Webinar: Countering the Authoritarian Wave in Latin America

---

Frank Gaffney:

Hello. My name is Frank Gaffney. I’m the executive chairman of the Center for Security Policy. And very pleased to be the moderator of an important, and I think very timely conversation. With several of our, well, hemispheres, most respected figures on matters involving the security of the hemisphere. And particularly the security of freedom, loving people’s and nations in it. We are going to be speaking to each of them in turn. I simply wanted to say a very special welcome to, not only them, but to all of our audience today for this webinar, sponsored by the Center for Security Policy, Hemispheric Security project.

Frank Gaffney:

We are going to start with a very distinguished statesman from the nation of Peru. His name is Francisco Tudela. He formerly served as the first vice president of Peru. Also as its foreign minister, and as its UN ambassador. He has been a member of its legislature, and active in its public policy life for decades. He is a recognized scholar, as well as a statesman. And has contributed very much to a number of our webinars, and programs, and interviews on our Secure Freedom Radio, and securing América Televisión program. And we’re very grateful to him for his participation.

Frank Gaffney:

I think what I will do, if I may, is hold off on the introductions of our other two panelists until their time is at hand. And we’ll begin with you, Mr. Vice president. You have not only provided us with a very important paper, published by the Center for Security Policy, entitled, “Peru’s new governments threat to the Western Hemisphere. You’ve actually, earlier this week, also undertaken and enormously, well momentous, and courageous step in initiating a process for the impeachment of that president Pedro Castillo. I hope you’ll talk about all of these topics and more in the remarks that you now are invited to make. Welcome, sir.

Francisco Tudela:

Thank you very much, Frank. I am honored to be in this program of the Center for Security Policy. We’ve talked about this subject in the past. Since June, Peru has a Marxist president. He belongs to a Marxist-Leninist called Peru [foreign language 00:02:51]. He began his government by proposing measures to control radio waves, to try to impose a referendum for a new constitution, et cetera. But with the pass of time, he is becoming weaker and weaker, because there is a very strong rejection from the population against him, depending on the opinion polls, between 66.9 and 70% of Peruvians reject his policies, think he’s incompetent and believe he’s corrupt. And he has only around 20% of support. That’s the hardcore of the left. Nothing else.

Francisco Tudela:

He came to power in a very difficult moment for Peru, because we were in the middle of a constitutional crisis, that he has tried to deepen with his proposal of a new constitution, that has been blocked today by the constitutional court, that has said that the presidential proposal is illegal. And that Congress is right into [pretetive 00:04:20] law, that they have given to block that referendum, by saying that, “Any referendum has to be approved by Congress.” So that’s a huge victory today.

Francisco Tudela:

And Peru in the bill of this constitutional crisis, exposed to a Marxist government, becomes a country in the heart of Latin America, with five boundaries, with great geo political importance. In which you have as main commercial partner, China with 170 Chinese corporations in Peru. The first port that China builds in south America, 80 kilometers, north of Changan. A huge port of more than 40 hectares of surface with a more form of 400 meters long, and 29 meters wide, 17 meters of draft for the super E3 Panama ships, the biggest ones, container ships. But at the same time, it is very possible that if tensions in the north Pacific, between the United States and China, in Greece. And you have a contention, then People’s Liberation Army, Navy taskforce, carrier taskforce can use these ports, that has even a tunnel, a mile long, of rainfall complete for the root of the containers to the Pan-American highway.

Francisco Tudela:

But at the same time, it has internal deposits. I’m not saying that special weapons are going and to be hid in those deposits. But what I see is, as that port will have the full logistical capacity to support, a People’s Liberation Army. And that poses a challenge to, not only the private of Asia. U.S. Policy of containment of China, in the North Pacific, but also a barrier in the western, South Pacific. Because if you go in a central line, let’s say from Chancay, to the west, you will reach Indonesia. And if you go in a central line from the southern part of Peru, you will reach Darwin in Australia. And so Peru is in the middle of a very sensible, of a very sensitive geopolitical area. Now this government, thank God, is in crisis. People rejected. The government cabinet has fallen yesterday. A new cabinet has been named, or put in office.

Francisco Tudela:

Most of the ministers are questioned, as happened with the other cabinets, because they have to investigations by the police, because of links to [inaudible 00:07:47] organization of the Shining Path. And one must not forget that the national [inaudible 00:07:56] began an investigation to Peruri, the part in government, because of its links to a criminal organization called the [foreign language 00:08:09]. The dynamics of the center, who contributed to the campaign substantially. But at the same time, they are linked to the drug traffickers of the [inaudible 00:08:21 ], in the south of Peru.

Francisco Tudela:

There is Iranian influence by a group called Inkari. Islam, Inkari means the resurrection of the Inka. It’s a sheer group, Inkari substitutes. As the [inaudible 00:08:43] man of the Shia myth. And at the same time, the websites and the TV stations of Russia today, in Spanish, supports strongly this government. And has happened also with the Chinese, and Al Jazeera. And all that network of opinion in the world, as the North America, far left. We must not put that aside, but that’s a fact.

Francisco Tudela:

With this, again, I’ll try to finish this sketch. There is now a battle between the Western linked liberal, the Western linked far left that is linked to American universities, to European universities, to foundations in the U.S., In Germany, in England, against the government of Pedro. That is a government linked to Cuba, to Venezuela, to Russia, to China, to Iran. This battle is raging because of the Western, put it in some way, because in fact, ideologically, they are not Western, but the Western funded far left feels excluded by the Castillo government from the cabinet posts, and the consulting posts in the different ministries. And so there is a battle raging on now.

Francisco Tudela:

To put an end to this, Castillo gave an interview. President Castillo, to CNN. To Fernando El Rico. And in that interview, he offered sovereign access of Bolivia to the Pacific ocean through Peru. The journalist [inaudible 00:10:52], realizing the barrier of that proposal said that, “That is something you said long ago. Do you insist in saying it now?” And he said, “Yes. I believe in that, that’s a claim of Bolivia. We have to consult the people. The people will be consulted.” And that means a referendum. That is absolute illegal. That is high treason, according to our constitution, our criminal code, and the code of military justice, because the territory of the state is inalienable. It cannot be fractioned, and sold.

