While the country was still coming to grips with the delayed election results last month, another in the seemingly interminable round of Latin American and Caribbean summits was being held in Caracas, on December 2-3. This time, it was the inaugural summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (known by its Spanish acronym, CELAC), under the chairmanship of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Guyana was not represented for the simple reason that we did not yet have a new government in place.
The summit reportedly focused on the global economic crisis and its effects on the region. The real interest in the new grouping, however, lay in how it would be constituted and what its precise objectives would be, against the backdrop of the proliferation of regional organizations, the exclusion of Canada and the United States of America, the inclusion of Cuba, and simmering, left-right ideological tensions in the Americas. Also, there were the strident utterances of countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela, the main members of the Chávez-led Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), which have advocated making CELAC a replacement for or an alternative to the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS), regarded by some as a tool of the USA. But there does not appear to be wider support for this.
Indeed, the chairmanship of CELAC passed to Chile at the end of the summit and the Chilean foreign minister has already rejected this idea. Apart from the fact that the current OAS Secretary General is Chilean, that country’s centre-right government would be hardly likely to countenance such a radical move, not least because Chile, like many other Latin American and Caribbean countries, also enjoys close political and economic relations with the USA.
Interestingly enough, the chairmanship will pass to Cuba at the end of Chile’s term, suggesting a certain left-right-left progression as the region marches towards closer consultation and cooperation.
In attempting to understand the creation of CELAC, one has to go back to 1983 and the establishment of the Contadora Group, comprising Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, to help find a peaceful solution to the civil wars wracking Central America. By 1985, Contadora had morphed into the Group of Eight, with the incorporation of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. This formally became the Rio Group in 1986, a mechanism for political dialogue and consultation for all Latin America, including Cuba, and with the participation of a Caricom representative on a rotating basis.
The past few years saw an intensification of the regional process, with the establishment of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) in 2008, an initiative of President Lula da Silva of Brazil, and the convening by Mr Lula of the Latin American and Caribbean Integration and Development Summit in December that year, as the precursor to CELAC. In February 2010, at the so-called Rio Group-Caricom Unity Summit, held in Cancún, Mexico, the host, President Felipe Calderón, perhaps keen to reaffirm Mexico’s leadership role, announced the formation of CELAC, comprising all 33 independent Latin American and Caribbean states,.
Coming out of the Caracas summit, it seems that, in spite of pressure from Venezuela and its allies, the new grouping will not be transformed – not yet, at least – into an organization with its own permanent secretariat or budget. It will remain a mechanism for dialogue and consultation, with the chairmanship rotating on an annual basis. Quite simply, neither the political will nor the capacity exists, especially in the case of the smaller Caribbean countries, to create a new, burdensome bureaucracy that would require significant diversions of human and financial resources.
Thus, we are left with a sort of OAS, without Canada or the USA, but, crucially, without many of the elements necessary for the functioning of an international organization. All of which begs the question, why bother?
The Rio Group coexisted with the OAS, even as it was viewed as an alternative to the OAS, maintaining its character as an informal and therefore flexible group, without the need to confront the USA. UNASUR has been taking incremental steps towards establishing its institutional profile and structure. In the case of CELAC, there is a sense that, notwithstanding ideological differences, most of Latin America and the Caribbean would like to shape their own destiny without the interference of their northern neighbours. To some degree, the perception of a waning of US interest in the region, following the false dawn of President Barack Obama’s starring role at the 5th Summit of the Americas in Trinidad in 2009, may have contributed to the creation of CELAC.
Nonetheless, there are too many mutual interests at stake – free trade agreements, energy, security, migration, remittances, etc – to alienate the USA completely from the region. But the message is clear: the balance is shifting and Latin America, at least, is not as dependent on the USA as it used to be and there is scope to deepen regional cooperation in areas such as infrastructure, energy and social programmes, regardless of ideological or political differences.
