The summit between 33 countries of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the European Union was held at half mast. If we use the scale of the list of attendees, we are talking about failure: barely twelve of the sixty leaders were summoned, and on the Latin American side only the Brazilian Lula and the Colombian host Gustavo Petro were summoned. If one considers the difficulties of the event: an insurgent Donald Trump putting pressure on Latin American countries, an intercontinental summit competing with four other major meetings of leaders in the same month, and political tension on both sides of the Atlantic, the simple fact that the event took place, two years after the last one (2023, in Brussels), is a triumph over adversity. Compared to the previous year, it has been eight years.
Teresa Ribera sees the glass as half full. The European Commission’s Vice-President for Clean, Fair and Competitive Transition receives El País in one of the summit halls, in Santa Marta (Colombia), the oldest city in Latin America, a few hours before the close of the meeting, when the final declaration will be made. Hours later, regarding the reference to Ukraine in the document, he noted: “It is a very positive paragraph that clearly confirms the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty in the face of aggression against Ukraine.”
I ask. The summit was marred by a glaring absence of senior leaders. Do you think the content resulting from the encounter makes up for that?
answer. I give a very positive rating. At a time characterized by tension in trade relations, the international system, cooperation on equal terms, and at a time characterized by Europe’s ability to continue to develop dialogue with completely different actors in a multipolar world, in the Latin American and Caribbean region, which does not always see things in the same way, while good-neighborly relations are not easy either… And here we are, the summit has gone ahead and witnessed a very important participation, although the leaders did not attend in any case. There was engagement on issues and very important input on what the priorities are and the importance of working together and making our voices heard in this turbulent time.
S. You used the word harassment. By which countries?
R. We are seeing a very important pressure on the way the world is understood that Europe represents, and I think we see this sometimes through physical reactions and attacks near our borders, sometimes through questioning the rules of trade or sometimes directly using the tools at the disposal of the different powers, whether raw materials or trade relations. We have seen a very remarkable change in what has been our primary partner for decades when it comes to building an international order based on peace, cooperation, respect for norms and contributing to the peaceful development of all continents, and in response it has gone to a transactional model. I think we have seen this since the change of government in the United States, and I think this should lead us Europeans to think about the weaknesses that we did not pay attention to, because we had partners who allowed us to build our way of life in a comfortable way.
S. The European Union lost focus on Latin America at the beginning of the 21st century, in the context of the euro crisis and Brexit, among other factors. Do you think the Trump factor is an incentive for Europe to regain its position in Latin America?
R. I don’t know. Each of us tries to solve problems, but we all know that we come from a circle in which the relationship between the European Union and Latin America was not only more or less not easy, but it was not easy in the reality of this continent. There were very different visions among the Latin American community, and finding their commonalities was not always easy.
S. As a trading partner and investor in Latin America, what differential advantage can the EU offer compared to powers such as China and the United States?
R. Quality and respect that lasts over time. There are forces with a clear extractive vocation, using transactions to pursue geopolitical interests that could generate revenues in other areas. The European Union has distinguished itself as that reliable partner that aims to transfer beyond its borders what it demands within them, which are high social standards and high environmental standards. It is not about generating an economic return in the very short term that is diluted immediately afterwards, leaving a burden in environmental costs, in social costs, for which opportunities are very difficult to generate in the future. European companies understand and respect this. We have a whole set of ILO conventions, a whole set of conventions, rules and knowledge on how not to sacrifice natural resources in a way that leads to irreparable damage. It seems to me that there is an added value there, which is an important value compared to any other value.
S. The European social model, sometimes referred to as a liability in global competition, can be defined as added value.
R. The American dream may be a myth, but the European dream is real. Europe remains the best place in the world to live, and one in which the majority of humanity would like to live, or to have a similar model on its territory. It is an intangible and important force that we have not known how to leverage in a sufficiently strategic way. Too often, Europe has assumed this to be the case and has not engaged in it, demonstrated it, or defended this model in the relationships it has maintained with third parties. That has changed. Europe now realizes that it is time to say loudly and clearly that this is the best model of democracy.
S. He spoke this morning very optimistically about signing the trade agreement with Mercosur, but recent statements from France raise doubts. Is it serious this time?
R. I am confident that this will happen before the end of the Brazilian presidency of Mercosur, that is, before the end of the year. I think 25 years of trade agreement maturity is a lot of years and this is incomprehensible. I believe that it would be incomprehensible to waste the opportunity to say to the whole world that Europe and Latin America, through specific treatment of Mercosur, want to continue working and unifying their markets and societies.
S. Do you think France is the last big hurdle?
R. I think they are still working internally on some detailed issues, but we are very confident that this could be the case. Europe must find solutions that allow it to provide guarantees to those who may feel it is a threat, and there must be agreement on these characteristics, which appear in all their numbers to be positive for both continents.
S. The issue of attacks on drug boats was also raised at the summit. What is your position?
R. One of the fundamental axes of the European Union is to defend the international order, the treaties and the rights we have given ourselves, and it seems to me that if we compile a guide to public international law we can recognize what it means or under what conditions the use of force is understood to be justified. Today we do not appear to be in any situation that requires immediate self-defense or that enjoys the support of the United Nations Security Council. Therefore, I think it is very important that there are many voices this morning in the discussion, in the meeting, defending a relationship of respect between nations and recognizing the sea as a space where the law must also be respected.
About The Author