Francisco Tudela:

And it’s a tribe, article 325 of the criminal code, says that, “Anyone who proposes to do that, or does that, has no less, will be condemned to not less than 15 years of jail.” And at the same time, the president represents the nation, represents the state, he’s the head of state. And he is a director, according to the constitution of the foreign policy. And he represents the state in Peru and outside Peru. Now, the international Court of Justice, of Hague has said, that the declaration of high authorities are binding, and created rights for those that are benefited by those declarations. The most dramatic case, is the case of the Muruora nuclear experiments by France. In which, a declaration from the president of France was found by the International Court of Justice, to create right for Australia and New Zealand.

Francisco Tudela:

So in fact, this is absolutely objective. And here I finish. So six lawyers, including myself, we have presented an impeachment against the president, to Congress for high treason. The structure is very solid. And as you know, in the U.S., has improved. And let me finish with this, ignorance here, juries, non-exquisite. That’s a general principle of law by which, if you don’t know the law, that doesn’t exonerate you for a bargaining by the law.

Frank Gaffney:

Yes.

Francisco Tudela:

And so the next day he said, “Well, I’m sorry. I really didn’t want to say that, but another thing.” Too late. Too late. He is a head of state. He should know the law, the minister of justice, his legal advisor. He has known better. There is nothing personal against him. You cannot have an irresponsible president that has been applauded by the Bolivian Congress today, before yesterday, at in charge of Peru.

Frank Gaffney:

Mr. Vice president. Thank you very much for this comprehensive treatment, of what has befallen your country. And what it implies, or will eventually inflict, unfortunately, upon others in the Hemisphere. We’re going to talk more about that prospect, with the author of a very important new paper, that’s appeared at the national interest, as well as the American Foreign Policy Council. With the title breaking the authoritarian wave in Latin America. His name is Joseph Humire. He is the executive director of a marvelous organization, Center for a Secure Free Society. He is a Marine Corps veteran with considerable experience, both as a Marine and subsequent to taking off the uniform, in Latin America. And truly one of our country’s duty experts, in particular, on the subject of not only authoritarianism indigenous to the hemisphere, but also the growing influence as the vice president has just indicated, of external actors, here aiding and abetting the wave of which he will be speaking to us now. Joseph Humire, welcome once again to these webinars, we’re delighted to have you with us, sir. The floor is yours.

Joseph Humire:

Well, thank you, Frank. It’s always a pleasure to be with the Center for Security Policy. It’s great to see the honorable Francisco Tudela, once again. Thank for your remarks. Actually, a bit of optimism in the case of Peru. Now, seeing that the current president of Peru, Pedro Castillo is having some difficulties because as expected, it’s much different to govern than it is to have a populous rhetoric that often gets sold during the campaigns. And as always, great to be with my good friends at [inaudible 00:16:20], who is a top security official on Latin America top policy official, in Latin America.

Joseph Humire:

I’ll be a bit brief. But what I like to do, is unpack the article that Frank was mentioning, and the opening. So it’s an article that I initially wrote for American Foreign Policy Councils, defense dossier. And then it got picked up, a shorter version, at the national interest. And the point of the article was, to give up a little bit of what… Latin America, they love to say, “The [Foreign language 00:16:47].” The landscape. The political economic security landscape of Latin America.

Joseph Humire:

And so there’s always ebbs and flows to things in life, and in politics, and Latin America is no different. So if you look at the 21st century, there was this kind of a pendulum swing, that would go left and they went right, but there was characteristic differences between that shift. The first decade characterized by what they called the pink tide, was this shift to the left. Some governments that were left of center that were more… Left as ideals and obviously policies, but had some semblance to maintain democratic institutions in their country.

Joseph Humire:

And then there was other leftists, that had much more radical ideas of how they wanted to transform the institutions with their country. Or in some cases, even dismantle them and then bring on a wave of authoritarian control, that’s most notable in countries that were the core of that pink tide, which were called the Bavarian Alliance. We’re talking about Venezuela, that was at the beginning of Hugo Chavez, Bolivia under Eva Morales, Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega. And you could even lump in the Kushners in Argentina. Both Nester, and then Christina Kushner. Even the [inaudible 00:17:56], the workers party in Brazil under Luda [inaudible 00:17:58], and then Delmar [inaudible 00:17:59].

Joseph Humire:

But as we headed into the second decade, the pendulum swung to the right. And there was, what they some call a conservative wave into Latin America, with more right of center presidents, more market-friendly presidents, more business-friendly presidents that began to create policies that were, a) more oriented towards free enterprise. And b) much more aligned with United States, in terms of having foreign relations and trade. But there was two big differences between, when the conservative wave hit Latin America, as opposed to when the pink tide hit. Which is the pink tide one, had a profound understanding of how to use non-state networks. They didn’t just depend on the institutions of state power, to have control and to project power, but actually built civil society, networks, NGOs, and a range of different actors outside of the government, that help them persist into power even when they left government.

Joseph Humire:

That’s why we saw Christina Kushner come back in Argentina. Even Pedro Castillo was brought up by these NGOs, and Francisco Tudela mentioned some of these networks that propelled them into power. And two, that was the one big difference. The more conservative way, they governed in a more traditional sense, if you will, without just maintaining government policies from government agencies, but they didn’t really consult much with civil society. But the other big difference, and I think this is the main one, especially for the audience at the center for security policy.

Joseph Humire:

The other big difference was the pink tide or the ABA countries, had a geopolitical vision. They knew what side of the world that they wanted to align with. They made no shyness of being able to align with countries that have a history of authoritarianism and even totalitarianism, and there are regions. I’m talking specifically about Russia, Iran, China, and others. And they reoriented their foreign policy. In some case, even their trade policy to these countries. That’s how China became a major trade partner of a lot of these countries in Latin America. As opposed to that, the conservative wave, try to play nice with everyone. They try to continue to have trade with China, continue to have top trade with the United States, continue to buy arms from Russia, continue to have military cooperation with the United States.

