Has the Ibero-American Summit Lost Its Mojo?
8 Nov 2013
By Robert Valencia for World Policy Institute
Every year Spain and Portugal meet with their Latin American counterparts at the Ibero-American Summit. Established in 1991, the Summit gives these countries the opportunity to discuss ways to increase trade, global cooperation, and economic development between the Iberian Peninsula and Latin America. However, the 23rd Ibero-American Summit in Panama was marred by a very poor turnout—with only half of the member states attending. Notably absent were the King of Spain Juan Carlos I, Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and leaders from Brazil, Venezuela, and Chile. In order for this Summit to maintain any level of significance moving forward, the participants must redefine its objectives in the coming year.
Dubbed “The Summit of Renovation,” the Panama gathering sought to reignite its mission, but concluded without any substantial agreements. While in Panama, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto defended the need to transform the Summit into a mechanism to reintegrate all countries given the new dynamics of international politics. The outgoing Summit President Enrique Iglesias defended the Panama’s convention and did not consider it a failure. He pointed out that, regardless of the absentees and their “known or concealed reasons,” the “seats have never been empty.” Iglesias’s possible replacement, former Costa Rican vice-president Rebecca Grynsdan, would not create as much controversy as Iglesias because she’s not as well-known in Latin American politics, so her presence at the Summit would be seen as a chance to start anew and thus potentially boost future engagements.
The 23rd Ibero-American Summit’s purpose was to ratify proposals made by Ricardo Lagos, former Chilean president, to renovate the forum. The document written by Lagos outlined plans such as the creation of scholarships for student exchange programs and a public-private cooperation fund to equally contribute to the Ibero-American Secretariat, or the ruling body of the Summit. The agenda for next year’s meeting will include these topics, as well as the possible closure of the Secretariat’s offices in Brasilia, Montevideo, Panama, and Mexico City. These closures are due to the fact that the Summit is trying to balance its budget, which could level the contributions equally: 50 percent by the Iberian countries (Spain, Portugal, and Andorra), and 50 percent by Latin American nations.
Despite Iglesias’s theory and Peña Nieto’s hope to lay the groundwork for a friendlier Summit next year, the reality is that Latin America has become very fragmented. This is due to the creation of economic and political blocs in the last two decades as well as the rise of a New Leftist moment that has exacerbated such divide. These movements claim that organizations like the Summit and the Organization of American States are “Trojan Horses” for “imperialist” initiatives by Spain and the United States. Radical, socialist-leaning countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua accuse Spain and the United States of wanting to have more leverage on Latin American politics and treat the region as the backyard it had always been considered them during the Cold War. Dispelling these notions will be difficult for 2014’s Summit in Veracruz, Mexico if it does not get itself back on track.
The left-leaning presidents of the Summit have belittled some of the topics discussed, such as the introduction of the Pacific Alliance, an economic bloc comprised of Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Chile, and possibly Panama and Costa Rica. The chasm between the Leftist bloc and the rest of the member countries has widened since 2007 in Chile, when King Juan Carlos I chided then-Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez with the famous line “Por qué no te callas? (Why don’t you shut up?)”
Since 2010, Latin American countries began to strengthen bonds by creating new groups such as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the Left-leaning Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas, the aforementioned Pacific Alliance, and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). These groups serve as regional platforms to foster economic integration among their members, as well as to discuss any urgent matters that could possibly threaten the region’s political stability.
The Summit’s future has also been clouded by the economic and institutional hardships of two of its largest budget contributors, Spain and Portugal. With new diplomatic and economic players like China and Russia, and the emergence of markets in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, Spain’s clout has diminished in the region. Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy explained that Spain is coming out of an economic free fall and is establishing a more competitive market. Nevertheless, Spanish economists are still skeptical of Spain’s economic recovery, and the 60 percent budget Spain allocates for the Summit may be in jeopardy. For its part, Portugal contributes 10 percent to the total budget.
In 2014, Mexico has the opportunity to look to its southern neighbors and realize the socioeconomic changes they have undergone, and to have a warmer approach with left-leaning countries after the embarrassing incident between former Mexican President Vicente Fox and Fidel Castro during the 2002 UN Aid Summit in Monterrey. Turning the Summit into a biennial event will give more space to discuss areas that can find unanimity at the regional level. In order to ensure success, the next Summit should avoid discussing a myriad of self-centered topics, and instead focus on pan-regional challenges such as climate change,, the drug trade between the Iberian Peninsula and Latin America, as well as the problem of lax drug laws in the region, and undocumented immigration . Otherwise, Veracruz 2014 will be less of a summit, and more of a good-bye party.
For additional materials on this topic please see: