Eric Farnsworth (vice president of the Council of the Americas and Americas Society) lectured at Providence Magazine’s Christianity and National Security Conference on Nov. 2, 2018.

[Music]

All right, thank you very much. Thanks for that invitation. Indeed, I did rush over here. I just flew in from that great foreign country of Miami. It is such a wonderful city and close, so close to the United States. I’m sorry to say I brought the Miami weather with me, so for those of you who may find it a little bit warm, feel free to take off your jacket if you haven’t already. I also recognize that you’ve had a very full and very successful day so far. You’ve talked to a lot of different people about a lot of different things, and I think I may be the last speaker of the day. So with that in mind, I’m going to keep my comments pretty short and give you a couple things to noodle on. Anyway, if I can, and see if you have any questions and we can engage further in the conversation.

But first of all, let me just thank Mark and his entire team. This is really a privilege to be invited to address this conference. I have spent over almost 30 years working in the Western Hemisphere space, Latin America. That’s true. But generally, it’s in a very secular environment. And so to have the opportunity to view these issues through the lens of faith and my personal beliefs and expectations and ethics, it really does put a different spin on things. And I’m privileged to have the opportunity to give a little bit of thought to those issues.

Now, I don’t know how many of you know or frankly care that much about Latin America in the Western Hemisphere. The truth is it’s a bit of a niche category even in the foreign policy space. When we think about foreign policy, we’re thinking about China, we think about Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc. Most of us don’t think about things like the caravan coming to the United States as a foreign policy issue, but it is. Most of us don’t think about things like NAFTA and trade as a foreign policy issue, but it is. Most of us don’t think about things like drugs and security as a foreign policy issue because we’re worried about opioids in our own communities. And that’s completely legitimate. But these are foreign policy issues as well.

But I want to raise one issue specifically because it’s on my mind. It’s recent. And as Mark generously said, I did just write an article about it for Providence, the magazine. So it is something that I’ve tried to give a little bit of thought to. And that is the elections on Sunday of the new president of Brazil.

Now, for those of you who may not know that much about Brazil, stop me if you know this. But Brazil is the largest economy in Latin America, it’s largest democracy by far. It’s also an extremely diverse country. It’s a democracy, strong democracy, and it has been over the years a friend of the United States. So why do I care about Brazil in the context of the faith community and what that means for a practitioner of foreign policy? Well, I’m glad you asked, as my pastor might say.

And the reason why is this: Brazil has traditionally been a Catholic country with a strong and growing and vibrant evangelical community. Now, many of us may know this in the context of more of an Assemblies of God type approach to evangelicalism, but it’s evangelicalism, perhaps, with Brazilian characteristics, if we want to use those phrases. But it’s genuine, it’s legitimate, it’s growing, it’s strong, and it’s also increasingly politically active.

So here you have a body of voters in Brazil. We think of Brazil, again, as a Catholic country, and it is nominally. But a body of voters who have just put into office the new president of the country who professes a certain faith. Now, he’s Catholic upbringing, he was baptized in the Jordan River just recently by a very large pastor of a very large mega-church in Brazil. And he, although he doesn’t claim to be an evangelical, he says he’s very comfortable in this belief structure and in fact appealed directly to the evangelical community as part of his base.

So far so good, you might think, right? And I have no problems with that. Sounds like an interesting electoral strategy, particularly given the fact that the evangelical community is politically active in Brazil. Where it becomes complicated is the president himself doesn’t exhibit much fruit. As that sound familiar? If it doesn’t, you haven’t been paying attention, ladies and gentlemen.

What I’m talking about is this: he’s a former military officer, he’s a former legislator, not terribly distinguished in either capacity. But he has spoken out very negatively about women, about people of color, about minorities in Brazil, about traditionally oppressed communities. And Brazil is still a very divided and polarized society. He has spoken out. This isn’t a terribly religious issue, this isn’t a religious issue, perhaps. It’s more of a secular issue. But he’s spoken out against democratic processes. He’s spoken in favor of Brazil’s dictatorship from the 1970s and 1980s. He’s spoken against the Brazilian Congress. His son has spoken against Brazil’s Supreme Court. But he professes Christianity and he’s supported by the growing evangelical community in Brazil.

As a foreign policy practitioner, this, to me, presents a certain conundrum. Now, I don’t… I used to work in the State Department, it’s true. Mark mentioned that. I worked in the White House, that’s true. And this wasn’t necessarily at the forefront of the talking points that we would give to the Secretary of State or the National Security Advisor, or what have you. But in the back of one’s mind, it’s relevant. And the reaction that one gives to certain leaders in terms of how they present themselves and how they present their nations, I think, is relevant.

