Failure of the Summit

The Sixth Summit of the Americas has concluded, having followed the example of previous summits (in Puerto Espana in 2009 and Mar de Plata in 2005). If the major points of contention in the two previous summits focused on trade (with the Free Trade Area of the Americas as the major target of opposition), the lack of consensus in the sixth version was based upon other crucial issues: Cuba’s participation (or non-participation), the legalization of drugs and the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

The major conflict for the hemisphere’s 34 countries that were invited was the exclusion of Cuba for not adhering to the Democratic Charter. The U.S. and Canada opposed Cuba’s inclusion, while Costa Rica and Panama supported the nation’s attendance. The claim against exclusion, led by the countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, was principally supported by Argentina, as well as several other countries, including Brazil and Uruguay. President Santos and Chancellor Holguin travelled to Cuba in March to explain to the Cuban government that it would not be invited to the summit due to a “lack of consensus.” They also visited President Chavez during his clinical treatment in order to request his understanding. Although their visit did prevent the convening of the summit from disruption, it did not prevent the issue of Cuba from becoming a hot topic there.

The initial boycott of the reunion in Cartagena by the countries of the Bolivian Alliance for the Americas, led by President Correa, resulted in Ecuador dropping out when the other Alliance leaders announced that they would attend the summit in order to promote Cuba’s inclusion. In reality, the only Bolivarian leader who did attend was President Morales. The Alliance’s two other two principal associates (Chavez and Ortega) did not attend.

The second major conflict was narcotrafficking in the region, affected by the excessive increase of organized crime and the accelerated deterioration of public safety. This issue was reflected in President Molina’s proposal to legalize drugs, which was met with opposition by the U.S.

The other discrepancy was over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The issue was promoted by Argentina and supported by the Latin American countries — who were more or less enthusiastic about the issue — and was a source of dissent due to U.S. relations with Great Britain, Canada’s membership in the Commonwealth of Nations and the influence of the English-speaking countries of the Caribbean.

None of the discrepancies were resolved and the summit ended in dissent. This was a major failure, which reached beyond the clearly defined mandates of transforming economic prosperity into social prosperity, of developing physical infrastructures and access to electricity, of coordinating the prevention of natural disasters, of strengthening the security of citizens and the OSA’s mandate to fight narcotrafficking. The summit’s failure demonstrated multiple discrepancies beyond the North-South conflict. Columbia’s success in holding the summit was pyrrhic because it did not rectify any of these discrepancies. The real triumph was by the Alliance because, without blocking the summit, it managed to define its parameters.

The effectiveness of this summit — and others like it — is doubtful, beyond the official photos taken.