The exclusion of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua once again from the upcoming Summit of the Americas, to be held in the Dominican Republic in December 2025, is regarded as a significant turning point in regional diplomacy. Launched in Miami in 1994 under the leadership of the United States (US), this summit process was theoretically intended to be a dialogue platform covering the entire continent. The Dominican Republic’s decision not to invite these three countries as host reflects more than just a diplomatic choice; it also reflects the reshaping of power balances in the Western Hemisphere.
This decision parallels the United States’ exclusion of the same countries at the previous summit held in Los Angeles in 2022. The exception in question now appears to have become a systematic practice. In its statement, the Dominican government defended this move on the grounds of “ensuring the success of the summit” and “expanding regional participation.”[i]
The phrase “strict multilateral criteria” emphasized in the Dominican Republic’s statement may appear to be a technical justification on the surface, but in reality, it points to the restrictive effect of the Organization of American States (OAS) framework. The coordination process carried out through the OAS Summit Secretariat has, in recent years, become a filtering mechanism aligned with US foreign policy priorities. Therefore, the exclusion of countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua is related not only to their “lack of institutional membership” but also to Washington’s strategy of distancing itself diplomatically from regimes it defines as authoritarian.
In this context, the decision taken by the Dominican Republic as host, although presented as an “independent” diplomatic move, reflects an updated version of the historical hegemonic influence of the United States. The phrase “revival of the Monroe Doctrine” used in the Cuban Foreign Ministry’s statement shows how deeply rooted this perception is throughout the region.[ii]
Cuba was the first country to react to the decision, describing this step as “yielding to unilateral pressure from the US.” Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez’s statement on social media that “a summit built on exclusion and pressure is doomed to failure” is a typical example of Havana’s efforts to base its diplomatic discourse on international legitimacy. Nicaragua and Venezuela, however, have not yet made any official statements. However, considering that both countries have long faced similar exclusion practices, their silence can be interpreted as a tired diplomatic response.[iii]
The situation is more complex in the case of Venezuela. The Dominican Republic’s statement noted that the two countries have “deep historical ties” but that “diplomatic relations have been suspended due to irregularities in the 2018 and 2024 elections.”.[iv] This emphasis is not merely a criticism of domestic policy but also demonstrates that the Dominican Republic has pursued a foreign policy line consistent with a Western-centric understanding of democratic legitimacy. This approach is a clear indication of how the elections held under Maduro’s administration in Venezuela are perceived at the regional level.
Although the historical purpose of the Summit of the Americas has been to promote democratic values and human rights, in recent years, the summit has been seen to reinforce ideological polarization rather than “unity.” US-backed countries view the summit as a liberal-democratic platform, while Bolivarian governments (particularly Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, and Nicaragua) define these meetings as “new colonialist platforms.”
The Dominican Republic’s decision demonstrates that polarization in Latin America has now taken on not only an ideological but also an institutional character. The countries excluded from the summit are not merely sidelined; they are effectively removed from regional decision-making processes altogether. This situation may pave the way for the resurgence of alternative diplomatic networks that Latin America has sought to build over the past two decades—such as ALBA, CELAC, and UNASUR. Indeed, countries like Cuba and Venezuela have previously invoked the idea of “intra-Latin American solidarity” in response to such exclusions. This development could, therefore, lead to the revival of that very spirit of solidarity.
The Dominican Republic’s position is caught between maintaining its close diplomatic ties with the United States and preserving its identity as an independent actor within the Caribbean region. The government’s statement emphasizing that “bilateral relations with the three countries continue at various levels” reflects an intention to preserve this delicate balance. However, from the perspective of the international community, this stance appears to lie somewhere between “diplomatic caution” and “political inconsistency.”
The internal political repercussions of the Dominican Republic’s decision are also noteworthy. Some left-leaning groups in the country have characterized this decision as “submission to the US,” while conservative circles defend it as “preserving international legitimacy.” This division is a microcosm of the political division across Latin America. In other words, the Dominican Republic is not only the host but has also become the symbolic center of polarization.
These developments in Latin America are not limited to diplomatic exclusion; they also signify a revival of the debate over continental identity. At the beginning of the 21st century, the idea of “Latin America’s right to determine its own destiny” was a shared value embraced by both left-wing and centrist governments. However, in recent years, economic crises, external debt burdens, and security concerns have weakened this spirit of solidarity. The Dominican Republic’s decision can be seen as a reflection of this ideological breakdown: countries in the region now tend to align themselves according to their geopolitical orientations rather than a shared vision. This situation represents a serious challenge for the continent’s future integration projects (particularly mechanisms such as CELAC and UNASUR).
The 2025 Summit of the Americas has evolved from a forum of inclusivity to a laboratory for geopolitical alignments. The systematic exclusion of regimes labeled as “authoritarian” by the United States may ensure short-term diplomatic coherence, but in the long run, it undermines the legitimacy of regional cooperation mechanisms.
The future of Latin America depends on its capacity for coexistence and negotiating differences. If the OAS framework remains a structure that only legitimizes certain political orientations, alternative alliances in the region will regain strength. The Dominican Republic’s decision, in this regard, will go down in history not merely as a diplomatic choice but as a symbol of an era in the Americas where exclusion has become normalized instead of dialogue.
[i] Fernández, Sleither, “Dominican Republic Bars Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua From the 2025 Summit of the Americas”, Guacamaya, guacamayave.com/en/dominican-republic-bars-venezuela-cuba-and-nicaragua-from-the-2025-summit-of-the-americas/, (Date of Access: 05.10.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