So what does it mean that you have now the leader who will be inaugurated, he’s just elected, he’s not been inaugurated, he’ll be inaugurated January 1st? What does it mean to have the leader of the largest democracy in Latin America profess Christianity, is supported by the evangelical and the Catholic community, is potentially a human rights abuser? It’s complicated. And from the perspective of a foreign policy practitioner, we can look at this in several ways.

One is as a representative of the United States government, of which I no longer am, so I’m not going to claim that mantle. But simply to say those who are in the US government or any government for that matter need to take a certain view about this in terms of the conduct of our own professional activities in support of their own national interests. Right? Now, that may be supporting the president and his administration, but it may be pulling back a little bit.

Now, on first blush, he’s going to be very friendly to the United States. In fact, President Trump’s National Security Advisor yesterday in Miami said that the President of Brazil and President Trump see the world through the same lens, that they have similar approaches to the world. This is intentional. It’s trying to build a relationship with the president-elect. It’s trying to build a relationship between our two nations.

The president-elect has talked about policies that broadly speak in the United States foreign policy establishment, of which I do consider myself, finds very attractive and very relevant: re-evaluating the relationship with China, perhaps doing more to try to address the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela – and it is a crisis – doing more to address narcotics trafficking and international criminal activities, moving the embassy to the Brazilian embassy to Jerusalem. That, whatever you think of that, it’s very consistent with the Trump administration’s policies, isn’t it? So the temptation is going to be this is somebody we can do business with, this is somebody we want to get closer to, this is somebody that sees the world as we do, this is somebody who will promote our interests in the Western Hemisphere. And that may very well be true. But – and there’s always a large “but” in these types of conversations, isn’t there?

And if you want to know more about it, go to my article. No, I’m just kidding. But the idea is, look, it’s one thing to profess policies that may be consistent with the national interests of the United States and to have, on a transactional basis, the ability to link together and to promote those policies. It’s quite another to engage with a leader of whatever faith background and whatever belief structure he or she may profess in a way that may be acting in – clearly, and this is my words, not his – clearly unchristian manner.

And I’m not even talking about necessarily the support for democracy. I don’t think democracy per se is a religious issue. I mean, it leads to religious tolerance and, you know, all these things that I think are very, very positive and strong. I’m a believer in democracy, don’t get me wrong. But it’s not a strictly religious issue. But human rights are religious issues. Discrimination are religious issues. Concern for the poor and the underprivileged are religious issues. Concern for people who may look different from us, who may think different from us, who may believe different from us, are religious issues, if you believe the Gospels, as I do. And this is where it becomes complicated, doesn’t it?

So this is an example in real-time, ladies and gentlemen, of something that is facing practitioners in the space, real-time. And it’s also exactly an example, perhaps the best one but only one example of several that I could give you for the Western Hemisphere, for Latin America. Guatemala, president of Guatemala, Jimmy Morales, professes Christianity. Meanwhile, members of his government and some say he himself are engaged in activities that are clearly unchristian. And you could go down the line, what does that mean in terms of our collective responsibility? I mean, is there a Christian foreign policy? I know you’ve been wrestling with this all day and probably for years, right? That’s the whole reason for conferences like this. What’s a Christian foreign policy? I don’t have the answer to that, but I do suggest that just because somebody in the foreign policy space may say, “These are my beliefs, this is who supports me, and this is what I want to do,” that does not automatically, in my view, confer on them the title of respectability or need to be supported. Do you see my distinction?

It’s the opportunity to be more thoughtful in our response, it’s the opportunity to be more prayerful in our response, it’s the opportunity to be more wise, perhaps, in our response. And so, I just wanted to raise those issues to maybe get you thinking a little bit. These issues are not just relevant in our own country or other parts of the world, they’re relevant in Latin America too, a traditionally Catholic region facing real changes in the religious space and in the faith communities. With that, Mark, maybe I leave it there and open it to questions or comments or ideas, disagreements. Feel free to disagree strongly or not with what I’ve just said. I’d be happy to take your questions. And with that, thanks very much for the opportunity to talk to you.

That was very interesting. I agree with some of what you said, much of it, thank you. But everything is relative and in democracy, you vote for one guy, you don’t vote for the other guy. So, my question—and this is my lack of information—on the loser in the Brazilian election, if he had been elected, I’d ask you to do the thought experiment because you’re the expert here: what would be the Christian implications? What would be the implications for Brazil’s interests, human rights, the economy in Brazil, and for US interests in the context if the candidate who was defeated was elected exactly?

Yeah, that is a very, very relevant question and because of the time availability I didn’t go into that, but I’m glad the first question takes me in that direction. The defeated candidate was somebody named Fernando Haddad, who is a representative of the PT, which is the Workers Party in Brazil. The PT, as those of you who may know Brazil or Latin America, is the party of Lula da Silva, the former president of Brazil who is now in jail for corruption. And without going into too many specifics and, you know, all of the iterations of why and how and wherefore, the PT is a party that is deeply corrupt. And this isn’t my impression; this is, you know, legal scandals, press—I mean, there’s a massive corruption scandal underway right now in terms of Brazil because of the institutionalized corruption of the political party.

The political party is also deeply secular and committed to secular activities and has pushed a very much secular agenda, which includes things that social conservatives may find and do find objectionable, particularly in Brazil. And this is why I didn’t go into this, but the question there takes me here, and it’s a very appropriate question. This is why the evangelical community and many members of the Catholic community and others in Brazil supported the president-elect because of the fear that to support his opponent you’d return to corruption, but you’d also support an agenda that many social conservatives find deeply objectionable.

So, the idea of we have a choice between somebody who we don’t think is perfect but we may be able to advance a certain agenda with, or somebody who we find completely objectionable—in some ways, that’s not really a choice at all for voters, is it? And I understand the dilemma. So, that’s from the perspective of the Brazilian voter who did have a choice. And before this was the second round, which was reduced to two candidates on Sunday, but previous to that in early October, there was the first round with multiple candidates, right?

So, there were others, including other evangelical candidates, who simply didn’t achieve enough votes to be viable in the second round. So, the idea was let’s support this candidate and support the agendas. One of the pastors of one of the mega-churches in Brazil said, “You know, we understand that Bolsonaro, that’s the name of the president-elect, may have said some objectionable things, and we don’t agree with him 100 percent, but we know we disagree with the PT 100 percent.” Right? So, that’s the difference in terms of the Brazilian voter.

But here, what I say that is, the Brazilian voter in some ways had a similar dilemma in the United States in 2016, right? In fact, some people called Bolsonaro the tropical Trump. Now, I think that’s not necessarily accurate, but this is a different question from a foreign policy question. And how does the United States then respond to the person who’s voted? We don’t have a vote in the Brazilian elections, right? I mean, so in the democratic process, you take who the people promote and who wins the election.

We do have a vote in the context of promoting U.S. foreign policy in terms of how we react to the person who has been put into the Planalto Palace in Brasilia. And that’s a different question. And so, would the United States have an easier relationship with Fernando Haddad, the defeated candidate, a member of the PT? Arguably, we wouldn’t have. But we don’t know. I mean, it’s conjecture. Would he have done things like reevaluate the relationship with China, spoken more forcefully on Venezuela, moved the embassy to Jerusalem? No, he wouldn’t have done any of that, right?

Would he have changed the relationship fundamentally with the United States? No, probably not. It would continue forward economically, trade, investment—all of these things, but it would be a status quo. What Bolsonaro is doing is he is directly trying to change that, change Brazilian foreign policy, change the relationship of the United States. And don’t misunderstand what I’m saying; that is a positive thing from the perspective of U.S. foreign policy practitioners.

Remember what I said before I got to the “but.” All the things that he’s professing are consistent with U.S. policy interests, and we should be, to the extent it is appropriate, working together to try to advance those interests. To the extent he’s behaving and acting—and we don’t know, because he hasn’t been inaugurated yet—but to the extent he becomes the president, if he or members of his government start acting in an anti-democratic manner or in a manner that we would find inconsistent with our values, then we need to take a hard look at that and be a little bit more judicious in terms of how close we get to this.

So what I’m saying is, you know, trust but verify, right? The guy’s elected, he’s democratically elected, it’s legitimate. It’s free and fair. What he said doesn’t, at some point, matter going forward because he said that in the past. What we have to do now is, now he’s president-elect, is wait until he’s in office and then react based on how he’s acting in office. That’s what I would contend.

Now, there are people currently in the State Department—I’ve had some of these conversations as recently as today—and in the National Security Council and elsewhere who think I’m nuts. Maybe some of you think I’m nuts too. Why would you throw overboard somebody in the world’s largest democracy who wants a close relationship with us? As a foreign policy person, why wouldn’t you just go all-in? That’s a very good question.

The temptation will be to do that. The answer is, for those of you who know your Latin American history, that doesn’t normally turn out that well for the United States over the longer term, does it? I mean, if we can have short-term interests, we can promote certain activities together. But at some point, the presidents in the White House change, and the president in the Planalto Palace changes. And then, to the extent that the United States is perceived to be supporting governments that are not inclusive, engaging in the democratic process, somehow anti-democratic—whatever— that has long-term implications.

I can give you chapter and verse, right? Guatemala, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras. And I’m not an anti-American guy, believe me, I am NOT. But every time I go to a college campus, with the exception of today, those are the first questions that I get asked. “Should the United States apologize for what you did in Guatemala in 1954?” I was in Des Moines, Iowa, actually exactly a week ago. I was lecturing at Drake University on issues related to this, although not with a faith community overlay. First question I got: “Should the United States apologize for what you did in Latin America?”

