The Semi-Summit of the Americas
The Summit of the Americas offered an opportunity for the Biden Administration to stride forward, separating itself from the baleful linked histories of Donald Trump and Covid 19. Instead it stumbled backward.
After finding himself isolated on the issue of Cuba's participation at the Sixth Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, President Obama removed Dan Restrepo as his top White House advisor on the Western Hemisphere and embarked on the policy that led to normalization of relations and the beginning of serious mutual engagement with Havana.
Will a similar process happen in the wake of the limited
success of the Ninth Summit in Los Angeles?
In ostensible support of its ideological spin on democracy,
the US excluded Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Seven country
presidents chose not to attend: Mexico, Bolivia, Honduras, St Vincent, Antigua,
Guatemala, El Salvador. To obtain his presence, the anti-democratic Brazilian
President Bolsanaro was given an electorally useful one-on-one appointment with
President Biden.
Through a self-inflicted wound, the Biden Administration
lost over 25% of top level participation and squandered an opportunity to
unite the hemisphere. What did it gain? Will there be any impact
this time on those responsible for misjudgment in the National Security
Council and the State Department?
From The Atlantic's story about the Summit:
Latin American leaders emphasized
an alternative set of issues: They spoke about poverty and inequality; the
economic impact of rising inflation; the cost of food, fuel, and fertilizers;
and rising debt burdens on their countries, which had to cope with a set of
problems they had not caused, including climate change, arms trafficking, and
the economic effects of Russia’s war on Ukraine. And many of them scolded Biden
over his choice to exclude the region’s nondemocratic governments.
“When we disagree, we need to be
able to speak to each other face-to-face,” said Gabriel Boric, the young
Chilean president. He called for both the freeing of political prisoners in Nicaragua
and the end of the U.S. embargo on Cuba.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/06/biden-summit-of-the-americas-latin-america/661257/
From the New York Times coverage of the Summit
Johnny Briceño, the prime minister
of Belize, publicly chastised Mr. Biden in a remarkable speech just moments
after the president had left the lectern. Mr. Briceño said it was
“inexcusable” that the United States had blocked Cuba and Venezuela from
attending the summit, a decision that sparked the boycott by four countries.
“At this most critical juncture,
when the future of our hemisphere is at stake, we stand divided,” he said. “And
that is why the Summit of the Americas should have been inclusive.”
President Alberto Fernández of
Argentina also lashed out at the United States and called for a change in the
rules that allowed Mr. Biden, as the host of the summit, to decide who was
invited to the gathering.
“We definitely would have wished
for a different Summit of the Americas,” he said. “The silence of those who are
absent is calling to us.”...
The absences have cast doubt on the
relevance of a summit that was meant to demonstrate cooperation among neighbors
but has instead loudly broadcast rifts in a region that is increasingly willing
to defy American leadership.
“It shows the deep divisions in the
continent,” said Martha Bárcena, the former Mexican ambassador to the United
States. The leaders who decided against attending, Ms. Bárcena said, are
“challenging U.S. influence, because U.S. influence has been diminishing in the
continent.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/politics/biden-americas-summit.html
The Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Amor Mottley, told the
Summit,
“It’s wrong that Cuba and Venezuela
and Nicaragua are not here, because as you heard from Bahamas, we need to speak
with those with whom we disagree….There’s too much narrow-casting instead of
broadcasting. There’s too much talking at, instead of talking with…. And the
simple priority must be people, not ideology.”
From the Washington Post story about Colombia's election
But Michael Shifter, a fellow at
the Inter-American Dialogue... says it reflects a new reality captured by
the division at Biden's Summit of the Americas earlier this month. "Latin
America is going its way and the United States is going its way," he said.
...
On Sunday night, Petro called for
"a dialogue in the Americas without exclusions," ...
Petro told The Washington Post that he envisions a progressive alliance with Chile and Brazil, a new Latin American left built not on extractive industries but rather on protecting the environment. He also said he would normalize relations with neighboring Venezuela
The hostile to the government on line publication 14ymedio included this in its pro-US assessment of the Summit:
Mexico, represented by its foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, also came to say more or less the same thing and condemned the United States, saying that “20 countries spoke out against the exclusions, 10 did not speak out and only 2 were in favor.”