Joseph Humire:

And really that flew in the face of what the era of, what the context was, in terms of great power competition, which is the global landscape today. And so that, just takes us into where we’re at today. We’re in the third decade, as you already know, crossed into the 2020, 2021, and now we’re in 2022. And we’re seeing a resurgence of the pendulum naturally swinging back to the left, but it’s not a moderate democratic institutions, or moderate democratic politicians, left as politicians are coming into power. It’s a new wave of individuals that have, a) not a lot of experience in government, and b) have ideas that are much more aggressive, in terms of pushing forth a transformation of their countries that could do a lot of damage in ways that we’ve seen in Nicaragua, Venezuela and other Francisco Tudela mentioned the case of Peru.

Joseph Humire:

And this was clearly demonstrated in the interview that he did with the CNN journalist, Fernando [inaudible 00:21:13]. Where he blatantly said, he said, “I was never trained on how to be a president. I would never schooled on how to be a president.” And then the journalist asked him, “Well, is Peru your school? Is the presidency your training.?” And he said, “The presidency will always be my school.” And it’s a little bit dangerous to start to learn on-the-job when you’re… I mean there’s many jobs you learn on the job, but residency’s probably not one of those that you want to try. But we’re going to see this repeated time and time again. My biggest gripe, I guess in this is, the United States is left out of these conversations, because we’re not really in the game when it comes to Latin America.

Joseph Humire:

We’re focused on a lot of things in the world. And I think under this administration, we’re handling on things a lot worse in the world, but nonetheless in Latin America… I mean there’s countries where we still haven’t appointed in, or haven’t confirmed it an ambassador. There’s countries where we’re still not engaged in high level talks on important geopolitical issues. There’s other countries where we’re bickering over differences on important topics, such as corruption and climate change. But nonetheless, we’re letting those topics supersede our national interests, in terms of a trade or national security. I’ll give you a great example. Whatever you’re thinking you have on… Let’s say the president of Brazil, president Bolsonaro. You may not agree with his environmental policy, you may agree with his policy on forestation or deforestation. And those could be legitimate conversations that could be had in a bilateral, or even multi-lateral fashion.

Joseph Humire:

But that doesn’t mean that Brazil is not a strategic partner of the United States. And matter of fact, one of the best partners of the United States when it comes to defense cooperation. So we can’t impede our relationship with president Bolsonaro, because we have differences on some issues, and to basically have, in a difference, on all issues.

Joseph Humire:

I guess with that, I just sum up with my recommendation in the article, because the national interest title that is breaking this authoritarian wave is, I think the United States has to come back to Latin America with a message, it’s not enough to come to Latin America and say, “Don’t trade with China. Don’t buy arms from Russia. Don’t kick out the Iranians and the Cubans.” That’s obviously fine. And I think, you can say that, but we have to promote something ourselves.

Joseph Humire:

We have to sell something ourselves. The Latin Americans are looking for an ally that has a message, that has a broader vision of what the hemisphere should look like. And we can’t be shy about that. And I think, the aspect of… And late last year in December, they had this… President Biden had the summit for democracy. And I thought that was a missed opportunity, because the narrative ended up becoming who you invited and who you didn’t invite, rather than actually helping define, what is democracy? We call it an authoritarian way, but none of these guys call themselves authoritarians. Like president Castillo, doesn’t say I’m an authoritarian. Or Xi Jinping even, or Vladimir Putin doesn’t say, “I’m an authoritarian.” So they’re not defending authoritarians. What they’re doing is, they’re using the term democracy, and bastardizing the term, but they’re actually authoritarians.

Joseph Humire:

And so we have to define the difference. What is our interpretation of democracy that’s starkly different than what China, Russia, Iran, Peru, Venezuela, Nicaragua, or wherever defines on democracy? And I think Latin America, we had to remember, it’s only had about 200 years of period. Most of the country celebrating the [inaudible 00:24:25] of democracy. They gained their independence about 200 years ago. And many of them had dictatorships that lasted into the 20th century. So they’re new into this experience of democracy. So the point of the article, and I’ll conclude with this, was that we have to go beyond just talking about the term democracy, which has become bastardized in many respects. And we have to talk about the pillars that paint a healthy democracy, such as individual liberty, such as the rule of law, such as national sovereignty.

Joseph Humire:

That’s a concept that oftentimes gets lost, especially some of my fellow libertarians. And we have to be able to remind people that there’s pillars that make a democracy function, especially in a representative democracy, that’s a vast different vision than what China might call a democracy, or even in Iran calls a democracy. Because they just define it by election night, 50 plus one, a simple majority. Which is basically a tyranny of the majority.

Joseph Humire:

And so that was the point of the article. That’s the point of the message. And I think it’s time for America to really project this into the hemisphere. We can’t be shy about it. Of course there were some stuff that happened in the past that the United States probably is handled in the region, but that shouldn’t make us shy about actually confronting what is tyrannical governments in the world, that are in Latin America, and that are propping up tyrannical governments in the region. Because I tell you at the end of the day, what’s the end game which Russia, which China, which it runs end game in Latin America. It’s very simple. They’re trying to turn Latin Americans against United States. So that Latin America becomes inhospitable for Americans to travel, to trade, to feel safe in a region where we live, it’s our neighborhood. And so we have to be very conscious of that. So thank you, Frank. Thank you everybody once again, and I hope we have a little bit more back and forth with the Q&A.

Frank Gaffney:

Joseph, thank you. An excellent presentation. And we will have, I hope some questions from our audience. There will be an opportunity for you to place those questions in the Q&A facility of the Zoom call. And I hope you’ll do so. And we’ll try to get to as many of those questions as we can, momentarily. You’ve really set the stage brilliantly, I think, together with vice president Tudela for our cleanup batter. His name is Sergio de la Peña. He formally served as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Western hemisphere affairs during the Trump administration. He brought to that important, and I think influential post, a wealth of experience. Both in the defense industry as a contractor, but also as a 30 year veteran of the United States army, including postings in two of the countries now very much caught up in the authoritarian wave.

