In principle, that seems to be a positive goal, and there's nothing censurable about vetoing the presence of the English-speaking countries, but it is naive to expect great accomplishments from that kind of diplomatic exercise.
It is not true that a grand-scale economy will solve the problems of poverty. China and India had the world's two largest potential markets, yet until recently they were two of the most miserable nations on the planet. When did that grim landscape begin to change? When they were able to create efficient and competitive enterprises that produced goods or services with a lot of added value. The key is not in the size of the market but in the quality of the supply.
Nor is it true, as Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa presumes, that economic integration is better achieved with a common Latin American currency, with regional development banks that handle the region's savings and with supranational organizations that coordinate international commerce. He's talking about the ruble, in the days of the Soviet Union; he's talking about the Comecon, which arranged for commercial exchanges in the so-called ''Eastern bloc,'' instead of encouraging competition -- and we know the picture of backwardness and poverty that characterized the ''fraternal socialist bloc.'' Correa, who was trained as an economist, may have a vague idea of how wealth is distributed but is totally ignorant of how it is created.
The dollar, the euro, the yen, the pound sterling, the Swiss franc are international currencies because even in times of crisis, like today, the countries that issue them are stable, respect property rights and have -- as tangible backup -- a powerful productive apparatus that is modern and innovative. Why place one's trust in the currency of countries that arbitrarily repudiate their foreign debt and default on their commitments anytime they feel like it?
Chile, for example, or Costa Rica or Uruguay, countries that are reasonably managed, would commit an act of madness if they turned their economic future over to a regional bureaucracy managed by representatives of countries that are terribly corrupt, as almost all countries in Latin America are, according to the hair-raising reports from Transparency International.
Can the reader imagine a currency-issuing continental bank under the direction of, let's say, Néstor Kirchner? Integrationist delirium aside, something a lot more serious could be seen at the Sauípe summit: the total absence of ethical requirements.
• There stood, shouting, Daniel Ortega, guilty of so many ugly things in his lamentable past, the man who brazenly stole the recent elections in Nicaragua.
• There stood, preening like a star, the colorful Hugo Chávez, who fraudulently attempts to perpetuate himself in power while heading the worst kleptocracy ever inflicted on that poor country.
• There sat, like the guest of honor, Gen. Raúl Castro, now presiding over the longest and most pauperizing dictatorship in Latin American history.
Of course, nobody voiced the slightest criticism; everyone applauded them as if they were the honorable representatives of their peoples. It was the old Latin American tradition of complacence with crime and indifference to the pain of the victims. Everybody either cheered or kept silent.
The example of the European Union was invoked. But what do those Latin American countries that do not defend freedom or decency have in common with a union of countries whose membership requirements include democratic behavior, respect for human rights, the subordination of everyone to the rule of law and common sense and honesty in the performance of government duties?
As long as the Latin American political elites do not understand that the fundamental objective of democratic governments is to maintain the freedoms and guarantee the dignity of their people, not only will they fail in the administrative field but also will continue to elicit from their citizens their most categorical contempt and most cynical attitude. That's why we're in the fix we're in.
