AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

VIEW FROM THE SUMMIT: A CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR CARLOS ON PRESIDENT TRUMP’S STRATEGY IN THE AMERICAS

DISCUSSION PARTICIPANTS:

ROGER F. NORIEGA, AEI

CARLOS TRUJILLO, ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

2:00–3:00 PM THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2018

EVENT PAGE: http://www.aei.org/events/view-from-the-summit-a-conversation- with-ambassador-carlos-trujillo-on-president-trumps-strategy-in-the-americas/

TRANSCRIPT PROVIDED BY DC TRANSCRIPTION — WWW.DCTMR.COM ROGER NORIEGA: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much for joining us today here at the American Enterprise Institute. Please, if you don’t mind, silence your phones. If they go off, they will be confiscated by our burly staff.

We are very privileged to have with us Ambassador Carlos Trujillo, the US permanent rep- resentative to the Organization of American States. He represents us at the Permanent Council, that body which is the organ responsible for making the essential important decisions, in addition to the General Assembly. And he is confronting an extraordinarily busy agenda in Latin America, the Caribbean, our friends in Canada, confronting this altogether — these issues — as friends, as neighbors. And we are privileged to have him here today.

Ambassador Trujillo was sworn in on March 30, 2018. He was the first political appointee of the Trump administration in the Western Hemisphere Bureau. He presented his credentials to the secretary general on April 5. He is a former prominent Florida attorney and politician. He served as a state representative for the 105th district in Florida. He was a founding partner of Trujillo Gonzalez & Hevia in Coral Gables, Florida.

And we are delighted that he’s joined us here. And rather than read his bio, I thought I’d ask him — just so we could get to know him a little better — about — if you could tell us a little bit about yourself, your experience, your family, please.

CARLOS TRUJILLO: Thank you, Roger. It’s an honor to be here. My name is Carlos Trujillo. I am the US ambassador to the OAS. It still gives me goosebumps to say that every once in a while.

I’m the son of Cuban immigrants. Both of my parents were born in , got married, had four children. I went to law school at Florida State and was a prosecutor for four years in Miami, handling up to homicide cases.

After that I started my own law firm and ran for state representative, a post that I held until March, when I resigned in order to accept this post. The last job I had as a state representa- tive — I was the budget chair. The state of Florida has a roughly $87 billion budget. I was in charge of appropriating that for two years. And I’ve been here for roughly a month. And I can tell you, I feel like I walked into the middle of the playoffs.

Because I walked in — we had Lima. I was here for a week. Take a flight down to Lima. Attend the summit. Come back, we’ve had three — two or three Permanent Council meet- ings. We are heading into our General Assembly.

Obviously, the Venezuelan elections are right around the corner, so there’s a lot going on at a very fast speed, but I’m very, very honored and humbled to be here with you all and to be in this position.

AMB. NORIEGA: Well, I noted before to the Ambassador Trujillo, but before he came along, I was the youngest ambassador of the United States to the OAS. Then I went on to become the youngest ambassador — assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs. And you haven’t assured me yet whether you have designs on that job, but at least you’ll have to wait for a few years.

It’s interesting — the Permanent Council — because I came from working as a congres- sional staffer, Senate staffer, and I found that it is kind of a legislative environment. Tell us a little bit about how you have acclimated yourself to that environment, to your team meeting with your counterparts.

AMB. TRUJILLO: I think it is a very similar environment. Any political body, you have the organism in which you have to drive first an agenda and a policy and have a set of principles and ideals that you are committed to and try to advance those, and at the same time you have to build consensus and you have to build the votes.

In my time at the Florida House, we had our agenda. And it takes time to define it and to craft it and to execute on it, but if you have an inability to build friends and to build con- sensus and to build like-minded people to support it, you are not really effective. So they both go hand in hand. And throughout my limited time at the OAS, I’ve seen that we some- what have an idea of our vision and our agenda. Now it’s really continuing to work on building the consensus in order to achieve it. That’s from the political side. And I think that from the budgetary side — my background really is budget. I’ve served also on the board of the fourth-largest hospital of the United States during the financial crisis, so I understand the budgetary side of things.

I think the OAS has a lot of room for improvement. One of my focuses is going to be really on analyzing the institution as a whole and making sure that, first and foremost, it is a good return for the American taxpayer and that there is a longevity in the institution — that the decisions we make today are really going to put the institution in a better place in two and four and 10 years, which I think there’s a lot of work to be done as to that.

AMB. NORIEGA: We’ll get down to those really gritty issues. Let’s stay at 30,000 feet if we could. The secretary — the State Department is now under new management. Your new boss, Mike Pompeo, arrived very recently and is beginning to put his own team in place. I’m not sure if you’ve had an opportunity to interact with him, but can you give us an insight on his perceptions of Latin America, what his priorities would be, and how that reflects President Trump’s mandate to him?

AMB. TRUJILLO: I haven’t had an opportunity to interact with him. He was at the building this week, and our schedules haven’t coincided. He’s also very busy with a lot of other things that are forthcoming. But I think the president’s agenda, which the secretary will carry out, really is a restoration of democracy and human rights in the region. Some of the biggest violators are and Cuba, Nicaragua. Those issues have to addressed.

So I think his agenda and his vision, laid out by the administration now, with John Bolton also working toward that end, is really how do we achieve that. I think everybody agrees that we have to have human rights, we have to respect them, we have to have democracy, we have to have somewhat of a rule of law. So how do we achieve that, and how do we do it as expeditiously as possible? And I’m looking forward to working with the secretary in achieving those goals, and I’m really happy that he’s on board to really set the vision as we carry out that agenda.