Frank Gaffney:

Venezuela of course, a very important energizer of that wave. One might going back to Hugo Chavez’s time. And more recently the nation of Chile. He is deeply knowledgeable about this region. And I know he is given a great deal of thought, not just in the abstract, but as a practitioner about what American policy should be. And again, Joseph, you’ve teed up very nicely, some of the possible options here. And Sergio, I welcome you and appreciate very much your participation in this program, and invite you to make your comments about what’s been said by the other panelists or specifically, and hopefully especially about what we should be doing now, as a nation, to break the authoritarian wave.

Sergio:

Thank you, Frank. Vice president Tudela. Joseph, it’s a real pleasure to be with you. We are actually in a very positive place in this hemisphere. If you look at it, comparatively speaking with the other hemisphere, we are 33% of the global GDP, that’s, that’s what we represent in this hemisphere. With only 18% of the global population, and 35% of the land mass. So we are a collaborative, prosperous and secure hemisphere with problems. We are a young hemisphere. If you look at the demographics, it’s European, it’s native American and it’s black for the most part. And the number of languages significantly fewer than you have on the other side of the globe. And so you have to start from that premise. However, there are influences in this hemisphere that are troublesome.

Sergio:

When I was in the Pentagon, I would look at myself as, there’s one deputy assistant secretary of defense for this whole hemisphere. And there were eight on the other side, just to put it into perspective. Now, what that means, is that we have to be cognizant of these influences that Joseph and the vice president were talking about. For example, when I was a young captain, in the late ’80s, we were training our partners on how to combat guerrilla insurgencies throughout the hemisphere. And what we found is that, we are very effective. And so the guerrilla also found that to be the case. And most of that influence was coming out of Cuba, fed by Russia, and the communist influence in this atmosphere. The socialist influence has been there since the very beginning of the Soviet Union. And so what we found is that the communists, they’re not very effective at fighting, but they’re very, very, very good at the ballot box.

Sergio:

If you just start from what happened in Venezuela, initially back in the late ’60s, early ’70s, when there was a guerrilla insurgency, the Venezuelas were very effective at combating it, and they won. So if [inaudible 00:30:18] Castro packed his bags and he moved to Chile. And stayed in Chile for about a month in the early ’70s, and helped Mr. [inaudible 00:30:28] to establish his government. Eventually, the Pinot shade regime did not like the idea of having to confront itself to a parallel army, and they were defeated. So lesson learned, we don’t do well with bullets, let’s go to the ballot box. Mr. Chavez was trained in the way of elections. He had been in a coup in 92, president [inaudible 00:30:57], who succeeded. Carlos [inaudible 00:30:59] was able to give him an exoneration that kept him with… Without that exoneration, he would’ve been kept out of the political process. But with the exoneration, he was able to be a candidate for the presidency. And he succeeded.

Sergio:

The first thing that Mr. Chavez did upon election… And by the way, those were clean elections. I was an observer at both the primaries and the runoffs. And what happened was, immediately, he said, “We’re going to have election upon election, upon elections.” So that people stopped looking over his shoulder to see how those elections are being conducted. And you started with a constituent assembly, created a fourth branch of government. That branch was called the moral branch. Really what it was a conglomeration of the auditing age agencies for the rest of the government. So he consolidated the auditing capability within the executive, and then he was able to run Russia over the Supreme Court, the electoral council. And then eventually, he was left with having to deal with the Congress. Just fast forwarding, he was very successful at consolidating power. And he in doing so, it was based on a communist model based on Castro’s model. And then, he was also assisted by [inaudible 00:32:12]. We were able to figure that out. And eventually we were able to contain it.

Sergio:

When I left office, in October of 2020, we had the best alignment that we’d had in the hemisphere in years. The only countries that were out of alignment was, was Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Mexico and Argentina had some more neutral-type governments under the Trump administration. We’re now seeing that Mexico is moving more in the direction of imposing a lot of socialist ideals in Mexico. And then we just found out that this week, Mr. Putin was visiting Argentina, and the Russians are trying to set up sometime up a special relationship with Argentina.

Sergio:

So you can see the influence happening there. And since then, what we’ve seen is, Bolivia went to back to the MOS, and the control of the socialist. You have Mr. [inaudible 00:33:12], that’s now the president. In Chile, you see what happened with Mr. Boric. In Peru, I think we’ve covered that one fairly thoroughly, much more detailed than I have. And then in [inaudible 00:33:28]. [inaudible 00:33:30] Castro is also moving in the direction of the socialist. So what you’re seeing is, that pendulum… Seeing that Josephs were talking about. And it goes both ways. Unfortunately, there’s two more countries that have elections this year that we have to keep a close eye on, and they’re going to be significant by the result of their elections. And that’s Colombia, and that’s Brazil. Those are major significant countries. If those go socialists, it’s going to be more difficult to turn them back.

Sergio:

Now, what we found is that, when they go in that direction, ,the needs of the people are not met and Peru’s a perfect example. And I would argue that Chile is going to go in the same direction. The promises that Gabriel Boric is making to his people are not going to be, those that he’s going to be able to achieve. It’s all about the dreams that all socialists have. Free healthcare, free education, better salaries, shortened work week, things such as protecting the environment to the extreme, getting into all these issues with global warming.

Sergio:

So you can see all of these leftist agendas that are being put in place. I would argue that the process that Chile used is not unlike what happened in the United States, because if you see what happened, you had a rise in the subway fares. It was insignificant. But they had organized their masses of people out onto the streets. Not unlike Black Lives Matter, where you put many people on the street, and then you bring Antifa-types that went and trashed about 25 different grocery stores, large grocery stores. Like a giant Safeway here. And then they also destroyed something to the tune of about 40 out of 70 of the Metro stops, all coordinated attacks. And burnt churches.

Sergio:

And if you listen to the socialist media, they talk about mostly peaceful protests. The graffiti that’s been put up is not unlike what we’ve seen in the United States. So there is a coordinate effort amongst all of these groups. And I would argue that those are being at least given a pattern to follow, from what came of the old communist international, which is the [inaudible 00:35:58] that was created to replace the communist international. And that was a group that Mr. Fidela Castro and Mr. [inaudible 00:36:10] formed to be able to provide an umbrella of doctrinal principles, that these groups can follow. And as Joseph has pointed out, what you’re seeing in some of these young socialist governments is, they are full of good ideas, or they speak the language of democracy.