My point is this: that stuff matters. Yeah, it was 1954, that’s over fifty years ago. I wasn’t born then, and I suspect most people in this room weren’t born then. But it matters to the people in the region, and that’s the lens through which they look at engagement with the United States, rightly or wrongly. It was the Cold War, there was a different time, it was a different place. I can justify that, right? Maybe you’ll agree with me, maybe you won’t, but the point is, it’s not as easy as saying it was a good or bad thing.

What I am saying is that times change, politicians change, administrations change. And if we are perceived as aligning ourselves with governments or individuals who are broadly anti-democratic, and who go after people they don’t agree with outside the rule of law, that comes back to hurt us as a nation. And that has nothing to do with being a member of a faith community, it has to do with being a member of the United States and as somebody who deeply loves my own country, that’s not a position I want to see us in either.

So, I believe in a bigger kind of mission here, a bigger mandate. Yeah, there might be some short-term cost, but you know, it’s a trust but verify scenario for me. I think that’s a really important question, and I’m really glad you raised it. And I hope I gave at least some semblance of a good answer. Thank you for your remarks today. I’m from Des Moines, you are. Appreciate you visiting there. You didn’t go to Drake, did you? You didn’t go to Drake? No, my son is at ISU, just, oh, well, I went there after Drake.

Now, in this point of the 21st century, with so many things globally going on, we’ve got issues with North Korea, we’ve got issues with Russia, we’ve got an emerging China, we’ve got issues now in Latin America with this caravan coming up and all kinds of things, right? Now it’s almost like a troublesome sea. If you were an advisor to this president at this moment, and you had 20 minutes with him, and you could advise him as to what to do for the next two, two and a half years of this term, how would you advise this president regarding his foreign policy public-facing strategy?

I mean, you really save the best ones for last. Enjoy the end of the day. These are not easy questions, but let me give a couple thoughts on that. But before I do, a quick story about my time in Des Moines. I flew in late, there’s one direct flight from Dulles to Des Moines, and it gets you in late at night. So, I was on… I got to the hotel. There aren’t that many restaurants open at about 11 o’clock at night in Des Moines, but there was the Drake Diner was open around the corner. For those of you who know, I had a hamburger with blue cheese, and it was… I think everybody was about 2,000 calories, and it was fabulous.

But to try to leaven it a little bit and to make me feel not as guilty as I should have been feeling, I said, “Well, give me the side salad as my side.” And the waitress says to me, and this is a true story, she did not… This is a direct quote. She said, “I’m sorry, sir, we are out of salad.” “You’re out of salad?” I mean, so, okay, what can you recommend as a substitute? Again, true story. “Well, we can bring you some onion rings.” Not exactly the same, but I said, “Okay, bring me some onion rings.” So that, you know, I’m from… I’ve been 30 years in Washington. I was expecting, you know, a little plate and five onion rings, whatever. No, she brought me a dinner plate heaped with onion rings. In addition to the hamburger, it was some of the best food I’ve had, but I just about rolled out of there. And I still don’t have my salad from Des Moines, so I’m going back at some point. But it’s a lovely town. I was actually born in Iowa myself, so lest anybody thinks that I’m being patronizing, I’m absolutely not. I love the Midwest. I’m from the Midwest. So thank you for giving me the chance to tell that story.

Now, in the context of the question that was asked, what would I say? I’ll tell you quite sincerely. This is going to sound like it’s facetious, but it’s not. I would tell him, Mr. President, put down the Twitter. Put down the Twitter. You are doing so much damage. Are we on the record or off? Well, I guess I’m being recorded, so I can’t be off the record, but so I’ll be a little bit more careful. We’re doing some real damage to our foreign standing abroad right now every day when these tweets come out because they stigmatize, they put people in a defensive posture, and they’re not necessarily thought through in a way that is consistent with US policy interests.

Let me give you some examples. I mean, the caravan has now come up a couple of times. You know, whatever you think about the caravan, look, Central America is pretty in rotten condition right now. If any of you have been to Honduras recently or Guatemala, I have, where El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc., the conditions are really terrible, and people are leaving for the right reasons. Do they automatically qualify for entrance into the United States? I’m not saying that. That’s a political decision, and it’s the right of the American people, certainly, to determine who comes into our country and who’s part of our laws, etc.

But the point being that when you say things like the caravan is made up of people from ISIS or the Middle East, which is patently false, it politicizes and polarizes something that is really at base a humanitarian tragedy. And it makes it a political issue with a cynical effort to try to win votes. That’s my… I mean, you know, so if when you’re doing that sort of thing, are you saying, “Well, we’re going to send 15,000 US troops to the border, and we may think about shooting people who try to get across the border”? That, to me, is not supporting US foreign policy interests in Latin America, in Central America, in Mexico, across the region.