AMB. NORIEGA: We have been privileged to have former Director Pompeo here on this stage recently. He is a good friend of the American Enterprise Institute over the years, so I think I share your positive expectations for him, for the leadership he will bring there. He was very explicit that President Trump engaged with him on issues regarding the Americas very early on, and he gave some marching orders that put the US on the right side in terms of that dealing with that criminal regime in Venezuela.

You just returned from the Summit of the Americas, as our event is organized about. And in the end, did it have a dramatic impact that our president wasn’t there and that we were represented instead by the vice president? He’s a man who’s had some interaction with leaders from the Americas already. Can you give us a sense of the tenor, the tone, the nature of those conversations that the vice president carried out?

AMB. TRUJILLO: I think, obviously, everybody prefers the president to be present. But given the circumstances, it was more than acceptable. But the transition was absolutely seamless. The vice president showing up — he really hit the ground running. His ability to connect at a lot of those bilateral meetings, the amount of work that he has previously put into this region in meeting with leaders in Colombia and Brazil, down in Lima, I think was very well received. It was very positive that he has those personal relationships that he was able to connect and communicate and carry forward our agenda.

One thing that he did that I thought was very powerful from the American perspective is meet with the civil society groups. He spent a significant amount of time meeting with dif- ferent civil society groups — Venezuelan and Cubans and others. And their reaction to those meetings were they felt reenergized.

These are groups that just three years ago in Panama were beaten on the streets. They were imprisoned. They were denied access. They were tortured and at a summit of Americas for a lack of a better word. And now, just three years later, they are meeting with the vice pres- ident. They’re respected. Their human rights and their dignity is respected. And I thought they had a very, very positive reaction to their interactions with the vice president and the entire summit experience.

AMB. NORIEGA: Now, President Maduro, in the end, didn’t go to Lima. His invita- tion had been withdrawn by the Peruvian hosts. The US has offered to host the next summit. Can you give us a sense of whether, for example, Díaz-Canel, the new lackey of Castro who’s the head of the Cuban government, might be invited to Washington to attend that kind of summit? Or perhaps there will be a new leader?

AMB. TRUJILLO: You know, I find it difficult for — to accept, especially given this administration’s priorities, that they would invite someone like a Díaz-Canel, or some- one like Maduro or someone who just blatantly violates democracy and human rights. I think the purpose of the summit is how do you build consensus and how do you strengthen democracy, not how do you destroy it. So I think given the American perspective, especially that of this administration, I find it very, very difficult that at the next summit they would be on the invite list. Given some of the possibilities — in ’94 it was in Miami. Who knows where it will be this year? I can’t imagine Díaz-Canel strolling out of Miami International Airport down the tarmac and being greeted kindly.

AMB. NORIEGA: Let me just turn to Venezuela. Real challenges for all of us who care about security and stability in the Americas. You said in your inaugural comments as the permanent representative of the United States at the OAS: Today the OAS enjoys renewed credibility. It is demonstrating leadership in the collective defense of democracy and the promotion of human rights.

Now, certainly Secretary-General Almagro has done a remarkable job. However, the OAS Permanent Council has passed relatively weak resolutions as Maduro has consolidated his dictatorship in Venezuela. Rather than settle for that lowest common denominator, at what point does the US government and the Lima group of countries have to bless tougher measures outside of the framework of the OAS in order to confront the regime in a more effective way?

AMB. TRUJILLO: The Lima group’s a reaction of the OAS’s inability to carry out an agenda. We have to accept that, and I think that if the OAS wants to be a credible insti- tution, we have to be able to stick to an agenda and honor the principles which we all subscribe to. I think once we violate those principles, it creates a vacuum for the Lima group to be present.

What does the Lima group create? It’s a great platform. It’s a great opportunity, but it’s not the OAS. And it excludes people from the conversation. So if countries think that there are no consequences to abstaining or voting against these resolutions, which is great, but now you don’t have a seat at the table. You have no idea what’s going on, and you have an inability to influence the outcome of something that’s affecting the entire Western Hemisphere.

For the OAS to have renewed credibility — how do we sit at a Permanent Council meeting, in which we have a democratic charter, in which Venezuela sits across the table from us, and nobody questions their ability to sit there? How do we as an organization really look at ourselves in the mirror every day and say, “Well, Venezuela is a country that respects no democracy, it respects no human rights, yet is able to opine as to those issues in a democratic setting here with the United States of America”? How do we accept that?

I think going forward for the organization to have credibility, you have to mean what you say and say what you mean. And going forward they have to really — all the countries have to respect the charter, and when you see something that is not aligned with the principles that we all agreed to, we have to hold people accountable. That’s the only way to have cred- ibility as an organization. That’s the only way to really march forward.

AMB. NORIEGA: Let’s talk about what the OAS general secretary could do on the Venezuela front, perhaps, to be — to make some practical contributions. It hosted essentially an expert review of the systematic violations of human rights and made — with the inten- tion of making a formal referral to the ICJ to trigger an investigation of the regime’s record, and has also played an informal host of the Venezuelan supreme court in exile. And those judgments that that supreme court might make in the context of the democratic transition, it might actually be critical at one point.

In light of the fact that the democratically elected national assembly, elected in a landslide to the opposition in December 2015, is that assembly is the authentic representative of the Venezuelan people, seems to me, much more so than the government.