As always, Cuba is the fulcrum for US standing in the Hemisphere.
Reading comments by US officials in recent weeks reveals attitudes and
assumptions that are vintage pre-Obama. (highlighted excerpts below)
Most recently State Department Press Secretary Ned Price naively or disingenuously tried to distinguish US history with and attitudes about Cuba from China’s perspective on Taiwan. White House Press Secretary Jean-Pierre, Secretary of State Blinken and anonymous senior officials strained to make consistent President Biden's plans to meet with murderous Saudi leaders with his anti-dictator stance about the Summit. Secretary Blinken ducked when asked why the unelected corrupt and probably deadly leader of Haiti was invited. A Senior Administration Official discounted the contradictory message of a one-on-one prestige enhancing meeting with the anti-democratic Brazilian president and candidate Bolsinaro and acknowledged preoccupation with the views of Congress.
Press Secretary Jean-Pierre compared Biden’s meeting with ASEAN heads of State to the Summit, without noting the event included the varied democracies of Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Cambodia and Thailand. Another Senior Administration Official justified exclusion based on a questionably applicable 2001 Summit position, completely ignoring the subsequent decision to include Cuba in the Seventh and Eighth Summits in Panama and Peru. Secretary Blinken presumptively chose the civil society NGOs that represented countries more than their functioning governments. National Security Advisor Sullivan dismissed as “idiosyncratic” the positions of countries that from principle would not participate in an exclusionist Summit. Secretary Blinken asserted the US right as host to reimpose the 2001 Democratic Charter of the Americas and to have a double standard if it is in US interests.
A Senior Administration Official insisted that announcements of reform of US policy on Cuba were not related to the Summit, but Reuters reported "A Treasury Department official said publication of the new regulations was purposefully aligned with the U.S.-hosted Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles."
Is their unthinking US exceptionalism based on ignorance of history, politically opportunistic hypocrisy, ideological blinders or a conscious embrace of Monroe Doctrine hegemonism. Maybe it is the latest manifestation of Wayne Smith's full moon and vampire theory of Havana's impact on Washington or Lou Perez thesis of “Cuba as an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder”.
I suppose it is also possible that Secretary Blinken and his White House
colleagues are so caught up in the self-created US bubble that they honestly
believe that Juan Guaido and our sponsored Cuban dissidents truly are the
authentic voices of their people, like Donald Trump truly believes he was reelected
and China and Russia truly believe in the fulfillment of their regional
destiny.
For the sake of both the US and Cuba, I hope that the disappointment of the
Summit of the Americas and the electoral results in Mexico, Bolivia, Argentina,
Peru, Costa Rica, Honduras, Chile, Colombia and anticipated in Brazil lead to a
profound rethink of US policy before China and Russia take full advantage of
our obliviousness and/or intransigence.
John McAuliff
Peace Corps Peru,1964-66
First National President, Committee of Returned Volunteers
Executive Director, Fund for Reconciliation and Development
62 time visitor to Cuba since 1997
David Jessop
The View from Europe
The recently ended Summit of the Americas will likely be best remembered for the US decision not to invite Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, the chaotic unprepared way in which Washington tried to manage this, and the decision by some hemispheric leaders, most notably Mexico’s President, not to attend.
While this may be unfair in terms of substance, it is a real indication that in the longer-term, US influence in the Americas is waning and that others sense opportunity for influence or division....