Sergio:

I was listening to, in the case of Chile, there’s Mr. Boric is going to govern for all the people. He’s going to defend democracy. He’s going to provide social benefits for all Chileans. So this is the way that they start. And one of the things that they like to attack is things such as, the governments that existed before. In the case of Chile, they talk about the fascist right wing opponents that they had, following the model of [inaudible 00:37:08]. If you look at Chile, Chile did a lot of wrong things in the way that they overthrew the government. But that created a model that no one else in the hemisphere, besides the United States and Canada, perhaps, have been able to match. And so Chile, because it was so wealthy, there’s always the argument that there is inequality at the lower levels.

Sergio:

If you look at the way that they’re dividing the different groups in society, it’s not unlike what’s happening the United States. So if you go back to the model that Chavez created, or he divided the people, and the way that they were able to get people out into the streets. And the way that they’re able to make all of these promises, using the language of democracy. I think we have some challenges ahead. Now, how do we fight those challenges? Well, let’s start by looking at this administration. If you see how many high level visits we’ve had into the hemisphere, I can only think of about four. Two by vice president Kamala Harris, one by the national security advisor, and another one by Mr. Blinken. And I think that’s about as many as I can count at that level. There has been very little engagement at the highest levels with the rest of the hemisphere.

Sergio:

It’s very difficult to convince people that we are the model to follow, when we don’t get into the region. Our elections that used to be the gold standard for the rest of the world, became a laughing stock. When we took over a month to make the final determination of who was the president. If you look at the elections, even in Peru, the results are known within hours. And I would argue, it’s probably like two or three hours. And Chile was the same thing. In Honduras it was the same thing, all paper ballots.

Sergio:

And I’ve been an observer in Mexican election, same thing. By 10 o’clock when the polls close at six, they know the results. That is a model that was presented by the United States, it was the model that people followed. And now, we’re not in a position to be able to set that model. And there’s a significant lack of engagement that has to come back. We have to talk about what we represent. And as Joseph said, it’s not democracy, 50 plus one vote. It’s how do you protect the minorities? How do you ensure that everybody has a voice? So I want to stop there, because I’d like to hear from the audience if they have some questions. So thank you.

Frank Gaffney:

I think we do have a couple of questions. And I’ve got a couple of my own, and we may start with mine. Rank has it’s privileges as they say. But I want to thank you, Sergio. That was very illuminating, with respect to American policy. And I think you’re shedding light on a critical failing of successive presidents. Not just this one. What some people call our backyard. I think of it as more of our front yard has been woefully neglected, malign neglect. Oftentimes by success of administrations of both parties.

Frank Gaffney:

Which brings me, in a way, to the question that I put to you a bit. And that is, what do we do about the problem, the authoritarian wave? As it’s been described by Joseph. Specifically with regard, if I could, to two nations that are both neighbors of Peru. Both very much vital parts of the free world at this moment, but also they facing elections imminently, and quite possibly will be subject to some of these same impulses and forces. So if we could, perhaps maybe quickly from each of you starting with you, Mr. Vice president, some thoughts on Columbia and Brazil, and what those of who love freedom in this country, but in the region as well, can and must do about it.

Francisco Tudela:

Thank you, Frank. I couldn’t agree more with Joseph and Sergio with our analysis, What the U.S. can do is support representative democracy forces, representative democracies parties. Why? Because the [inaudible 00:41:50] and the group [inaudible 00:41:53], that is the organization of great socialist leaders in Latin America. Having their agenda democracy, but it’s a different democracy from the democracies we have, it’s direct democracy. And that is why Eva Morales has invented in Bolivia, grew-in nationality. And that concept has been included in the constitution, [foreign language 00:42:21]. And they are trying to apply that to Peru, to fracture these countries on ethnic lives. And it’s a democracy of direct consultations. When you ask someone of the Chinese communist party, if they have democracy in China, they will say, “Oh yes. We have it.” At local level, they consult in that small village, or about, I don’t know, agricultural problems or whatever. But the big decisions are taken by the party.

Francisco Tudela:

Let’s not forget also, that Hitler was elected.

Frank Gaffney:

Yes.

Francisco Tudela:

And he became chancellor of [inaudible 00:43:08], and was given full powers, legally by the German [inaudible 00:43:15]. The parliament. And he never passed a law again through Congress. He used direct democracy. He used referendums and [inaudible 00:43:27] for his laws. Racial law, whatever. The same thing happens with the group of the [inaudible 00:43:36] and the [inaudible 00:43:39]. The democracy proposal is a bleary democracy. It’s a referendum oriented democracy. And the U.S. has to fight this battle, at a culture level, defending the philosophy, the history and the culture of representative democracy. And it’s great philosophers and politicians.

Francisco Tudela:

It’s true that the U.S. forgot about Latin America, after the fall of the Soviet Union, because the U.S. thought Latin America would follow the U.S. in a normal way, but it didn’t happen that way. The [inaudible 00:44:26], the [inaudible 00:44:27] was organized by three persons. By Fidel Castro directly by [inaudible 00:44:34] Silva, and by [inaudible 00:44:36] the Peruvian head of the [inaudible 00:44:40]. And they must have in 1990, because the Soviet Union hadn’t fallen yet. They must have had Soviet support for that. And so the [inaudible 00:44:59] is a great group for Russia and from China, to get into this continent. And so it’s very important for the U.S. to have alternative regional organizations.

Frank Gaffney:

This is really a perfect send-up for you, Joseph. Of course, you’ve been writing extensively on what these foreign external powers are doing in our hemisphere. Do you agree with the assessment that we’ve just heard from vice president Tudela? And if so, how can we instill that alternative model that he’s talking about, instead of the forum and it’s direct democracy?

Joseph Humire:

No. I absolutely do agree with what Francisco Tudela just said. And is a little bit of an extension of the point that I was making in the sense, that there’s this different interpretation of democracies. And we had to be very clear on what we’re defining when we say democracy, because in not, it gets clouded in the general public’s mind, that you’re just talking about elections and democracy. We’re all on the same page. And then, what happens is the disinformation campaigns, and all the manipulations of people’s perceptions starts to take place.

