Summit of the Americas: A Whispered Roar
Published in Al Khaleej
(United Arab Emirates) on 18 April 2012
by Jamil Matar (link to original)
No one waited for the Sixth Summit of the Americas to produce resolutions that are worth the efforts made by Columbia in preparation for the conference. No one waited for a resolution calling for officials in Cuba to travel immediately to the city of Cartagena and participate in its proceedings. Also, no one waited for a resolution declaring America’s legalization of drug use, production and marketing. No one waited for the governments of the continents, some of whom still consider themselves representatives of the revolution supporting the youth protests moving from Chile to other countries in South America.
Many issues were discussed in the conference, including trade-related issues, the need for South American countries to lift some of their trade restrictions on exports to the United States, the facilitation of the travel of businessmen and students and Argentina’s request for the summit to support its rights in the Malvinas Islands. However, the most important issues are those that have been discussed and debated in the halls outside before the conference, and some discussions will continue after the delegates return home. I am sure that this conference, like most summits everywhere, would not have received the attention it did by the popular media had it not been for the issue created by President Obama’s Secret Service. Otherwise, the media content would have been cut in half.
One can envision the guards of the U.S. president, with their reputation for discipline, strength and high moral character, with their suits, sunglasses and black earphones dangling on their chests. Yet a number of them chaotically argued in the hotel over disagreements with Columbian prostitutes. President Obama had not yet arrived, but the scandal dominated the news from the time of his departure to his first meetings. Though the news seemed worthy enough to satisfy the insatiable American media and eclipse the news of the ongoing U.S. presidential election, it was also enough to eclipse the ongoing preparations for the summit and its themes. Originally, South America did not enjoy ample space in the American media and public opinion. Indeed, the summit could have passed without any notice or care from the public had it not been for the Secret Service debacle which succeeded in drawing attention to Columbia and the summit before the public went back to ignoring them.
Brazilian President Rousseff came to Washington last week for her first visit since taking power and in response to Obama’s visit to Brazil last year. I read some media sites that were critical of the cold reception to the Brazilian president in the United States and heard an accurate description of the meeting between the two presidents that stated they had not even looked at each other.
Much has been said about the deliberate negligence on the part of the United States toward Brazil, what about it merits attention, and what about it does not. Most interpret the relationship between the two countries in the same way one friend of a U.S. specialist in American foreign policy has done. He says that we as followers of U.S. foreign policy sometimes forget that the Great State has been long accustomed to a particular method of dealing with a small country, or finds it difficult to deal with a small state when it becomes a large one or when it calls for different treatment or recognition of its power and progress which its regional and international leadership has obtained both in political and physical force, such as when they demand a permanent seat on the Security Council.
We understand this as a reality of what we experience in everyday life. Notice, for example, the difficulty that supervisors have when dealing with subordinates who have or are about to become leaders. There is certainly a tendency of the supervisor to resist, sometimes fiercely, the new reality and try to maintain a comparative advantage by retaining seniority and the right to continue exercising his leadership role. There is no doubt that something similar is happening on the state level. The United States is used to dealing with Brazil as it would with a small and poor state and during these tumultuous times of riots, deliberately boasts of the differences between the peoples of the two continents in everything, including language. America has seen this state become the sixth strongest economy in the world, a state that has replaced Great Britain in terms of physical force, a country that eliminated Mexico’s chances of leading the southern continent after Mexico had been the prime candidate only 10 years ago, and a state in which its people sing at every opportunity full of pride and self-confidence, “We are the best nation in the world.” If such a development seemed normal to emerging nations, it does not seem so to the United States, who has always thought that South America could not produce a great state.
When asked about Brazil’s secret and Mexico’s fall, Carlos Slim, a Mexican and the wealthiest man in the world, said that they have an optimistic people, while Mexico’s people are pessimistic. I imagine that Carlos Slim expressed it best; as a stranger to the area he may see the gloomy mood that dominates the majority of the Mexican population, in contrast to the jubilant and cheerful mood that characterizes Brazilian citizens and hardly leaves them.
I think that I will borrow this expression to compare the summits held almost weekly in various parts of the world. There are already summits which are dominated by melancholic moods and summits which look a shade lighter from the start. I can almost guarantee that the amount of world summits is increasing, not including the Arab summits because many are still developing at the present time. Despite all the troubles faced by world leaders, their optimism is rising, in contrast to the heads of advanced industrial countries who are becoming more pessimistic. In other words, formerly strong countries are suffering from depression while emerging countries are behaving optimistically in terms of their culture, civilization, power and economy.
The Sixth Summit of the Americas was a valuable opportunity for those who want to know more about the rise of nations and the problems associated with their rise. We have seen in this summit how small countries put pressure on a superpower to accept responsibility for the war on drugs. This war has cost Mexico alone more than 50,000 people in six years and has cost Columbia dearly, as well as political and social costs to all the countries in and outside the continent. Drugs and the war against them threaten the security and peoples of the peoples of Latin America. These people have lived in close proximity to the U.S., the largest market for these drugs. Many heads of Latin American states have not hidden their criticism in this regard, from former Brazilian President Fernando Enrique Cardoso to former Mexican President Felipe Calderón to current Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina. An article published by Britain’s “The Guardian” called the legalization of drugs permissible. However, the rulers of the southern continent gathering at the conference were appropriately warned before the session, and Obama’s ignominy places him in a position where he cannot complain about the legalization of drug consumption in America. This current year is an election year and conservatives in the Republican Party would have declared war against him if he dared to do so.
