It was predictable, since that visit by Andrés Manuel López Obrador to the White House of Donald Trump, in the summer of 2020, that in the second half of his six-year term, after the signing of the Free Trade Agreement (TMEC) with the United States and Canada , the Mexican president would promote the relationship with Latin America. The protémpore presidency of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) has facilitated this reorientation.
But how pronounced, in practice, not rhetoric, is that diplomatic turn? The recently concluded CELAC summit in Mexico City managed to slightly raise the profile of a very weakened forum since the last meeting in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, in 2017, which was attended by a few leaders of the Bolivarian bloc. Since the Venezuelan crisis divided the region, CELAC, now without Brazil, has not been able to recover its call for integration.
During its ascending period, between 2010 and 2015, CELAC managed to maintain the logic of integration thanks to rotating between governments of different ideological signs: Mexico, Venezuela, Chile, Cuba, Costa Rica. In the current situation of regional polarization, this rotating sequence seems inconceivable. The tension would prevent the organism from surviving the passage from one government to another. Hence, the most plausible proposal is that the presidency pass from Mexico to Argentina, a country that is going through a political crisis as a result of the defeat of the ruling party in the primary elections.
More information
The possibilities of relaunching the forum are also narrowed by the highly ideological sense that the Mexican government has given to its protémpore presidency. Against an initial realistic projection, which hinted at the search for good relations with diverse executives, Mexico has prioritized its ties with Bolivia, Argentina, Cuba and now Peru. It is true that these are four countries governed by different lefts, but with two governments strongly inscribed in the Bolivarian geopolitical axis.
The expectation that Mexico and Argentina, as members of the Puebla Group, could produce a moderating effect on the Bolivarian left has been fading. By placing at the center of the media agenda prior to the summit a demand that is not shared by all members, the reform or disappearance of the OAS, and doing so in a language more favorable to the second term, the Government of López Obrador contributed to deepen the differences. Tensions emerged in the speeches of Nicolás Maduro, Mario Abdo Benítez, Luis Lacalle Pou, Miguel Díaz-Canel, Pedro Castillo, Guillermo Lasso, Luis Arce and Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Dennis Moncada, who rejected that the CELAC presidency go to Argentina.
The prominence given to Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, who, in an unprecedented gesture, was invited to give a speech at the military ceremony for Mexico’s independence day, accompanied by several members of his cabinet, also reinforces the perception that Mexico is not approaching its ties with Latin America in a pragmatic way.
The lifting of the United States trade embargo against Cuba, unlike the end of the OAS, is an element of consensus in Latin America and the Caribbean. Had it been limited to that demand in media management, before the CELAC summit, and had added a set of concrete actions to persuade Washington, Mexico would have been able to bring the positions of various governments in the region closer together.
When the meeting of the highest subcontinental forum began with an ostentatious gesture of legitimation by Díaz-Canel, a president who has just faced the popular protests of July on the island very authoritatively, the López Obrador government set the tone out of balance and pluralism that demanded the summit. Despite the fact that Mexico has contributed to detente in Venezuela, being the seat of dialogue between Maduristas and opponents, and has minimally distanced itself from the Daniel Ortega regime in Nicaragua, its twisting of diplomatic etiquette in supporting Díaz-Canel fuels the regional dissent.
In his speech in the Zócalo, the president repeated verbatim his words at Chapultepec Castle two months ago: “Cuba is the new Numancia and it must be declared a world heritage site.” But we do not know if Mexico has raised the issue of the embargo in high-level meetings with the United States and what investment and credit plans are being designed to relaunch economic relations with the island.
There is much speculation whether this turn, more symbolic than concrete, could cloud relations with the United States. But the interdependence between the two countries is such that it is difficult for the axes of collaboration on migration, border and security issues to be destabilized. Rather, the angle that could be blurred is the very aspiration of the Mexican Government and the Foreign Ministry headed by Marcelo Ebrard to relaunch CELAC and assume leadership in the region.
The issue of the OAS and the false dilemma between “monroism and Bolivarianism” overshadowed others, of greater relevance, such as the Regional Space Agency, the renegotiation of terms with the IMF, the vaccine production plans, the fight against climate change. , migrant rights, gender equality and non-discrimination or collaboration with FAO to achieve regional food security. The previous skewed token coverage helped distort the contents of the summit.
In the midst of the growing domestic and international polarization that exists in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the deterioration of most multilateral forums, any regional leadership that aspires to be successful must place itself above ideological partisanship and sectarianism. The social outbursts and the economic and health crisis affect all governments and could be the common anchor for a restructuring of both the inter-American and Latin American mechanisms.
The dialogue with governments of the left and right and the promotion of an agenda based on sovereignty, but also on democracy, are essential components of this new challenge. In the abandonment of geopolitical demagogy and real collaboration for development, against poverty and inequality, without neglecting the preservation of the environment and respect for human rights, is the key to the recovery of the integrationist initiative.
Rafael Rojas He is a professor at the Center for Historical Studies of the Colegio de México
Subscribe here to newsletter of EL PAÍS México and receive all the informative keys of the current situation of this country
