This past weekend’s Summit of the Americas, in Trinidad and Tobago, was a carnival of platitudes and absurdities. As a “gift,” Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez gave Pres. Barack Obama a radical-left history book written by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano. Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega delivered a buffoonish anti-U.S. rant that lasted 50 minutes. Press coverage of the summit was dominated by talk of the Obama-Chávez meeting, the Ortega harangue, and the weakening of U.S. sanctions against Cuba.

We are deeply skeptical of any U.S. rapprochement with Venezuela. Chávez is not simply a vulgar loudmouth; he is an authoritarian who has pulverized Venezuelan democracy, brutalized his political opponents, aided narcoterrorists in Colombia, and sought a partnership with Iran. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the Chávez regime is guilty of “employing and providing safe harbor to Hezbollah facilitators and fundraisers.”

As for Cuba, Obama himself continues to support the U.S. embargo. So do we. No, it has not toppled the Castro dictatorship, but it is a tool. Cuba will only liberalize when its rulers decide to liberalize. If and when they do, the embargo should be lifted. Until then, we see no reason to reward the Cuban government with a massive unilateral concession.

We realize that farm-state politicians are eager for their constituents to gain access to the Cuban market. Their desire to end U.S. sanctions has nothing to do with Cuban freedom. Many of our libertarian friends argue that ditching the embargo would spur a loosening of Cuba’s economic and political controls. We wish it were that easy. Thus far, trading with the rest of the world has not persuaded Havana to hold free elections, release political prisoners, or even adopt Chinese-style economic reforms. What about “flooding” the island with American tourists? European and Canadian tourists have been swarming Cuba’s beaches and hotels for many years now. This has done nothing to ease political repression.

Would lifting the embargo improve our image in Latin America? Perhaps, on balance, it would. But that alone is not a compelling reason to lift sanctions. Our Cuba policy should be designed to increase freedom for Cubans, not to curry favor among Latin governments that have neglected their democratic brethren in Castro’s island gulag.

In his opening remarks to the summit, Obama proclaimed “a new chapter” of U.S. engagement with the Western Hemisphere — “based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values.” We hope that means Obama will pressure congressional Democrats to ratify the U.S.-Colombia free-trade deal, but we’re not holding our breath. His call for “a new chapter” in hemispheric relations was an implicit dig at the Bush administration. The conventional wisdom is that Bush “ignored” Latin America or was “disengaged” from the region. This charge is unfair.

Among other things, the Bush administration played a key role in helping Brazil and Uruguay cope with the aftermath of the 2001 Argentine financial meltdown: It secured a $30 billion IMF package for Brazil and a $1.5 billion U.S. Treasury loan for Uruguay. Bush also signed free-trade pacts with Chile, Central America and the Dominican Republic (DR-CAFTA), Peru, Colombia, and Panama. He broadened “Plan Colombia” and provided valuable assistance to the Uribe administration in its fight against leftist guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries. He launched the $1.4 billion Mérida Initiative to combat drug trafficking and crime in Mexico and Central America. And he championed a bold immigration plan that bitterly divided the Republican party and hurt his popularity among conservatives.

In short, the idea that Bush ignored Latin America is bunk. There’s no question that the Bush administration shifted its focus after 9/11 — for obvious and understandable reasons — and that Latin America took a back seat to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other challenges. So far, President Obama has likewise spent far more time on the Middle East, Asia, and Europe than he has on the Western Hemisphere.

Over the short term, Obama’s priorities in Latin America should be to aid the Mexican government in its bloody war against the drug cartels; to support Central American countries in their own struggles against violent crime (much of it fueled by gangs and drugs); to win congressional approval of the pending free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama; and to enhance U.S. ties with Brazil, the region’s emerging giant. For now, at least, pursuing détente with Venezuela and Cuba would only be a fruitless distraction.