Professor Feinberg in the News
"What leaders do at summits"
01/21/2004
Richard Feinberg,
San Diego Union Tribune
At last week's Special Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico, I was afforded a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes goings on of such conclaves of presidents and prime ministers. The Mexican government allowed me extraordinary access to what are normally hermetically sealed meetings with deep layers of security.
I carefully watched the behavior of President Bush. I was amazed when I read press reports claiming that Bush was bored and disengaged. In fact, throughout the six hours of working sessions his eyes were fully focused on the speakers. When Central American leaders praised the U.S.-Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, he smiled and nodded. When some leaders indirectly criticized the United States, he sat stone-faced. Yes, Bush does fidget, in Monterrey with an empty water bottle, but for the most part he was relaxed and clearly enjoyed trading private commentaries with the attractive Salvadorean foreign minister seated to his left.
Also revealing was Bush's interaction with his national security team. He is the one who gets to tell the jokes. He is the one who taps others on the shoulder. He leans back and swivels in his seat like a CEO. There's no question who is the top gun. But by pushing his team to pursue a tough anti-corruption initiative that was inadequately prepared and unacceptable to the Latin Americans, Bush was responsible for a needless diplomatic setback for the U.S. negotiators.
The expectations for this particular summit were not high. Inter-American relations were strained by the emotional rejection in Latin America of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and slow economic growth has damaged the credibility of market-oriented reforms. Democratic institutions are under attack for failing to deliver the goods, and in some countries for shocking revelations of widespread corruption.
Certainly, two-day meetings, even among leaders, cannot resolve such deeply rooted problems. But I watched the Monterrey summit make its mark in several significant ways.
Educating the United States
In Washington, senior U.S. officials spend their busy days grappling with the crises of the moment. Regions of the world such as Latin America, which despite their many problems are not flash points on CNN, can easily pass unnoticed. The Monterrey summit was an intense primer in Inter-American relations for Bush and his national security advisers. Not only did they digest massive briefing books, but also they were confronted with the perspectives of their Latin American counterparts.
Listening to civil society
In Monterrey, civil society leaders and private-sector executives were allowed time to make presentations to ministers. While brief and still inadequate, such exchanges are potentially paving the way for fuller interaction at international meetings between nongovernmental representatives and elected leaders.
Getting to know each other
In their bilateral, one-on-one meetings, and in the general sessions and dinners, leaders take the measure of each other. When the talks go well, the groundwork is laid for future agreements. But the chemistry can also be bad. Bush is unlikely to want to compromise with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who crudely and repeatedly ridiculed several leaders in the room.
Responding to public criticisms
In their discussions, the leaders conceded that the critics of globalization are right that more attention must be paid to the distribution of the fruits of growth, and governments must be more accessible and accountable. The final "Declaration of Nuevo Leon" contains sections with titles like "Economic Growth with Equity to Reduce Poverty," and specific initiatives aim to create more jobs and battle against corruption in high places.
Coping with local crises
Bush devoted much time in his bilateral meetings asking leaders for their ideas on how best to cope with the alarming crisis in Bolivia, where deep social discontent threatens democracy itself. U.S. and Mexican officials are convening an emergency Bolivia Support Group to find quick-disbursing monies to fill the gaping holes in the Bolivian budget.
Fortifying multilateral institutions
At the previous hemispheric Summit in Quebec City in 2001, the leaders launched what became the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which gives the region's premier multilateral agency, the Organization of American States, powers to defend democratic institutions and procedures. In Monterrey, the charter became a centerpiece of inter-American relations and will legitimize whatever collective actions are taken to defend democracy in the crises confronting Bolivia, Venezuela and Haiti.
Launching new initiatives
Summits put pressure on governments to agree on new initiatives. In Monterrey, the United States gained support for programs to reduce by half the average cost of remittances sent home by immigrants working in the United States, to treat at least 600,000 sufferers from HIV/AIDs, and to triple assistance to small-sized firms that create jobs. However, it remains to be seen whether adequate attention is paid to their implementation.
Summits are a new art form in the history of diplomacy, only made possible with air travel and modern communications. There is still much to learn about how best to arrange the architecture of the leaders' meetings, how to negotiate declarations with real bite, and how to design institutions that assure efficient follow-up.
But the Special Summit of the Americas in Monterrey demonstrated the promises inherent in such august gatherings.
Feinberg is professor at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California San Diego. As President Clinton's adviser on Latin America, he was a principal architect of the first Summit of the Americas in 1994.
