By LARA PICKFORD-GORDON Saturday, April 25 2009

Prime Minister Patrick Manning signing the Declaration of Port-of-Spain for the 33 members of the Summit of the Americas was “diplomatic politeness” as no one wanted to embarrass the host.

This view was expressed by Professor Norman Girvan, professional research fellow, University of the West Indies at a critical reflection of the Fifth Summit held yesterday at the Institute of International Relations Boardroom.

He said the Declaration clearly did not reflect the will of members who wanted the inclusion of an end to the Cuban blockade and the global financial crisis.

Girvan said Manning signing on behalf of the other countries was a “face saving compromise aimed at saving face especially for PM Manning in his capacity as host.”

He said Declarations such as the one coming from the Summit were not legally binding, and did not have the force of international treaty law. “They simply have some moral and political force on behalf of the states which adopted and signed and which inter-governmental organisations then use in orienting their work programmes, in this case the Organisation of American States (OSA)”.

Girvan said it was difficult to understand why the outcome was not anticipated given the statements made prior to the Summit from the protagonists including the ALBA countries.

He said it was a “disconnect” to have a declaration which did not reflect the views of the majority members, or make reference to one of the most important issues — the global financial crisis.

Girvan questioned what the outcome would have been if the US was one of the 32 countries attending the Summit which supported the lifting of the blockade, or any measure.

Girvan said the Cuban blockade, and the absence of Cuba from the OAS have taken on “symbolic importance” and represented “everything that is wrong with the relationship between Washington and the hemisphere”.

Fullbright Scholar, Dr David Goldberg said it was “unfortunate” the Cuba issue and US policy took focus away from discussion of many important “bread and butter issues” including financial, immigration policy, migration, drug trafficking, corruption. Goldberg said, “an excessive emphasis first, on US policy toward Cuba and then secondarily a handshake and a book that dominated everything else, is to my mind, a smokescreen that detracts from any serious discussion of what is happening in the hemisphere.”

He expressed disappointment that Haiti was not discussed by the heads and the only thing mentioned was the OAS saying it would discuss Haiti at its general assembly meeting.

Golberg described the Declaration as “poorly written and poorly organised”.