioned by the speakers or observers. On the other hand, Cuba and the U.S. coming together – undoubtedly endowed with huge symbolic value – completely dominated the attention of both officials and the media without even summoning up the smallest practical meaning, neither for the U.S. or Cuba, nor for the other 33 countries represented in Panama.
Let me explain. Rousseff in Brazil, Bachelet in Chile, Fernandez in Argentina, and Pena Nieto in Mexico have seen their popularity ratings plummet, their governments paralyzed, and their economies stalled in the face of their own errors and attacks from both the harsh media and opponents who day by day discover new abuse scandals. In other countries – Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua – similar cases frequently burst out. It’s a phenomenon too extensive and controversial to attribute to a simple relevant trend: Something that had not happened before was happening. The summit itself, or one of the noted similar forums in Panama, offered a magnificent opportunity to start discussions. Nothing happened.
Nothing really happened – except for pictures, greetings, haranguing speeches, and countless common areas clogged with the press bewildered by the occasion and incapable of describing it beyond the descriptive “historic” – in reference to the U.S. and Cuba. In fact, little has happened since December, when both governments decided to resume relations. Obama still can’t open an embassy in Havana as he should, nor can he allow Castro to open his own in Washington. And we won’t even talk about lifting the embargo or even facilitating commerce, investment and tourism. As The New York Times (which encouraged Obama’s initiative) stated, “The big opening [in U.S. relations] looks more like a crack.” Nice examples like Netflix and Airbnb didn’t change the essentials: While the embargo still stands, everything else, like the summit, will be more symbolic than anything else. Regular flights, sales of U.S. cellular phones, clear regulations, credit or investments, and even the small steps, like using credit cards, have not significantly advanced.
Castro won in Panama because he achieved Cuban reinsertion in the Inter-American system in exchange for nothing. But for the U.S. to be a substitute for Venezuela as a last resort for the system, at almost 60 years old, much more should happen – not just pictures, symbolism and speeches.
Previous article![]( "Hillary on the Attack and Under Fire")
Next article![]( "Cuba, an Enduring Patience")