China’s confidence in its burgeoning economic and political influence in Latin America and the Caribbean can be seen in the post Summit criticism leveled by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Zhao Lijian, who bluntly asserted: “the US needs to abandon its attachment to the outdated Monroe Doctrine and highhanded approach.” This same awareness of Washington’s slowly declining influence can also be seen in Russian actions and comments. It to believes that the Monroe Doctrine era is over and has said that its intention now is to deepen relations with Latin and Caribbean nations that have remained neutral on the war in Ukraine.
https://dominicantoday.com/dr/opinion/2022/06/24/us-influence-in-the-americas-is-waning/
Our June 14 webinar on travel and the Summit https://youtu.be/2PAp774zNSg
Our June 13 newsletter https://conta.cc/3xLF9HK
****************************
The moral and historical insularity of the Biden
Administration is laid bare in this dialogue between Matt Lee of Associated Press
and State Department spokesperson Ned Price:
QUESTION: Ned, just going back to what you said
about the Chinese policy and the idea, this “might makes right” and that the Chinese seem to be going into
this following this idea that big states can dominate small states. So
there are a lot of historians who would say that the United States itself has
had that same policy towards – particularly towards countries in Latin America.
But since we’re talking about Taiwan in this instance, let’s
talk about small island – islands that are off the coast of each country. How
exactly would you describe U.S. policy towards Cuba? Is that not the case of
what – the same thing of what you’re accusing the Chinese of doing with Taiwan?
And if not, why not?
MR PRICE: Matt, I think you can compare what
Beijing is doing to Taiwan with clear acts of intimidation, flying sorties into
what are – what is clearly
QUESTION: (Laughter.) Ned, you invaded.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR PRICE: Are you going back 60 years? Is that
where you’re going to?
QUESTION: Sure, yeah.
QUESTION: You have a long (inaudible) Cuba.
QUESTION: You can go back longer than – longer
than that. I just want to know – I – again
MR PRICE: Matt, we’ve had this – we’ve had this
conversation before. I’m here to speak to the Biden administration, not to the
Kennedy administration or the Eisenhower administration.
QUESTION: Okay. All right. Okay. So let’s talk
about the Biden administration and its policy towards Cuba, which still has the
embargo, right? Is that not a case of a big state trying to dominate a smaller
state?
MR PRICE: This
QUESTION: Which is exactly the same thing that
you’re complaining that China is doing?
MR PRICE: This is a case of the United States
seeking to help advance the democratic aspirations of the people of Cuba. If
you take a look at what we have done, including in recent weeks, we’ve taken
steps that
QUESTION: Yes.
MR PRICE: seek to fulfill those aspirations:
family reunification, visa processing, providing support to Cuban
entrepreneurs, taking measures of accountability on senior Cuban officials who
have been responsible for the repression, including the renewed repression that
has followed the July 11th protests. So our approach to Cuba, I think, is the
comparison you’re trying to make.
QUESTION: I’m not trying to make the comparison.
I’m asking you if you – if there is a comparison to make.
MR PRICE: Okay. So I guess the answer would be
no. Yes. Great.
QUESTION: You clearly would say no. Okay. Fine.
The most dangerous form of ideology doesn't acknowledge
itself as an ideology.
Background Press Call By Senior Administration Officials On New Cuba Policy
MAY 17, 2022
Q Yes, thank you very much. I think that — that was my — my question was the relationship between this process and the Summit of the Americas, and whether — for the countries that have expressed concern about attending the summit in the absence of a Cuban invitation, whether that timing is in any way related to the announcement you’re making today.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, so the — I mean, this was always planned for what we’re doing. It’s a coincidence. But I would say that in the conversations we’ve had with other leaders, we have laid out also just the level of ambition of the summit agenda as really where the focus should be. And I think the large majority of interlocutors — and something where Senator Chris Dodd, as special advisor for the summit, has been very active — I think agree that we should be focusing on addressing a whole host of shared challenges in the region and not blow up the summit over who shows up and who doesn’t.
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, June 6, 2022
Q On the Summit of the
Americas with the U.S. not inviting Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua for
“principled reasons,” as it’s been described —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Yeah.
Q — about democracy, does the
President feel in any way embarrassed that a neighbor like Mexico is not
coming? Does it rise to that level of awkwardness?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Well, let me just first
say that the President was aware that — when speaking to Obrador — that he
wasn’t going to attend. He was aware before the press conference was
made, before he made his decision to make that announcement. …
And so, I mean, at the end of the day, to your
question, we just don’t believe dictators should be invited. And that’s —
and so we don’t regret that, and we will stand — the President will stand by
his principle…..
