POLITICALOPINION

Wrong Time and Place

Director, Center for Hemispheric Policy, University of Miami

The recent Summit of the Americas in Cartagena was a wasted opportunity. Instead of using the meeting to discuss areas of potential cooperation among hemispheric leaders to help solve common problems, the Latin American presidents focused on issues that they knew would provoke maximum polarization between the United States and Latin America. Clearly, their decision was made at the wrong time and the wrong place. The principal polarizing issues were the insistence on including Cuba in future Summits, their support for Argentinas claim to the Falkland Islands, and the idea to consider the legalization of drugs. The Cuban issue was the most polarizing. Everyone at the Summit knew that President Obama was facing re-election in November and that a vote to include the Cuban dictatorship in a Summit of democratically-elected presidents would be political suicide for the U.S. president. The timing of the defense of Cuba was bizarre. Fidel and Raul Castro are in their 80s. This means that Cuba will be facing a political transition in the near future. Instead of pressing to include the worlds currently oldest dictatorship in future summits, the regions democratic leaders should begin working together to facilitate a democratic transition on the island. In addition, Hugo Chvez, Venezuelas elected president who uses the democratic rules of the game precisely to undermine Venezuelas democratic institutions, is seriously ill with cancer and, if a recent speech by him is any indication, does not expect to be around much longer. Here again, the democratic presidents of Latin America should be cooperating to help ensure that Venezuelas presidential election, scheduled for October, will be free and fair. A democratic Venezuela, one that is not allied with some of the worlds most repressive dictatorships, would reinforce democratic development in region. Chavismo without Chvez would do the opposite. In fact, as the journalist Carlos Alberto Montaner recently pointed out, Latin America and the United States have reversed their positions regarding the befriending of undemocratic regimes. During the Cold War, the Latin Americans were very critical of U.S. support for military dictatorships in the hemisphere, arguing that U.S. foreign policy should favor democracy over dictatorship. Now, it is the United States that is critical of Latin Americas

dictatorships and elected authoritarians, while Latin American countries befriend and support these regimes. The other two polarizing issues of the Summit were less conflictual, but polarizing nonetheless. On the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War, Argentina suddenly decided to demand the return of the islands from Great Britain. Neither the United States nor Canada share this view, since Argentina started the Falklands War in 1982, which Britain won. The issue could have been discussed privately instead of so publicly. Regarding the legalization of drugs, the third polarizing issue, the Latin Americans showed themselves to be less united. The Colombian president diplomatically shifted the focus from pressing for legalization to opening the discussion concerning potential legalization. Again, however, the timing was bad for such a discussion, given the coming U.S. presidential election. While some U.S. states have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes, there is little support in the United States for legalizing hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Any president who even hinted that he supported legalization would not be re-elected. Once again, the Summit agenda pitted the Latin American leaders against the U.S. president. This does not mean that drug legalization and other polarizing issues are not worthy of discussion. It only means that unnecessarily polarizing issues should not be discussed at a hemispheric summit. For example, the issue of growing protectionism in the hemisphere was discussed privately in Cartagena. Was this because it did not easily divide the hemisphere into Latin America vs. the United States and instead, would have highlighted the conflicts between Brazil and Argentina, or between Mexico and Brazil? After the Summit, the conventional wisdom was that it had been a failure, in part because it did not result in the release of a signed statement of consensus. As Colombias President Santos explained, there was no consensus document because there was no consensus. But the sense of failure was also caused by the realization that the Summit had been used more to create a false sense of Latin American unity by focusing public discussions on issues that pit Latin America against the United States, rather than to strengthen hemispheric problem-solving and democratic development.

AMRICAECONOMA / MAY 2012