Chile must “defend the principle of the intangibility of borders”

According to the Rector of the Academia de Humanismo Cristiano University, Alvaro Ramis, this should be applied in cases such as the Russia-Ukraine war and also so that Chile can strengthen its position “in the face of events such as those that occurred in recent weeks in the Strait of Magellan and in the projection of Antarctic sovereignty.” In the face of recent episodes in foreign policy, the academic highlighted the concept of “strategic autonomy…with the aim of generating the greatest independence in national decisions to carry out national goals.” On specific topics, he indicated that it is necessary to reduce “all types of agreements with Israel in terms of military, commercial and technological cooperation,” he pointed out that “Chile should not support Ukraine’s entry into the European Union and NATO,” he believed that “the relationship with the BRICS should be graduated and defined according to the national interest” and urged not to fall into provocations “that only give air to the extreme right that governs in Argentina.”

Hugo Guzman. Journalist. “The Century”. Santiago. 6/21/2024. In a column this week, you spoke of a “strategic autonomy policy” as necessary in Chile’s Foreign Relations policy. What is this concept about?

Strategic autonomy is defining the objective of the country’s foreign policy with the aim of generating the greatest independence in national decisions to carry out national goals. To do this, the means to achieve it must be established, which can vary depending on the circumstances and international actors. It is not enough to wish to be a more autonomous country, but rather it is about achieving it, especially in areas where it is more difficult: energy, the financial sector, trade policy, science and technology, defense, among other areas.

You also mentioned that the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs requires “greater conceptual clarity.” What do you mean by that? Where is the deficit?

I think that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should make explicit more clearly what the national goals of its foreign policy are. It has been said that it is a foreign policy that promotes multilateralism, is entrepreneurial, feminist and “turquoise”, meaning protection of the terrestrial environment and marine ecosystems. But these definitions point to means rather than goals or ends. It is a way of doing things. But the national objectives of foreign policy should aim at something greater. To do this, the greatest strategic autonomy must be achieved so that the country is able to reduce its dependence and increase its sovereignty. This aspect is fundamental and all the other identifying features of foreign policy should contribute to it.

Do you think that President Gabriel Boirc’s recent tour established Chile’s sovereign positions? Was it a useful tour for the country, considering all the areas that the head of the Executive addressed during his trip?

I think so. Especially when the President had no qualms about expressing Chile’s position on controversial issues before the G7 powers, especially in the case of the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza. That point was not heard from the mouth of any other leader of the global south with the same force and conviction as that of President Boric.

The President’s participation in the so-called Peace Summit in Ukraine and his new friendly meetings with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, caused controversy. He even shared a position of support for the Ukrainian government with Javier Milei from Argentina and representatives of NATO member countries. In fact, the Ukrainians, their far-right sectors, value the position of the Chilean president. Wouldn’t it have been better to stay away from those spaces and maintain a critical stance towards Russia but without being in those spaces and without continuing to be portrayed alongside Zelensky?

I think that this is a matter of legitimate and diverse positions of the parties within the Government coalition. Personally, I believe that in order to be coherent in terms of foreign policy, it is important not to have fissures regarding respect for international law and human rights, and in this framework, the Chilean position does not imply support for a particular regime but rather strict adherence to the principle of the intangibility of borders and protection of the civilian population in cases of forced displacement. These points are consistent with what Chile must always defend as a matter of principle and for our own interest, since we are a country with a small population in the region, with growing threats from Milei’s Argentina, which constantly seeks to provoke. Defending the principle of the intangibility of borders is strengthening us against events such as those that occurred in recent weeks in the Strait of Magellan and in the projection of Antarctic sovereignty.

One of the positions put forward is that the position of supporting Ukraine breaks a position of non-alignment, of not rapprochement with one of the parties, which is in a better position to contribute to dialogue and peace.

What is of interest to Chile in this field of dispute is to generate the possibility of a negotiation without conditions, prior to a ceasefire. Chile should not support the entry of Ukraine into the European Union and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). That is not the point since it would go against a foreign policy that promotes the national interest. But active Non-Alignment is not synonymous with neutrality in terms of respect for international legality and the self-determination of peoples. What we define in this war scenario must contribute to our strategic interest. The Government will be evaluated on that basis. This does not prevent the parties from expressing nuances or more specific positions according to their identity.

