Group photo of the 4th CELAC-EU Summit held in Santa Marta, Colombia, on November 9-10, 2025. Photo: European Council.
Caracas (OrinocoTribune.com)—On Sunday, the Fourth Summit between the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the European Union (EU) issued a joint declaration. The 52-paragraph document was signed by 32 of the 33 CELAC countries. Venezuela was the only country that decided not to sign it.
At the end of the document, seven countries—Argentina, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago—presented formal objections to critical paragraphs. They distanced themselves from positions reaffirming the region as a Zone of Peace, condemning the genocide in Gaza, and demanding an end to the economic blockade against Cuba, among others.
The declaration also includes paragraph number 14 regarding the Ukrainian conflict, which appears to respond more to the interests of the European Union than to those of the Latin American countries. It was not questioned by any of the signatories.
This diplomatic maneuver coincides with the agenda of countries that have subordinated themselves to the United States’ foreign policy in recent months, seeking to weaken the unified position of Latin America and the Caribbean against foreign intervention.
The footnotes on the final declaration read as follows:
• Argentina dissociates from paragraphs 10, 15, 18, 42, 44, the reference to “gender” in paragraph 9, the reference to “Pact for the Future” in paragraph 20, and the reference to “Agenda 2030 and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals SDGs” in paragraph 22.
• Costa Rica dissociates from paragraphs 10 and 18.
• Ecuador dissociates from paragraphs 10, 15, and 18.
• El Salvador dissociates from paragraphs 10 and 18.
• Panama dissociates from paragraphs 10 and 15.
• Paraguay dissociates from paragraphs 10, 15, 18, 20, 22, and 44.
• Trinidad and Tobago dissociates from paragraph 10 and the reference to “We reiterate the importance of regional migration dialogue frameworks” in paragraph 47.
• Venezuela withdraws from the declaration.
Paragraphs 10, 15, and 18 were the most objected to by the group of countries that currently serve as partners of the United States in the region.
Venezuela has not yet made any comments about its decision not to sign the final declaration. However, many analysts believe that Venezuela did not sign the declaration because it failed to incorporate a clause that Venezuela had suggested.
Paragraph 10 is about the Zone of Peace and reads as follows:
Noting that CELAC has declared itself as a Zone of Peace, committed to the settlement of disputes through dialogue and cooperation in accordance with international law, we recognize the ongoing efforts to achieve peace in the region, highlighting our support for the peace process in Colombia with the backing of the international community and the United Nations. We discussed the importance of maritime security and regional stability in the Caribbean. We agreed on the importance of international cooperation, mutual respect, and full compliance with international law, including in combating transnational organized crime and drug trafficking. Several CELAC member States emphasized their national positions regarding the situation in the Caribbean and the Pacific. We reiterate our commitment to strengthening mechanisms for dialogue, coordination, and technical assistance to jointly address these challenges.
As can be seen, this paragraph is a reiteration of a fundamental CELAC principle referring to the Zone of Peace, aiming to resolve disputes through dialogue. It emphasized its “support for the peace process in Colombia,” while keeping the region a war-free zone. It was rejected by Argentina, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago.
The refusal to endorse this paragraph comes amid a growing US militarization of the region, a situation condemned during the summit by Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil. By distancing themselves from this paragraph, these governments tacitly legitimize the presence of US forces in the region and the killing spree that has already taken the lives of 75 civilians from various countries.
Paragraph 15, dedicated to the Israeli genocide in Gaza, reads as follows:
We recognize the agreement reached on the first phase of the Comprehensive Plan to end the Gaza Conflict, as well as the outcome of the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit for Peace, held on 13 October 2025. In this regard, we recall the High-Level Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, held in New York. We reiterate our unequivocal condemnation of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks. We reiterate our firm condemnation of the escalation of violence in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, following the increased settler violence, the expansion of illegal settlements, and Israel’s military operation. We call on all parties to fully commit to implementing all phases of the Plan and to refrain from any actions that could jeopardize the agreement. To alleviate the dire humanitarian situation, we call for immediate, unimpeded access and sustained distribution of humanitarian aid at scale into and throughout Gaza. All parties must comply with international law, including international humanitarian law. We reiterate our strong commitment to a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace, in accordance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, based on the two-state solution. We also reaffirm our commitment to the reconstruction and recovery of Gaza.
Many analysts criticize that this paragraph did not label Israeli operations in Palestine as a genocide, despite the murder of over 65,000 Palestinians, and supports a two-state solution that is heavily repudiated by many in West Asia. However, even with the diplomatically neutral shape it took, the paragraph was rejected by Argentina, Ecuador, Panama, and Paraguay.
This stance aligns those countries with the position of Washington, Israel’s main ally and financier, distancing them from the global consensus demanding a just peace in the region.
Paragraph 18, dedicated to the US blockade of Cuba, reads as follows:
The countries that supported the United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/80/7 of 29 October 2025, reiterate the need to put an end to the economic, commercial, and financial embargo imposed against Cuba, as well as their opposition to laws and regulations with extraterritorial effects. The designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, and its continuation on the list, has introduced obstacles to international financial transactions with the island.
In an extremely diplomatic tone, the paragraph calls attention to the illegal US blockade of Cuba and the illegal US sanctions. It was rejected, however, by Argentina, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Paraguay.
This rejection shows their support towards an illegal US suffocation of Cuba that has caused hardship to the Cuban people for over six decades, and has been overwhelmingly condemned year after year in the UN General Assembly.
President Maduro Calls on CELAC Summit to Condemn Militarization of Caribbean
Other Objections
Argentina’s position caused tension over its objection to the term “gender equality” in paragraph 9, which reiterated a basic diplomatic, human rights defense script. This shows that the internal condemnation in Argentina against President Javier Milei’s misogyny is not unfounded.
Argentina and Paraguay also rejected paragraph 44, which recognized the advance of the EU-LAC Digital Alliance and referred to satellite connectivity. Some analysts speculate that there might be internal interests in these countries against these initiatives.
Lastly, it is worth mentioning that Trinidad and Tobago rejected a section of paragraph 48—incorrectly numbered as 47 in the document—due to the phrase: “We reiterate the importance of regional frameworks of migration dialogue.”
This paragraph highlighted the importance of cooperation on migration issues. The Trinidadian position only reinforces the xenophobic stance of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar toward migration, especially that from Venezuela.
Despite the controversial rejections in the final declaration, many analysts consider it a victory that the majority of countries, despite not being overly friendly with the Venezuelan government, are concerned about an escalation of violence in the region.
Special for Orinoco Tribune by staff
OT/JRE/SF
