>> welcome everybody. . am the director unfortunately, there are travel our guestsone of that were going to join us for the panel will not be able to make it anymore. we are mindful that there is an all male panel and we are doing as much is possible to include women in our vents. -- in our events. it is important to address how resolutions can be important to all venezuelans. we are discussing a very timely topic -- the implications of the tr,ican treaty, known as

for its initials in spanish. the united states and 11 other invoked at the treaty to facilitate original response to the crisis in venezuela. on september 23 the 19 membert of countries voided and agreed to onose targeted sanctions -- nicolas maduro and also pledged to meet again within two months to discuss additional measures. these deliberations have potential implications for u.s. policy and that is why we are here to walk us through the implications and what the treaty means, and how this affects the crisis. a timely issuey because the interim president, juan guaido is meeting at the

davo's as we speak, but the treaty shed some light on what is left in the policy toolkit in venezuela. treaty thatave this has given room to more options, and that is what we want to get into. there are two big questions for this discussion that i want to make sure that every single one in the room leaves with clarity and some answers to those two big questions. the first one, what is the treaty and what are the implications and the venezuelan crisis. the second question, what is treatynt from the compared to the sanctions and diplomatic measures that we already have imposed on the maduro regime. so how does the treaty make our international response diplomatically? we have a great panel to talk on those questions. thank you for joining.

thank two ambassadors for joining us for this timely startsion, and we will with you, thank you for joining. the floor is yours. >> i want to think csis and especially moise rendon, and his team, for hosting this. has become an important tool to the entire government of juan guaido and of his international campaign against maduro and his criminal regime. he was claiming that [indiscernible] to the united states.

2019, we have convened the consultation of foreign ministers and implemented two resolutions aimed at involving maduro's support base. despite these diplomatic achievements, we cannot escape reality. o remains in power, and his ofime shows little signs ending his totalitarian way. wasfferent era, the world in the conflicts that [indiscernible] smaller, thee world was far less connected, and the most important thing in

communications where very and controlled by a few countries or a few companies. without leaving an area of conflict between states and nonstate actors -- that is you. criminal enterprises like drug cartel has allowed the rise of organizations. we can say the same about activities not limited by the state. this is proven to be regional and global powers operating in venezuela. furthermore, we live in a world where a small group of people with access to the internet

technology can weaponize public opinion and influence the masses --the very this is evidence of the global disinformation war of propaganda. seen userhas accounts deceiving the public with devious messages. last sunday, a person wrote in the spanish newspaper, we have seen how russian hackers are soarning how to w confusion to deepen the differences and conflict ort further exists create new ones. they do not only

in the neighboring countries, but in any country in the world, hackers and russian bots have intervened in catalonia, brexit, ukraine, and more countries. but that is not only the advance to use of what the government cause political technologies. they also have the ability to andcyber weapons communications, transportation in another country. a few days ago, last sunday, a new york times correspondent wrote that watching political -- explode andss south america releasing a pattern in otherwisement -- that have little in common. 10% with being leaked

by russia. in bolivia, immediately after -- despiteorales day to fewer0 a than five a day. period, russian leaked accounts with a similar message within 19 minutes of one another. the first quarter of 2018, it showed that russia, in spanish, had nearly 100 million visits in one month. these outlets not only spread

misinformation, and in one month, russia had access to weapons of the population of the region and provide them with news and entertainment. this which was hooked on anybody can where be reached. is not -- of the security issues. maduro allows a lot of shame of the blame. it says put it social peace in crisis. forceope that that will to focus on domestic policy and the forcing of his ouster.

perhaps -- he has aligned himself with notorious drug cartels, gangs, granting them haven in thesafe so-called revolution. this is pushing for the people, especially those who live in other states. groups -- while criminal gangs fight an all out war for the resources. it does not take into account this new form of war. can assume country ways that did not exist in 1947. the possibility of a government co-opted by an illegitimate

coordinated with nonstate actors to clear the domestic and foreign condition for its arrival. in this context, we conceive that the maduro regime represents the instability of the region and the state. tool toresents as a channel solution to this new kind of environment. tool, itas with any needs to be updated to reflect the 21st century. this means being creative about the action to take to deal with the issues we face. ideas, to be open to new to think outside of the box, because the cost of not doing so is too great. the resources of one of the world andions of the

this movement. thank you. you, ambassador. points that iey want to go back to you. thank you for joining. how do you see the tr playing into the venezuelan crisis? >> i want to thank you for the invitation, and it is a pleasure with me to join. and all of my colleagues here, thank you for being together. has providedrre some context and i think it is very appropriate that he did so. i will try to address short remarks why we consider the tr an invaluable tool for us for the pressure and obtaining some

