Latin American and Caribbean States Community Excludes U.S.

Last Friday, 33 Latin American and Caribbean heads of state gathered in Caracas, Venezuela for the first summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). The topic: increased regional integration that excludes the United States and Canada. While the often cited Bolivarian vision of Latin American unity remains sublime, very real differences among CELAC members threaten a functional regional organization.

However, regardless of the enterprise’s plausibility, the United States should reconsider its relationship with a region that has manifestly rejected U.S. influence.

CELAC seeks to unite vastly different nations. With a 2 trillion dollar GDP, Portuguese-speaking Brazil is the wealthiest country in the CELAC, and the seventh largest economy in the world. It is also the world’s fifth largest nation in terms of both area (8.5 million square kilometers) and its population (200 million). In contrast, French-speaking Haiti is the poorest country in both CELAC and the Western Hemisphere, and accommodating its 9.7 million inhabitants in 27.7 thousand square kilometers.

These contrasts are not limited to economic, demographic or geographic discrepancies. A wide spectrum of political ideologies – from communist Cuba, to populist Venezuela, to right-of-center Colombia – assembled to lay the foundation for future Latin American integration and policy cooperation.

Founded in 1986, the Grupo de Rio, became an international organization of Latin American states that held yearly gatherings. During its 2010 summit in Playa del Carmen, Mexico the group decided to formalize itself as the CELAC, with the objective of increasing regional integration within a framework of solidarity, economic cooperation and political coordination.

Given the crises currently befalling the European Union, such initiatives for regional integration provide hope for the future of international cooperation. However, just as in the case of Europe, the future of CELAC depends on a unified and pragmatic vision for the purpose of integration. Yet, already there appear to be divergent rationales for the new international organization.

“It would be risky to assert details of the significance of the CELAC. However, without a doubt the OAS is the past,” said Venezuelan president and summit host Hugo Chavez. “The OAS is a space that has always been manipulated, dominated by the United States. [...] The CELAC has been created with a new spirit of economic and political integration, and even social integration. It is something very different from the OAS. My personal opinion is that in time the CELAC will leave the OAS behind.”

However, as explained by the Colombian Minister of Foreign Affairs María Ángela Holguín, the OAS “has a powerful general secretariat, with numerous personnel dedicated to specific areas. The CELAC is more of a forum, which will have neither a secretariat, nor a structure as such because it is a forum of coordination and dialogue.”

While both Venezuela and Cuba might perceive the CELAC as a counterweight to U.S. influence in the region, preexisting trade relationships may undermine such intentions. Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic have free trade agreements with the United States. Mexico is a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Canada, while Colombia, Peru and Chile also have free trade agreements with the United States. Such ties will undoubtedly complicate complete political alienation of the United States, even if excluded from official membership.

In addition, CELAC would have to take into account the massive Latino presence in the United States and its growing political influence.

Dissonance is not limited to CELAC’s relationship to foreign entities. President of Mexico Felipe Calderon delivered an opening speech that urged further economic integration. “What is the purpose of this integration? It is to propel the progress of our peoples. In particular the prosperity and competitiveness of Latin America and the Caribbean, especially as the world economy confronts turbulent waters” he said. “We must quicken the pace [...] of economic integration. We must embrace integration not only in words but in actions that allow us to turn exchange into signs of prosperity, we must allow for the safe and fluid exchange of goods, services, people and investments.”

In a somewhat exasperated tone, Argentinian President Cristina Kirchner argued that, “to ensure the executive nature of these summits we must discuss real mechanisms for integration – that won’t happen with speeches,” she said. “We have a unique opportunity to make this summit more than a session of catharsis that doesn’t lead to real solutions.” Kirchner called upon other members to examine the European Union’s path as a way to emulate beneficial policies while avoiding harmful practices in the process.

Brazil, by most measures the most powerful member of the organization, shared neither Calderon’s enthusiasm for economic integration, nor Kirchner’s urgency to develop specific integrative mechanisms. “I think we will have to let [the CELAC] operate for some time” before fully developing its mechanisms said Brazilian Foreign Minister Jose Antonio Simoes. This measured stance may be the a result of Brazil’s already prominent role in the twelve member Union of South American Nations, a regional block it already leads. Brazil may also be pondering the parallels between a Germany bearing the European financial burden and Brazil committing to a similar role.

Despite divergent interests, and despite a somewhat ambiguous future, the Declaration of Caracas was unanimously approved last Friday, charting a relationship with considerable potential. Excluded from this organization, United States is denied access to a political and economic forum that represents half a billion people, twenty million square kilometers of territory, and some of the fastest growing economies in the world.

These developments represent a challenge to a history of U.S. regional influence first enshrined in the Monroe Doctrine (1823), and then asserted in the Roosevelt Corollary (1902). When U.S. foreign policy towards a region of the world as dynamic as Latin America changes little over two centuries, it should interpret its exclusion from the newly created CELAC as the dying throes of an anachronistic policy.

Dante Pérez is an international relations major interested in policy analysis and advocacy, currently living in Washington D.C.

More on Politic365

• Grim Signs for Democrats in OH and PA
• Mayors Pass Resolution — Bring Troops Home, Spend the Money Here
• Questions for Republicans Others Are Too Punk to Ask

5 Responses to Latin American and Caribbean States Community Excludes U.S.

1. Pingback: Latin American and Caribbean States Community Excludes US – Politic365 | Cref

2. Pingback: Latin American and Caribbean States Community Excludes US – Politic365 | E-zine

3. SiDevilIam says:

   10:14pm December 9, 2011 at 10:14 pm

   My dear Dante Perez,

   I am Sid Harth.

   I enjoyed reading your article, little too pessimistic in nature, without regard to the natual dread of South America's past history. Bolivarian logic was not practical. The times are a changing fast. Given the rising stars like Brazil, India, China and to some instance Russia and South Africa. These countries have crossed the imaginary boundaries, perhaps, the glass ceiling.

   Apart from European attempt to co-mingle disparate nations, from very poor to very rich, Say Portugal on the lower end and Germany at the top, no other instance of such magnificent idea, Oops, edifice in recent history exists.

   Given the priorities of each participating nations, no matter of what political color, they shall evolve onto a cohesive and accountable power withing a decade, plus minus, few years.

   I have a good reference to my visual image. Thomas L Friedman wrote a book, The World is Flat, A Brief History of Twenty-First Century Piccador/ Ferrar, Straus and Giroux New York, NY 2004, 2005, 2007

   The Author has written other books too.

   Your readers may find his logic more convincing than your conclusion..

   …and I am Sid Harth@sidileaks.net

   Reply

4. Pingback: Americas and I « The Devil and a Dingbat

5. Pingback: USA's public debt grows to war level - Page 4