Would it be a possibility that the OAS general secretary, along with some like-minded gov- ernments, might convene meetings — informal meetings of that national assembly or members of the assembly — to begin to do some preparation about what a democratic transition would look, about what humanitarian assistance programs might look like, what the reconstruction of the country might look like, what sort of international support they might need? Is it pos- sible that the OAS in a sort of ad hoc fashion could become more of an protagonist in favor of finding the path forward to the restoration of the democratic order in Venezuela?

AMB. TRUJILLO: I think in the long run, that’s definitely a great — the OAS is a great platform to do that, but in the short time we have to have free and democratic elections in Venezuela and we have to be able to bring in humanitarian aid. And we’ve had an inability to do so. So until we accomplish those goals — the fact that the humanitarian aid is rejected by the Venezuelan people when children don’t have access to basic prenatal care — mothers don’t have access to prenatal care. Children don’t have access to basic nutrition. Diabetics don’t have access to insulin. People don’t have access to just the most basic of rights. We have to address that first.

I think the OAS is a great platform for — it’s easy to say, what’s next? What’s the change, and how do we restore the change? We have to get there at some point, and obviously you have to have the conversations almost bifurcated because if you don’t plan for the day after, it does create that vacuum. It does create an inability for the government to function and to meet the needs of its people.

But I think our focus has to be what’s our reaction post–May 20? We all know that those elections are not legitimate. We all know that they are sham elections. So what’s going to be our reaction May 21? How is the OAS as an organization going to react? How is the international community going to react? And how are the Venezuelan people going to react that actually have to live through that oppression?

AMB. NORIEGA: Well, sort of my idea for trying to get the national assembly members to start to define a path forward is precisely to help to provide that answer.

So what is the answer? I mean, I had a conversation with a senior State Department official the other day, who said, OK, we want elections, we called for elections, May 20 comes and goes, nothing happens. What’s the next step? What are we really expecting from the regime?

AMB. TRUJILLO: I think what we are expecting from them is status quo. But the reality is, with or without American intervention or international intervention, the place is in a downward spiral. We have to accept that they are holding back CLAP bags in order to try to secure votes heading into a contentious election that is already rigged, and we’re still concerned about it. It shows you the state and the desperation of that regime.

I think sanctions on individual members makes it even more difficult. If you are in the inner circle and you’re sitting there and you are 50 years old or 40 years old or 60 years old, you’re thinking about your grandkids and your children and their ability to be able to immigrate or travel around the world and not the inability to do so. I think that has a chilling effect. The people who are engaged in that corruption, it changes their behavior. It the changes their ability to contribute. But I think going forward the reaction has to be not only the American response but also the region’s response, the OAS response, the entire world’s response.

The obligations — obviously, we tend to lead the way, but we are not the only ones who are responsible for the fallout. The entire region from the targeted sanctions perspective of individuals, they should do more. I think from the sector-specific sanctions perspective the entire region should do more. And I think the United States of America is committed to doing whatever it takes to make sure that the people of Venezuela can enjoy basic human rights and some level of democracy

AMB. NORIEGA: I know it’s kind of a tough question, but no one expects really the behavior Nicolás Maduro and Tareck El Aissami. These guys are thugs. They’ve stolen billions of dollars from the Venezuelan people that they’d rather not give up. Some of it we’ve confiscated. I think we have confiscated about half billion dollars just from one of these individuals, which is remarkable in the light of the fact that he’s a public official for the last 25 years.

But no one expects them to cede power voluntarily to people who might hold them accountable for their crimes. So isn’t it a fact that we essentially want to continue to pressure these people until we have regime change? Because they are not going to change their behavior. Isn’t that not essentially where we are today?

AMB. TRUJILLO: I believe so. Can you imagine Venezuela marching forward with Maduro at the reins? I think it is very, very difficult to accept that given his track record, given his history, given the massive amounts of corruption that have taken place directly by him and his administration. It is hard for them to be recognized ever as a legitimate form of government and of government officials.

So obviously the sanctions do work in changing that behavior and hopefully curtailing that behavior. We’ll see how successful it is after the May 20.

AMB. NORIEGA: There’s a very tough decision for everybody, and that is the so- called sectoral sanctions — whether we do a prohibition on the importation of Venezuelan petroleum or, on the other hand, prohibit the export of diluents and other precursors that are required for the regime to do any production.

Those are pretty tough. What’s the latest thinking? Do you think there will be a review under Secretary Pompeo of where we are in the whole sanctions strategy? For example, I know that the Treasury has taken the lead. My impression is that the State Department has been holding back approval on, for example, sanctioning Diosdado Cabello. Do you think there might be a review of that whole strategy to get tougher, understanding that the humani- tarian disaster is having a toll every day?

AMB. TRUJILLO: Absolutely, you have a deadline that they created. They created the May 20 deadline. They are 17 days away. It’s really a natural marker, in which there will be a reaction to. I think, obviously, with new administrations and with new leadership come new ideas. I’m sure the secretary has his vision of how to handle the situation, how to advance that conversations regarding Venezuela. I’m sure he will be very effective in carrying it out. So going forward over the next 17 days, we will see what happens to Venezuela.

But also with our change in leadership and maybe our possible change in somewhat — in the direction of the reactions, we will have a different approach.

AMB. NORIEGA: You have the privilege now of working with Luis Almagro, who I think has exceeded expectations — and certainly I believe he has — and done a remark- able job. The old expression was that some secretaries general are born to mediocrity and others have mediocrity thrust upon them.