So, the first thing I would say, with all respect for the office and for the person who occupies it, Mr. President, please reconsider your Twitter strategy. That’s number one. Number two, I would say, Mr. President, I understand you’re the President, but you’re voted by America to lead our country, and I appreciate that. And your first duty, and second duty, and third duty is to be the President of the United States. Not the President of Latin America, not the President of the world, the President of the United States. I get that. But I would also suggest that the decisions that are made in the Oval Office for domestic reasons have international implications.

And if we don’t take those into account and try to either acknowledge them, soften them, divert them, find a way to do things that might be in our interest domestically, but to reduce the negative impact that they might have internationally we’re creating more problems for us ourselves down the road. We’re creating more problem and it’s unnecessary. It’s not something that’s even needed. So a little bit more judicious understanding of things that are done for maybe quote unquote the right reasons have unintended consequences. To take those into account.

And then third, I guess what I would say is, Mr. President, again thinking in terms of Latin America and the Western Hemisphere, is you know, Mr. President, the United States is the world’s third largest Hispanic country. Alright, we’re not talking about quote unquote foreigners, we’re talking about ourselves, right? I mean the population either domestic born or foreign born in the United States of Hispanic background is huge. This isn’t an issue that’s quote unquote gonna go away. This isn’t something that you can deport your way out of. This is an issue of the fabric of American society.

And if we don’t understand that and begin to try to find a way forward, whatever that way is, right? I don’t have the answer. I’m not suggesting here I’m some guy with all the answers, clearly not. But we have to understand it’s an issue and we can’t just say it’s us versus them. Because it’s not them. It’s us. It’s us versus us. And when we do that, we weaken ourselves as a nation. I don’t know if but you know probably after three minutes I’d be I’d be ushered out of the Oval Office with those types of comments. But if I had 20, those would be three comments that I would try to try to express.

Q&A

Question: Your article is on my to-read list, so forgive me if my question is addressed in your shame. Shame my computer crashed. I mean, come on, yeah. But I was actually really interested. So my understanding is the majority of the population is ethnically mixed or identifies as such. From what I know about the president-elect based on your remarks and other articles I’ve read, is that this is someone who said and advocated for policies that are exclusive, particularly to native Brazilians. It sounds like from what you’re saying, other groups not of European extraction in the country. 

So I’d like to know, how did evangelicals and Catholics who are not of European background react to his campaign? And how did he even succeed if the majority of the population doesn’t seem to fit into the voter type that you had?  

Answer: That’s right, that’s a great question. It’s really good for those of you who know Brazil, you know that Brazil has never dealt with its racial problem. And I do say problem in the way I mean, we’ve dealt with it imperfectly, but we’ve at least tried to deal with it. 

Brazil also has a massive population of Afro-Brazilians that were never assimilated necessarily into the country. And they were brought originally as a slave population. Brazil, of course, was settled by the Portuguese. And like our own “original sin” in this context, you know, it matters. And the Afro-Brazilian population is largely, this is simplifying things too much, and please don’t anybody accuse me of trying to, I mean, it’s simplification. I readily acknowledge that. But broadly speaking, the northeast of the country has a larger Afro-Brazilian population. 

And the southern part of the country has a larger European population or what have you. Obviously, they’re mixed throughout. It’s not you know, strict division, but not coincidentally, the country is also divided economically much along the same lines. And so you have in the northeast of the country, it’s very much a developing economy. Whereas the wealth of the country, the wealth of the countries in the southern parts, São Paulo, Rio, right? Some of the larger cities, Fortaleza, etc. 

And the reason why is because you have huge oil finds off the coast of Rio. And also the agriculture interests. And so you have a massive Brazil, a very wealthy country, but it’s not evenly distributed. And until recently, it might still be true, but until recently, Brazil was bar none the country with the highest level of income disparity in the entire world. I mean, it’s massive, right? The rich are really rich, and the poor are destitute. 

And it goes you know, it’s throughout the country. So that is kind of the basis. Now, what does this mean in terms of the faith community and what the support was? If you look at the voting patterns, it just happened in terms of Sunday Bolsonaro support came hugely from the southern and eastern part of the country. And the support for his opponent, Fernando Haddad, came from the northeastern part of the country. 

Now why was that probably? And this is speculation. I’m not a political scientist and scientist. I haven’t done the research on this, but I’m speculating and I think I’m on pretty firm ground here. It was economically based, right? Because the PT, the Workers’ Party, it was also the party of things like monthly stipends for single parents and in trying to improve education and building out things like health care system, hugely expensive, right? And you know, very you know, put Brazil into, you know, really real troubles with the fiscal situation. 

But it’s normal, right? I mean, they’re voting for somebody who they think can improve their life. Whereas the folks who voted primarily for Bolsonaro were voting for economic purposes but also for an agenda that included anti-corruption, right? Just throw all the bums out, start over. 