Q Thanks, Karine. Back
to the Summit of the Americas: With Mexico and Honduras not coming and El
Salvador not being expected, how do you have a high-level or effective
immigration discussion with the region, with the presidents of Mexico and two
thirds of the Northern Triangle countries boycotting this event?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: I think we’re able to still — you know, we’re able to
still have an array of conversations and really focus on our agenda….
Yes, you know, we have these — you know, these — these couple of countries who
are not going to be attending, but we have to — the President has to stick by
his principle. He believes that he needs to stick by his principles and
not invite dictators. But we can still have a fulsome conversation.
There is a full agenda where he’s going to be very busy…..
Just as
he has engaged recently with leaders of ASEAN in Asia — and this week, he’s
going to do that at the Summit of Americas —
the President will look for opportunities to engage with leaders from the
Middle East region.
Q Just to follow up:
Congressman Schiff said, on “Face the Nation” yesterday, the President should
not go to Saudi Arabia, and that he would not shake the Crown Prince’s
hand. He said, “This is someone who butchered an American resident, cut
him up into pieces and in the most terrible and premeditated way.” How
does that weigh on the President’s thinking about a possible trip?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you know, Congressman Adam Schiff is someone that
we — we respect very much, that the President respects very much. As the President said on Friday,
he believes it’s his job to try to bring peace where he can….
Q Karine, in your description
of the three countries that were not invited, you said President has drawn a
line at dictatorship, which is basically taking the moral position and putting
that in a priority above, say, getting more oil from Venezuela and so
forth.
But when you got to Saudi Arabia, you said you
were looking to work for the American people toward a better solution.
Does this suggest that the President, who called Saudi Arabia a “pariah state,”
does not believe it is a dictatorship or believes that, for whatever its
governance’s shortcomings, obtaining the oil is more important?
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: So, as you — as you
started off saying, the President is focused on getting things done for the
American people. You
know, and if he determines that it’s in the interest of the United States to
engage with a foreign leader and that such enga- — such an engagement can
deliver results, then he’ll do so.
Background Press Call Previewing the President’s
Agenda for the 9th Summit of the Americas JUNE 06, 2022
Q And second, if you
could address the inconsistency between the President saying that he doesn’t want to invite
non-democratic dictators to a summit like this while at the same time saying
that, in terms of visiting Saudi Arabia and having engagements with MBS,
he’s willing to do that because the interests of the United States are, sort
of, more important than — you know, and you have to deal with people you don’t
necessarily like to deal with….
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL
One is: We have at no time said, including in discussions of participation
related to this summit, that we are severing all relations or refusing to
engage with countries about whom we have significant concerns related to
democratic governance. We engage with countries like that in all parts of
the world, and we will engage with countries like that in our own hemisphere
when we think it’s in our interest to do so. That’s a different question
from whether and when we’ll invite those countries to participate in a regional
gathering that we believe is intended to and is best served by celebrating the
democratic principles that unite the vast majority of the hemisphere.
So we think it’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison and
in no way suggests an approach that is different based on region by region.
Q Hi there. Thanks for doing this.
You all said today that the President took a principled stance in choosing not
to invite dictators to the summit. And I know Mike was just asking about
this. But you also debated whether to invite representatives from Cuba
and Nicaragua up until the very last minute, through this weekend, is my
understanding, up until the start of the summit. So if this was such a principled stance that you
all were taking, why was it such a tough call for you?
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So I guess this is what I
would say, which is: There are a wide range of views on this question of
participation in our own hemisphere and then even in the United States, in our
own — you know, in our own relations with our Congress and in the public debate
here in this country.
And so what we have done in recent weeks, going back almost a
month now, is consulted — consulted with our partners and friends in the region
so that we understood the contours of their views; consulted with members of Congress who had strong
views on sort of both sides of this participation question.
