LATEST NEWS:
Columns
The Port of Spain 'fiasco'
Obama, Manning, Castros in 5th Summit of Americas
RICKEY SINGH ANALYSIS
Sunday, April 26, 2009
THIS past week's Fifth Summit of the Americas that, unexpectedly, turned out to be the "April 2009 political fiasco of Port of Spain", has now been extended into an amusing development in the only excluded country from the three-day hemispheric-wide event - Cuba.
 |
| RICKEY SINGH |
In Havana, the legendary 82-year-old Fidel Castro, who gave up the presidency 14 months ago to his 77-year-old brother, Raul, was indulging in what Trinidadians may regard as "picong politics" (a form of good-natured teasing) over the final outcome of the summit.
His writings, posted on the Cuban government's website and circulated by its diplomatic missions, included a mix of humour, such as his observation on the facial expression of host Prime Minister Patrick Manning.
But of much significance is his contention that President Barack Obama had "misinterpreted" what his brother, President Raul Castro, really meant when he earlier stated at a meeting in Venezuela, on the eve of the Port of Spain summit, that Cuba was prepared to discuss "any and everything" to bring about a new relationship between Havana and Washington.
This claim by the elder Castro, to which President Raul has remained deafeningly silent at the time of writing, could well result in President Obama wondering whether he may have trapped himself by misreading the perceived official Cuban overture for a Washington-Havana dialogue in favour of "a new beginning".
Of course, Obama was far from being specific in terms of how his own administration intends on helping to make this "new beginning" a reality - the core of which requires, of necessity, termination of America's almost 50-year-old economic blockade against Cuba.
Therefore, the suave, charismatic Obama could yet find himself in a words game with Fidel Castro about the practical benefits to unfold from the summit for the masses in this hemisphere without any serious initiatives in Washington to promote significant changes in US relations with Latin America and the Caribbean.
 |
| MANNING... sole signatory to the 22-page 'Declaration of Commitment' at the 5th Summit of the Americas |
Manning's dilemma
For his part, summit host and chairman Manning - driven on the defensive by his domestic opponents over the estimated US$230-million cost to his country for the event - cannot be amused by how he ended up in the unique position as the sole signatory to a "declaration" of perceived doubtful value, which has been in the making for at least two years.
Manning had successfully offered to host the summit in 2005 with the conclusion of the fourth such event in Argentina that (it is relevant to recall) was characterised by massive demonstrations, much chaos and tension and with the wily Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez engaged, along with some fellow radical leaders and others, in a virtual alternative summit.
As it was in Port of Spain last Sunday, so it had been in Mar del Plata, Argentina in 2005 - no formal adoption and no signatories.
The unique difference in 2009 - one that should mock all the Latin American and Caribbean leaders who made it happened - was that a leader of our Caribbean Community was misled into being the sole signatory to a "Declaration of Commitment" that seems destined to be treated with contempt by some of the key players whose disagreements had resulted in the unprecedented situation of the chairman signing "on behalf of all".
Question of relevance for the record is, what proof is there in defence of Mr Manning's decision to "act on behalf" of the other 33 Heads of State and Government, as "requested" to sign the "Declaration" that NONE of the others had the time and "commitment" to also join in doing?
And relatedly, why did he decide against including his OWN stand in favour of US-Cuba dialogue in his "Chairman's Statement", as I for one was informed would be forthcoming, should there be no collective agreement to sign off on the "Declaration"?
Mr Manning owes it to himself to explain why he chose to be so "co-operative", to the point of even diluting his Chairman's Statement that was weak on specifics - eg Cuba's presence as a "Caribbean family member" - but while offering classic Caricom-type rhetoric.
It is true that a "Declaration" is not a binding document. It, nevertheless, loses even its moral value, its influence to persuade or inspire implementation of principal provisions when participating leaders allow differences on fundamental issues they had identified during plenary and caucus sessions, to triumph in preference of even a consensual formal adoption.
President Obama was persistent in his refusal for an amendment to the Declaration to accommodate an inclusion on US-Cuba relations - in contrast to the overwhelming support for this from Latin American and Caribbean leaders.
Those leaders were also unsuccessful in efforts for the Declaration to reflect the failed capitalist model of development in this hemisphere and to also include a perspective on the results of the recent G-20 Summit in London on the prevailing global economic crisis.
Fidel's 'interpretation'
In the end, the "Obama charm" and eloquence that had contributed to diffusing pre-summit tension, involving irascible US opponents, like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega (with whom he shook hands), the sharp divide over Cuba-US relations, as well as differences in responses to the international economic crisis, prevailed. Result: Prime Minister Manning being the sole signatory to the 22-page "Declaration of Commitment" on behalf of fellow Heads whose own personal "commitment" to implementing what they refused to sign now remains to be assessed.
If we are to be guided by previous Summit of Americas "Declaration", it is perhaps advisable not to hold your breath for much success.
Already, on the burning issue of a "new beginning" in US-Cuba relations, within two days after the summit's conclusion, Fidel Castro came forward with his surprising statement that Barack Obama had misinterpreted the intent of Raul Castro's expressed readiness to discuss "any topic" with the USA.
According to him: "When the president of Cuba (Raul) said he was ready to discuss any topic with the US president, he meant he was not afraid of addressing any issue...That shows his courage and confidence in the principles of the Revolution...".
Question now is whether - as is most unlikely - Raul Castro will come forward with a public "explanation" of his own that reinforces Fidel Castro's argument.
Or is that the status that has been in existence for almost half a century - America's failed economic blockade against Cuba - will continue with perhaps only changes in the words game?
RSS Feeds