In his case I think he’s gone beyond what anyone expected. Secretary General Insulza stood by, really, while some of the leftist regimes consolidated power, and the only time he stirred his slumber was when held an illegal constituent to extend the opportunity for him to run for office again.

At the OAS General Assembly in Fort Lauderdale years ago when I was an ambassador to the OAS, we sought to have the mechanism that would make the OAS a more agile monitor. Actually, you were the ambassador to the OAS at the time. I was the assistant secretary. And John Maestos here. I believe it was John. And people resisted that. And so we grad- ually saw more and more countries lose their democratic institutions, checks and balances, transparency, essential respect for human rights. And the OAS hasn’t played that role.

Is it time to sort of reconsider some ways to bring — get the OAS earlier on in this process, so we don’t wait until they are mobs in the streets trying to clamor for their essential rights?

AMB. TRUJILLO: I think Almagro has done an exceptional job to that end. Through election monitoring, you have people on the ground who are analyzing issues before they turn into protests and violence. So I think he’s been very successful in positioning the organ- ization to prevent some of the worst-case scenarios of what happens when elections go bad. And I think he’s also raised the profile of the organization.

I think it’s important for a multilateral platform for people to give it credibility and people feel that it has a function, has an ability to solve problems across the region. And he’s done a very, very good job on that. I think from now, he sets the vision, I think. Any good leader will set the vision for the organization. Now it’s up to the organization to march forward.

His vision is for democracy in the region. His vision is for the respect — the fundamental respect of all human rights. Now, it’s up to the organization to live and abide by its charter. We all signed up for it. We all agreed that those are principles that we hold dear. Now it’s up to us to really be accountable for our votes, for our actions, and for our statements. Hope- fully this general assembly will do just that.

AMB. NORIEGA: Let’s talk about one issue that’s right in front of us in the head- lines, and that’s Nicaragua. Forty people killed. It’s one thing for people to agitate about economic policies like pension reform. It’s another thing altogether when 40 people are dead by brute force by the government. What’s the latest in terms — what are you hearing from your colleagues about how the OAS might respond to that?

AMB. TRUJILLO: I think those people — their deaths shouldn’t be in vain. We have to analyze what happened, who’s responsible, and hold those people accountable to the fullest extent of the law. So before you can start discussing government, we really have to analyze what happened to those individuals, why did they perish, how can we prevent that, and who is responsible for that should really be brought before justice.

And I think that the Permanent Council should start dealing with those issues at the bare minimum and investigating those casualties. That’s something that is completely unacceptable. People should have the right protest, as long as they do it peacefully. They should feel that not only the government but the international community encourages and respects that right.

So those people, their deaths shouldn’t be in vain. I think it has been very limited reporting on what occurred and how they passed. I think it’s an issue that shouldn’t stop there. The organization should really take a proactive interest in analyzing that.

AMB. NORIEGA: It’s one thing, again, for critics of Ortega to be holding forth. It’s another thing when the Episcopal Conference of Bishops — the most respected entity in the country, really — speaks out in very blunt terms about who’s responsible for those killings.

A good friend of mine, trusted person, told me frankly the US Embassy is not doing enough to reach out to other members of civil society, including some of the aggrieved people. Do you think Secretary Pompeo would prefer a more active approach in terms of the US embassy engaging people?

AMB. TRUJILLO: I can’t speak to what the actual embassy is doing or not doing. I haven’t been privy to those conversations. But I think the US approach is always going to be to stand with some of the civil society groups and make sure they have a space in order to express their concerns. It was past secretaries’, regardless of the administrations, and I’m sure it’s going to be our current secretary’s position that there is a space for civil society. They are a great benefit, and they need have a platform on which they can come and ex- press their concerns and their concerns will be listened to and they’ll be able to do it in a peaceful and respectful manner.

AMB. NORIEGA: Well, I should congratulate you for getting confirmed by the United States Senate, and you know very well that the Congress plays an extraordinarily important role in US foreign policy. For example, in Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, there’s really strong bipartisan support for our basic objectives and strategy. Can you explain how you’ll work to build bridges with those political leaders, where all politics is local, in our Congress, with this multilateral international body?

AMB. TRUJILLO: I think it’s a team approach. There has to be buy-in from every- one not only from the OAS or the State Department, but across the executive from all over the region and most importantly from the Hill. If the Hill doesn’t finance and fund the OAS, we’re completely ineffective. If they don’t finance and fund some of our priorities, we’re completely ineffective. And they have a lot of buy-in and a lot interest in the organization.

They have a lot of buy-in and a lot of interest in democracy, in human rights, so my goal as long as I am able to serve is to really bring them in. You have to have a door open for them to come, to feel that they are included, to feel that they have a seat at the table in shaping the US policy.

And more importantly, they have their own relationships. I think sometimes we take that for granted or we forget, but a very powerful senator calling for the foreign minister, a very powerful senator calling a president does carry some weight. Or a very powerful congressmen, congresswomen, calling for a president or a foreign minister does carry some weight.

So as we are working, as we struggle sometimes to get the votes required in order to advance our agenda, those relationships and that team approach of not only the US-OAS or the sec- retary but also the executive or the vice president or a senator, a congressman or a congress- woman, calling over and helping us secure those votes, I think it’s a very strong approach, especially when it’s bipartisan.

