Although the Fourth Santa Marta Summit between the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the European Union (EU) was organized with the aim of strengthening the “strategic rapprochement” that both blocs had long desired, its results failed to produce the desired impact.[i]The low level of leadership participation, the fragmented agenda, diplomatic disagreements, and rising military tensions in the Caribbean significantly weakened the summit’s political weight. This situation has led to questions about both Europe’s comprehensive approach to Latin America and the internal cohesion of CELAC.
The early end of the summit demonstrated that regional and global crises cast a heavy shadow over the diplomatic table. At a time when the wars in Ukraine and Gaza dominated the international agenda, the security pressures experienced by Latin America in its own geographical area also left their mark on the agenda. Describing Santa Marta as a “directionless summit” in these geopolitical conditions reflects the general spirit of the process.
The low level of participation in the summit revealed the limited political commitment between the two regions. Ursula von der Leyen’s last-minute absence, Emmanuel Macron’s decision to go to Mexico instead, and the failure of many Caribbean and Latin American leaders to attend the summit weakened the diplomatic picture in Santa Marta. This is because such multilateral summits gain meaning through symbolic leadership gestures, and political influence is largely built through the visibility of leaders.
The limited participation showed a clear “decline in priority” in Europe’s approach to the Latin American agenda. Similarly, within CELAC, political agendas were seen to be fragmented. The fact that many countries, from Uruguay to Argentina, acted with different priorities showed that coordination within Latin America was not at the expected level. This situation led to questions about CELAC’s capacity to produce a regional voice.
The most critical issue highlighted at the summit was the increased military activity in the Caribbean and its direct link to the Venezuela file. In recent months, the losses caused by the operations carried out by the United States (US) in the Caribbean have created serious concern among countries in the region. Petro’s statement that “the same missiles are falling on poor people in the Caribbean as they did in Gaza” was a diplomatic translation of this concern.[ii]
Venezuela has remained at the center of regional politics. Lula stated that “Venezuela’s problem is political and must be resolved through political means.” These words stand out as an important statement of position in terms of regional diplomacy.[iii] Although regional countries hold differing views on the legitimacy of the elections, no state wants a military escalation on Venezuela’s northern borders. Brazil’s security concerns regarding its Amazon border have reinforced this stance.
Although regional countries hold differing views on the legitimacy of the elections, no state wants a military escalation on Venezuela’s northern borders. Brazil’s security concerns regarding its Amazon border have reinforced this stance.
Statements by Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil that warships and nuclear submarines in the Caribbean violate the Treaty of Tlatelolco demonstrate that Caracas is putting forward arguments based on international law. The phrase “the forms of siege have changed, but the essence remains the same” in Maduro’s message reflects the country’s perception of external pressure. At this point, Venezuelan opposition leader Capriles’ emphasis that the crisis is fundamentally rooted in economic collapse shows that the debates in the region are socio-economic rather than ideological in nature.[iv]
The statements made by Kaja Kallas on behalf of the European Union at the summit showed that the EU expressed its commitment to international law and its discomfort with US policies in the Caribbean in a soft tone. The EU’s traditional stance of supporting regional integrity was reaffirmed at this summit. However, Europe’s focus on issues such as Gaza, Ukraine, and energy security suggested that relations with Latin America took a backseat.
The reservations expressed by some Latin American countries regarding the emphasis placed on Ukraine and Gaza in the Santa Marta Declaration further highlighted the geopolitical differences between the two blocs. The withdrawal of Argentina, Ecuador, and Paraguay from the paragraphs on Gaza demonstrated how diverse regional positions have become.
Although the summit highlighted the significant increase in trade volume over the past decade, the economic agenda was overshadowed by political issues. The EU-Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) Global Gateway investment programs offered opportunities for cooperation in areas such as green transformation, digitalization, and the care economy, which centers on women’s labor. Nevertheless, the political atmosphere has constrained rather than facilitated progress in these technical areas. Consequently, the economic outcomes of the summit amounted to a confirmation of the existing framework rather than a strategic breakthrough.
The diplomatic tension between Colombia and the US prior to the summit added a new dimension to the Santa Marta process. Petro’s raising of allegations of pressure from the US and the possibility of Colombia recalling its ambassador to Washington heightened tensions at the summit. Although the diplomatic tone was later softened, this incident demonstrated how controversial US influence in the region has become.
The fact that even a country like Colombia, which has close ties with the US, openly expressed its discomfort with military activities in the Caribbean signaled the emergence of a new security debate in Latin America. This situation indirectly reflected on the background of the CELAC-EU rapprochement.
Although the Santa Marta Summit was convened with the aim of establishing stronger political and economic ties between the two regions, it produced limited diplomatic results due to both lack of participation and geopolitical rivalries. Although the declaration adopted at the end of the summit emphasized multilateralism and peace, it did not offer sufficient depth to address regional fragilities.
Given the military buildup in the Caribbean, the ongoing disputes surrounding Venezuela, and Latin America’s internal balances, it will not be easy for the EU and CELAC to develop a common strategic vision. This summit demonstrated that both regions are struggling to position themselves in increasingly complex global competition. In light of all these developments, the Santa Marta Summit has gone down in history as a diplomatic initiative that reminded us of the importance of multilateralism but remained directionless.
[i] Ruiz, Luis Alejandro. “A Summit without a Compass: The CELAC–EU Faces Caribbean Tensions and Key Absences amid Growing Pressures.” Guacamaya, 10 Nov. 2025, guacamayave.com/en/a-summit-without-a-compass-the-celac-eu-faces-caribbean-tensions-and-key-absences-amid-growing-pressures/, (Date Accessed: 23.11.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