And in the end, the President decided and very much made this
point in all of the engagements that we had — we made this point in all the
engagements we had — which is that we believe the best use of this summit is to bring together
countries that share a set of democratic principles.…
We’ve said from the beginning of this administration that we
would take into account
the views of our partners and allies on all of the key questions in our foreign
policy. This is no different from that. And we believe
fundamentally in engagement with Congress on the key questions of policy and
politics as well.
In the end, that’s where we came down, and we feel very
comfortable with the approach that we’re taking informed, again, by the
consultations we had with our — with our region and in our own political system.
Q Hi. Thank you for doing this. I
have two questions. First one is: How do you reconcile this question on
democracy and the concerns
on democracy with inviting Bolsonaro for a bilateral meeting, and
remembering that we are five months from the election and Bolsonaro keeps
saying that he might not recognize the results of elections that are considered
fair for the United States?...
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I guess what I would say
about the decision to do a meeting is that President Bolsonaro is the
democratically elected leader of Brazil, a country with whom the United States
shares a significant set of common interests and concerns.
We obviously also have some disagreements with the president and
the government of Brazil that will also be the subject of what I’m sure will be
a candid conversation between the two leaders. This is, frankly, what
international relations is all about. And I don’t think anybody should be
shocked by the fact of the meeting. In our view, it’s very much in our
interest to do that, and we’re looking forward to the conversation….
Background Press Call by a
Senior Administration Official on the Vice President’s Engagements Regarding
Root Causes of Migration JUNE 07, 2022
And I’m glad you started with Honduras.
And I think the President of Honduras herself has said that she didn’t plan to
come, and the reason that she — it was that she believes all countries in the
region should be invited. And, you know, mainly that’s a reference to
Cuba, which was not included.
The Vice President has a good relationship with the new President — I say
“new”; it’s been over 100 days now — of Honduras. She went to her
inauguration. She supports her efforts to support democracy and, indeed,
fight anti-corruption — the issue I mentioned a minute ago.
But like I said, President Biden took a decision not to invite Cuban
participation. This is a longstanding principle, in fact, of the Summit
of the Americas which — and
I think the third summit in 2001, in Canada, all of the countries participating
made clear that democracy should be a core principle for this summit.
So we’re consistent with
that collective decision, not just the U.S. one. And if that was
the reason that — you know, as the President of Honduras, we respect her
decision. If she wants to make a stand on that issue and feels
differently, that’s obviously her sovereign right.
Secretary Antony J. Blinken
Panel Discussion at the Media Summit
of Americas Session: “A Commitment
to Journalistic Freedom” JUNE 7, 2022
QUESTION: I want to know how you justify the
invitation to Dr. Ariel Henry from Haiti when he is ruling with no
mandate in contravention of the nation’s constitution, and then he’s been
implicated in, I think you would admit, very serious crimes, including the murder of a Haitian
journalist just this February by the Haitian police.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: So we’ll have plenty
of opportunity, I think, in the days ahead to talk about the summit, the
participation in the summit, who’s here, who’s not. In Haiti, we continue
to work for a transition that leads to appropriate elections that are supported
by all the Haitian people. We continue to work to deal with gang violence
that is afflicting the country and is doing terrible damage to the Haitian
people. We continue to work to try to find ways to support the Haitian
people, who have borne more than their share of trouble in the last years, both
human and naturally made.
So in all of these ways we’re working,
including with partners in our hemisphere, to try to support the Haitian
people. But we want to see them have a truly representative government,
and that goes down the path of getting to new elections in the coming time.
QUESTION: But Prime Minister Henry is refusing to negotiate with
civil society. Again, he is actually governing with no constitutional
mandate. His government has been implicated in many different crimes,
including potentially the murder of the past president. You
yourself have said in your speech here today and in previous statements that
countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, that you mentioned are being excluded from the Summit of the
Americas because you deem them to not be democratic.
