The elephant not in the room: Castro and the Summit of the Americas

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support for as little as $5 per month!

Cuba, and in particular its former President, Fidel Castro, is already a player at the fifth Summit of the Americas which takes place Friday and Saturday, April 17 and 18, in Port of Spain, Trinidad. That much is evident from information coming out of Havana, Moscow, Santiago de Chile and La Paz in recent days.

On Friday April 3, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega met with Fidel Castro and handed him a copy of the proposed Declaration of Port of Spain, which will be sent for adoption by the leaders of the 34 countries attending the Summit, including Canada.

What about the blockade?

Fidel expressed strong views about the draft Declaration, noting the absence of any mention of Cuba’s exclusion from the meeting or of the United States’ long-standing blockade of his country, routinely condemned by the overwhelming majority of member countries of the international community.

He also appeared to be predicting that there would be several reservations to the draft expressed by heads of state who find some of the ideas ‘unacceptable.’ Fidel went on to publish his account of the meeting and his views on the Declaration in his regular column – the convalescing 82-year-old has still been writing prolifically, especially since formally relinquishing power over a year ago – which is widely available on the Internet.

The significance of all this seems to have escaped the mainstream media. For a head of state due to attend a summit to disclose the contents of the Declaration to be adopted to a non-attending state; and to someone who is -- technically at any rate -- a private citizen of that state in effect soliciting his views on the Declaration; for this disclosure to be itself disclosed and the critical views of the private citizen on the Declaration given widespread media exposure; all this seems to me to be virtually unheard of in the practice of international relations.

Except that the summit in question is supposed to be ‘of the Americas;’ that the non-attending state is Cuba, which has full diplomatic relations with almost all of the attendees; and that the ‘private citizen’ is Fidel Castro.

Respect for Cuba’s legacy of defiance, solidarity

Fidel, of course, commands enormous respect amongst most hemispheric leaders for having defied the hostility of Washington for close to fifty years, for the impressive social accomplishments of the Cuban Revolution and for Cuba’s numerous acts of solidarity in the hemisphere and internationally.

As President, he gave strong support to Nicaragua’s Ortega in the 1980s when the Sandinista government was struggling to defend itself in the ‘dirty war’ being waged by the Contras backed by the Reagan administration, a war which cost thousands of Nicaraguan lives.

It seems to me unthinkable that Ortega, having shown the Declaration to Castro and receiving his response, will not follow this up by raising the subject of Cuba at the Summit; even if he had not planned to do so before. And it is likely that he would have the support of the other Latin American and Caribbean leaders; all of whom are on record as supporting the lifting of the blockade. It is even possible that some of the leaders had prior knowledge of his intention to discuss the proposed Declaration with Fidel.

Chile, Russia: Old Cuban allies raise the heat on U.S. 

The day following the Ortega-Castro meeting in Havana, President Michelle Bachelet of Chile met with President Medvedev of Russia in Moscow.

The two Presidents found space, in their joint Communiqué dealing with such weighty matters as energy and military cooperation, to call for an end to the U.S. embargo on Cuba and for its integration into the "regional multilateral structures" -- an oblique reference to the OAS, from which Cuba has been excluded since 1962.

Michelle Bachelet, let it be remembered, is regarded as part of the ‘moderate’ left in Latin America. She suffered some political embarrassment at home when, after a meeting with Fidel earlier this year, her host wrote a column that appeared to endorse Bolivia’s claim to a land passage to the Pacific Ocean through what is now Chilean territory, seized in a war with Bolivia over a century ago.

The incident caused a political row in Santiago that led to the resignation of Bachelet’s foreign minister. Nonetheless, her government has signalled, on the very eve of the upcoming Summit, that its principled position on Cuba remains intact.

The same goes for President Medvedev, whose warming of relations with Washington under Obama is equally matched by a warming of relations with Havana, which he visited earlier this year, expressing the desire to rebuild many of the close ties that existed between the two countries in the heyday of the Soviet Union.

On the same day as the Bachelet-Medvedev meeting, President Evo Morales of Bolivia, speaking at a press conference in La Paz, was appealing to Barack Obama, “to lift the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on Cuba since February 1962.”

This call was already adopted at the first Summit of Latin and Caribbean leaders in Bahia, last December; as well as at the Cuba-Caricom summit in Santiago de Cuba held earlier the same month.

Obama must cope with ‘change’ in realities of hemisphere

The calls have now reached a crescendo. Cuba has become the unseen guest at the Summit in Port of Spain, and Fidel Castro the spectre haunting its deliberations, the elephant not in the room.

Hopefully, someone in the White House will have the good sense to ‘wise up’ Barack Obama about the new realities in the hemisphere; and he will have the grace to recognise -- indeed embrace -- them.

Otherwise, who will be isolated: Cuba? Or the United States?


Norman Girvan is Professorial Research Fellow at the UWI Graduate Institute of International Relations at the University of the West Indies in St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago.

Further Reading

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.