The decision by the government of the Dominican Republic to exclude Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua from the X Summit of the Americas, to be held in December 2025, is far more than a mere protocol incident: it is a stark symptom of the structural crisis afflicting the inter-American system.

Far from being a technical or neutral measure, this exclusion, justified as a strategy to ensure “the broadest possible participation,” has been denounced by the affected countries, their regional allies, and broad sectors of civil society as a direct imposition by the US government. Such pressure undermines the sovereignty of the host nation and reinforces an exclusionary, coercive, and profoundly anachronistic model in the relations among the peoples of Our America.

From a critical perspective grounded in the principles of self-determination and historical justice, it is imperative to underscore that this decision lacks not only political legitimacy but also represents a historic regression in efforts to build an inclusive, respectful, and effective regional dialogue. Indeed, the exclusion of three states fully recognized by the international community, countries with which the Dominican Republic itself maintains, in its own words, “historic, solid, and excellent” diplomatic relations with Cuba and “cordial” ties with Nicaragua, cannot be justified under the banner of “multilateralism” when that very multilateralism is subordinated to the hegemonic interests of a single power.

 US Interference and the Host’s Capitulation

A central pillar of this critique lies in the evident interference of the United States in the organization of the summit. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez was unequivocal in describing the measure as a “decision imposed by the US government on the Dominican Republic” and a “capitulation to the brutal unilateral pressures of the US Secretary of State.” This assertion is not unfounded. Historically, the Summits of the Americas have been marked by Washington’s disproportionate influence since their inception in Miami in 1994 under the auspices of the Organization of American States (OAS), an institution whose neutrality has been repeatedly questioned by wide sectors of the Global South. Cuba, in particular, has long regarded the OAS, in Fidel Castro’s words, as a “Ministry of Colonies.”

In this context, the Dominican government’s stance, acknowledging that it prioritized “mass participation” over inclusion, reveals a submission to imperial dictates that contradicts its own diplomatic record. It is worth recalling that in 2017, the Dominican Republic successfully hosted the Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), in which Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua participated fully. The same occurred during the 2023 Ibero-American Summit, also held in Santo Domingo, where all three countries attended without controversy. This inconsistency demonstrates that the current exclusion is not based on a universal principle of foreign policy, but rather on a selective, politically motivated concession to Washington’s pressures—thereby undermining the host country’s credibility as a neutral and sovereign actor.

A summit doomed to fail

Beyond the host’s contradictions, the exclusion itself condemns the summit’s stated purpose—fostering hemispheric dialogue and cooperation, to failure. As the Cuban government has stated, “a summit built on exclusion and coercion is doomed to fail.” This is not mere rhetoric; it is an empirical observation confirmed by recent experience. The IX Summit of the Americas, held in Los Angeles in 2022 under the same exclusionary logic, was weakened by the protest absences of the presidents of Mexico, Bolivia, Honduras, and other regional leaders. Far from achieving consensus, the forum became a stage for division, boycotts, and confrontational rhetoric, evidence of its growing irrelevance.

The repetition of this pattern not only confirms the inter-American model’s inability to evolve but also deepens the rift between countries that uphold full sovereignty and those that tacitly or explicitly accept the tutelage of an extra-regional imperial power. In this sense, the X Summit is born already illegitimate, not because three countries are absent, but because of the authoritarian logic that underpins it: the notion that some states have the right to participate in continental dialogue while others do not, based on political criteria imposed from outside.

The Monroe Doctrine and Gunboat Diplomacy

The critique from Cuba and the ALBA-TCP goes beyond diplomacy and situates this exclusion within a historical framework of domination. They denounce the measure as an “application of the Monroe Doctrine” and a revival of “gunboat diplomacy” in the 21^st century. This analogy is not exaggerated. Proclaimed in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine declared the Americas as the United States’ “backyard,” reserving Washington’s right to intervene in the internal affairs of hemispheric nations. Though formally outdated, its logic persists through contemporary mechanisms of coercion: unilateral sanctions, economic blockades, campaigns of delegitimization, and now, military threats and selective exclusion from regional forums.

By denying participation to legitimately constituted governments, without any UN resolution or regional consensus, a political hierarchy is reaffirmed that negates the sovereign equality of states. For the ALBA-TCP, this dynamic confirms that the Summit of the Americas is a space “tutored by imperial interests” and thus, non-participation by free, sovereign, and independent peoples "constitutes a distinction" that honors their dignity. In other words, exclusion is not a defeat, but an opportunity to reaffirm sovereignty in the face of submission.

Historical regression and the erosion of progress

Another crucial element of this critique is the regressive nature of this decision. In 2015, at the VII Summit of the Americas in Panama, a historic milestone was achieved: Cuba’s participation after more than half a century of exclusion. That moment was widely celebrated as a step toward normalizing inter-American relations and as a tacit acknowledgment of the failure of isolation as a policy. The current exclusion not only ignores that precedent but deliberately reverses it, consolidating what the Cuban government has termed a “historical regression.”