Because regardless of what happens in American politics, these people stick around. And regardless of the chains of the administration, these are principles that hold true for the American people as a whole.

AMB. NORIEGA: That’s a promising answer. It speaks to the importance really of having political appointees to these jobs. So with all due respect, and I love the Foreign Service folks, the career people. They make you look good on a regular basis, and they defend our interests and they are patriots and they are professionals and they’ll do an extraordinarily great job. But, you know, you are prepared to pick up the phone and call a senator. You have already done some of the — made some of those calls I understand. Get them involved.

And a lot of times in my experience in the State Department, including when I was a low- level munchkin, frankly the people in the department didn’t even want to call and ask for fear of what the answer might be. And more often than not, congressmen or senators appreciate that — the opportunity to get involved and help. Democrats or Republicans, political appoin- tees can have an important role to play.

One of the accomplishments of a career Foreign Service officer that preceded you was on the important issue of burden-sharing. I think it was probably Kevin Sullivan’s work and his team’s work that got us to this elusive goal of setting a limit on the percentage which any country could contribute to the OAS — that is to say, not more than 50 percent. Of course, we are the only country that comes close to that. So in the spirit of burden-sharing, and where a country wouldn’t have sort of undue disproportionate influence in the organ- ization over its budget, they set that cap at 50 percent. That’s right?

That’s, by the way, a tribute to the FSOs who got that work done in the absence of a political ambassador or a confirmed ambassador. The problem with that is that countries can achieve that objective by cutting the budget. Which would be a mess. It’d be a disaster.

I see Steve Griner here, who is the president of the OAS Staff Association, elected in a landslide. Not quite a Castro landslide, but a landslide. And he knows this very well. So how do we prevent the solution to this being cutting the budget, and instead having coun- tries step up and contribute more?

AMB. TRUJILLO: First, I think Kevin and the entire team did an exceptional job negotiating with other countries and saying we can’t contribute more than 50 percent be- cause there has to be buy-in. Everybody has to feel that they have some skin in the game. Everybody has to feel that they are part of the OAS.

And when our contribution is 60 percent and then all of our voluntary contributions, it can’t just be the United States’ organization. It has to be the western hemispheric organization. So Kevin being able to achieve that goal was monumental. It really was. From the longevity of the institution, of having a lot of buy-in from a lot of people knowing that they are invested in the institution, and also from the American taxpayer’s perspective. Why should we pay 60 percent of the bill when some other countries really aren’t paying much?

So I think those were — that was an historic and monumental change in the culture and in the atmosphere at the OAS. And Kevin and the entire team is single-handedly responsible for that. That they were able to achieve that.

And now the conversation going forward — how do you achieve the 50 percent, and who’s responsible for the difference? It’s obviously going to be up to the organization to decide. I think from the American perspective it’s irresponsible to just cut the organization. If you wanted — just cutting the organization sends a message that we don’t care.

It’s easy to just cut the budget, and it’s an irresponsible approach. Could the organization be more efficient and effective? Absolutely. But those efficiencies and effective changes should go into reserves. The organization struggles with some reserves. They should go into deferred maintenance. That’s why we should try to maximize that.

But cutting the budget across the board really limits our ability to be effective. And it’s something that hopefully the majority of the member states take into consideration as we negotiate the quotas and ultimately as we negotiate the budget. And if we really care about the organization and we really find value in it, what people will have to pay is really insig- nificant amount compared to other multilateral organizations.

And the return on the investment for some countries is exponential. We are a donor country. The majority of countries are massive beneficiaries of the programs and the platform that we helped create and they’ve obviously contributed to.

I think our vision for the organization going forward is not just a massive cut of the budget. I think it’s a very irresponsible way to approach the budget conversation. It’s really how do we have more buy-in? How do we have more people and more governments invested in this organization? And how are we able to maximize those resources to achieve the goals that we all have?

AMB. NORIEGA: Excellent. And one of the things — one of the challenges here is to make sure the US doesn’t make a cut — across-the-board cuts among our international organization contribution.

What is your strategy for ensuring that happens? And for that matter, having bureaus in the State Department put voluntary contributions into specialized organizations like CICTE, like CICAD, and seconding personnel so that the US really is engaged and integrated with the OAS agenda on these important priorities?

AMB. TRUJILLO: I think it goes back to having strong relationships with the Hill. You have to be able to advocate for these organizations, and you have to be able to show that it’s a good investment for the American taxpayer. Does it advance the American agenda? Does it advance the American interests? And if the answer is yes, we should continue to contribute.

But at the same I think there has to be a full review of all of these organizations. If we are contributing money and we see a poor return or a poor investment or we really are not get- ting — we are not advancing the American agenda, why are we doing so? So I think across the board, really reviewing every organization independently and making sure that they stand on their own two feet as an organization and working collaboratively with Capitol Hill really could help us in achieving some of our goals.

Coming from a legislative background, I really appreciate and understand the importance that elected officials play. They are sent up here to represent their constituencies. They are as close to the American public as anybody, and they understand the difficulties in appro- priating a limited amount of resources in order to meet all the goals and expectations of the American people. So I think we always have to take those considerations into account.

And when we send money somewhere, we are taking it from someone, and we are not put- ting it in another place. That’s a consideration that I’m really cognizant of as a taxpayer, as an American, and as a former politician. We have to be very diligent in our spending, and we have to be very good in communicating the needs for that spending.

AMB. NORIEGA: We are going to take questions in a second from the audience. I see the young lady in the back has the microphone, and she’ll pass it to people as I rec- ognize them. But let me just ask on that subject.

