As last Friday’s editorial made clear, President Barack Obama, in seeing the error of the ways of previous US administrations and opting for the path of diplomacy, has opened a new chapter in his country’s relations with Cuba. With more than 50 years of enmity consigned to the scrapheap of failed policies, Mr Obama is clearly hoping to nudge Cuba and Cubans, through diplomatic and eventually economic engagement towards a more open, democratic state that would also embrace fundamental human rights. Hardly anyone believes that change in Cuba will occur overnight; this is a long-term objective. But in rejecting the ostracism of previous decades, Mr Obama’s more enlightened approach has given rise to considerable optimism regarding the future of USA-Cuba relations and development in Cuba.
As we also noted last Friday, the new relationship, sealed by a warm handshake and a historic bilateral meeting made the Seventh Summit of the Americas a triumph for the two former adversaries. The Summit itself, however, was anything but an unqualified success.
There was no Declaration of Panama coming out of the Summit on the overarching theme, “Prosperity with Equity”, and this was because there was no hemispheric, political consensus. There was no consensus because of differences over the deteriorating situation in Venezuela and the deterioration of USA-Venezuela relations. The sub-themes of health, education, energy, the environment, migration, security, citizen participation and democratic governance, which the Summit was supposed to address, therefore took a backseat to the bigger geopolitical dramas being played out. And whilst the Venezuela imbroglio was not allowed to overshadow the rapprochement between the USA and Cuba, it certainly had a role in derailing the main objectives of the Summit.
The Summit ended with a statement read out by the host, President Juan Carlos Varela of Panama, who indicated that there was agreement on “90 percent” of the sub-themes and that mandates would be sent to international and regional organisations for follow-up action regarding financing and implementation. Among these were commitments to widen access to education, create new development programmes, promote the use of renewable energies and environmental protection, collaborate in combating terrorism and organised crime, and mitigate the effects of climate change.
All well and good but no final omnibus declaration could be issued because there was no unanimity on the preamble and the paragraphs dealing with democratic governance. This was due to Venezuela’s insistence, supported strongly by its leftist allies, that there should be condemnation of the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration, on March 9, 2015, against seven members of Mr Maduro’s government for alleged human rights violations, and the accompanying executive order which declared that Venezuela posed an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States”. The White House had tried to play down the harsh language used, saying that it was “standard” in such circumstances but even friendly commentators had cause to opine that Washington’s response was “heavy handed” and had exacerbated an already tense situation.
There was, however, another Declaration of Panama, issued on the eve of the Summit and, ironically, it treated with the situation in Venezuela. It was signed by approximately 25 former Ibero-American leaders, including Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil), Ricardo Lagos (Chile), Hipólito Mejía (Dominican Republic) and José María Aznar (Spain), who denounced the “severe democratic crisis” in Venezuela and called for negotiations to find a non-violent solution, the freeing of political prisoners and guarantees for the next elections, in conformity with democratic and constitutional principles and international norms. One does not know what quiet diplomacy on Venezuela might be taking place behind the scenes among Latin American and Caribbean countries but even if current leaders appear reluctant to criticise the Venezuelan government, there are other weighty voices making themselves heard.
What we do know is that Mr Obama and Mr Maduro had an informal, non-confrontational corridor encounter and spoke for about ten minutes. US sources reported that the former expressed his desire for “a peaceful dialogue between the different political factions” in Venezuela, reiterating that the USA had no interest in “threatening Venezuela but rather in supporting its democracy, its stability and its prosperity.” For his part, Mr Maduro said in a press conference that the meeting had opened the way for “the possibility of pursuing a process of conversations” and “respectful relations”. It would seem then that progress of sorts appears to have been made despite the public posturing of Mr Maduro and his friends.
As President Varela declared at the end of the Summit, “The decision announced by the Presidents of Cuba and the United States to make progress toward a new approach in the relations between their countries created a legitimate expectation for the resolution of situations, both age-old and recent, that have heightened tensions in hemispheric relations. This Summit has served to build bridges in that direction.” One supposes that “recent’ refers to the USA and Venezuela and that the message is that the path of diplomacy, so successful in the USA-Cuba breakthrough, should prevail.