Joseph Humire:

I’ll make one point. I’ll make a couple points. But I’ll make one point in particular, where I think, this is what I’ve noticed in Latin America over the last recent decade. And one of the reasons I think that we’re seeing this resurgence of these more populist, socialist authoritarian types. We have a lot of internal divisions in Latin America that need to be healed, and we need to heal them quickly. There’s differences among political parties. There’s very historic political parties in many cases, but these divisions right now are secondary to the challenges, and I would say even adversaries that we’re facing.

Joseph Humire:

We may not agree on everything and say, You’re in the more libertarian camp, or you’re in the more conservative camp, or you’re the in the more Christian democratic camp, you may not agree on everything when it comes to social values or economic policy, but you all agree that you don’t want to see this authoritarian governments in your country. You don’t want to lose that primal individual Liberty that you cherish, and so hold dear. And so we have to get past those differences. And in many cases, the way we’ve lost elections. And I say we and the collective, those that are more conservative right of center governments, have been because they’ve been internal fighting among these candidates or among these political parties that diminish the capabilities of those political leaders.

Joseph Humire:

And then someone like Pedro Castillo would surface. The case of Peru was interesting, because they came together at the last minute. Which was very inspirational, even a legendary feud between the [inaudible 00:47:42] and [inaudible 00:47:44], which have been fighting forever for more than a decade, or more, in Peru. They came together, but it was just too late. It was just a little bit too late. If they had done that before earlier on. They may have been able to send a big message in Peru and potentially would not had this same result. That makes me a bit pessimistic with what I’m seeing in Columbia and Brazil. I’m seeing a lot of internal fighting, both among the candidates that or the political leaders that should be united. I’m seeing [inaudible 00:48:10] coalition has been fractured. They’ve separated it. They pitted them against each other and not different too. Unlike what we’ve seen here in the United States on certain levels.

Joseph Humire:

Actually, I’ll give you one country I am optimistic about. And hopefully this maintains, which is Argentina. And I think Argentina, if the legislative victory that Argentina had last year, last November, if I’m not mistaken. Where the ruling coalition mostly Peronist and [inaudible 00:48:37] lost their control of the legislature, was because these different opposition, or these different right of center coalition parties. And political leaders came together, they came together despite their differences. And they said, “Enough is enough.” We’ve had 12 years of [inaudible 00:48:54]. Now, we are coming back to that same policy we’ve had. Who knows how long? [inaudible 00:48:59], and they want to get past that. So they came together. So I’m a bit optimistic on Argentina, and I’ll stay optimistic on Columbia and in Brazil.

Joseph Humire:

But I’ll tell you, it’s going to be a difficult road, because they’re… And this is amplified by this information. That’s the other element that I was going to make to the other point that I was going to make. And to your question, Frank, how do we get past this? Democracies need to get really smart on the information battle space. I mean, this is warfare nowadays, and this is what people, I think, often lose sight of. We look at this as just an election or process, a democratic process. We applaud whoever wins. For some of these authoritarian or aspiring authoritarian leaders. This is war. They’re not looking for second place, they’re going all in or nothing.

Joseph Humire:

And so in that space, they’re willing to bend the rules. They’re willing to reshape the rules. They’re willing to use different elements to manipulate the information that comes out from their countries. And all in an effort, because they believe that they have been wronged by history. And so they’re trying to correct that wrong, so they feel justified in their effort. And I think we have to remind them and, make it very important that we have the same level of conviction, the same level of determination, and the same level of political will. And I think it’s happening, it’s starting to bubble up at this. I see it here in the United States. I see in many countries, Latin America. But hopefully, it happens quicker and it happens faster. And we were able to unite. Because Russia, China, Iran, beyond whatever political party you’re from, they don’t care. Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, and Latin America. They don’t care. At the end of the day, they’re looking to colonize these countries. They’re looking to change the world order. They’re looking to be able to impose their control across the globe.

Joseph Humire:

And I think any Latin American country, that’s not in your favor, whatever political stripe you come from, especially if you hold the values of freedom in your heart.

Frank Gaffney:

Same men. This is such a key point. This neo-colonial operation, I think, that’s taking place. Especially, notably as the vice president was talking about with respect to the buildout of infrastructure, that you may use for power projection by China. So your thoughts on both Brazil and Columbia and the authoritarian wave, maybe title wave that is heading their direction, but also what you think of these recommendations as, to what we can do. And any furthers that you have in mind.

Sergio:

I agree. I’m concerned about both Columbia and Brazil. In the case of Brazil, Paul just came out this week, which had president Bolsonaro down to 30 and Mr. Lula to 41. So that’s not a good indicator. And in the case of Colombia, we don’t want to see a repeat of what happened in Chile, where even though the socialist candidate, Mr. Petro is in the last selections, was at 40. That was too concerning for everybody. And what’s happening now is that, the Columbian opposition, the center-right to the right are many, and they’re very splintered. And this is exactly what the socialists want. That’s what happened in Chile. You had the socialists come in number two. And then in the second wave, they were able to mobilize the a bunch of people that didn’t vote. And then they came back and they won.

Sergio:

I’m concerned about that particular dynamic. I also think, we need to start looking at platforms that are used in these countries that are also in existence here in the United States. And censorship has become a tool that can be easily manipulated. So if we allow, or if these countries allow the censorship by using some of these international platforms, I think that’s very concerning. So that’s something that they need to look into. Now, how do you fix all of this? The key thing is that, you do in the battleground of ideas. And you have to use the media as well as they do. You’ve got to be able to message a lot better than they do. You’ve got to be confronting their… Creating a counterpoint for their ideas in confrontation. And the way that you do that is, you build the institutions or reinforce the institutions. You don’t need to start over from scratch.

Sergio:

We have institutions that are favorable to the United States. You’ve got the OES and the consortium of organizations that go with it. You’ve got the Inter-American Defense Board that has been languishing, because we haven’t been giving it too many resources. And then, there’s these countries that are now moving in the direction of the left, that want to get rid of that, and start up the ABA countries again, which is not a good place. I wasin Ecuador, where the ABA headquarters was. And they had basically shut it down. There was no funding for it. And so the governments that are coming into power now from the left, are looking at reconstructing all that, because you’ve got to have those institutions to be able to execute on your wonderful ideas.

