Nicaragua rejects CELAC Declaration
The need for a unifying, valid, and practical counterproposal from the South
Nicaragua was one of three countries of the region to reject the Tegucigalpa Declaration emitted by the Ninth Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) on April 9, 2025. The other two countries were Argentina and Paraguay, where governments of the Right are allied with the USA, a category to which the Sandinista government does not pertain.
Let me say at the outset that the Tegucigalpa Declaration was most uninspiring and unimpressive. Consisting of merely eight articles, Article Two is the only one that reaffirms the principles of CELAC. In said Article, the Declaration expresses support for multilateralism, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. In the same Article, it rejects unilateral and coercive measures, including those that restrict international commerce, an indirect reference to the blockade of Cuba and the economic sanctions against Venezuela.
The tepid Tegucigalpa Declaration stands in marked contrast to the Kingstown Declaration of March 1, 2024, emitted at the Eighth CELAC Summit hosted by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The Kingstown Declaration called for “a fairer, more democratic, inclusive, and supportive international financial system that allows developing countries, including members of CELAC, access to necessary financial resources under fair, equitable, favorable, and transparent conditions including debt restructuring mechanisms.” It recognizes and supports steps taken by member states in improving the production and just distribution of food. The Declaration expresses concern with restrictions on agricultural trade “adopted with the justification of conserving the environment.” It recognizes the steps that have been taken to improve air, sea, river, railway, and road connectivity within the region. It stresses the importance of developing initiatives aimed at addressing the factors that promote the brain drain of human resources from the countries of the region. The Kingstown Declaration calls for the development of people-centered and ethical artificial intelligence. The 2024 Declaration reaffirms the commitment of CELAC to comprehensive and humanitarian management of the growing migratory flows in the region, with the intention of attaining a “safe, orderly, and regular migration” that recognizes the human rights of the migrants and also addresses the concerns and rights of host communities. See “CELAC Declaration of Kingstown 2024: A new world order is again announced,” March 8, 2024.
The message of Nicaragua to the Ninth Summit of CELAC
Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Valdrack Jaentscke declared to the Summit that Nicaragua “cannot accept or support the document presented as a proposal for a declaration, because it does not reflect the complex realities experienced by the peoples of the world and the region and because it departs from the fundamental principles that underpin this Organization.”
The message of Nicaragua declared that a document of the Summit ought, at a minimum, to express the strong rejection by the region of the unjust blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba since 1962 and the aggressions against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It ought to include expression of solidarity with the sisters and brothers that have had to migrate from their countries, and it ought to demand dignified treatment for those who are returned to their countries. In addition, “a declaration of this Summit must refer to the very serious consequences of the Tariff Policies decreed by the United States of America against the World, and agree on common actions and measures to face their consequences” (italics added).
The Nicaraguan message further noted that such themes were amply addressed by the majority of the delegations, and there is wide agreement on these questions in the region. As a result, they were included in the initial proposal put forth by Honduras, in its capacity as President pro tempore. Nicaragua supported that original proposal in its entirety. In an interview with the Nicaraguan news outlet Estudio TN8, Jaentscke explained that Honduras had presented a declaration with seventy-five points, many of them advanced and consistent with the historic principles of CELAC.
What happened? The Nicaraguan message asserts, “The attitude of a few countries that act with the purpose of reducing and diluting the principles, tenets, and rich history of our Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) has been notorious and constant. The vetoes have been noted, and we have identified those who have drawn red lines to our integration efforts.” In the interview with Estudio TN8, Jaentscke adds that during the course of months, the 75-point proposed declaration underwent changes, with many discussions that were diminishing the principal objective of the proposed declaration. He declared that a minority group of countries wanted to dilute the Declaration, eliminating sensitive themes. The result was a weak document of eight points.
The message of Nicaragua to the Summit makes clear its rejection of the attitude of a few countries. “Nicaragua rejects any attempt to undermine not only the founding ideals of our community, but also to exclude and neglect the serious problems that afflict the peoples of our region. We are making it clear that a declaration that does not include the rich history of our Community of Latin American and Caribbean States responds to the attempts to weaken the efforts of those of us who want a strong CELAC; it has the objective of dividing us and reducing our principles to an intolerable minimum.”
What should CELAC declare?
The Tegucigalpa Declaration makes clear that the heads of state of the region were not prepared to put forth the kind of declaration that the historic moment requires. I believe that part of the reason was that the leaders were not aided by Latin American intellectuals, who have retreated into anti-imperialist moral posturing rather than objective analysis of the legitimate concerns of the current US administration. I maintain Latin American intellectuals ought to recognize legitimate U.S. concerns as they seek to clarify and promote the interests and the objectives of the South.
