Reflections on the statements of the Chilean Ambassador in New Zealand, Manahi Pakarati

The recent statements by the career ambassador in New Zealand, supporting the free self-determination of the people of “Rapa Nui,” have elicited a series of reactions, both due to her status as a professional career official in the Foreign Ministry and the content of her statement, which contradicts national interests that our foreign policy — as well as national defense — must safeguard at all times. However, from our perspective, what is truly relevant in this case is the impact on basic principles that define our nationality, or who we are as Chileans, as well as foundational principles of our national interest. This is even more significant when such assertions affect our national unity and cohesion, a task for every Chilean and certainly for all state organizations and their officials.

A first reflection relates to the “unitary condition of the State of Chile,” established in Article 3 of our Political Constitution. This condition represents the basic objective to be preserved by the ongoing work of our foreign policy and national defense — among other institutions — expressed in the defense of our national sovereignty. It goes without saying that the promotion and defense of this principle is the duty of every public official, regardless of their position or rank, at all times and in all circumstances.

A second issue is the “condition of nationality and citizenship,” also enshrined in our political constitution, in Article 10. This provision establishes, as has been traditional in Chilean constitutional history, that all those born in national territory are Chileans without exception. That is to say, recognizing the diversity that may exist, national unity has always been prioritized. Furthermore, our founding father defined early on, on June 3, 1817, that all inhabitants of the nascent republic — without any distinction — would be referred to as Chileans, including Spaniards, Creoles, and indigenous peoples. In other words, all its inhabitants. This democratizing act sought early on to forge a sense of national belonging, unifying all its inhabitants under a single common cause. Additionally, O’Higgins, along with declaring national independence, promoted the creation of a national identity, closely related to national sovereignty. From a theoretical perspective, territorial sovereignty is not limited to the inviolability of physical borders, but implies the existence of a cohesive political community capable of exercising legitimate authority over a space, a population, and a set of institutions. In this sense, territorial integrity and social cohesion are mutually constitutive dimensions, as a state that conceives itself as a shared community, rather than a mere aggregation of isolated groups, projects a stronger political identity externally and a greater capacity to achieve its objectives. For Chile, this articulation between sovereignty, cohesion, and cultural integration is particularly relevant, as it allows for the foundation of a foreign policy that not only protects the territory but also projects an image of a plural, integrated, and normatively coherent country, capable of sustaining an inclusive project both locally and in its international engagement. It is noteworthy that recently, citizenship has already firmly and decisively expressed itself by defeating attempts at plurinationalism.

A third element to consider is that serious states base their foreign policy on a set of stable principles, normatively anchored and politically projectable over time, which transcend governmental circumstances and provide coherence to international action. In the case of Chile, despite the reorientations introduced by recent governments, the institutional architecture of its foreign policy has preserved a doctrinal core based on respect for international law, a multilateral vocation, and, fundamentally, “to preserve the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Chile, taking into account the Constitution and the laws…”. This principle, explicitly enshrined in the official guidelines of the Foreign Ministry, operates not only as a legal clause but as a strategic directive that guides the behavior of all state agents who perform representation functions in the international system. Nothing can take precedence over what Chileans have considered as guiding principles of our national interest.

Finally, from a geopolitical and geostrategic perspective , Chile has defined itself as a tricontinental state, with a clear projection towards the Pacific. This reality is supported, among other factors, by our continental and maritime position, as well as our insular positions, of which “Easter Island” plays a fundamental role. This is even more significant in a transitioning international order, where competition and confrontation on a global scale are fully underway, affecting all geographical spaces. Consequently, it is striking that an act by an official authority of the Chilean government lacks the sense and purpose that should inspire its actions, which is none other than the national interest, even when this must be defended above our legitimate personal convictions. It is the reason of state that should primarily inspire the actions of officials responsible for foreign policy, as well as members of national defense.

Nonetheless, this unfortunate incident presents us with a blessed opportunity to reflect on the importance of identifying, defending, and promoting — at all costs — our national interests, above any other consideration, even when this affects personal aspects or positions. The final word and action are now the responsibility of those who constitutionally direct and are responsible for our foreign policy.