And this affects the entire country. There is a massive uptick in crime in Brazil right? And Rio, some of Brazil cities are in some ways some of the most dangerous in the world. Now they’re not as dangerous as Caracas or San Pedro Sula in Honduras or others. But there are parts of Rio in the favelas in Rio and São Paulo and some of the larger cities where the police literally do not go. And they are run the governance of the favelas is run or run by drug gangs. That’s the government, right? So there’s a really difficult situation. 

The point being that people were voting for change and saying, look, we’ve got to get crime under control. We’ve got to get rid of corruption. We’ve got to restart the economic growth. Now, these are not quote unquote religious issues. What was the religious issue that builds on to that then? It was the whole issue of the social agenda and the idea that the PT had brought in had brought into Brazil changes in the social agenda which were quote/unquote inconsistent with traditional Brazilian values and a return. 

It’s things that we might all be familiar with. It’s issues like abortion rights. It’s issues like gay rights. It’s issues like, you know, what’s taught in the public schools. I mean, these debates that we have in our own country are very relevant in the context of Latin America. And why wouldn’t they be right? And so, you know, there’s a reaction against a lot of that and the idea that this president is going to reverse course on that side. 

Now, how did that break down in terms of the Afro-Brazilian versus the non-Afro-Brazilian in the faith community? That’s the question that you asked and that’s the question I can’t answer because I honestly don’t know. But I would suggest as a theory that could be tested or, you know, something I would speculate on that geography matters, economic condition matters and overlaid on that you would have some people voting as well in terms of some of the social agenda. 

But if you look at the voting patterns, it’s like the United States. There’s a blue and a red Brazil. Right? In our case, it’s the coasts and the middle. In Brazil, it’s the, you know, it’s the upper east part of the map and then everything else. So it’s a very polarized society. 

Question: Thank you, my question is about China. So in your opinion, what kind of a role is China playing in the novel American countries? Yeah, and a lot of kind of perceptions to Latin American countries have about China and in your opinion what kind of a part of the US should have in your response to China’s assertive foreign policy? 

Answer: I actually lecture a lot at the business school just around the corner. Using the example of when I was at Drake and other universities I talked to the Latin American Studies program they want to know about the sins of the United States and Latin America when they go to the business school at the Harare building or other business schools in the university context, the first question they will ask is about China. 

I’m serious, China in the Americas because one group looks to the past one is looking to the future, the business students want to make money, right? So tell us, how do you know, what are the implications for China and what does China see in Latin America that we don’t see in the United States? A very good question. I lecture on these issues extensively. I’m going to give you the executive summary here. 

I’ll try to boil it down in about two minutes. China’s entry into Latin America is real, it’s current, and it is massive. It’s not necessarily displacing the United States but the United States is doing a pretty good job on our own of pulling back from the region and allowing Korea allowing conditions to develop the China is finding very attractive to go in and fill. They have done that in the African context about 15 years earlier than they have for Latin America. There’s a variety of reasons for that but they have recently over the last 15 years or so discovered Latin America and it is a big deal. 

China is now Brazil’s top trade partner. Can you imagine that? China is now the top trade partner of Chile. China is the top trade partner of Peru. Guess what? China’s the second largest trade partner of Argentina after only Brazil. These are not, this is not fake news. This is a real shift in global strategic issue right now. 

What does that mean, short-handing this from an economic perspective? I don’t really have a problem with it, right? Brazil has soy, they need markets. China has hungry people, they’ve got cattle that need to be fed too. Fill Beijing restaurants with steak, right? So why can’t Brazil sell to China? They do. And why can’t Brazil buy from China? They do to the extent that it’s an economic exchange. We do that right? We sell and buy from China right and other countries that we look, goodness knows we buy from Venezuela, right? 

I mean, we’re the top purchaser of Venezuelan crude. Can you imagine that, right? So I mean I don’t necessarily have a problem that. What I do have a problem with is the shift in value set that this tends to draw. And let me explain what I mean. When US or Canadian or Western European or Japanese business people go into developing markets, it’s not perfect, it’s not a hundred percent but generally speaking they bring positive externalities. 

They bring anti-corruption protections, they bring concern for the environment, they bring labor rights, they hire labor on the open market, they don’t import a labor force from their home country and any number of other things. When China invests in a foreign region, they bring their own labor force so it’s actually Chinese workers working on the local economy which local leaders deeply resent. 

They don’t have the same appreciation for the environment, they don’t have the same appreciation for worker rights and I can promise you they do not have the same appreciation for corruption. Now in the Latin American context, this matters because at least since the end of World War II if not before, the United States and some of our Western allies in through tools like the IMF and the World Bank and we have been trying to promote a certain vision for the Western Hemisphere based on democracy and open markets transparency anti-corruption right. 