You also mentioned in your inaugural statement that, I believe, our focus should be strength- ening the core competencies of the institution. A lot of us believe that those core competencies are political, human rights, those — maybe some security issues like drugs and terrorism. But the OAS has some far-flung programs, some of them that are just scratching the itch of some rather small countries.

I’m not saying abandon those ideas, but — I mean, those programs — but are there other ways that we can work with the IDB and the Word Bank to have them take up some slab of those economic programs and have the OAS focus, as you say, on core competencies?

AMB. TRUJILLO: I think one thing for any institution is you can’t be all things to all people. And I think the OAS has to accept that, and I think any organization has to accept that. Once you try to do a lot of things, you’ll probably end up doing them very poorly. So we have to figure out, what are the things that we do well, and how do we invest in devel- oping and skilling those to be more efficient and more successful? And what are the things that we do poorly? And why are we continuing in making bad investment or bad choices on programs that don’t give us the return that we anticipated or the return that’s appropriate?

So I don’t want to say that we are going to eliminate some or add new ones, but I think just overall reviewing the — what’s the mission of the organization, how do we accomplish that mission, and what are the resources necessary to accomplish that mission, is one thing that I’m going to focus on.

I really want to spend a lot of time focusing on the budget and sustainability of the organ- ization. I think trying to do a lot of things very poorly is probably not in our best interest.

AMB. NORIEGA: I will go to Juan José Daboub, this gentleman here. Please identify yourselves, your affiliations. You can ask a long-winded question; others can’t.

Q: Thank you, Ambassador. Congratulations, Ambassador Trujillo. I am from El Salvador, former minister of finance there and former managing director of the World Bank.

I heard the ambassador ask about Venezuela. I saw your speech about Venezuela. Vene- zuela has contaminated many of our countries, just as Cuba did in the ’80s and before. And in the case of El Salvador in particular, we had not trusted as much the OAS in the past. I think things are definitely changing. Hopefully you will keep it at the top of the agenda.

Concretely, El Salvador is a country that went from hardship to investment grade in a rela- tively short period of time when it took the right decisions and had the right leadership. We really didn’t need that much help from the outside world once we had that leadership in place.

So it works, and it is less of a burden to countries like the United States when you have the right people in place. So investing somehow creating the conditions for the wrong people to depart is actually a good return on investment. And I will encourage you to keep El Sal- vador in mind, and for that matter a few other countries in the region.

The question is, provided the limited resources that traditionally the OAS has had and what you were just talking about — the flavor-of-the-month approach to some tactics organiza- tions take — I think that monitoring elections and investing prior to the elections in cleaning up the voting documents and all of this is an investment worthwhile making that will reduce the investments later on.

And so do you see that as really playing an important role as you go to the reallocation of the budget? And also in the missions that monitor the elections on the D-Day, which in some countries can make the difference between someone stealing the election or a real election taking place?

AMB. TRUJILLO: I think that’s one of the things that we do well. I think the OAS, one thing that historically has done well is the election monitoring. And if our goal is to encourage democracies and to really help some of the fragile democracies in the region, how do you do that? People have to have confidence that when they vote, the elections aren’t going to be rigged and that the outcomes are going to be respected.

So how do we accomplish that is by giving them that certainty that regardless of the victor of the election, we are going to invest the money to make sure that they are fair, that they are legitimate and they are recognized, and that they are just in their outcome.

AMB. NORIEGA: There is a gentleman right there. Then I’m going to go to this lady in — yes.

Q: (inaudible) — difference that would have made nowadays. In Venezuela 97 per- cent of all export revenues goes directly to the government. In Venezuela 40 percent of the poorest in Venezuela got less than 15 percent of what should have been their share had they just gotten their per capita revenue stream from the oil.

Why is this never some — an issue that is never on the forefront? Because that is really transformative for an oil-cursed nation. Thank you

AMB. TRUJILLO: I think that’s something that is being explored. Nobody’s under any false pretense that the Petrovesa money is taken it and distributed and encouraged the corruption of the country. I think everybody accepts that as a pretty definitive.

So how do you stop that money from coming in, and how do you stop and eliminate that corruption? And how do you ultimately change the behavior of those individuals to recog- nize that they are going to be held accountable? I think those are the difficult discussions in conversations at the State Department, the United States government, and the interna- tional communities is going to have for the next few weeks leading up to May 20, and after May 20.

But I think it’s an issue that is definitely being explored. It’s definitely being reviewed, and I think that ultimately it’ll find its proper solution.

AMB. NORIEGA: Governments should not run oil companies, and congresses shouldn’t either. Whether it’s Mexico or Brazil, this is a disaster that’s occurred everywhere. Venezuela is the worst scenario obviously. But one of the things that we might ask when there is a review of sanctions strategy is whether we should prohibit the sale — I’m sorry, the import of Venezuelan oil until the secretary of state can certify that the proceeds are going to benefit its people. And then we might just — the lady down front, and then, I’m going to go to John — we go to that —

Q: Hello. I’m Alex Valderama with Chevron. Thank you so much for your words and, Roger, for your questions and lots of success in your new role.

I have two questions for you. The first one is: I think it’s the news on the US will be con- tributing 50 percent instead of 60 percent to the OAS and others so that they will have more skin in the game. My question is, since that’s changing, will the weight in voting for each country change as well, or will that stay the same?

AMB. TRUJILLO: Every country gets one vote.