But how can you use that as your justification
when you have the so-called prime minister of Haiti, who is ruling under no
sort of democratic mandate here, despite the fact that this is well-known in
terms of the repression of journalists, the repression of protesters, and his
previous involvement in the coup against President Aristide that The
New York Times has at least alleged the United States Government was
supportive of?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Again, we, like many
other countries, are determined to get into the facts of what happened in
Haiti, including the assassination of the previous prime minister. We’re
determined to find the facts wherever they lead and to whomever they lead.
Secretary Antony J. Blinken
With Juan Carlos Lopez of CNN en Español
JUNE 7, 2022
QUESTION: Nine heads of state won’t be
here. Three weren’t invited – Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua. Three
decided not to come because they weren’t invited – Mexico, Honduras, and
Bolivia. El Salvador and Guatemala didn’t come for other reasons, and
Uruguay because the president has COVID. Is it going to be the same, and
is it a Summit of the Americas if these – if all the leaders aren’t here?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, first, it’s a
democratic hemisphere – at least, that’s what we want and hope, and that’s
something we want to affirm with this summit. People can make their own
decisions and choices about who’s here and who’s not. But virtually all
of these governments are represented in the formal summit of leaders at very
senior levels – either the head of state or, in some cases, the foreign
minister. For example, my friend and counterpart Marcelo Ebrard from
Mexico will be a full and active participant in this summit.
I can also tell you that Cuba, Venezuela,
Nicaragua are here. I saw them. I met with them. I met with civil society leaders
and activists from Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. There will be people from NGOs, from
different parts of those societies, who are as representative and, frankly, more representative in my
judgment of the Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan people than the regimes that
are in place right now, and they’ve very much a part of the summit.
I’ve already met with a number of them.
QUESTION: You were at Arizona State
University. You met with students. You spoke about journalism and
the challenges that journalists face —
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Yeah.
QUESTION: — in Cuba, in Nicaragua, in
Venezuela. And someone highlighted that you’re planning a trip to Saudi
Arabia, which doesn’t respect journalists – we have the Jamal Khashoggi case –
which isn’t considered a full democracy. Isn’t there a double standard where the U.S. has a – is
looking for a closer relationship with Saudi Arabia, a country that has oil,
but signals Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua and gets Andrés Manuel López Obrador
to react and decide not to come?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, just in the
case of Saudi Arabia, what we’ve said from the start of the administration is
that we sought to recalibrate – not rupture, recalibrate – our relationship
with Saudi Arabia to make sure that it reflected, better than we thought it did
in the past, our own interests and our own values. Part of that was
putting human rights and freedom at the center of that relationship….
At the same time, we have, as we do with countries in the
hemisphere, broad relationships that have many interests in play.
We try to make – we try to
account for all of them to best reflect our own interests and values.
But the President has been very clear that whether it’s Saudi Arabia or other
partners around the world, or whether it’s adversaries, we are going to make
sure that human rights is fully reflected in our foreign policy.
Press Gaggle by
Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan
En Route Los Angeles JUNE 08, 2022
JAKE SULLIVAN: So the substantive work of the
summit has in no way, shape, or form been touched or adjusted or reduced by the
participation question. These two things are operating in entirely
distinct lanes. …
The
fact that their leaders aren’t coming is, in each case, its own reflection of,
again, these idiosyncratic
decisions each of them are making, and I honestly wouldn’t read too much
into it one way or the other….
I think this doesn’t
have to do with the fundamental question of democracy. I think it has to
do with a difference of opinion — a diversity of opinion, frankly — across the
hemisphere — frankly, across our Congress, across the American public sphere —
as to what the right way to approach the invitation of a dictator or a
non-invitation of a dictator is.
And that’s really,
kind of, more of a
question about the role and purpose of participation in a summit like this.
It’s not a question about
whether democracy is a good form of government or a bad form of government.
Secretary Antony
J. Blinken With Daniela Barragan and Alejandro Paez of SinEmbargo Al Aire on
YouTube JUNE 8,
2022
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) So why did the U.S.
decide not to invite certain countries to this summit, even though the
president of Mexico asked for that, and when this is a summit that’s intended –
intention is to work on structural problems like inequity and poverty in the
Americas?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Yeah. Well, first I would
say that a number of those countries are here. They are at the
summit. I met yesterday with Cubans, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, all of
whom are representing their country, from civil society, from the human rights
community, from the artistic community. They are as representative – I would argue more
representative – of their countries than their governments at this point in
time. So they’re here; those countries are all here at the summit.
