 Welcome to Let American Directions. My name is Nicholas Susman, and we have an old friend of the house to discuss a very interesting topic. Today we have Álvaro Salgado. Álvaro is a lawyer, and currently is the Public Affairs Lead from Fluid Consultancy and Strategic Communications, Public Relationships and Design. And Álvaro, welcome again to Let American Directions, and today we're going to discuss well, the very much eventful week that we had in Columbia Public Policy with the new government. Álvaro, welcome again. Hello Nicholas, thank you very much for your invitation. Hello everyone, I'm glad to be here. So Álvaro, just to provide a bit of context to the audience, let's tell them what happened this week in Columbia Public Policy, right? So we held a series last month about all the effects from all the perspectives of the new government, a very different new government, and now we're waiting to see what they do, right? And at least from what I can count, there are four controversial issues happening this week. First, the condemnation letter that President Petro signed in the defense of Argentina's vice president, Cristina Fernandez, who's indicted and under investigation by the judiciary in the country. The second one, the absence of the Colombian government from the Organization of American States Meeting to condemn human rights abuses in Nicaragua. Then the resumption of relationships with Venezuela, which is the biggest change in foreign policy in the last five years. And finally a declaration calling for negotiation in the war in Ukraine, basically equating both Russia and Ukraine as if they were in pure position and not an aggression, which has been the speech of most of the Western world. So I would like your insight on this aspects. What do you think, what do you analyze from this eventful week, right? Yeah, well, yes, as you said, it has been a very moved week regarding Colombia's international relations and international policy. I wanted to start by saying that it's obvious that with the change of government in Colombia, there was going to be a different approach towards international relations and international policy. Colombia has traditionally exercised. However, I consider that it's really, really, yeah, to say sat to see the carbon position in terms of the Petros government towards international events around the world. First of all, yes, regarding the condemnation letter towards the accusation of Argentina's vice president, Cristina Fernández de Kiznet, it is really, really, really sad and really whining for the democratic people around Latin America that this kind of declaration has been produced. Why? Because it's the executive branch of Argentina messing around or not respecting the division of power, the division of branch of government. And it is really, really unbelievable that a democratic elected president such as Gustavo Petro that has criticized abuse of power and that has criticized, yeah, the mixing of the executive branch in the judicial independence in Colombia backs this kind of declaration proposed by Argentina's president, Alberto Fernández. So it is a really, really bad president. It is really whining and it is really worrying for democratic institutions around the continent that elected presidents, regardless of their political position of being left or right, are willing themselves to sign these kinds of declarations where the executive threatens or diminishes the authority of the judicial branch in a democratic country. Right, and what does this make us think about Petro's public policy and his role in the region? The last time we spoke, we talked about the perhaps emergence of a new left, right? Perhaps following the example of Gabriel Boric in Chile, he has a former Inter-American commissioner as foreign ministry. Human rights lies at the core of the public policy respect for, as you say, democracy, rule of law. And at least for me, it was shocking, right? It resembles declarations from the old left in the region that I thought we were leaving behind and that Petro was distancing himself from that, but I don't know what you think. Yes, when Petro swore into office, well, I think I thought that he may be closer to Gabriel Boric, Chile's president position towards rejecting that old left that broke and this institutionalized Venezuela, for example. And I thought it was maybe Petro's intention to join that new left, that new democratic left that will respect rule of law, that will respect the limits of the constitution and the limits of democracy. However, with these movements, we've seen sadly that Gustavo Petro still is, or he believes still in this anachronic left that shocked the continent the last decade and that left many, many institutional damages and institutional ruptures throughout Latin America. So it's really sad to see this. It's really sad that Petro has not the political notion to separate himself from this anachronic and useless political movement that left, that radical left that shocked the continent the last decade. Right, and now let's move to analyzing the absence from the OES meeting because there was a lot of controversy around it. There was even the rumor that previous government, the last administration didn't inform the new government of the meeting and that's why the representative didn't attend. And then finally, I think yesterday or a couple of days ago, the new foreign ministry minister said, you know, no, it was our decision. And we did it because we were in bilateral negotiations with Nicaragua, Colombia's relationship with Nicaragua is a tense one because of the controversy over the property of a couple of islands. So this one would seem to be more of a pragmatic decision from the government, but I don't know if the explanation is convincing for you if you read it in the same terms of pragmatism or if you consider it as well as an ideological action. Yeah, well, I mean the pragmatism argument, I don't see it very clear, but before I explained myself into that point, into that consideration, I wanted to say that Colombia has always had a tradition of being towards an international policy and international relationship has always been towards supporting democracy, supporting Western values, supporting liberal ideas. I mean, it's really sad to see Rob Tour, yeah, this institutionalization of that position, Colombia, has always depended with this new government. It is really sad to see a Colombian diplomat being forced to get absent of important meetings in the OAS in which the intention is to condemn dictatorships and to support Western values and to support