Putting the Summits of the Americas in historic perspective

Source: LatinDispatch.com

In 1994, President William J. Clinton met with all of the democratically elected leaders of the Americas in Miami, Florida, at the first Summit of the Americas. With the end of the Cold War and its implications for U.S. interests in the region, many believed that this could be an opportunity for improved U.S.-Latin American relations. At the Summit, an impressive agenda laid out an action plan for collaboration across the Americas in a number of different areas, including the promotion of a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, collaboration to support democratic governance, and even collective action in addressing climate change and natural disasters.

However, the high hopes of the so-called “Spirit of Miami” were short-lived. Although the Summit of the Americas continued, many of the goals and hopes were soon abandoned, leaving some scholars and pundits to question the utility of continuing the Summits, and others claiming that they had already seen its rise and fall.

However, with the ninth Summit of the Americas being hosted by the United States this year, cautiously optimistic opinions are beginning to emerge about the prospects of the Summit’s process. This is particularly noteworthy given that in recent years, there has been increasing pessimism regarding the status of both the Summits of the Americas and hemispheric affairs more broadly. Beyond President Donald Trump becoming the first U.S. president to skip a Summit of the Americas in 2018, and the region’s increasing polarization (epitomized by the disinvitation of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro to the 2018 Summit), the region is facing some of its greatest challenges to date. However, history suggests that optimists of the Summits of the Americas have reason to be hopeful.

The Summits of the Americas are not the first attempt at encouraging and promoting regional cooperation in the Western Hemisphere. In fact, regional cooperation and integration have a long history in the region, with important parallels between the Summits of the Americas and a previous U.S.-led attempt at promoting regional integration—the Inter-American Conferences that ran from 1889 to 1954. While this period was marked by ups and downs in the relationship between the United States and Latin America, it also resulted in the development of the Inter-American system, including the development of several key organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS; as well as its predecessor organization, the Pan-American Union) and the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO). Understanding some of the successes and pitfalls of previous efforts at regional integration and cooperation—while also discerning possible similarities to the contemporaneous state of the Summits of the Americas—highlights the need to maintain this process of continued cooperation.

Perhaps the clearest parallel between the Summits of the Americas and the Inter-American Conferences has to do with the timing of two U.S.-led processes. Following the U.S. Civil War, the United States entered the Reconstruction Period, in many ways focusing on its own internal development. However, with the second Industrial Revolution and rapid expansion of the country, the United States quickly found itself emerging as a global power by the end of the 19^th century. With newly-gained power, the U.S. turned outwards, seeing opportunities to collaborate more closely with its neighbors in Latin America. It was in this light that the United States sought to expand its influence and display its prowess by inviting Latin American diplomats to the First Inter-American Conference in 1889-1890. Likewise, with the end of the Cold War, the world shifted into a “Unipolar Moment,” with the United States sitting in a new, unique position.

In addition to the timing of these two U.S.-led processes, the initial push for the conferences began with similar concerns and objectives. As the United States rose to power at the end of the 1800s, one area of interest was opening trade with Latin America—so much so that creating a shared customs union was one of the primary U.S. objectives during the first Inter-American Conference. Moreover, the invitation to the first Summit of the Americas came shortly after the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the development of a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) was one of the cornerstones of the discussion. While unsuccessful in establishing such a trade agreement at the time, trade remained a central area for cooperation in both series of regional dialogue.

At the first and second Inter-American Conferences, Latin American leaders pushed the United States to support their inclusion in international conferences hosted by the European powers, and to ban the practice of military intervention to protect business interests. Additionally, public health concerns were raised by many Latin American leaders, resulting in the development of the Pan American Sanitary Bureau, the predecessor to PAHO, which still exists today.

Similarly, during the first Summit of the Americas Latin American leaders called for the strengthening of regional and international law and the promotion of development in the region. While the Summit had a broad agenda, the articulation and execution of two particular articles of regional law were of central focus. The first component was that the Miami Summit, besides setting a precedent for the ongoing series of regional summits, marked an important effort to regionalize a response to climate change. While this issue was not fully addressed immediately following the Summit, it symbolized a decisive regional effort to begin addressing a common challenge.

The other area of regional law that was more fully realized as a result of the Summits process was the strengthening and development of regional mechanisms to address challenges to democracy in the Americas, resulting in the 2001 signing of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. While there were challenges when implementing the Charter, at the time it marked an important and collective action to define democracy and address democratic setbacks. As for the Inter-American Conferences, they highlighted critical efforts to identify and approach issues that affected not only the region, but also lay some of the groundwork for global strategies.

Both processes also faced challenges due to shifting U.S. interests regarding the importance and role of Latin America on the global stage. Shortly after the excitement of the first Inter-American Conference, U.S. interest in the region transitioned from one of collaboration to one of intervention.       

In 1898, the United States went to war with Spain and expanded its territorial claims into the Caribbean. This would soon be followed by U.S. support for Panamanian independence (in order to gain the right to build a Trans-Isthmian Canal), the announcement of the Roosevelt Corollary (with the United States claiming the right to intervene in the region), and a period of U.S. military intervention and occupation in many Central American and Caribbean states. As the United States moved from a collaborative approach with Latin America towards one of confrontation, the Inter-American Conference process faltered as the region became increasingly wary of the United States.

However, a return and strengthening of the Inter-American system occurred nearly 40 years after the inception of the Inter-American Conferences. The latter years of the Inter-American Conferences served as an important forum for improving U.S.-Latin American relations. In the aftermath of the Great Depression, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented his “Good Neighbor Policy,” and used the Inter-American Conferences as an opportunity to regain mutual trust with Latin America and to advocate for improved relations within the region. At the conferences, the Roosevelt administration pushed for promoting trade as a response to the global crisis, and regularly sought regional support for a number of important initiatives. As WWII came to a close, the Inter-American Conferences would also serve as the grounds to announce important collaborative initiatives such as the development of the Rio Treaty—one of the world’s oldest mutual defense treaties—and the replacement of the Pan-American Union with the Organization of American States (OAS).

While the Summits of the Americas have faced challenges, and the goals of the first summit remain largely unrealized, this does not mean that the process is futile or that it cannot be revived to meet the needs of the Americas in the 21^st century. If anything, the trajectory of the Inter-American Conferences highlights that, despite the challenges facing the hemisphere, cooperation is still possible, and that strengthening the Inter-American system is a long, but feasible, process. Rather than despairing at the challenges facing the hemisphere and decrying the summits as meaningless, leaders across the Americas should embrace the upcoming summit as an opportunity to improve and invigorate hemispheric affairs. The ninth Inter-American Conference resulted in the creation of the Organization of American States, perhaps the ninth Summit of the Americas can mark a new beginning in Inter-American affairs.

Adam Ratzlaff is a specialist in Latin American foreign and public affairs. With over a decade of studying and working on issues related to Latin America, he has provided political and economic analysis for groups including the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. He is a contributing editor for Diplomatic Courier and his work has been featured in The National Interest, Charged Affairs, The Global Americans, and The Geopolitics among other sites. Ratzlaff holds an MA from the Josef Korbel School of International Studies (University of Denver) and a BA from Tulane University. He is also currently pursuing his PhD in International Relations.