COLUMN | Donald Trump and What It Means for Chile

We already have enough with public security issues, an economy that is not growing as we all want, and a state that is so large that we cannot finance it with the revenues we generate. Why open an additional front abroad?

It seems we are in times when the world is governed by Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, and Vladimir Putin. In just over a month since Trump took office as the 47th president of the U.S., he has done much of what he said he would do, and what many were reluctant to believe he would do.

He is not only negotiating with Russia to end the war in Ukraine, but he has also sent a message to Europeans to take charge of their own defense, and I would not be surprised if he tells Xi that he is not interested in what happens in Taiwan, as it is a problem between Chinese, with the consequences that this would have in that part of the world, which, like Europe, has been living off the security provided by the Americans for years.

In addition to this, he is reviewing import tariffs on products from Mexico and Canada, eliminating funding for multilateral organizations and the famous USAID program, demonstrating on all fronts that he is serious about implementing his campaign program, Make America Great Again, known as MAGA.

Therefore, it should not surprise us that he sent his Vice President J. D. Vance with a clear message to the Europeans attending the Munich Security Conference, where he told them to their faces that Europe’s main problem is internal weakness caused by immigration, years of progressivism, and the distancing from what are known as classic Christian-Western values.

In line with this, just last Friday, in a surprising move, he dismissed General CQ Brown, the highest-ranking military officer in the U.S., and the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to command the most powerful navy on the planet. The reason appears to be that he wants military leaders focused on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Armed Forces, not on implementing initiatives of inclusion, diversity, or anything that smells of progressivism or is characteristic of the ‘woke’ culture, with those dismissed being symbols of it, one for being a person of color and the other for being a woman.

Many are strongly impacted by all that has happened, but it should not be so. He said he would do it, and he is doing it, just as in his previous administration he said he would sit down to talk with the North Koreans. Now, he is rapidly advancing both in his international agenda and in the values inherent to the conservative world of the country that elected him by a majority in both the electoral college and the popular vote.

All of this means for Chile that, at least for the next four years, it is very likely that we will be required or demanded to know whether we are with them or if we are their enemies. The days of being able to navigate as non-aligned, enjoying belonging to the Western world led by them, while China and Asia sustained our economy, are over.

Therefore, the strategy of President Boric to confront Trump over Ukraine and Israel, two countries that, while important to us, do not fall into the category of strategic relations, except in the case of the latter regarding the provision of armaments, is not understandable.

What does the President gain for Chileans with his actions? I find it hard to understand, but confronting the leader of the most powerful country on earth is not a good strategy (just ask Petro, who backtracked in less than 24 hours).

What the President is mandated to do is defend the national interest of Chile, and that, in simple terms, is what is best for all of us. I know that what happens in Ukraine is important and the hardships that Ukrainians have faced, and the same goes for those living in Gaza, but he must understand that his actions could cost us dearly.

We already see the Foreign Ministry organizing public-private meetings to discuss how to face possible scenarios that could arise in the coming days or months, something that should have been done from the moment President Trump was elected with majorities in both chambers.

What the Foreign Ministry is doing is more akin to a National Security Council, which should be the organization leading our strategy in situations like those we could face or those that other countries are facing.

Personally, I do not believe that the relationship with the U.S. is at high risk. Presidential interventions do not help, but on the other hand, we have solid relationships at the economic level and in the field of Defense. The relationship developed by the three institutions is very strong, and Washington values the work they do. They know and also respect that we control the strategic Strait of Magellan and Drake Passage, our commitment to Antarctica, copper, lithium, and the so-called rare minerals.

We will see who is elected President at the end of the year and how they will manage the relationship with the northern country. Evidently, Kast or Kaiser would be just as aligned as Milei, but it will not be easy for the rest, who do not see things in black and white, which is the prevailing trend in the country led by Trump.

For now, it would be advisable for our President to try to keep a low profile, or rather, to be submarine-like, not seeking to provoke the ire of President Trump, who has demonstrated in five weeks that he is a man of his word, who does what he said he would do, who controls both chambers, and who is seeking what he believes is best for the country that elected him as its 47th president.

If the national interest is affected, it is evident that the President must defend us or act, but it is not advisable for him to wear himself out unnecessarily in battles he cannot win. Indulging in a power relations world only applies to those who have it.

It must be understood that multilateralism is not an end in itself, but merely a means. If it no longer serves us, let us not waste time on it and seek to establish strategic relationships with the U.S., China, and other countries of interest.

We already have enough with public security issues, an economy that is not growing as we all want, and a state that is so large that we cannot finance it with the revenues we generate. Why open an additional front abroad? We must act responsibly, pragmatically, and not ideologically.