"Rum Dialogues"? Why in heaven's name would I even impart formality to this phrase? Aren't all rum forums "dialogues"? Not on your mommie's life. And certainly not over at the Shillery of Rum, headed by our dear Preacher Ed and his merry band of rum-hazed, "...it's all good" sycophantic clones.
Not at all.
Actually, there were real "Rum Dialogues", which were a series of ACS (Assoc. of Caribbean States) sponsored, official get-togethers beginning in 2002, wherein WIRSPA and interested Caribbean countries and their representatives got together to work toward - gulp! - a definition of rum. All told there were six "dialogues" held in six different countries and ending in 2008. And what did six long years of meeting achieve?
Not much. Actually nothing.
But I digress. You are no doubt wondering just why there was a need for such "dialogues". Simply, Big Brother WIRSPA was concerned about rum sales and claiming a "...need for a common rum definition among FTAA countries, mainly to prevent the numerous national regulations from becoming obstacles to the trade...".
And so they set forward what turned out to be conflicting goals, to...
Let's take part (a) first, the "simple definition". The participants had an immediate and visceral reaction, which included:(a) establish a simple common definition for rum in the hemisphere; and (b) ensure the fundamental and sovereign right of all countries to establish national regulations governing the local production of rum greater than those outlined in the proposal.
Are you beginning to get the picture? Chaos! Total and complete. And the annual "dialogue" continued in this fragmented manner until the vaunted "4th Rum Dialogue" in 2007. Five years and still no final agreement. As close as they got was the Dominican suggestion wherein unaged product should be classified as “sugar cane liquor or aguardiente”.1. The need for more detail in the organoleptic characteristics of rum, aging requirements, in addition to establishing differences with other products obtained from sugar cane such as “Aguardiente”.
2. The definition must be simple and flexible in such a manner that it include countries’ criteria. There will be flexibility in the alcohol content and when specifying the components of the product.
3. The definition will not restrict the trading of other drinks.
4. Several delegations mentioned that a common definition would contribute to consensus being achieved within the framework of the FTAA, and that the exercise could prove useful in other trade forums such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
5. The Costa Rican delegation expressed that for now, it does not believe it is sensible to define a position in this respect, since consultations are in progress with the private sector, and given that said internal consultation process taking place with all sectors regarding FTAA negotiations has not been completed.
6. The Cuban delegation presented a proposal for the definition to establish the following regarding alcohol content: “…distilled at an alcohol content up to 96% alcohol by volume at 20 degrees Celsius; and…”
WIRSPA promoted the EU (European Union) version which which classified it as “a spirit drink exclusively produced by alcoholic fermentation and distillation, either from molasses or syrup produced in the manufacture of cane sugar or from sugar-cane juice itself and distilled at less than 96% vol.”
But still no real agreement, and chaos reigned supreme. No less than Manual Madriz Fornos, trade representative of the 27-member ACR admitted that the dialogues had been for naught, and recognized that the members couldn't even agree on a basic definition beyond "any liquor made from sugarcane or its byproducts", much less on "best practices" for producing it.
It gets worse.
At the fourth conference, the Chairman made sure to even table a motion to just discuss "best practices" (a subject that would no doubt include the subject of the dreaded-but-common practice of - help me Lord! - additives!). Two more "dialogues" were held, the last in Cuba in 2008. And still nothing accomplished.
Bottom line:
Rum never was a "noble spirit" beyond the wet dream of Preacher Ed and his fellow shills. A poster's report of a meeting in the Preacher's Martinique said it best...
It should be clear that, with the notable exception of the wonderful Richard Seale, I know of few distillers who are willing to openly and honestly report and label their rums as "flavored" when, in fact, most - yes, most - rums are indeed adulterated."Riding an international wave of demand, Caribbean rum producers are hard at work refining their famously ruffian wares for the connoisseur. Once a shameful profit of New World slavery, the rotgut fuel of the American Revolution and the favored tipple for frat parties and prom night, rum (hopes to enter) the crystal-and-cigars splendor of fine parlors."
Here's what it all means. The rum you are drinking - regardless of the faux gold medal it may have received in a faux category at a faux "competition" - is likely adulterated with flavorings and additives. It is likely not "pure aged rum" and you will have no real idea of what the underlying rum component is all about.
Put that in your pipe, er snifter...