liberal and democratic values. I think there's no such like a pragmatic decision. We have always taken actions, diplomatic actions against Nicaraguan's dictator and we still have a dispute with this country, an international dispute towards land, towards sea. However, this hasn't stopped us to take action in the diplomatic scenarios that condemn the dictatorship and the censorship in Nicaragua. So I think it might be ideological closeness with Pedro and Anurtega and yeah, it is really sad and I really reject that position of the government. I think regardless of the government's position, we have always to back democracies all around the world, all around the continent and validating a dictatorship through silence is really bad, but I would say it's even covered to do it. It's not even taking a position of affirming or supporting the dictatorship, but it's validating it through silence. Right, and you move in your job, perhaps in international circles, you know international actors, how is this being perceived as far as you can tell by international actors? Well, there's certainly a shock, there's certainly a shock because Colombia has always made an effort to support democracy. We even feel proud to be the oldest democracy in the continent and this swift, the new government is proposing is really disappointing and it's really sanctionable. It needs to have a sanction in the international community or a rejection at least. And do you think that is gonna happen that is going to affect the long game of Colombia as a key player in the region? Is it gonna affect its relationships with the US, for example, or do you think there's space to correct and avoid consequences for this? Well, I think if Gustavo Petro wants to, which I think it was or it still is, I don't know his ambition, to launch an international diplomatic strategy that launches Colombia to another level, such as Lula did with Brazil, Tia of Cornit. This is gonna affect that strategy, that intention to put Colombia in the map as an important player in the region, that intention to make of Colombia a more powerful voice in the international scenarios, that I think it's his intention, it's gonna, these kind of actions are gonna affect that intention. Right, and now let's speak about the establishment of diplomatic relations with Venezuela, right? They were interrupted since the whole Duque government or very early in that government. And now very quick and very fast Petro moved on to the establishment of the relationships. What do you think about it? Why do you think this happened and what are gonna be the consequences of pros and the cons? Well, I think, first of all, to say that I consider it a mistake to cut relations with Venezuela. We are two countries that are highly integrated that have a really, really large frontier, which are really, really large piece of land. Culturally, we are really involved economically. We were really, really, we had really strong ties. So I think that was a mistake that generated a huge crisis in the border, in Colombia border, a crisis that includes security issues, poverty issues, hunger issues, and that was a mistake. I think that it is a really important and right decision of this new government to re-establish relations with Venezuela, because it's within the national interest to do so, to start moving again the economy of the border, to start moving again the economic relations. And yeah, in general, the relations of the two countries, because I mean, we have 1.8 million Venezuelans living in Colombia. And there's another, I don't know, like a million Colombians living in Venezuela. So it needs to be done. However, I consider the position of the government to stretch hands as if they were best friends with the dictator, it's wrong. You can have a relationship with establishing democratic limits and letting it clear that this is produced because there is, is within the best interests of the country, but you cannot, if you praise yourself to be a democratic leader, stretch hands with the dictator that has killed his people and that has this institutionalized the country. So it is a right decision. However, the way it was done, sending the ambassador, the receiving gift, stretching hands, giving hugs, it sends a wrong message to the Colombian people and to the international community. Right. And with this decisions, how can we read it about the role that Colombia wants to play in the region under this new government? So it's clear that there's an interest to launch it to a next level, but that can mean many things, right? What do you think is what they understand for this or what you can read in those actions? Well, I see three main objectives in the Petros International Agenda. I think those are gonna be the three main points he's gonna speak about in the UN's General Assembly in September. He actually has a really, really important and big spot in that meeting. He is gonna speak the first day and he's the fifth speaker of the day. So that's a really huge thing to consider. And I think, and I see it with good eyes, his agenda that includes first, the war against drugs, the absurd of keep going on this war and keep killing people in the name of a war that we already lost a lot decades ago and then the necessity to reevaluate these paradigms and to establish a new focus of public health to the drugs issue, that's one point. Second, the climate action and climate justice agenda. We are, of course, a country that it's in the center of the discussion and I think Gustavo Petro wants to take that discussion to the next level and become Columbia, a critical and activist leader in this issue. And third, I will see that fight against poverty and hunger. The third point in his agenda, in his international agenda that he's going to address in the UN General Assembly. Right, right. And now let's take a look at our region. Brazil is gonna have elections in a couple of weeks, almost a month. There's the possibility of Lula and his party coming back to government. And it's like we're seeing, again, a turn to the left in our region. How do you see this hints, perhaps, that Columbia is giving in terms of public policy because we know Lula is a close friend of the government. We know that the government, of course, is close to the Argentinian government. And yeah, that they seem to be more close to this traditional even 10 years ago leaders. Is this a return to that? Or how do you see that the diplomatic ambit and the foreign relations, international relations and the way that the government is going to look at it in the near future? Yeah, well, of