of our objectives in the region, and at the same time, these remarks are structured around what would be considered to be three main misperceptions about the tr. i will address those very shortly and then of course, i am open to the q/a after we finish. that ther to say treaty recently has been one of the most creative international instruments for south americans. think it, probably, i is unfair, but probably the treaty has a very bad reputation. matter of the implication of the real treaty. first misperception, that the real treaty is an instrument of

the real treaty has been 20 situations since it was written in 1948. my colleagues have helped me in putting together a brief summary of these 20 different situations in which we have invoked the treaty. and none of these treaties lead a military intervention effectively. --can make and exclaim or disclaimer regarding 1962. we certainly have to make the disclaimer because there was a actuallyn in 1962 that authorized the use of force. however nevern reached the security council in

served as so it leverage, political leverage, and helped to contain the situation and finally resolve it. but it was not under the umbrella of the tr. the majority of situations referred to traditional threats involving two or more member states at the organization of american states, and the with the in general vision of territory. cases has itfour been applied to address issues that involve an extra continental threat. 1962, which involved the threats revolving from the government at the time. the question of the violence in

1982, in the united kingdom. and the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. before the situation in venezuela, 2001 was the previous case in which we invoked this. so far, from being military intervention, the treaty is effective for peaceful mediation of conflicts. it is a little awkward to say so, but it is actually how and if you look at that historical perspective, you will agree with me. in the case of the present venezuelan crisis, it is not on the table. for tuning the treaty. in this specific instance, we

have not considered adoption of measures of using force. the second mr. -- misperception is that the real is outdated. that it should not exist anymore. , the real treaty was designed with a collective defense mechanism in the context of the cold war. it was effective when it was used and applied to situations like cuba, when cuba acted. eventually, before, the vast majority of these cases where applied,l treaty was

to traditional threats involving two or more countries with no direct relation to the cold war. if you look at the situation that i mentioned, in reference onlye cold war, perhaps unclear in 1962. broad,l treaty is a legal basis that can be applied to a set of different situations extravers not only continental threats, but also open to situations as it is stated with the ability or integrity of the political defendants and should be affected by the aggression, or even not by any other situation that might endanger the peace of the americas.

that is a provision and the treaty. in situations are reflected article six, are the basis for the two situations that justify our view. the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the present in venezuela. we consider the real treaty to option that survived the cold war and proves to be a very useful tool for us. we want to include the third misperception that the real to be cleareed about this, it was not designed to put the lens on an entire regime. not a means to

restore democracy in any given country. so what is the role of the real treaty in the venezuelen crisis? in my humble opinion, the main purpose of the real treaty is to address the threats that the maduro regime poses to security and stability in the region. security impacts in the region are the consequence of the criminal states, and if you look at the migration crisis, for instance. also referring to much more serious situations like the free operation of criminal gangs inside the venezuelan territory, which is obviously a source of major concern for the neighboring countries. resolutions we have adopted so far in the real

treaty, establish the mechanism to investigate and to punish persons associated with the maduro regime responsible for transactional, organizational crime. if you look at september last year and the most recent one through december, they established the operation with agents in charge of and it ision, supposed to bring us with suggestions on how to deal with the situations in a collective manner. it allows measures to address this international crisis in venezuela. it targets one specific and very significant component of the

crisis, but the real treaty alone will not restore democracy in venezuela. this is a task for the venezuelan people. concluding remarks. not for thereaty is venezuelan crisis, but it is a useful tool to prevent the continue the to destabilization in the region. is ar two, the treaty legally binding agreement. like enforcing the travel ban we have adopted last december and 29 -- with the maduro regime. the decision to sanction the 29 persons of the maduro regime illustrates a measure that could not be implemented in most legal

systems and could not be applied for the real treaty because the real treaty establishes that other than the -- of all of the decisions that are mandatory for the states. number three, all of the measures on the treaty are off of the table. the redline for us has been the use of force which is not been an option. it has proved effective in this regard. of combined treaty measures by the international whole, to examine people in finding back to

democracy. i'll be available later for your questions. moises: thank you, ambassador. frome are going to hear our beloved senior advisor at , he was an ambassador to chileia and recently. an advisor tost csis, i am an uncompensated senior advisor to csis. [laughter] >> ladies and gentlemen, you have had the benefit of hearing from experts on the tr treaty now let us hear from one, who clearly acknowledges he is not an expert. not familiar with the total history of the rio treaty, not even an

brain, but he does have a and capable of at least offering some suggestions as to why the should be a helpful for them or tool western hemisphere and its governments to deal with the venezuela crisis. i will offer 6 reasons. after all, if ambassador simas can offer three, i should be able to offer double that number. [laughter] >> first, it is an excellent mechanism for coordination among western hemisphere governments because it is a formal, legal mechanism. the lima group is a superb coordinated mechanism but it is an informal grouping. it does not have legal status if you will.

