The customary accords and discords
The
17th Ibero-American Summit
By
Eduardo Dimas
What
most attracted the attention of the journalists who covered the 17th
Ibero-American Summit, held in Santiago, Chile, was the verbal
confrontation between Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and
Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and
the King of Spain, Juan Carlos de Borbón.
Three
times, Chávez called former Spanish P.M. José María
Aznar a fascist and recalled that during the coup d’état of
April 2002 in Venezuela, the only embassies that recognized the
government of Pedro Carmona were those of Spain and the United
States.
That
provoked a response from Zapatero — a rather foolish response, I
must say — who said that, although he did not share Aznar’s ideals,
he could not overlook that fact that Aznar had been elected by
Spanish people.
The
17th Ibero-American Summit
By
Eduardo Dimas Read Spanish Version
What
most attracted the attention of the journalists who covered the 17th
Ibero-American Summit, held in Santiago, Chile, was the verbal
confrontation between Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and
Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and
the King of Spain, Juan Carlos de Borbón.
Three
times, Chávez called former Spanish P.M. José María
Aznar a fascist and recalled that during the coup d’état of
April 2002 in Venezuela, the only embassies that recognized the
government of Pedro Carmona were those of Spain and the United
States.
That
provoked a response from Zapatero — a rather foolish response, I
must say — who said that, although he did not share Aznar’s ideals,
he could not overlook that fact that Aznar had been elected by
Spanish people.
At one
moment, the Spanish monarch, peeved, said to Chávez, "Why
don’t you shut up?" Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega then
stated that Spanish diplomacy, and particularly Spanish business
companies, were attempting to subvert some Latin American countries,
which prompted King Juan Carlos to leave the meeting.
For his
part, Cuban Vice President Carlos Lage spoke up and said that
Venezuela and Chávez had the right to defend themselves and
that Chávez had been offended with words stronger than those
he had used. In Lage’s opinion, at no time did the Venezuelan
president try to offend the Spanish people and government.
That
anecdote was the most publicized aspect of the 17th Summit. However,
very few journalists dealt with the principal problem that motivated
the verbal confrontation: the divergent positions of the participants
and the rather "colonialist" attitude of the Spanish
delegation.
To ask
Latin Americans not to consider the foreign factors and influences in
their quest for economic growth (as Zapatero did) is akin to denying
the very history of Latin America and the Caribbean. That position
was properly answered by several of the presidents in attendance.
Many of
the structural deformations that exist in Latin America’s economy and
many of the region’s social problems are precisely the result of the
Spanish and Portuguese conquests and — after independence — of the
role of the local oligarchies and the influence of the United States.
The same
happens with the privatization of state-run enterprises, an activity
promoted by neoliberalism; some of the attendees credited that with
the current economic growth.
The
great structural problems of Latin America increased with the
privatization of the state-run sector, a pursuit that reached levels
of madness in several Latin American countries. That is why some of
the presidents at the summit — like Rafael Correa, Hugo Chávez,
Evo Morales and even Néstor Kirchner — defended the recovery
of their national economic resources. In some cases, that recovery
was done under the capitalist system itself; in others, as a way to
shift toward 21st-Century socialism.
The
reason for all those discussions and discords is that Latin America
is not the same region it was in 1991, when the Ibero-American summit
meetings began. At that time, practically the only discordant voice
was Cuba’s. Today, several governments defend positions that are
different from, and condemn neoliberalism. At the same time, they
seek structural and social changes to achieve social justice.
However,
let’s go from the anecdotal — which is important in its own way —
to the topic of the Summit: social cohesion. I feel that none of the
previous summits had so controversial and discussed a central topic
as this one. Because, can we really talk about social cohesion in
Latin America, the region with the most inequitable distribution of
wealth in the world?
Can
there be any social cohesion when the inequalities between the rich
and the poor are so abysmal? When social harmony is undermined by
agreements that asphyxiate national economies? When foreign interests
attempt to seize natural resources and control a country’s politics?
