Jorge Gómez Barata
Rebellion
summits, especially the ritual, those called fixed-term years in advance, in which experts and ministers spend months cooking paragraphs to a statement that the heads of state officially shipped, are necessary for the spillway political system to drain some tension.
Seeking a legitimizing representation, the summits of heads of state are becoming more popular, a quality that turns into default because involves considering broader agendas, little problems, but less substantive and effective.
By bringing together political actors with different approaches and political positions, different priorities, alliances confronted, different class attitudes and national and international commitments of their own, the peaks are potentially disruptive environments. In such circumstances, to avoid confrontation is seeking consensus on the table putting global issues, focusing on a tessitura virtually academic.
presidential summits are prepared long in advance for that last bit and predictability. Part of the effort consumed in agreeing agendas, not to make them useful, but to prevent to be confrontational. For the hosts it is important to show convening power and ability to harmonize conflicting interests. It's tricky to decide who sits next to whom and what is the precedence in the use of the word. Resolved
all the details, working in the shadows, almost conspiratorial way crisscrossing telephone calls, coded cables and dispatching envoys and ambassadors to convince some that do not attack or do not allude to others, do not introduce uncomfortable issues and behave. Everything is complicated by the heavyweights. Submission and scaled the heights awkwardness when, during the Guadalajara Summit, Vicente Fox, not to intrude on Bush, dared to propose Fidel Castro: "eat lunch and go."
Most peaks are hiding behind the argument that relieved the differences do not matter because: "It's more that unites us than what divides us. The slogan "Unity in diversity" is invoked as if it were an open sesame. Such environments seem props and agents, even those who do not wish to do so, they become buffoons. There are always players, there are those who filled the stands and are the expendable bystanders. Anyway
summits are necessary, especially for heads of state workers actually take the opportunity to, on the same trip and in a few days, found with colleagues and send important issues and propose viable and effective mechanisms of cooperation. The most consistent advantage to narrow differences and clarify misunderstandings. Under
peaks can be negotiated with discretion, informal bilateral meetings without protocol commitments involving visits of state and away from the cameras.
The European Union-Latin America and the Caribbean, involving 80 countries and about forty Heads of State, convened to consider: "The fight against poverty, inequality and exclusion" and "Sustainable Development: Environment, Energy and climate change "is a synthesis perfect the virtues and shortcomings of these meetings.
In the present international situation a neoliberal Europe, aligned with U.S. and French rightist political process, some may say and offer to countries in Latin America who reject these options and move in ways that the distance of such approaches are the political vanguard of the continent and set the pace.
The hosts try to manage the discussions so as not to accommodate conflicting and unpleasant topics such as European and American ineffective in combating drug trafficking in their borders, food prices, hunger, biofuel production, agricultural protectionism, the separatist tendencies, U.S. interventionism in the region, style "Plan Colombia", the echoes of the aggression against Ecuador, to sabotage efforts by Chavez to release hostages and other matters that would "tarnish" the appointment.
probably prefer Alan García Chávez, Correa, Evo Morales, Lula and others, "enfant terrible" were not present, but without them the Summit would be like a chicken rice without chicken ....
Rebellion
summits, especially the ritual, those called fixed-term years in advance, in which experts and ministers spend months cooking paragraphs to a statement that the heads of state officially shipped, are necessary for the spillway political system to drain some tension.
Seeking a legitimizing representation, the summits of heads of state are becoming more popular, a quality that turns into default because involves considering broader agendas, little problems, but less substantive and effective.
By bringing together political actors with different approaches and political positions, different priorities, alliances confronted, different class attitudes and national and international commitments of their own, the peaks are potentially disruptive environments. In such circumstances, to avoid confrontation is seeking consensus on the table putting global issues, focusing on a tessitura virtually academic.
presidential summits are prepared long in advance for that last bit and predictability. Part of the effort consumed in agreeing agendas, not to make them useful, but to prevent to be confrontational. For the hosts it is important to show convening power and ability to harmonize conflicting interests. It's tricky to decide who sits next to whom and what is the precedence in the use of the word. Resolved
all the details, working in the shadows, almost conspiratorial way crisscrossing telephone calls, coded cables and dispatching envoys and ambassadors to convince some that do not attack or do not allude to others, do not introduce uncomfortable issues and behave. Everything is complicated by the heavyweights. Submission and scaled the heights awkwardness when, during the Guadalajara Summit, Vicente Fox, not to intrude on Bush, dared to propose Fidel Castro: "eat lunch and go."
Most peaks are hiding behind the argument that relieved the differences do not matter because: "It's more that unites us than what divides us. The slogan "Unity in diversity" is invoked as if it were an open sesame. Such environments seem props and agents, even those who do not wish to do so, they become buffoons. There are always players, there are those who filled the stands and are the expendable bystanders. Anyway
summits are necessary, especially for heads of state workers actually take the opportunity to, on the same trip and in a few days, found with colleagues and send important issues and propose viable and effective mechanisms of cooperation. The most consistent advantage to narrow differences and clarify misunderstandings. Under
peaks can be negotiated with discretion, informal bilateral meetings without protocol commitments involving visits of state and away from the cameras.
The European Union-Latin America and the Caribbean, involving 80 countries and about forty Heads of State, convened to consider: "The fight against poverty, inequality and exclusion" and "Sustainable Development: Environment, Energy and climate change "is a synthesis perfect the virtues and shortcomings of these meetings.
In the present international situation a neoliberal Europe, aligned with U.S. and French rightist political process, some may say and offer to countries in Latin America who reject these options and move in ways that the distance of such approaches are the political vanguard of the continent and set the pace.
The hosts try to manage the discussions so as not to accommodate conflicting and unpleasant topics such as European and American ineffective in combating drug trafficking in their borders, food prices, hunger, biofuel production, agricultural protectionism, the separatist tendencies, U.S. interventionism in the region, style "Plan Colombia", the echoes of the aggression against Ecuador, to sabotage efforts by Chavez to release hostages and other matters that would "tarnish" the appointment.
probably prefer Alan García Chávez, Correa, Evo Morales, Lula and others, "enfant terrible" were not present, but without them the Summit would be like a chicken rice without chicken ....
0 comments:
Post a Comment