And of course, in a different way, as I said, Mexico is fully here
with a very strong delegation led by my friend and counterpart, the Foreign
Minister Ebrard. As I said, we had a very respectful difference of
opinion on this. Usually the host country makes the decisions, and we
felt it was important at this time to reinforce the Democratic Charter of our hemisphere,
and to remind people that we’re supposed to be joined by these democratic
principles, and the countries here should reflect that.
But again, all of these countries actually are here. It may
not be in some cases their governments or regimes, which really do not have
popular legitimacy.
Secretary Antony
J. Blinken With Jorge Ramos of TelevisaUnivision JUNE 9, 2022
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, first, actually, those
countries are here. For example, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua – I met
with representatives from all three countries from civil society, also human
rights activists and defenders. I would argue that they’re as – and probably more representative of
their respective peoples than the governments or regimes in place.
So they’re fully here, they’re a vibrant presence at the summit, and that’s
important….
QUESTION: So let me insist on this: So the
fact that obviously the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, they’re not
here, but also neither are the presidents of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Bolivia. Are we seeing the creation of an anti-democratic bloc
in the hemisphere? Is that a concern to you?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: First, Jorge, when it comes to
Mexico, we’ve had and I’ve had extensive conversations with my friend and
counterpart Marcelo Ebrard. The President is very much looking forward to
receiving President López Obrador at the White House in July. We have a very
deep and ongoing collaboration on virtually all the issues that concern both
our countries. We have a difference of opinion on this particular
question of attendance at the summit. Typically, the hosts make those decisions. We
decided that it was important to focus on the underlying democratic principles
that bring our hemisphere together. Back in 2001 at the Summit of the
Americas, that gave rise to the Democratic Charter, and we want to make sure
that countries continue to look to those principles….
QUESTION: — in Mexico. Let me finish with
this. I want to understand your philosophy right now between the U.S. and
dictatorships. In
2016, President Obama went to Cuba and he believed that more contacts,
more tourism, more diplomacy would promote democracy in the region. You
and President Biden seem to be going a different way, probably more sanctions,
isolating Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. What’s the right way?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: These are complicated, challenging
questions that we face for many, many years. Our focus in each of these
countries is to take the steps we believe are most effective in advancing and
certainly defending the human rights of people in those countries and their
democratic aspirations, which are shared across all of those countries.
In the case of Cuba, we had the protests in July of last year, and
we saw the incredibly repressive reaction of the government: putting minors in
jail, sentences of 30 to 35 years, most recently artists who are kind of icons
for those protesting last July being threatened now with sentences of ten and
six years for simply expressing their views artistically. So we’ve seen
that. We think it’s very important to stand up for those who are being
repressed, persecuted. At
the same time, we’ve taken some limited steps – in terms of family
reunifications, in terms of travel, remittances, in terms of investing in
entrepreneurs – that we think can also help advance the Cuban people in meeting
their own aspirations.
QUESTION: Yeah, but maybe the question is:
If the U.S. is treating other dictatorships the same way, why treat Cuba,
Venezuela, Nicaragua in one way and China and Saudi Arabia in a different way?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: I think in each of these cases, there
are a multiplicity of interests that come into play. We have to look out
for all of the interests of the American people, and hopefully the people that
we’re engaged with. And what President Biden has done in each of these cases
is to put human rights and democracy at the heart of our foreign policy, but
it’s not the only thing that we look at. We have to bring everything together in a way that
advances the interests of the United States. And one could go
through each of these at the same time, but there isn’t – there are underlying
principles, including the principle that we need to be standing up for the
rights of people when they’re being repressed in one way or another. But
the question is: How do we do that most effectively? And the answer
in an individual case may be a little bit different.