course, I think the victory of Lula in Brazil is practically imminent. He's gonna be the next president of Brazil. There's Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador in Mexico. We have Bode King Chile. Well, there's, of course, a shift towards more leftist conception of what a government should be. Of course, with a new partner that is Columbia, that is the first time that is being ruled by a left government, that's a huge news in the continent. And I think that Columbia has a role, a big role to play, but we have also a risk that that role is not executed under the respect for democratic values and that this role includes washing dictators' faces in the international scenarios. Right, right. And how do you see the relationship with the U.S. based on this initial steps that they are bringing and also recalling the fact that different to what happened with President Duque, Pedro got to speak with high government officials very soon after his election appointment. President Biden, yeah. Yeah, I think the relations with these democratic government, with President Biden's government is gonna be important and it's gonna be one of a more horizontal, more equilibrated relation. However, well, we have an uncertain future in U.S. politics. We don't know if the far right is gonna take over the White House again. So as long as the democratic party stays in the White House, which I see it not that possible. If you ask me, I think that the relationship between Colombia and the U.S. is going to continue strengthening, there's gonna be a shift in priorities. Climate change is gonna be a priority. War against drug and the new perspective is going to be a priority. But as long as Gustavo Pedro maintains a democratic liberal institutionalized position, I think we can really get advantage of the relationship with the U.S. and these democratic government. Right. So I don't know if you have the same feeling but listening to what you say and looking at the facts, it seems like we are seeing like two different public policies, right? We have a public policy that is progressive that seems to be democratic that challenges the very basis of public policy in the region, starting with what you say, war on drugs, approaches to poverty and so on. Even challenging what was the basis of our relationship with the U.S. of course, following the shift in policy by Biden, but then we have more than explicit words, more gestures that hint into an anti-democratic approach or at least some sort of tacit approval of anti-democratic regimes just because they are leftist, right? And they seem to be progressive in their speeches. The question is, do you have the same feeling and the other one, is this sustainable or how is it going to unravel itself? Do you think Biden-Pedro has to decide or he's gonna play on both sides of the board? I don't know, but for me, it seems very complicated to play both at the same time. You mean having a good relationship with the U.S. and stretching hands with dictators? Exactly, and being progressive and upholding progressive values while stretching hands with their leftist friends in the region. Yeah, well, regarding Venezuela, the U.S. has also stopped in his position towards Maduro's government. We've seen now Chevron operating in Venezuela. The oil expectations are going to be reestablished. So yeah, I think there's a little bit of double standards in that issue. And as long as there's money on the table, everyone is going to want to take it. And this is politics. You can maintain a speech against dictatorships and behind the table, you can still make business with them. So I think that's not gonna be an issue as long as there's money. And yeah, I mean, the steps towards reestablishing relations with Venezuela is necessary, but I don't wanna see Pedro becoming Maduro's best friend. That's my main concern. Right, and do you think there's approach to Venezuela in the region beyond the economic interest has the possibility of pushing for changing the government, hinting to transformation? No, I don't think so. I visited Venezuela in December last year. Let me tell you the dictatorship is as strong as ever. They have all the power. They have all the control of everything. The economy is moving and people have food on the table. They have money in their pocket and Venezuelans are sick out, entire politicians of the government and the opposition and Venezuelans right now, they just want to eat and work and make money. And of course, this is a small part of the population. There's a huge crisis in Venezuela and there's a huge responsibility of the dictator and his allies. But I don't think, I mean, in the near future, at least, there's going to be a change in the Venezuelan government. The dictatorship is as strong as it has ever been. And that plus money moving in the country, it's basically a world that won't let Maduro fall. Right, and for your last remarks, I consider that foreign policy is one of the key tests and areas where you measure the democratic and progressive values of a government, right? More than any other aspect because it's about the discourse you manage, right? I think what we saw in the last week was very concerning and it raises, at least for me, red flags regarding the new government and its promise of change. If you were able to give a piece of advice and he takes away for the government to prevent going down that path, what would you say? Regarding what, excuse me, I didn't understand the question. Yeah, avoiding, avoiding. So you think this three or four things could be seen as three strikes, right? Like three very concerning declarations that show that this change of new left is not the reality that we might see or expect. Yes. And thus we can follow the example of concerning left governments in the region. If you could give a piece of advice to the new government to prevent them going into that direction, what would you say? Well, basically to have in their mind that there are some values that Columbia has always defended. The Western values, the democratic values, the liberal values and that whether or not you are a left or a right or a centrist government, the project that Hugo Chavez embraced and represented failed. People doesn't want that anymore in the region. That's why Botic didn't support that. And that's the goal of this government to become a new left as a viable alternative of power. Right. Well, I think that's a great takeaway, Alvaro Salgado. Thank you so much. Thank you for your insight and we'll see each other in two weeks. Goodbye. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.