Q: Right. So it has the same —

AMB. TRUJILLO: It has the same. It would be great if we would get 60 percent of the votes. (Laughter.) I could tell you, we wouldn’t lose a single resolution.

Q: OK, because a lot of initiatives that we’ve heard of have been stopped because of that weight, so my question was that. And the second question is on — our understanding is that Secretary General Almagro and his team have been working on a report to the ICC on crimes against humanity on the Venezuelan government. If you have any information on that and where that is — where it is at this point? Thank you.

AMB. TRUJILLO: I know that they are working on that, and I think that the people who’ve done an exceptional work is the supreme court in exile, prosecutors in exile. They’ve done a great job of documenting all the crimes against humanity and really building the case for individuals that are responsible. Memorializing testimony, identifying victims, and pre- paring that so that at some point these individuals can be brought to justice.

So I think it’s a collaborative group, not only the OAS and the secretary general, but Vene- zuelans in exile, prosecutors in exile, judges in exile that are working together in Bogotá. A few months ago, they actually held a tribunal on some of Venezuelan regime members that have committed crimes against humanity and brought forth victims in order to memo- rialize the testimony. And even invited the Venezuelan government to come and defend themselves.

So that is taking place, and I think it has to continue to take place. Because one thing that happens is that time kind of heals the wounds, but people should ultimately be held account- able. And if you violated somebody’s human rights, and if you tortured somebody, if you’ve improperly imprisoned somebody, you should be brought to justice, regardless if it has been two weeks, two years, or 20 years. So hopefully through these exercises, those individuals — torturers — are ultimately being brought to justice.

AMB. NORIEGA: I think he’s playing your song. José Miguel Vivanco.

Q: Ambassador Trujillo. Jose Miguel Vivanco, from Human Rights Watch.

I have a question regarding Nicaragua. We have recently documented gross violations of human rights committed by security forces of Nicaragua. And the Inter-American Human Rights Commission has requested permission from the government of Nicaragua to conduct an on-site investigation.

Given the degree of concentration of power in Nicaragua, the lack of independent judiciary, and the level of corruption that exists in that country, I think it is extremely unlikely that these violations of human rights are going to be subject of rigorous and objective investi- gation by the local officials.

So the commission has requested this permission, but I think it is also unlikely that the gov- ernment of Nicaragua is going to grant authorization for the commission to visit the country. Is your administration working with the Permanent Council to build pressure with the Per- manent Council, on the government of Nicaragua, to press that government to accept a visit and on-site investigation by the Inter-American Human Rights Commission?

AMB. TRUJILLO: First of all, thank you for all your work and the amount of work that you personally put into the organization, and it really makes a difference in a lot of people’s lives.

We agree with you that, as I said earlier, that their deaths are not in vain. We will investigate this, and we will do whatever it takes. And I understand that the Nicaraguan government is not going to send you some tickets and invite you down there to investigate what occurred. But I think it’s incumbent upon the Permanent Council to demand that. If we don’t demand the investigation of the deaths of 30 to 40 people that just got killed for absolutely no reason at the hands of whether it’s the police or the military — but somebody at the hands of the government — what good are we as an organization?

So I think the Permanent Council — that’s one of the issues that we should take up. We should take up the death of those individuals, and we should take up the Nicaraguan gov- ernment’s inability to allow credible international organizations to go in and investigate. That behavior shouldn’t be acceptable, and it should be condemned.

AMB. NORIEGA: She is bringing the microphone.

Q: John Maisto. Mr. Ambassador, congratulations on your nomination and your being sworn in. Congratulations on your presentations today. I think we see a former leg- islator and lawyer in action.

AMB. TRUJILLO: Thank you.

Q: Two thoughts. One following up on José Miguel. There was a thought years ago, and Roger Noriega and I have — remember years ago, that’s perhaps a system by which when the Inter-American Human Rights Commission comes up with a country study that should result in a mission being sent to country X — whatever country — and makes such a recommendation to the Permanent Council, that the Permanent Council have an obliga- tion to take up that report, that recommendation. There’s always been resistance on the part of the Permanent Council, which is an exclusive club of executive branches that — well, it acts like an executive branch in total sovereignty.

Which leads me to another question, and that is there has been a suggestion in the past that because governments are composed of more than executive branches — there are legisla- tive branches and judicial branches and, in Latin America, electoral branches — wouldn’t it be interesting if the legitimate congress of Venezuela and the legitimate supreme court of Venezuela, which are not the ones in power in right now, had the opportunity to appear before the Permanent Council and to explain to all the countries what is going on with a challenge to the Permanent Council to address what those legitimate, democratic branches of government have to say?

An additional thought. Maybe had something like that been in action, the whole Honduras imbroglio might, maybe, have been avoided, if the legislative and judicial branches had a chance to respond at the OAS to something that the OAS was dragged into later on.

I’m wondering if you may have detected any interest in such a thing or whether that might be of interest to the US mission in collaboration with other missions.

AMB. TRUJILLO: I haven’t heard this idea before, but I think we would be very open to having bona fide, legitimate people who were elected by the will of their constit- uencies come up and testify. I think that is — makes all the sense in the world having them come to the OAS, having some of the supreme court justices that happen to live down in Miami that I had the opportunity of meeting prior to having this job — having them come up here and document exactly what’s occurring. I think there is no better source than the people who are legitimately elected by their constituency.

So I think it is a great suggestion. It’s something that we should definitely explore. The first part of your question was — I'm sorry, what was the first part of your question?

