History of the Summits of the Americas
The process of bringing together in a summit the hemispheric heads of state developed in the context of the Cold War. It was initially limited to some countries and controlled by the Organization of American States, OAS, under the leadership of the U.S. The first two summits of 19 heads of State were held in Panama in 1956 and Punta del Este in 1967. These gatherings laid the groundwork for the creation of the Inter-American Development Bank and the strengthening of the US Alliance for Progress Initiative.
In more recent times a Summit was held in Miami in 1994 in order for the U.S. to launch a proposal for a free trade area of the Americas (FTAA). The OAS sponsored the event publicized as the main “political forum in the region.” A second summit took place in Santiago, Chile, in 1998; a third in Quebec in 2001. At a fourth Summit in Mar del Plata in 2005 the FTAA proposal was definitively buried. A fifth meeting was held in Trinidad & Tobago in 2009.
Although Summits up to the Mar del Plata gathering included topics such as education, strengthening of democracy, integration, poverty, human rights, and other proposals that reflect themes of relative consensus, the organization leading up to the Summits and official summary statements at the end of each one were marked by the absolute predominance of the United States stand on free markets, hemispheric security and democracy. With regard to economic issues the focus was the aggressive promotion of the consensus of Washington and the implementation of FTAs beginning with the FTAA. In terms of security the U.S. promoted their war against drug trafficking, terrorism and backed the predominance of the Inter-American Treaty of reciprocal assistance and the Inter-American Defense Board. With regards to democracy, it was the consistent U.S. position to exclude Cuba from the Summits and to extend legitimacy to all right-wing governments in the region.
The Mar del Plata Summit revealed the differing positions of several hemispheric governments with the U.S. agenda. In Trinidad 2009 dissent reached the point that no final statement was issued. In anticipation of a similar lack of consensus in Cartagena 2012 a “brief, concrete and action-oriented” final statement has been announced, in all probability one that will circumvent any of the profound discussions under way among the States of the region.
The summits of the Americas have actually been used as an opportunity for the United States to extend its policies throughout the hemisphere. Agreements on other topics are more rhetorical than meaningful and usually support the pillars of US policy, deeply challenged in recent years.