What tools do you have to promote that? Well you have conditionality for loans and access to capital right and if a country needs capital say from the IMF like Argentina does right now and the IMF comes forward and says we’ll give you 50 billion dollars but you got to do something for it right? You got to change your governance structure, you got to open up your capital markets, you’ve got, I mean whatever it is right, there’s conditionality and this is an important tool of US foreign policy to the point where in the past we’ve even talked about you know bending out the political system and supporting democratic governance. 

Now if you have to rely on the United States or institutions of the West in order to have capital to get the loans to keep your economy going you have to accept that conditionality. And maybe you can negotiate a softening of it, but you have to accept conditionality. If, then, you have another country over here let’s call it just for argument’s sake China which has seemingly unlimited amounts of money, has a different agenda, and frankly they don’t care about your government; they don’t care about corruption; they don’t care about democracy; they want the product that you’re growing the product that’s underground, and so they have a different desire in terms of the relationship and what the relationship looks like. 

So if you’re a country like Venezuela and in the past you would have said well you know once we get in the economic trouble we’re going to go to the capital markets and we have to abide by conditionality we might not like it. But there was an opportunity for the United States and other countries to try to limit the damage of chavismo and the Chavez government and Maduro afterward and but no because the United States was no longer the only game in town. So Chavez could go to Beijing which he did and now Maduro could go to Beijing which he did and come back with tens of billions of dollars of loans to enable the government in Venezuela to destroy its own country. Does that matter to China? I don’t know. You can talk to the Chinese. It taught that it certainly matters to Washington because now we have a humanitarian crisis in the Western Hemisphere that is affecting Brazil, affecting Colombia, affecting the islands of the Caribbean, affecting the United States, not to say anything about the Venezuelans themselves. And this is a cyst as a humanitarian crisis it was not caused by China but in my view it was directly enabled by China in terms of the engagement with Venezuela that’s probably the most pungent example I could give you additional examples. 

So what does that mean? Look, if China wants to be engaged in the Western Hemisphere and again I think they have every right to be I think that I have no problems with an economic relationship and in fact I encourage it in some manner look Latin America needs infrastructure Latin America needs markets Latin America needs diversity beyond the United States. I get all that China can provide that good no problems. The challenge becomes when those relationships enable behaviors that we might find anti-American but more importantly over time to be broadly anti-democratic. And that’s where it becomes in my analysis and my way of thinking a problem for the region because it undermines then the value set that that we have tried to promote in the Western Hemisphere for a good long time. 

That is a fundamental foreign policy issue that I grapple with every day. These issues we grapple with every day. What are the tools available? What are the incentives available? What are the ways to try to shape and mold behavior of foreign countries and foreign governments? The issue is mixed. One final thought on China—I know, Mark, that I’ve spoken way too long on this, and I apologize. But get me in front of a microphone, it’s tough to shut me out, right? 

One final comment on China: to the extent that the Chinese profile in the Western Hemisphere is shifting (and I think that it is), they are going to get more attention from the US administration. What I mean by that is very intentional. The Chinese have portrayed their relationship in Latin America as benign economics—win-win, all of these things. Now, they are turning more toward relationships that could be more or considered strategic. This is going to matter.  

Let me give you a specific real-time example. Three countries in Latin America just changed recognition from Taiwan to China—El Salvador, Panama, Dominican Republic. Does that matter? I don’t know. The United States recognizes China; we don’t recognize Taiwan. So, why should we be upset? Here’s one reason: El Salvador has recognized China instead of Taiwan at significant cost because the Chinese have promised in order to do that, the terms of the agreement are oblique. We’re not exactly sure what the Salvadorans promised, but one thing that we do know is that they gave the Chinese access to redevelop a massive portion of the Salvadoran coastline to build a port. That’s economically silly. It’s not needed; it won’t be economically viable. Why would the Chinese want to build a huge port on the west coast of Central America? I don’t know—power projection, who knows? 

Why would they want to build a huge port in Sri Lanka? Why would they want to build a huge port in the Caribbean, which they have been doing? So, my point is that the profile of what the Chinese are doing in the Western Hemisphere is changing, and it does have to be considered, I think, in a broader context. I am not one of these people that thinks the Chinese are coming and we’re all going to die tomorrow. This is not the Soviet Union coming during the Cold War and all these things. There are folks out there, right? The Chinese sell a weapon system to Peru, therefore they’re trying to take over Peru. Now, they’re trying to get hard currency, but there are implications that I think we have to be aware of. We would be naive if we turned a blind eye to what’s going on. 

Question: Coincidentally, I did go to Drake University. My name is Logan. But also, coincidentally, I do have a question regarding China. More so, you touched on this earlier, but you were saying that with this new president-elect, Brazil may reevaluate our relationship with China. Yeah, and you know with BRICS and all the tariffs that are being ramped up on China, China would not like that at all. So, what do you think are going to be potential short-term implications considering a potential shift in the relationship? You know, if Brazil and US were to sort of tag-team, maybe they decided to slap some tariffs on as well, what do you think that could lead to? 

