The periodic Summit of the Americas was initiated in 1994 by US President Bill Clinton. Its stated aim was to redefine and strengthen relations among the countries of the western hemisphere in the post-Cold War era. It was specifically designed to advance US strategic interests in Latin America.

It is not an organisation like, say, the United Nations or the Organization of American States (OAS), with membership or a charter with prescribed rules and obligations to which its members commit themselves. It is simply a forum of heads of government — very much like the G8 and G20 — who agree to confer on specific issues of common interest and commit themselves to a specific set of principles and objectives.

The four broad objectives of the forum are the strengthening of democracy, promoting prosperity through economic integration and free trade, eradicating poverty and discrimination, and ensuring sustainable development.

From the inception of the summit heavy emphasis was placed on “the strengthening, effective exercise and consolidation of democracy”. It identified the OAS as “the principal hemispheric body for the defence of democratic values and institutions” among whose essential purposes is “the promotion and consolidation of representative democracy”.

However, although its secretariat is housed at the OAS headquarters, the summit is a completely separate endeavour. It does not appear in the organisational structure of the OAS, the highest body of which is the General Assembly, which is comprised of the permanent representatives of the member countries.

In practical terms, the summit is America’s workaround in treating with the countries of the region to avoid the political tensions that are prevalent in the OAS. It is intended to be a gathering of “like-minded” leaders and is the platform from which major US decisions affecting the region are announced, if not discussed.

Cuba’s exclusion

Cuba, which was then under suspension from the OAS since 1962, was not invited to the first summit which was held in Miami in 1994. It was not invited to the subsequent summits held in Chile (1998), Canada (2001), Argentina (2005), or Trinidad and Tobago (2009).

Subsequently, in June 2009, the General Assembly of the OAS voted unanimously (including the US under President Barack Obama) to rescind its 47-year suspension of Cuba. Cuba, however, declined the opportunity to resume its membership of the OAS, stating firmly that it had no desire or intention of doing so. It is reasonable to assume that it may have considered too onerous the obligation to conform to the provisions of the OAS Charter, especially the requirements relating to the holding of free and fair elections.

In the lead-up to the sixth summit, held in Colombia in 2012, a few Latin American leaders threatened to boycott if Cuba was not invited. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos flew to Havana to explain to Cuba’s President Raul Castro that, in the absence of a consensus, he was unable to extend an invitation to him. He was quoted as saying: “President Castro understands the situation and made it clear that he did not want to complicate matters for Colombia and would not make an issue of it,” but that he (President Santos) hoped that Cuba would be able to participate in the next summit in Panama in 2015.

Notwithstanding that effort at appeasement, Ecuador and Nicaragua boycotted the summit in protest over Cuba’s exclusion.

Panama President Juan Carlos Varela, as the host of the seventh summit held in 2015, and with the tacit agreement of Obama, extended a formal invitation to Cuba, which President Castro accepted. The meeting between Obama and Castro, which subsequently took place during the summit, was the first such encounter between the leaders of their two countries in more than 50 years.

Just prior to the eighth summit, which was held in Peru in 2018, Peru President Martin Vizcarra withdrew the invitation to Venezuela due to what was termed “the collapse of the democratic order in Venezuela”. Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua, although they attended, denounced the decision.

The decision as to who should be invited to each summit rests with the host Government, but is heavily influenced by the US. President Joe Biden, who hosted last week’s ninth summit, in Los Angeles, refused to invite Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. According to a White House statement, this was based on “a principled position that dictators should not be invited”, and it was inappropriate to have at the summit “leaders of administrations that do not respect democracy”. As was the case in the past, a few leaders — this time including the president of Mexico — refused to attend, in protest.

Obama’s support for Cuba’s invitation in 2015 followed on strategic moves he had made in 2014 to thaw the icy relations between the two countries, including the re-establishment of a US embassy in Havana. Cuba’s refusal to resume membership in the OAS and its seeming unwillingness to commit to a process of democracy-building could reasonably be interpreted to have undermined the purpose of that invitation.

Finding a space for inclusiveness

All that having been said, the effectiveness of the discussions at last week’s summit has unnecessarily been affected by the disquiet among some heads of government at the exclusion of particular leaders — on this occasion, not one but three — and the boycott of some leaders, especially President Lopez Obrador of Mexico. The aim of strengthening relations among countries of the western hemisphere is certain to have been impaired.

The problem, however, lies in trying to make of the Summit of the Americas what it is not and was never intended to be. It is not the OAS in plenary. If a core principle of the gathering is the strengthening of representative democracy, then Cuba, Venezuela (since 2015) and Nicaragua (since 2018) cannot be seen otherwise than to be in flagrant violation of that principle — an issue with which the OAS continues to struggle.

That does not obviate the need for engagement among leaders of all the countries of the Americas to deal with those issues that affect all of their countries regardless of their ideologies or political systems; issues such as climate change, natural disasters, biodiversity, drug trafficking, security, international terrorism, money laundering, human trafficking, pandemics, and even migration. With some good sense, goodwill and effort, it might even be possible, over time, to accommodate issues having to do with trade and investment.

The US has shown no discomfort in engaging with Vietnam or Laos — both communist dictatorships which would not meet the summit pre-qualifications for participation but with which it entered into “comprehensive partnerships” in 2013 and 2016, respectively. Those agreements identify areas of common interest to be pursued but which do not include any reference to political systems or ideologies. It demonstrates the US’s acceptance of pluralism in the pursuit of strategic interests. The US should similarly be prepared to engage with Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, but the Summit of the Americas, as its core principles are currently defined, is not the fit.

It is not without significance that, faced with the current oil crisis, and in spite of its imposition of sanctions and its refusal to recognise President Nicolas Maduro, the US, in pursuit of its strategic interests, dispatched a delegation to Venezuela in March which met with Maduro to discuss “energy security”.

Not by choice, but by geography, we all occupy an important segment of the global space with a population of over one billion, the majority of whom are in Latin America and the Caribbean. Even more so than Vietnam and Laos, the countries of the Americas need a conversation that is not disrupted and a focus that is not blurred or blinkered by political differences.

Bruce Golding served as Jamaica’s eighth prime minister from September 11, 2007 to October 23, 2011.