The Fifth Summit of the Americas last weekend was a big deal for Trinidad and Tobago. To be precise, it was a big deal for Prime Minister Patrick Manning, who hailed the “spirit of cooperation” which seems to have been the hallmark of the hemispheric gathering.
But the summit has generated a lot of controversy in Trinidad and Tobago and the debate continues – not least because of poor public relations on the part of the government’s National Secretariat; the failure of the government to seek local buy-in by reaching out early enough to stakeholders and the consequent failure of citizens to fathom what benefits, if any, the country would derive from the host government’s reportedly huge expenditure in the midst of economic uncertainty; the many inconveniences imposed on the populace, especially in the capital, which resembled a ghost town during the mega event; heavy-handed security and the virtual surrender of sovereignty to the US Secret Service; and a range of embarrassing and avoidable logistical snafus.
These are perhaps issues best left to the people of Trinidad and Tobago to resolve, for notwithstanding the negatives, the Fifth Summit appears to have been a qualified success. No small achievement for a small Caribbean country.
Significantly, all 34 democratically elected leaders of the Americas attended, in spite of the existing ideological differences in the hemisphere and the pre-summit sound and fury that emanated from the usual suspects. Indeed, the political climate had prompted Mr Manning in March to undertake what he curiously termed a “peacekeeping mission” to Brazil, Paraguay, Ecuador, Mexico and Nicaragua to deal with any “contentious issues” that might arise. He had planned to visit Venezuela as well, but was snubbed by President Hugo Chávez, who claimed that he had pressing domestic matters to deal with. One is tempted to speculate that the Venezuelan president did not take kindly to Mr Manning’s pre-travel assertions.
But they all came to Port of Spain, including Mr Chávez, who appears to have been charm personified, and Evo Morales of Bolivia, who ended a hunger strike just days before the summit. And, in spite of the suspicions of some regarding the history of US involvement in Latin America and the Caribbean and the anger at the continuing US embargo on Cuba, they all seemed drawn by the magnetic presence of Barack Obama.
Indeed, there is a strong feeling that Mr Manning had been banking on Mr Obama’s participation as a guarantee of success. In this respect, the President of the United States did not disappoint and, from all reports, Mr Manning visibly basked in Mr Obama’s reflected glory. In the hemispheric context and with regard to the mood of the summit itself, Mr Obama appears to have been the undeniable star of the show and the key to its success, impressing all with his respectful, yet firm demeanour, his willingness to listen and engage, his now legendary cool and, of course, his announcement of a new direction in US hemispheric policy. And with regard to the national context, Professor Selwyn Ryan, the political scientist, had this to say: “Obama bailed out Manning.”
But the summit was not all about Mr Obama and there were “contentious issues.” The Declaration of Commitment of Port of Spain, focusing on human prosperity, energy security and environmental sustainability, was only signed by the host Prime Minister, who explained that while it did not have the unanimous approval of all 34 countries, there was consensus… whatever that means.
Back in March, syndicated columnist, Andrés Oppenheimer, had stated that the draft declaration was a “joke” and a waste of “time, money and trees.” On Sunday, he reiterated this view about the 97-article declaration, which Presidents Chávez, Morales and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, reportedly refused to sign, leaving Mr Manning to affix his signature in his capacity as chairman on behalf of his colleagues, to save face. One is left to surmise that the Prime Minister was badly advised about the value and political acceptability of the document.
Nonetheless, in a separate statement released by the chairman on Sunday afternoon, Mr Manning addressed the generally positive mood of cooperation, solidarity and engagement that prevailed, and highlighted some specific issues for action, notably, the reintegration of Cuba into the Inter-American System; developing relevant and coordinated responses to the current global financial crisis, including the recapitalization of the Inter-American Development Bank; and the reiteration of commitment to concrete support for development programmes in Haiti. With our limited understanding of how these things work, we are left to wonder why this concise and focused statement was not adopted as the official summit communiqué instead of the wordy, platitudinous and ultimately, contentious declaration.
The Fifth Summit is still being analyzed and more commentary is expected for some time yet, especially with regard to the follow-up.
Cuba and Haiti, along with other aspects of the focus on human prosperity, energy security and environmental sustainability, it is understood, will be dealt with at the OAS General Assembly in Honduras in June. The economic crisis will be addressed by ministers of finance in Chile in July.
Depending on what is undertaken at these meetings and others, we, along with all the citizens of the Americas, will know whether the spirit of cooperation and reconciliation evident at the Fifth Summit will have indeed heralded “a new era in inter-American relations,” as proclaimed in the Chairman’s statement.