Sergio:

And I can’t overemphasize enough, the importance of personal relationships at the highest levels. We had engagement upon engagement, upon engagements with the Trump administration. And we don’t see that right now with the current administration. What I’ve seen in the past before that was, whenever you didn’t engage, you did not have the same type of results people like me count on the secretary of defense visiting the region. I traveled with secretary Mattis. We went to [inaudible 00:54:26], we went to [inaudible 00:54:28], we went to [inaudible 00:54:30]. We went to [inaudible 00:54:31]. We went to [inaudible 00:54:32], in the first year he was in office. We did the same thing with Mexico. We did several visits, and that allowed me to be able to then have personal relationships with every minister defense. That’s a type of engagement that you must have.

Sergio:

I just want to touch briefly on what we were talking about with the threats to the region. The Chinese want access to raw materials. They want markets, and they want ports. And so what we’ve seen in Peru is going to happen. They tried it in Panama, on both ends. They’re trying at every place that they can. They’re looking for Argentina, they’re looking to [inaudible 00:55:13], they’re looking to every country. And COVID presented the opportunity for them to come in and give you the fire extinguisher once they’ve started the fire. And so this is a situation we’re confronting. You’ve got to be able to make sure that they understand that we also get a say in this. And you need to be able to talk to partners and articulate to them what it means to be part of a network that the Chinese run. If you want to give up everything that you’ve got, and you want to give situational awareness about your own country, to the Chinese. That’s what happens with their technology. And we used to voice that at every place that we went to indicate the risks that go with that.

Sergio:

And so I think it’s a combination of different things, but to emphasize the importance of the key leader engagements, as well as, strengthening the institutions.

Frank Gaffney:

Thank you, Sergio. Let me just fine tune this a little bit. And maybe one quick, last round with you all. We’ve talked about the degree to which the left has established institutions. The [inaudible 00:56:22], the longest running, I guess, in this group in Peru is emerging as well. I take it. Maybe we’ll be back. And certainly there are other more informal arrangements. How important is it to outcomes in Brazil and Columbia most immediately, and perhaps to supporting freedom, loving people? Like Francisco Tudela, and others in his country, Peru, and elsewhere throughout the region. That there be some more formal institutional partnership between the United States and nations that still do support this. And I think Joseph, you put your finger really on it. The three pieces of liberties, the rule of law. And to your point, Sergio, just now, sovereignty. All of which are very much imperil. So maybe we can start with you.

Sergio:

Certainly. I think that you have to make sure that you have a cogent message. You’ve got to make sure that you are looking at the institutions, and the organizations that are working against you. They are very creative in the way that they do business. The [inaudible 00:57:41] was a very, very capable organization that they set up, which is also affiliated with what’s called the GUE, the United European left. They’re the same thing, except in Europe. And so once they figured out that the photo was working, and it was a continuation of the communist international, then you create a group with [inaudible 00:58:00] that was started in Mexico with the assistance of Mr. AMLO. He’s been a party to all of this. And what he did is, he said, “We need to have some luminaries of the socialist world.”

Sergio:

So they looked at heads of state with a leftist [inaudible 00:58:17]. That’s one of them. Mr. [inaudible 00:58:19] from Columbia and others. So these people are greater strength to the institutions. So when I talk about institution building, they’re building institutions and we’re not countering it, because we don’t want to call it for what it is. They’re socialists. And it’s an international net. The socialists are very good. What the communist international became is, sub elements that are of like minds. And they’re continuing to provide that umbrella of ideas that other groups can take. And then they have sidebar meetings, where the more radical elements within these organizations are able to then do their own planning. If you look at the original membership of the [inaudible 00:59:07], they used to be more blatant. They had the [inaudible 00:59:08], they had the MRTA, they had the [inaudible 00:59:12]. They would blatantly put that on their website.

Sergio:

If you go now, they softened it a bit. They talk about the communist parties of each one of these countries. And so they’re very good at that. We need to be able to do the same thing. And we also need to start making the cost of doing business with the Chinese more expensive. And a lot of that gets outside of the realm of military engagement, but gets into trade. It gets into [inaudible 00:59:35]. It gets into a United U.S. position on where we are with a hemisphere. And it requires work. It requires the national security council to do its job. It requires us to make sure that any policy decisions we have are interagency, and there that we work it through our partners. We get with the country teams and the embassies, and then we put it in the embassy websites, and talk about what we represent.

Frank Gaffney:

We need to be waging the war of ideas is I think, you put it indeed. Joseph, few more thoughts on the importance of an institutionalized effort along these lines?

Joseph Humire:

No, I think it’s absolutely important. This is network centric warfare. We have to build networks. And some of these networks are governmental, but oftentimes many of these networks are non-governmental. And this is where we’ve been behind the curve, the [inaudible 01:00:27], all the other groups, they rely on non-state networks. Those non-state networks have tremendous amount of power, because they’re able to amplify information, messaging. They’re able to get into the grassroots. They’re able to interpret things to the way that these more social political leaders want things to be interpreted. We have not done that. And oftentimes someone more, a right of center, more conservative, more market-friendly presidents have come to power in Latin America. They’ve abandoned civil society, or really didn’t focus on that. And they looked at trade policy. They looked at the instruments of state craft and governmental policy as their main tool.

Joseph Humire:

And frankly, in today’s information environment, the governments are really the worst at communicating, in most cases. It’s actually the think tanks, the activists, even the… What other society actors that are much better at communicating. And I’m not necessarily promoting a sort of Alliance between state and non-state, I don’t think that necessarily needs to happen, but if you’re promoting the same messaging, that unity happens on its own. And in that, I would say, we cannot be afraid of talking about ideology, because I think there’s been some shyness, I think, from Americans, or from the United States government, to talk about ideological differences that we may have with certain countries in the region, or even their external state actors. And I don’t think we have to do that, because it’s frankly not happening on the other side.

