To say that the summit between the EU and Celac that has been held this week in Brussels has been a historic success and a milestone because two blocks that had not sat at the table for eight years have promised to strengthen ties, signed some conventions and agreements bilateral agreements and 45,000 million euros have been promised in future investments would be exaggerating. To say that it has been a failure because the veto of a country, Nicaragua, to a paragraph has forced to put an asterisk in the final declaration, too. The truth is somewhere in between and depending on the approach. If at a technical level the parties can be more than satisfied, the political flavor that remains is somewhat more bittersweet. Progress has been made and the mere representation at the highest level is very good news, but the image that may remain is that of a meeting clouded by two contrary visions, and at times irreconcilable, of the world and geopolitics.
No matter how much the protagonists screamed selling the benefits and reproached “the speculations of the journalists”, it is not just one or two sentences. It has to do with the way of understanding the market, international relations, rules, the past and the future. The 27 Europeans and the 33 from Latin America and the Caribbean have spoken, negotiated and discussed. They have opted for economic and commercial ties, for improving diplomatic relations, for establishing some type of permanent structure so that appointments are now made much more frequently. They have addressed past grudges, from colonialism to slavery. But the refusal of Nicaragua, the only country in the region that even voted in the United Nations with Russia or North Korea in a resolution on the war, has muddied the last day.
For weeks it has been discussed because it became clear that Celac could not support the language proposed by European diplomats. It was not just Nicaragua, but Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Honduras, Bolivia. They all had problems, reservations. He touched himself, lowered himself a bit, but the 27 marked a limit. The reference to Ukraine seemed like a red line to them and they stood up: either there was a declaration signed only by the two presidents, Charles Michel for the EU and the Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines for Celac, or it was signed by all but one . And in the end it was like this: “This Declaration was supported by all countries with one exception due to their disagreement with a paragraph”, reads at the end of the 10 pages and 41 points.
Europe is very clear that Russia is to blame for the war in Ukraine. That it is an illegal, brutal and unjustified aggression. That the only possible answer is to help Kiev with everything it needs and for as long as it takes, while isolating Moscow in all international forums. That the fault of the problems of shortage of cereals is exclusively of Vladimir Putin. And that the pressure must be maintained at each and every opportunity. “In Moscow they must be very disappointed tonight if Cuba or Venezuela endorse this statement,” senior European sources point out. However, the problem is that many of its neighbors or trading partners, from Africa to Asia via Latin America, do not agree, or agree with many nuances and other emphases. And that is why the text does not mention Russia or condemn the aggression.
“We express our deep concern about the ongoing war against Ukraine, which continues to cause immense human suffering and is exacerbating existing fragilities in the world economy, restricting growth, increasing inflation, disrupting supply chains, increasing energy insecurity and and raising risks to financial stability. In this regard, we support the need for a just and sustainable peace. We also reiterate our support for the Black Sea Grain Initiative and the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to ensure its extension We support all diplomatic efforts aimed at a just and sustainable peace in line with the UN charter,” reads the famous paragraph of discord.
All those present insisted that “it had not been a summit on Ukraine” and reproached him for putting his finger on the issue, something minor, according to them. There were countries like Chile that were firm, very forceful against “imperial aggression”, without nuances. But others, like those mentioned before, have played with ambiguity over and over again, putting buts, emphasizing the “hypocrisy” of condemning this war with such emphasis but ignoring others in the past. And pressing for more talk about other issues.
Another controversial issue was precisely the paragraph on the colonial past. “We deeply acknowledge and regret the untold suffering inflicted on millions of men, women and children as a result of the transatlantic slave trade. We underscore our full support for the principles and related elements contained in the Durban Declaration and Program of Action, including the recognition that slavery and the slave trade, including the transatlantic slave trade, were appalling tragedies in human history not only because of their abhorrent barbarism but also in terms of their magnitude, organized nature, and especially their denial of the essence of the victims, and that slavery and the slave trade are a crime against humanity,” the statement said.
Community sources explain that everything has been difficult in the preparation for the meeting. Three days before the meeting, the planned format of round tables had to be changed from top to bottom because there were threats from leaders who did not want to attend. It went to a joint session, with public speeches. And all while the paper was being negotiated until the last minute. “There were many calls during the weekend,” they say with satisfaction.
On paper it sounds good, but if you look back to 2015, to the previous summit, the language was surprisingly similar. The same hopes and commitments of rapprochement, the mentions of many of the same topics. And still, eight years of mutual indifference followed. “This time is different because the world is different from 2015,” say senior community sources. “In 2015 we did not have the risks of this bipolar world. We thought in multipolar terms that the EU fit into. A lot has changed and we have learned a lot of lessons. We have to get much more involved and use every opportunity, every meeting, to anchor them to our vision, to bring other regions closer to our approach to a rules-based world order,” they add.
The summit was a mixed bag. Many of those present participated in the parallel Summit of the Peoples, where they cheered for Fidel Castro (“always present”) or shouted “they will not pass” demanding “the end of the blockade on Cuba.” Where the Spanish or Portuguese communists harangued against the leaders “locked in bunkers and escorted by tanks”. Others took photos and videos around the city. Giorgia Meloni, in a speech that Mario Draghi could have signed, condemned those who speak of peace and not invasion all the time, and appealed to the memory of judges Falcone and Borsellino. And Hungary and Poland presented their own claims threatening to continue blocking the so-called post-Cotonou agreement that should allow relations with Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific to be strengthened.
The meeting was to strengthen ties, sit at the table, weave networks. And it did help. Half of the EU was seen to be uninterested, not at all participatory. And to their means, totally indifferent. But as the experience of the European Political Community has shown, Macron’s invention to bring together those who aspire to the EU but are decades away from achieving a hypothetical annexation, personal contact is the most important thing. A talk not so much about shared values, but interests, common fears. “This is very useful. In two days you do not change anyone’s mentality, the positions, the parameters, but it is very useful to understand each other. There are things that are not seen in the reports from the embassies. It is important to be able to give instructions, notice the emotions, the intensity. We always say after a Summit that it is a success, but this time it is for real”, settle satisfied community sources. The best example, they say, is that of Cuba. That a day before he did not accept that the text said “war against Ukraine” instead of “war in Ukraine”, but he ended up compromising after hours of informal talks with the neighbors of those attacked. Small victories, but this is how peace is built.
According to the criteria of The Trust Project