Answer: This is a huge question, and the short answer is we don’t know. The president-elect has only talked about it; we don’t know exactly what’s on his mind, but he has talked about reevaluating the relationship with China. But, as you rightly say, I mean, Brazil is the first in the BRICS. I’ve never seen what the attraction is of the BRICS. I’ve never seen it. To me, the BRICS is some guy from Goldman Sachs said, “You know, these are five countries that, if you put their letters together, they spell something clever.” I mean, that’s it. What does Brazil have in common—Brazil, Latin America’s largest democracy—what do they have in common with Russia and China? Nothing, right? 

From a governance perspective, from a global governance perspective, sure, you can make the case in terms of transactional trade and all that, but so what? What Bolsonaro has been talking about is we need to rethink the relationship with China, not just at that level but also in terms of trade and economics. And remember, I just said, China is Brazil’s top trade partner, so this is not exactly going to be an easy thing, and it will have broad implications. But why does it matter? It matters fundamentally for those of you who have studied economics—I’m going to go into an economics rant here in just a minute—but the idea being that the relationship between Brazil and China is economically very, very unbalanced. 

What do I mean by that? Brazil sells primary products to China. China adds value, ships them back to Brazil. Who gets the value added in that? Who’s winning? China and also the Japanese transport companies that move stuff back and forth between Asia and Latin America. What Brazil should be doing is they should be adding value in Brazil and shipping finished products to China, but that’s not the business model of China Inc. So, you have a reality in Brazil where the country has actually gone through a process of deindustrialization, which is fascinating for those of you who are a little bit wonky here in this space. 

What that means is that the percentage of Brazil’s economy that’s represented by manufacturing and value-added has actually decreased. The percentage of the economy in Brazil that’s represented by primary goods and non-value-added has increased based on the relationship and how it’s developed with China. If you’re selling soy to China, you’re doing pretty well. If you’re selling manufactured products, you’re really getting hammered by the Chinese. That matters in the Brazilian political context. So, you know, the president-elect says, “We want to rebalance the relationship. We don’t want to just sell primary goods to China; we want to sell finished products.” 

Right? We don’t just want China to invest in our country; we want to have the ability to invest in China, same reason that any American company would want to invest—markets, technology, finance, capital, everything. But are there examples of failures? Absolutely. Perhaps some of you know the company Embraer. Embraer, once a globally competitive mid-sized aircraft maker, it’s a Brazilian company. Embraer was in Brazil for a good long time. Embraer faced what many American companies do, and that’s forced technology transfer to their Chinese joint venture partner. 

The technology was transferred to the joint venture partner. Lo and behold, the Chinese developed a competitive mid-level aircraft maker, and Embraer is no longer in the Chinese market. The Chinese even made it a predatory process. These are some of the things he’s talking about. We need to rebalance the relationship. Now, very, very briefly, what does that mean with the United States? Well, it means that first of all, we have to see if he’s serious. Second of all, what does it mean? You know, what’s he thinking about? But I do think we have to be—I mean, we have to make sure, in my view, my personal view, we have to be careful that this doesn’t bleed over and become an anti-China crusade. 

And I think we’re already trending in that direction, having nothing to do with Latin America, but everything that’s going on right now with tariffs and everything else, you know, this is becoming like, you know, China is the new bogeyman. I think we have to be really careful about that. The temptation will be to work with our allies and partners, particularly in the Western Hemisphere. If they’re like-minded, fine, let’s do that. But let’s make sure we’re not trying to create circumstances that are going to harm either of our economies. 

And the irony here, and where all these things are interconnected, is even though the United States and China are now in the midst of a trade war, and we’re raising tariffs and we might do more tariffs or anything else, you know, the Chinese have raised tariffs on US agriculture products, right? And that hurts people in Iowa, Nebraska, and everything else. Who’s benefiting from that? Brazil. Brazil is globally competitive in soy, beef, chicken, everything else. If the Chinese don’t want to buy from the United States, they’re buying from Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. Those folks are making money hand over fist because of the trade war that we’ve started with China. 

So, this is where you start getting into some really interesting complications. Because, you know, are we going to now ask Brazil to start changing their tariff structure, then the Chinese will retaliate against them, and then their agriculture sector becomes threatened in the same way that ours is? That’s something that I can’t answer, but, you know, it’s not an easy, sort of, you know, clear shot is my point. There’s a lot going on here. Having said all that, times are changing. We’re going to have to see how the new president of Brazil does. We’re going to have to see how serious he is about the China threat, quote-unquote, and see what we can do, perhaps, to work together. 

I’ve had an awful lot of fun. I hope some of the things I’ve said are at least somewhat stimulating on a Friday afternoon at the end of a very long session. Thanks very much for the opportunity. [Applause] [Music]