Joseph Humire:

On the other side, they’re clearly promoting a specific ideology. And when you have a targeted marketing campaign that has an ideological bend, it works. It actually gets to the minds and the psyche, into the psychology of the people you’re going to be governing. And if those people don’t understand your ideology, or they think it’s wishy wash, or you’re talking things in very vague abstract terms, the messaging doesn’t work. I mean, Coca Cola, obviously they don’t promote an ideology, but they’re very clear on what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to sell you something so that you can consume it. And we just aren’t selling anything.

Joseph Humire:

We’re going to Latin America as you mentioned, and we’re talking about things, but we’re not selling anything in Latin America. The Chinese, they may be very subtle, but they’re selling communism in Latin America. And it’s very clear. The Iranians, they’re selling Islamism in Latin America. And it’s very clear. The Russians sometimes, a little bit… They’re funky, because they are kleptocratic, but nonetheless, they still believe in state monopoly. They control over the natural… Oh, I’m sorry. Over the economy, even if it’s a blended version of what it was during the Soviet Union. That would be my big recommendation. We need to build up civil society, and frankly, civil society may be our last in Latin America, especially if Columbia and Brazil go the wrong way.

Frank Gaffney:

Well said Joseph. Francisco Tudela, this is of course not an abstraction, as far as your concerned, this is very much the set upon none, of whether there is going to be hope for your country going forward, I believe. Does your government have a clear path to considering, to continuing to consolidate power? And for that matter, project it beyond, or will they be effectively countered by civil society members like yourself, backed up by the kinds of people and efforts and institutions, hopefully that we’ve just discussed.

Francisco Tudela:

We hope that they will be counted. But on the other hand, they are coping the state. Even if a cabinet falls and a new one comes in, they get into this structure of the Peruvian state, at the middle and lower levels. Overall, the Peruvian territory. And that will be very difficult to clean, if a really democratic government comes afterwards. Then let’s see what each of the international competitors in Latin America sells. The Chinese sell quick profits. They can pay you two times the price for a concession. They will not haggle for a price. They will pay you what they want, and get in. They have no limits. So China is a sort of profit for corrupt and even non-corrupt Native American countries. And that is something that the U.S. has to take into account. What do the Russian sell? The Russian sell an ideology. It’s the ideology of self-determination without moral limits. That is, you can have a cannibalistic government, but the Russians will defend the principle of self-determination, and the right of that country to be cannibalistic.

Francisco Tudela:

So let’s be frank, they are selling a very strong product. It’s a product that is invoked by president Castillo. The way to counteract that is, to understand that U.S. has to confront these products with real alternatives. When Joseph talks about what we would call, the moral values are representative democracy. It’s not abstract things. If I read the Federalist proposes real policies, concrete things for government, it’s not utopia. Utopia is what the socialist are selling under the name of democracy, under the name of indigenous, under the name of proving nationality. At of the day, you have a plutocratic kick that is in control of an impoverished population in Latin American country. Like, happens in Venezuela.

Francisco Tudela:

Why has this happened? Because the [inaudible 01:06:36] began operations in 1990. That is 31 years ago. With the Russian’s in. With the Russian’s in. With the European’s in. Let’s not forget that Polemos is part of the [inaudible 01:06:52], even if it doesn’t appear. Let’s not forget that Rodriguez [inaudible 01:06:58], the ex-prime minister of Spain is one of the luminaries, So he says, of the group [inaudible 01:07:07], and the U.S., from the year 2001 onwards, until 2016. Withdrew from Latin America. He didn’t sell anything to Latin America until president Trump said that migration had to be fought in Latin America. Fighting the corrupt governments in Latin America. That message was a good one, but it should be polished, because the problem is not only corruption, but socialists, that is intrinsically corrupt.

Francisco Tudela:

And that creates [inaudible 01:07:46]. That creates kicks that access to all the riches of the country, and exploits the people as slaves, as happens in Cuba, as happens in Nicaragua, as happens in Venezuela, where the [inaudible 01:08:04] of the government have big yards, and huge mansions and live like Kings. And the people have to look for food in the garbage cans. That’s the reality. So the U.S. has in the initial message of president Trump about the immigration problem that came from that America, and the wait to fight that immigration problem. I has the seed to develop a whole vision for Latin America that should be developed, and should be the main line of influence, of the U.S. in Latin America. And at the same time, to be able to re-establish business relations with the continent, and create networks. Because American embassies in Latin America, in fact are mainly linked to go government officials in each country. But they don’t overflow that relationship with government officials, and some journalists, and whatever. They should. There should be a wider social area of influence that the U.S. should search in Latin America.

Frank Gaffney:

Mr. Vice president, thank you. A very pointed call for our involvement in the hemisphere, which I couldn’t agree more with. The only equivalent I might have is, your use of the term socialism. In that context, it seems to me as though it’s more and more full on communism, and that’s, I know very much present in your own society. Yeah. [crosstalk 01:09:54]. Well, one has a more but not in the appearance, I think, to many on the outside, rather than those who’ve been subjected to. What are other of these forms of… Well, authoritarianism at best in totalitarianism, inevitably.

Frank Gaffney:

We’re going to wrap it up with this. I just want to say to each of our panelists, former vice president Francisco Tudela, to Joseph Humire of the Center for Secure Free Society. And of course, Sergio [inaudible 01:10:25], a former defense department, senior official for Latin America. Thank you for your service to the cause of freedom in your various capacities. And for the clarity that you bring to the stakes. Not just for the country’s most immediately involved, not just for the hemisphere outside of the United States, but for our country as well. And it is so vital that we understand as you gentlemen do, that the problems that we’ve been discussing will not be confined to Latin America or some distant reach of it. They will come here. They are coming here, and it is important for us to be engaged there, to try to ensure that it doesn’t get considerably worse, notably in Columbia and Brazil, in the course of this very year.

Frank Gaffney:

With that, I wanted to just say thank you to our audience for your attention. Both those of you listening at the moment, and those of you who will participate in the course of this program, being online, as it will be shortly. It is a privilege to be able to sponsor these programs at the Center for Security Policies, hemispheric security projects. We look forward to doing more of them with these gentlemen and others, in the days ahead. In the meantime, thank you again to you all. Please stay tuned at securefreedom.org, for more in this space and others. Thank you very much. And have a good night.