This regression benefits no one except those seeking to preserve a unipolar order in the hemisphere. By excluding key actors from discussions on migration, public health, climate change, or food security, areas where Cuba, for example, has demonstrated concrete leadership, the summit deprives itself of essential perspectives and practical solutions. Cuba’s internationally recognized medical cooperation, endorsed by the World Health Organization, and the social policy experiences of Venezuela and Nicaragua are left out of a dialogue that paradoxically claims to be centered on “the well-being of peoples.”

The Voice of the Peoples: Toward a summit of Abya Yala

Finally, it is essential to emphasize that this criticism does not come solely from governments. Within the Dominican Republic itself, social movements, intellectuals, and popular organizations have strongly condemned the exclusion. In a public statement, they denounced the “servile submission” to the dictates of Washington and the OAS. In response, they have called for the creation of a “People’s Summit of Abya Yala,” an alternative space grounded in solidarity, sovereignty, and mutual respect.

This initiative symbolizes a growing trend across Latin America and the Caribbean: the pursuit of autonomous integration mechanisms, free from the interventionist and conditional logic of the traditional inter-American system. Forums such as CELAC and ALBA-TCP have demonstrated that fraternal dialogue, without vetoes or exclusions, centered on the common interests of our peoples, is not only possible but already underway.

Related News

A Tale of Two Summits

Conclusion

The exclusion of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua from the X Summit of the Americas is not an isolated episode but the latest manifestation of a deep crisis in the hemisphere’s diplomatic architecture. It reveals the persistence of an imperial logic that denies sovereign equality, the incoherence of nations that claim non-alignment yet yield to external pressure, and the urgent need to build genuine, inclusive, and pluralistic spaces for dialogue.

As long as the inter-American system remains subordinated to the interests of a single power, it will continue to lose legitimacy and relevance. True unity in Our America will not be forged in tutored forums, but through the daily practice of solidarity, mutual respect, and South-South cooperation.

"Fidel Castro once declared with the highest moral authority: 'History will absolve us', but we could say now that it will also judge those who, in the name of a summit’s 'success,' betray the most fundamental principles of sovereignty and international justice."

Bibliography

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la República de Cuba. (2024). Declaración del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores sobre la exclusión de Cuba de la X Cumbre de las Américas. La Habana: MINREX.
https://www.minrex.gob.cu/es/art%C3%ADculos/declaraci%C3%B3n-del-minrex-sobre-la-exclusi%C3%B3n-de-cuba-de-la-x-cumbre-de-las-am%C3%A9ricas

Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América – Tratado de Comercio de los Pueblos (ALBA-TCP). (2024). Comunicado del Consejo Político del ALBA-TCP ante la exclusión de Cuba, Venezuela y Nicaragua de la X Cumbre de las Américas. Caracas.

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la República Dominicana. (2024). Comunicado sobre la participación en la X Cumbre de las Américas. Santo Domingo.

Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA). (1994). Declaración de Principios de la Primera Cumbre de las Américas. Miami.

Secretaría General Iberoamericana (SEGIB). (2023). Declaración de Santo Domingo. XXVII Cumbre Iberoamericana.
https://www.segib.org

Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC). (2017). Declaración de Punta Cana. V Cumbre CELAC. República Dominicana.

Rodríguez Parrilla, B. (2022). Discurso en la IX Cumbre de las Américas: La exclusión no es el camino. Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Cuba.

Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). (2023). La integración regional en América Latina y el Caribe: desafíos y perspectivas. Naciones Unidas.

Observatorio de la Deuda Social América Latina (ODSA-UCV). (2024). Impacto de las sanciones unilaterales en los derechos humanos en Venezuela, Cuba y Nicaragua. Universidad Católica de Venezuela.

Red de Movimientos Sociales de República Dominicana. (2024). Comunicado contra la exclusión de Cuba, Venezuela y Nicaragua de la X Cumbre de las Américas. Santo Domingo.

Telesur. (2024, 15 de abril). Canciller cubano denuncia presiones de EE.UU. para excluir a la isla de la Cumbre de las Américas.
https://www.telesurtv.net

Granma. (2024, 16 de abril). Una cumbre construida sobre la exclusión está condenada al fracaso.
https://www.granma.cu

Galeano, E. (1971). Las venas abiertas de América Latina. Siglo XXI Editores.

Amin, S. (1976). El desarrollo del subdesarrollo. Ediciones Era.

Quijano, A. (2000). Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina. En La colonialidad del saber: eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales. CLACSO.

Sanahuja, J. A. (2012). Post-liberalismo y giro a la izquierda en América Latina: orígenes, impacto y dilemas. Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals, (98), 55–74.

Mora, M. (2020). La OEA y la Doctrina Monroe en el siglo XXI: ¿herramienta de integración o de intervención? Revista Relaciones Internacionales, UNAM, (45), 113–136.

Stiglitz, J. (2002). El malestar de la globalización. Taurus.

Monroe, J. (1823). Mensaje anual al Congreso de los Estados Unidos (Doctrina Monroe). Washington, D.C.

Castro, F. (1998). Discurso en la Reunión Especial de Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno del CARIFORO. Puerto España, Trinidad y Tobago.

Castro, F. (2015). Discurso en la VII Cumbre de las Américas. Panamá.