A declaration from Latin America and the Caribbean ought to be based in a solid understanding of what presently is transpiring in the United States. It is tempting, one might say convenient, for the socialist and leftist tendencies in Latin America and the Caribbean to accept at face value the denunciations by the U.S. Left of the Trump phenomenon as imperialist, authoritarian, and xenophobic. But the Latin American and Caribbean Left ought to have consciousness of the fact that the U.S. Left is based in the urban, middle- and upper-middle-class; and it is allied with the corporate elite, the pre-Trump political establishment, and the mainstream media. In contrast, the MAGA movement is based in the working class and in the small towns and rural areas of the nation, which have been mobilized in reaction to the self-interested betrayal of the American Republic by the corporate elite and the political establishment since the 1970s, a betrayal that has led to the economic decline of the working class and the small towns of the nation. Anti-imperialist critiques of the Trump administration ought to take into account its political and historical context.
With consciousness of the contemporary political context, a CELAC declaration in the current situation ought to acknowledge that the US government has the right to impose tariffs on any nation, especially when it believes that such a policy would function to break the nation’s decades-long economic decline. The right of nations to protect their national economies has been a principle proclaimed by the Non-Aligned Movement since the 1960s. A CELAC declaration also ought to recognize that the U.S. government has the right, as do all sovereign states, to deport citizens of other nations who reside in the national territory without authorization, with the stipulation that it be done in a humane manner, to the extent possible. And it should affirm that the United States has legitimate interests and concerns with respect to the Panama Canal, but it should defend said interests with respect for the sovereignty of Panama.
A CELAC declaration ought to put forth a unified position in response to the Trump project. It should declare that any effort by the USA to develop a new version of the Monroe Doctrine contradicts the Trump administration’s own doctrine of peace through trade and military strength. A declaration ought to accept and reaffirm the legitimacy of said Trump doctrine, stressing, however, that the northern government surely must know that lasting and beneficial trade is attained only through trade that is beneficial to both partners. The declaration should affirm the willingness of Latin American and Caribbean countries to engage in mutually beneficial trade with the USA and to enter bilateral negotiations to this effect, as well as the willingness of CELAC as an organization to enter prior discussions with the United States with respect to basic principles, if there is the political will for such prior discussions. The declaration ought to make clear that said negotiations ought to include what the USA calls non-trade barriers to commerce, with the intention of attaining mutually beneficial resolution of this issue.
At the same time, a declaration ought to make clear that such negotiations cannot include the relations of the countries of the region with Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, because each nation has the sovereign right to decide on its trading partners and on the characteristics of its commercial and diplomatic relations. It ought to be clear that the sovereign rights of the nations of the region cannot be subject to negotiation, with respect to its trading partners or with respect to the characteristics of its political-economic system. These are questions that each nation decides in the exercise of its sovereignty.
And a declaration ought to make clear the central proposal and demand of the Global South, namely, that trade practices must promote common development. All trade practices that promote the development of one side and the underdevelopment of the other must be transformed through dialogue leading to agreement, on a basis of mutual respect.
In my view, instead of producing a tepid nearly unanimous declaration, CELAC should have gone for a majority declaration that addresses the Trump project from the perspective of the South in a substantive form.
“A critique of Atilio Borón: A perfect illustration of the Latin American misreading of the Trump phenomenon,” April 15, 2025
§
Final considerations
Inasmuch as the political culture of the USA lacks anti-imperialist consciousness, it is impossible for the political leaders of the United States to approach the governments of the South with sensitivity to their historic quest for sovereignty. But we should recognize that the United States has put forth its concerns and demands with respect to its persistent balance of trade deficits in a manner that explicitly invites countries to negotiate the terms of bilateral trade. In fact, the Trump administration has proudly proclaimed that seventy governments have communicated their desire to negotiate, and that this was one of the factors in the administration’s deferral for ninety days of many of the tariffs.
Unfortunately, such negotiations are going to proceed without the support of guidelines emitted by important organizations of the Global South, such as CELAC, which could have the consequence of many nations being coerced into accepting unfair accords. This is what occurred in the 1980s and 1990s with respect to the imposition of neoliberalism. But today this result could be avoided, if organizations like CELAC were to put forth unifying guidelines. A different result today is possible, inasmuch as the USA today has significantly less economic force at its disposal than it had in the epoch of the neoliberal turn; and in addition, this time the northern nation, albeit in a crude manner, is calling for negotiations.
Mutually beneficial bilateral agreements between the USA and the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean could support the USA in its interest in overcoming its balance of trade deficits, and at the same time, they could empower Latin American and Caribbean countries to develop trading relations with the North that promote their economic development. Mutually beneficial bilateral agreements between the USA and key Latin American and Caribbean countries—including but not limited to Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua—would constitute a decisive step toward the attainment of a post-imperialist and post-neocolonial world of peace and prosperity. A unified and practical proposal in this direction from CELAC would strengthen the hand of those within the Trump administration who are inclined to move in this direction. Indignant moral posturing concerning the sins of Empire does not help.
A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system. Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Society for Philosophical Investigations.