Absolutely, yes, so back to the —

So I think why are we — why are they creating reports that nobody reviews and nobody addresses? It’s a complete waste of time, effort, energy, and money. I think we have to — I think for a lot of those reports — it’s twofold, the approach. There are some bad individual actors that are bad actors, and those should be treated differently than systematic failures by entire governments or organizations. I think systematic failures have to be addressed. If one rogue prison guard in any country in this world decides to abuse a detainee, it’s a bad act, but it’s not systematic failure. It’s just a person who is acting rogue and abusing their power and should be held accountable, nonetheless.

But how do you fix systematic failures across entire governments, across entire institutions, across entire countries and regions? Those are the issues that we should be taking up. And I think those are the issues that should be reviewed. If the entire penal system is ruined, that’s an issue that we should probably take some interest. If an entire government has a repres- sive approach dealing with somebody’s human rights, that’s a system — that’s an issue that we should be reviewing.

AMB. NORIEGA: Well, very effective use of your time. We have about six or eight minutes left. We promised the ambassador to get him back on his treadmill.

Q: Thank you. I’m Abu Geid from the embassy of Egypt. My question is regarding that the US now has a priority that was reflected clearly in the National Security Strategy, which is countering the influence of otherwise — of the Chinese influence in the Western Hemisphere. So my question is: Is this subject part any deliberations inside the OAS, especially that the state secretary — Secretary of State Tillerson in the last visit has been tackling this issue with most of the states that he has visited. So does the OAS — is this a concern for it or no?

AMB. TRUJILLO: I don’t think the OAS will brush up on this issue in particular — Chinese influence in the region. But I think from the American perspective, we have to make the case of why are we the better partners. We have to do a good job in communicating — you can go into business with China, or you can go into business with the United States.

We have to tell them all the reasons why a deal with the United States is not a quod pro quo. It’s not that we are going to give you something and expect something in return. We both agree that we are going to abide by the same philosophy. We will both agree that we are going to be fair in the way that we are going to transact business. And both of us are going to benefit from that relationship.

But I think that is much more powerful than I am going to come to your country and I’m going to buy your infrastructure, then I’m going to buy your utilities, and then I’m going to have complete control of your workforce and over your means of transportation, over your ability to generate or transmit power.

So I think the American perspective has to be — we have to communicate why we are the better partners, because we are. And people have to really know that we are better partners, that we are there for the right reasons and we are there for the longevity and for the better of both countries, not only ours.

AMB. NORIEGA: Maybe the Brazilians got caught with the hangover when the commodities prices dropped and the economy sank with Chinese demand.

That gentleman right there. Yes.

Q: Mr. Ambassador, Andrew — (inaudible) — from Georgetown University. We’ve seen the OAS dip into anti-corruption and anti-impunity in Honduras with MACCIH. Is this something that the United States is going to keep supporting, and is this the model that maybe we’ll see replicated in other countries? Thank you.

AMB. TRUJILLO: Thank you. So I think MACCIH has been successful. Obviously, like all organizations, it could get better. So we definitely have an interest in continuing to support MACCIH, and MACCIH is only as effective as that people who run it. I think we all recognize that.

And as far as putting that to other countries, countries have to accept it. Everybody there are sovereigns, and they have to expect an international organization coming in to help them address some of the issues that they are experiencing. So if there is a need, will we be sup- portive? Absolutely. But I think it’s on the sovereign to accept that international help. I think that Massey has done a good job. I think there is room for improvement from all sides, and we look forward to continue to support and make it stronger and better for the future.

AMB. NORIEGA: Would you distinguish it in any way from what CICIG is doing in Guatemala?

AMB. TRUJILLO: Honestly, I couldn’t — at this point I couldn’t tell you any mas- sive distinctions. I spent on a little time reviewing — I spent a lot of time reviewing MACCIH, but not so much time reviewing CICIG.

AMB. NORIEGA: Thank you. One last question. The gentleman there.

Q: Thank you. I wanted to commend Ambassador Trujillo. You have a great role model in Ambassador Noriega. Just for the people to know, I had the opportunity to wit- ness Ambassador Trujillo in his first assignment during the summit. There is two groups of Castro and Chávez, Maduro, a sponsor yelling and insulting the ambassador, trying to lynch a Cuban dissident, Rosa Maria Paya. Most of the ambassadors left the room, and the reason we were not lynched was because Ambassador Trujillo stayed there, so security has to stay with him. But otherwise it was very brave from you to stay with us there. Thank you.

AMB. TRUJILLO: Thank you.

AMB. NORIEGA: That’s a great way to end this. He said nice things about me. (Laughter.)

AMB. TRUJILLO: We should quit while we are ahead.

AMB. NORIEGA: He could have stopped right there, as far as I was concerned. But, no, that’s a remarkable testament to your leadership, because what it is is the United States stepping up. And you have some terrific role models in Secretary of State Pompeo, certainly Ambassador Haley, our other major multilateral ambassador, who are not shy. President Trump is not shy, either, about American values. And so it’s good to hear that you are stepping up in a very serious way, giving those people who don’t have a voice the opportunity to be heard.

And I think quite frankly, your questions — your responses to the grueling line of inquiry that we submitted you to here were rather remarkable and admirable and speak well of our positive expectations for your service at the Organization of American States. God bless.

AMB. TRUJILLO: Thank you, Ambassador.

AMB. NORIEGA: Thank you for coming.

(END)