Many issues were discussed in the conference, including trade-related issues, the need for South American countries to lift some of their trade restrictions on exports to the United States, the facilitation of the travel of businessmen and students and Argentina’s request for the summit to support its rights in the Malvinas Islands. However, the most important issues are those that have been discussed and debated in the halls outside before the conference, and some discussions will continue after the delegates return home. I am sure that this conference, like most summits everywhere, would not have received the attention it did by the popular media had it not been for the issue created by President Obama’s Secret Service. Otherwise, the media content would have been cut in half.
One can envision the guards of the U.S. president, with their reputation for discipline, strength and high moral character, with their suits, sunglasses and black earphones dangling on their chests. Yet a number of them chaotically argued in the hotel over disagreements with Columbian prostitutes. President Obama had not yet arrived, but the scandal dominated the news from the time of his departure to his first meetings. Though the news seemed worthy enough to satisfy the insatiable American media and eclipse the news of the ongoing U.S. presidential election, it was also enough to eclipse the ongoing preparations for the summit and its themes. Originally, South America did not enjoy ample space in the American media and public opinion. Indeed, the summit could have passed without any notice or care from the public had it not been for the Secret Service debacle which succeeded in drawing attention to Columbia and the summit before the public went back to ignoring them.
Brazilian President Rousseff came to Washington last week for her first visit since taking power and in response to Obama’s visit to Brazil last year. I read some media sites that were critical of the cold reception to the Brazilian president in the United States and heard an accurate description of the meeting between the two presidents that stated they had not even looked at each other.
Much has been said about the deliberate negligence on the part of the United States toward Brazil, what about it merits attention, and what about it does not. Most interpret the relationship between the two countries in the same way one friend of a U.S. specialist in American foreign policy has done. He says that we as followers of U.S. foreign policy sometimes forget that the Great State has been long accustomed to a particular method of dealing with a small country, or finds it difficult to deal with a small state when it becomes a large one or when it calls for different treatment or recognition of its power and progress which its regional and international leadership has obtained both in political and physical force, such as when they demand a permanent seat on the Security Council.
We understand this as a reality of what we experience in everyday life. Notice, for example, the difficulty that supervisors have when dealing with subordinates who have or are about to become leaders. There is certainly a tendency of the supervisor to resist, sometimes fiercely, the new reality and try to maintain a comparative advantage by retaining seniority and the right to continue exercising his leadership role. There is no doubt that something similar is happening on the state level. The United States is used to dealing with Brazil as it would with a small and poor state and during these tumultuous times of riots, deliberately boasts of the differences between the peoples of the two continents in everything, including language. America has seen this state become the sixth strongest economy in the world, a state that has replaced Great Britain in terms of physical force, a country that eliminated Mexico’s chances of leading the southern continent after Mexico had been the prime candidate only 10 years ago, and a state in which its people sing at every opportunity full of pride and self-confidence, “We are the best nation in the world.” If such a development seemed normal to emerging nations, it does not seem so to the United States, who has always thought that South America could not produce a great state.
When asked about Brazil’s secret and Mexico’s fall, Carlos Slim, a Mexican and the wealthiest man in the world, said that they have an optimistic people, while Mexico’s people are pessimistic. I imagine that Carlos Slim expressed it best; as a stranger to the area he may see the gloomy mood that dominates the majority of the Mexican population, in contrast to the jubilant and cheerful mood that characterizes Brazilian citizens and hardly leaves them.
I think that I will borrow this expression to compare the summits held almost weekly in various parts of the world. There are already summits which are dominated by melancholic moods and summits which look a shade lighter from the start. I can almost guarantee that the amount of world summits is increasing, not including the Arab summits because many are still developing at the present time. Despite all the troubles faced by world leaders, their optimism is rising, in contrast to the heads of advanced industrial countries who are becoming more pessimistic. In other words, formerly strong countries are suffering from depression while emerging countries are behaving optimistically in terms of their culture, civilization, power and economy.
The Sixth Summit of the Americas was a valuable opportunity for those who want to know more about the rise of nations and the problems associated with their rise. We have seen in this summit how small countries put pressure on a superpower to accept responsibility for the war on drugs. This war has cost Mexico alone more than 50,000 people in six years and has cost Columbia dearly, as well as political and social costs to all the countries in and outside the continent. Drugs and the war against them threaten the security and peoples of the peoples of Latin America. These people have lived in close proximity to the U.S., the largest market for these drugs. Many heads of Latin American states have not hidden their criticism in this regard, from former Brazilian President Fernando Enrique Cardoso to former Mexican President Felipe Calderón to current Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina. An article published by Britain’s “The Guardian” called the legalization of drugs permissible. However, the rulers of the southern continent gathering at the conference were appropriately warned before the session, and Obama’s ignominy places him in a position where he cannot complain about the legalization of drug consumption in America. This current year is an election year and conservatives in the Republican Party would have declared war against him if he dared to do so.
Saying there would have been half the news coverage of the summit without the prostitutes is being being overly kind. And why Latin American countries do not collectively tell the US to go to Hell with it’s religiously inspired Drug War that’s killing hundreds of thousands of it’s citizens every year, along with the deliberate and ongoing abuse of the Cuban people is beyond my understanding.