The
topic of social cohesion had the same fate as governability and
democracy, topics that have been repeatedly raised in previous
summits. At the end, everything stays the same. These are affairs of
maximum priority to all Latin American presidents, but they have no
solution in the current circumstances affecting most countries.
Poverty has no solution, either.
Only
those nations that have followed a new path have social programs that
can end with poverty and achieve social cohesion. The presidents of
those nations were the discordant voices at the Summit: Venezuela,
Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba, among others.
At the
inauguration of the Summit, held Nov. 9-10, its host, Chilean
President Michelle Bachelet, emphasized the importance of renewing a
social pact to confront the major challenges that face all Latin
American nations. She stressed the need to establish an
Ibero-American Convention on Social Security and proposed measures
that benefit child-rearing and the access to, and quality of,
education.
For his
part, Argentine President Néstor Kirchner stated the need to
change the economic models that have led Latin America into the
position it now finds itself.
When his
turn came, Chávez questioned the possibility of achieving
social cohesion in countries whose great poverty and misery are
attributable to neoliberal policies. "First, we must talk about
transforming those societies," he said, and stressed that "it
is very important for social cohesion in the region to establish
goals, dates and objectives in the Summit’s Action Plan."
Chávez
proposed several concrete projects to the Ibero-American chiefs of
state and government. Among them were oil cooperation (Petroamérica),
the Bank of the South, and the Telesur television channel.
Ecuadorean
President Rafael Correa pointed out that the worst legacy of
neoliberalism has been the destruction of social cohesion in Latin
America, the world’s most unequal region. "To speak about social
cohesion can be understood only in terms of the consecration of the
interests of the majorities," he said, "with systems that
break the profound economic and social asymmetries and give a voice
to those who never had one."
The head
of the Cuban delegation, V.P. Carlos Lage, said that "social
cohesion can never be achieved as a consequence of the alleged
goodness of the market, or by means of a program, a plan, or a
publicity campaign. Social cohesion can only be the fruit of a system
of justice and equality."
"To
achieve social cohesion we must be willing to confront the selfish
and violent national oligarchies and the criminal policy of the
current U.S. administration," Lage said. "They will do
everything in their power to keep us from achieving social justice,
or even a little more social cohesion, because that would affect
their historical privileges. Nothing will be given to us as a
present."
The
other heads of state or government stated their points of view. Some
coincided, others were very much aligned with the interests of the
United States and the neoliberal model, not at all unusual in
Ibero-American summits. The gathering ended Saturday Nov. 10 with the
usual Final Declaration (the Santiago Declaration, in this case)
that, as in all previous years, condemned the U.S. blockade against
Cuba.
According
to several news agencies, the Ibero-American countries did not reach
a strategic consensus on the paths to follow to achieve regional
integration and a victory over poverty. As it always happens, the
different positions were "harmonized" in a plan of action
without concrete goals. In other words, everyone will do whatever
suits the interests he or she represents. Nothing else.
It
should be said that, as usual, the summits continue to be held
without the physical presence of the United States. In practice, U.S.
interests are represented by several regional governments, as
occurred in this instance. And, as in other summits, a sensation of
frustration hung on the air, because — with the exception of the
countries that have taken the road of social change — everything
will stay the same.
It might
be abnormal if all the governments agreed to carry out the
transformations proposed by Hugo Chávez. But there is a
consolation: in the choir of Latin American nations, some voices
(Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba and, to a lesser degree, Brazil,
Argentina and Uruguay) are looking for new ways to achieve a social
cohesion that can be attained only through an equitable distribution
of wealth.
The next
summit, the 18th, will be held in El Salvador. Its central theme, as
proposed by Salvadoran President Antonio Saca, will be youth. In
other words, the debate will center on the future of Latin America’s
young people — in the country that has the highest levels of
juvenile delinquency, because of poverty and alienation. Lamentably,
the idea sounds like mockery. As a great Latin American and Caribbean
statesman said, "it is an undigestible mixture of cynicism and
mendacity." He is right.
