Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Saturday, April 18, 2009 12:43 PM

Summit Opening: History Front and Center, Obama Ad Libs

Katie Connolly
While most U.S. reporters expected South American leaders to ramp up pressure on President Obama to dissolve the embargo on Cuba during last night's opening ceremony, few expected the scorching, 50-minute long critique of the capitalist system offered by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. And although Obama urged leaders to look to the future -- to "move forward with a new sense of partnership" -- the night's speeches were firmly rooted in the past.

All of the speeches last night seemed directed, to varying degrees, towards the U.S. president, most referencing historical disputes. Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner called the Cuba embargo "anachronistic" but was careful that her speech not constitute a "telling off" of Obama. "It’s simply an exercise to look back at what happened," she said. Ortega appeared to have no such qualms. Although he read a letter from Cuban President Raul Castro that absolved the President of blame for the Bay of Pigs (POTUS, born August 4 1961, was in utero at the time of the invasion), he railed on the United States for supporting a capitalist system that brings about "poverty, misery" and assymetrical development, and he called for a global alternative to capitalism. During his peripatetic and indulgent speech (Ortega knowingly spoke for well over his allocated time), Ortega said he refused to call the meeting the "Summit of the Americas" while Cuba and Puerto Rico are not represented.

This is Obama's first experience of a frosty international reception, but he appeared characteristically unfazed. And the iciness certainly wasn't pervasive -- not counting those on the dais, Obama seemed pretty popular in the auditorium. He received the biggest response during the entrance procession, with many delegates applauding loudly and leaping to their feet. When Obama coaxed his audience to be forward looking, they were most responsive: his biggest applause came when he said  "we cannot let ourselves be prisoners of past disagreements" and "I didn't come here to debate the past -- I came here to deal with the future."

Obama departed from his prepared remarks to briefly respond to Ortega's blistering rhetoric. Here is what he added at the podium, courtesy of the White House transcript:

Advertisement
As has already been noted, and I think my presence here indicates, the United States has changed over time.  (Applause.)  It has not always been easy, but it has changed.  And so I think it's important to remind my fellow leaders that it's not just the United States that has to change.  All of us have responsibilities to look towards the future.  (Applause.) I think it's important to recognize, given historic suspicions, that the United States' policy should not be interference in other countries, but that also means that we can't blame the United States for every problem that arises in the hemisphere.  That's part of the bargain.  (Applause.)  That's part of the change that has to take place.  That's the old way, and we need a new way. The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made.  We will be partners in helping to alleviate poverty.  But the American people have to get some positive reinforcement if they are to be engaged in the efforts to lift other countries out of the poverty that they're experiencing.

The comments are reminiscent of his campaign rhetoric, invoking change and the need for a new way,  but his tone was not his trademark hopefulness -- this was a serious and determined Obama. Indeed he sounded at his sharpest and most decisive when he told his counterparts that the American public would need some "positive reinforcement" in return for their assistance. 

A senior administration official later told reporters that Obama's additions to the speech had not been crafted ahead of time. "We did not discuss it, but I also don't believe it was off the cuff. I think it was a very thoughtful reaction to some of the comments earlier in the night, which I think we all thought were remarkable," the official said.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: melomanace1 (April 21, 2009 at 12:40 AM)

The Puerto Rican Independence Party bases its struggle in favor of the independence of Puerto Rico on the conviction that we continue to be a colony of the United States, thus being denied the right to our freedom and sovereignty. From the moment the American invasion forces, directed by General Nelson A. Miles, disembarked in Puerto Rico in 1898, the foundations of our relationship with the United States were laid. The famous speech that the General gave when he arrived finishes with statements that hold true even till this day:

"...and to bestow upon you the immunities and blessings of the liberal institutions of our government.. to give to all within the naval control of its military and forces the advantages and blessings of the enlightened civilization."[ 1 ]

Everything would be under the control of the military and naval forces of the United States. Since then, our relations with the American metropolis have had some cosmetic changes that only have to do with the administration of the colony and the organization of the internal government, but never has it granted Puerto Ricans the total control of their lives and destiny. Sovereign powers have never been transferred to us in order to be able to decide in all those areas that affect the collective life of our nation.

It has recently been demonstrated that the Puerto Ricans do not have any authority to decide on vital areas, for example, the use of Vieques by the naval and military forces of the United States as a bombing and practice range. We have had to fight against all odds, even going to jail, to call the attention of the civil government of the United States, its president, and its congressmen, so that they can exert their authority and solve a situation that is fundamentally unjust. We have had to battle and struggle to place on the balance of power our interests as a nation against the interests of the metropolis, represented just as in 1898 by the Navy and military of the United States. To the date of this writing there has not been the most minimum show of will on the part of the United States government to satisfy the demands of the Puerto Rican people.  (On May 1, 2003 the US Navy ceased operations in Vieques.  The land used as a target range was transferred to US Department of the Interior under the Fish and Wildlife agency.  As of this update, environmental clean up activities are slowly being performed by the Navy.  The Navy also ceased operations on the nearby Roosevelt Roads Naval Base at Ceiba.  Environmental remediation is also on its way there.  US Navy has announced its intention of selling the land to private investors instead of returning it to the Puerto Rican Government.)


Posted By: wildechild66 (April 19, 2009 at 11:34 AM)

Frankly, I wouldn't be too disappointed if we gave Texas back. After all, weren't they the ones threatening to pull a Jefferson Davis not too long ago?  But seriously, I think Obama is handling this whole situation rather well. The US has apologized for its mistakes, but not everything is our fault, and it is important that Latin America realizes this. Now is the time for us to truly start being good neighbors to one another--on BOTH sides of the fence.


Posted By: Neutron (April 19, 2009 at 1:30 AM)

Carter gave back the panama canal.  what will obama give back, texas and california?