I'd offer three hypotheses for why Latin summits are always more entertaining.

1. Same reason Latins usually win the Miss Universe pageants - if you watch the faces of those Latin girls versus the others, they are more open and spontaneous, less guarded than the others. Also, Latins in general don't keep secrets well, you can usually find out the real reason for anything you want to find out by asking around in Latam. The openness and spontanaeity make for good summits.

2. Latin democracies, all formed at the same time, all derived from the Iberian culture, tend to be leader-centric. When you look at whoever runs a place like Belgium or Switzerland, you don't see an individual of much consequence, you know he's got a bureaucracy behind him calling the shots you know the Belgian one takes orders from the EU faceless bureaucrats and he could be here today gone tomorrow, and he doesn't have much personality anyway, he rose through the ranks by getting along to go along. Not so with Latins whose states are very leader-centric. The OAS stance, on the Honduras issue, places far more importance with keeping the leader intact than with what the constitution may say, and it gives zero importance to the checks and balances between branches of government. To them, what a Honduran Supreme Court rules is irrelevant because the executive leader is the only government member who matters. The leader-centricity also extends to how Latins view power - in general, they think any problem can be solved by calling up the president, not working through the bureaucracy, this is often why they misread US policy and place it all on the president. Lula used to think he could call up Bush and get anything, he thought politics wa all personality, and not a bunch of policy makers at the state department setting a general course.

3. They share a common language, with the only major outlier, Portuguese-speaking Brazil close enough to be understood by the others. It's gotta help.

I'd echo the reasons Mora pointed out, and add some more -

1. The Summit isn't about something absolutely boring and regular (like most European Union summits), and

2. Alcohol consumption isn't frowned upon, like most of the Arab League summits (at least in the open).

On a slight side note, this is the best way to handle Chavez in the public arena - eviscerate him with jokes. He's all about puffing himself up against the perceived greater threat, and is exceptionally fond of rhetoric - so cut him down to size a bit. I said in an earlier post that I think the US response to Chavez's claim that it was going to be used in a war against him should have been, in part "What, increasing the amount of counter-narcotics troops from 250 to 800 counts as a possible invasion preparation for Venezuela? Either Chavez thinks very highly of our troops or very low of his own."

It's about time that someone in the world said that to him, the man is a joke.

My take is that unlike the European Union, UNASUR is simply less rigid. Its basically Presidents talking. If you skip the Presidents, then there's pretty much nothing else to see on UNASUR (the thing doesn't even have an official website yet!).

South American integration has never really achieved its goals... We may have the same language, but we all have wanted very different things throughout our history (and even more so nowadays). So basically weird things happen at South American meetings because they are weird meetings were no one really knows what can be achieved.

So UNASUR may be funnier, but its a lot less effective...

But to be fair though, its not always Latins who make the weird comments at Latin meetings... the last time around it was the Spanish King...

Oh and Chavez and his Foreign Minister did laugh a little btw... you can watch it here: http://www.peru.com/noticias/portada20090828/52458/Argentina-Presidente-Alan-Garcia-le-juega-una-broma-a-Hugo-Chavez-en-plena-Cumbre-de-UNASUR-

I would agree with Mora and AGD above. Since most Latin American presidencies are very much personality-driven, each leader has much more leeway to speak on behalf of him- or herself and not just as a public servant and representative. As many are populist in nature, it creates an environment where "scoring points" against other countries -- no matter how meaningless, and usually along easy fault lines such as views on American hegemony, etc. -- can get you a splashy headline back home and boost your support.

Also, there are roughly three hundred (I exaggerate) summits held in Latin America -- you have UNASUR but also the Rio Group and the Summit of the Americas, the ideological ALBA summits, and the sub-regional Mercosur, Andean Community, etc. They provide an enormous number of opportunities to trade pointed - or subtle - barbs, and then you move on to the next summit in two weeks.

Lastly, it's notable how many public tiffs Chavez has been involved in over the last few years that played themselves out at summits -- most washed away quickly with time, which shows how petty they were in the first place. After Chavez ordered ten battalions to the Colombian border following Uribe's raid into Ecuador that killed Raul Reyes, it was thought to be resolved with a handshake at - suprise! - another regional summit. I fear the Venezuela-Colombia feud, though, will not go away that easily.

(I look forward to meeting you in a few days, Professor Drezner.)

But some of the comments seem to be way over the top generalizations about "latin" people in general, that make me a little uncomfortable.

I know why Americans aren't outgoing and personable: because the politician, either side of the aisle, gets ragged on when he is. The Daily Show still plays clips of Bush dancing or trying to exit a closed a door. Right, he was a terrible president, but these gaffes having nothing to do with his presidency. Imagine if Obama made a joke at another leader, he'd be described as going off the rails.

So why are Latin American conferences more entertaining? I'll put forward a generalization, machismo. That and near dictator level control over their countries and political systems, many have room to make these comments.

Eric C

As a Latin American I feel offended by such generalizations over culture. I know these are only qualitative hypotheses, which are as valuable as a quantitative one, but when you lack evidence, don't depend on generalizations.

Trying to avoid some of the enlightened "fiery latina/latino" stereotypes already stated (probably by latino posters too-we humans love to stereotype our own :P), Latin America clearly has a personality-driven politics, especially at the top. Hugo Chavez and Uribe are both strong personalities with intense disagreements. I don't know of anywhere else in the world where personality conflicts seem or seemed recently to be quite so strong (Georgia and Russia perhaps, and the Bushes and Saddam?).

Also, I think Chavez's audience is the local people, not Western journalists. I imagine he's playing to the natural fear of the Yankee empire in the good many Latin American people below the poverty line or near there, who aren't as fond of US trade policies or their support for military dictators during the cold war. So when be builds drama like this, he does it to feed a continental domestic audience which is strongly Anti-American, and whose views of US policy are coloured by Bush's invasion of Iraq among other debacles. All of my Latin American friends of more leftist persuasion wouldn't believe that the American force would be small or concerned only with narcotrafficers, not Venezuelan oil.

Now, if many of the people who tend to vote for Chavez share their mistrust, then all his drama at UNASUR weakens Uribe and American interests in the long term, and gives new life to his message and other Socialist leaders in Latin America.

I am not sure that it has to do with the lack of rigidity of this summit (ASEAN has a small and flexible organization and seems to get the job done) or a latino style. I will push for two other causes:

1. the gap between stated objectives and reasonnable outcomes. Latin America and Middle East have a tradition of building regional organizations with very ambitious objectives, which then become disfunctional or ineffective. Stated objectives of the European Union or the ASEAN are closer to reality. When they start to talk about what they could do, it become often technical and doll... because it could really happen. Summits in Latin America and the Middle East are more about posturing, even if it's not just that.

2. Permeability of societies. Middle East and Latin America are the two regions where people share the most cultural traits across countries. Language is one of them. So, Leaders have very good incentives to use these public summits to make public statements with an eye on the society of other countries. If you can strike a nerve (anti-americanism is always a winner there) and put part of an other society on your side, they might put pressure on the other leaders for you. It's a two-level game in reverse.