Gabriel Boric once again condemned Israel’s genocidal policies and actions against the Palestinian people. There are several episodes that mark a distance between the Chilean and Israeli governments. How do you see the development of this position?

I think it is correct as a statement of principles. It is important to be part of the trial of (Benjamin) Netanyahu in The Hague. Now, it would be necessary to move from words to action, reducing all types of agreements with Israel in the area of ​​military, commercial and technological cooperation, aspects that are very developed today. A public procurement policy should be established that involves all levels of the State excluding Israel and its companies as suppliers. A form of incentive for cooperation with Palestine in matters of humanitarian, educational, cultural and migratory refuge cooperation should be strengthened. These are key and concrete aspects that would make our role in this moment of genocide flesh out.

How do you view the protests at the University of Chile and the mobilizations of Chilean university students in solidarity with Palestine? What is your opinion of the actions against the Rector of the University of Chile and the reports of hostile attitudes by students towards academics and officials?

Student camps have been set up all over the world in rejection of the genocide in Gaza. Chile could not be alien to this cycle. What these actions have sought is to create critical pressure on societies that have resigned themselves to and are complacent about this televised massacre. It seems to me that it is an action that is well-intentioned and contributes to this objective of high ethical value. On the other hand, the Rector Rosa Devés reveals that other forms of relationship, less altruistic, are in the university environment that seem far from this objective. The Rector shows how the internal coexistence of universities is rapidly deteriorating. Her description of the coercion between students, the crisis of the principle of authority and representation, the marking of teachers, the insults to the civil service and, in general, the brutal mistreatment of university institutions. This must be corrected by strengthening the instances of student representation: student centers, student federations and other spaces that allow dialogue in university communities.

Is Chile at a tense point in the region, given the ongoing clashes with Venezuela, the friction with Argentina, a certain freezing with Bolivia, and distances on international issues with Mexico and Brazil?

Chile is entering a scenario of growing conflict with Milei’s Argentina, since that is a perfect smokescreen for its policies of dismantling the State. In the face of this, it is necessary to be cautious, combining a lot of firmness but also not falling into provocations that only give air to the extreme right that governs in Argentina. In relation to Bolivia, a policy of stages should be bet on. The first should be the strengthening of subnational integration through the regions of Tarapacá, Iquique and Antofagasta, generating projects for the integration of public infrastructures, joint migration control and trade with Paraguay and Brazil. In a second stage, the reestablishment of relations at the ambassadorial level should be raised. With Mexico and Brazil, current relations are fluid and on a level of very profitable alliances. I believe that there will always be differences in positioning due to the scale of our nations. Mexico and Brazil are what is called “Global Players” in international politics, with 127 and 215 million inhabitants respectively. Chile must be more careful because it is a country with less than 20 million inhabitants, highly dependent on the global financial market and the foreign exchange market.

In this context, how do you see the country’s relationship with the United States? There is a certain tendency to align itself with the policies of the White House.

The key scenario is the trade war between the United States and China. Chile should act without closing the door to either of these two partners and at the same time use this dispute to our advantage, to try to achieve the greatest benefits for both contenders in this dispute. This is what has been applied in the National Lithium Policy, in the development of Green Hydrogen, in the promotion of renewable energies and electromobility, or in many other areas of strategic interest. In a context where Chile is always the small and weak party before these two great powers, it must always take advantage of the weaknesses and contradictions of its counterparts.

How should Chile respond to the positioning of Russia and China and the strengthening of the BRICS?

The relationship with the BRICS should be graded and defined according to the national interest. We should seek all the cooperation that benefits us and at the same time maintain all the necessary distance to avoid the costs of a global dispute in which we must move with tact. BRICS is, in short, a very sophisticated projection of China’s foreign policy, with allies of high global tonnage. Linking ourselves to China allows us to stop depending on the United States and the EU. But at the same time we should not hand ourselves over to China on a silver platter without considering the undesirable effects that this generates in our reality. Let us remember the case of the Huachipato crisis, where the strength of Chinese production is deindustrializing our steel industry. We should not be naive in our relationship with the great powers because beyond the sympathies or antipathies that we have for other countries, the first thing is to think about our people, their employment and quality of life.