i am strongly in favor of the work of the lima group and equally in favor of cooperation second, it strengthens the thetion, the authorities, credibility of the organization of american states. on matters in this hemisphere, particularly matters related to venezuela, that is an important positive element. wasrio treaty, in essence, promulgated and ratified through the oas mechanism. application of the rio treaty provides greater strength and greater authority, whether moral or legal or simply perception around the world to the oas. third, the rio treaty is an

effective mechanism for messaging other international organizations and ngos throughout the world, as to the seriousness with which the nations of the western crisisere are taking the and the consequences of the crises in venezuela today. those international organizations can be the united nations and its constituent elements. the humanitarian, the economic, the human rights suborganizations of the united nations. it can also be regional organizations, such as the european union, african union, the other regional organizations around the world. woulde ngo community include and incorporate the humanitarian ngos, human rights

ngos, economic ngos. all of them benefit and receive a message when the nations of the western hemisphere talk about their treaty for reciprocal assistance within the hemisphere. fourth, let us be frank. at some point, as i have said many times over the last two years, at some point, we know how this book ends in venezuela. iwe in a sense know how the final chapter ends. what we don't know is how many chapters there will be between now and the end, and how long the final chapter will be. the rio treaty served to some extent as a useful mechanism for talking about, discussing, considering, and even preparing for some form of hemispheric, multinational role

when the moment arrives that there is some form of transition in venezuela. it could be as a result of invitation from the government or the interim government in office in venezuela. or it could be by unanimous conclusion within the hemisphere that the situation has reached such a level that some form of international cooperation to address it is an important thing. and, the rio treaty would contribute to an organized and carefully coordinated process should the hemisphere reach that conclusion. talked,th, we have every single one of us have talked about the humanitarian crisis. the fact that somewhere between five and 6 million venezuelan

citizens have left their nation as refugees due to the situation at home. overwhelmingly the nations of the western hemisphere that are accepting those refugees and bearing the consequences of those movements. ladies and gentlemen, if we ever reach the point where with or without invitation, a decision is reached collectively to provide humanitarian assistance the riothin venezuela, morey is perhaps a effective, formal, legal mechanism for both considering and eventually delivering that assistance should that be the decision. and finally, i conclude the same way i have concluded oh, so many

of my presentations on venezuel a over the last two years. why do i think the rio treaty is a politically effective device or mechanism today? talkingin my opinion, about the rio treaty and, in fact, applying specific provisions of the rio treaty, in producee opinion, sleepless or at least disturbed sleeping evenings, perhaps for mr. nicolas maduro or for his excellent minister of defense, mr. lopez. i would frankly argue that anything that has them concerned about what might actually happen, what might finally be decided by the other nations of this hemisphere in terms of the

rio treaty is actually a good thing, regardless of what happens. the fact that they are worried about it is good. the fact they have to take that into account as they assess and determine how they will deal with the opposition, how they will deal with the interim constitutional government or president of the republic of venezuela is a good thing. ladies and gentlemen, the rio treaty is an extremely complicated issue through the 3 years of, 74, 7 history in the western hemisphere. i suggest to you that we should not look upon the rio treaty as we assess its branches, its leaves and the veins on the branches of the leaves. that could take as years and years of discussion.

the rio treaty in my metaphor is a large forest. walking to the forest and it can take you in almost any direction you wish to go. of course, we must have a clear enough sense and understanding of the treaty, the leaves and branches and the veins on the leaves to know what is permitted or not permitted in the forest, but the force gives us a multitude of options. let's keep those options open. n, i that, dr. rendo relinquish the floor. >> thank you. we have a lot of material to cover. i would like to go back to the ambassadors. connected to what ambassador brown was telling us about the treaty and how it can be helpful. on one hand, we have support from russia, iran, china, cuba on the maduro regime.

more isolated than ever before. we have a regime that is sanctioned, that is not recognized as a legitimate government by countries. it has legal and diplomatic implications moving forward. we are seeing those play out every week, every day. hasdespite that, maduro found a way to adapt with international restrictions. all of these tools we were just describing that the rio treaty has on the table, they have had on the table for over 70 years, how these differentiate itself from what we have so far? sanctions,a, again, diplomatic pressure, increasing pressure on maduro on a constant basis. how are these tools in the rio treaty can be different, maybe

saferffective to reach a and a more prosperous venezuela? yes. with ambassador brownfield. in the sense all of the possibilities open by the treaty must be on the table. as ambassador, in the discussions we have in new york, the majority, all of the countries present around the table were against the use of military force. is that thethink military force as it is stated in the treaty is a conventional military force. conventional use of military force. say first isto

that there are new ways of war. the war is not the same today as it was 70 years ago. pentagon, there is a cyber command. cyber command is acting right now. there is a war. this cyber command, they are fighting against hackers, against the use of misinformation about any kind of thetools that are open by newest technology in order to harm countries. this kind of war cannot be excluded from the application of the treaty. we have to think about that. it is a new field, but this field in my sense is open. the second way that the use of

drug has been put away is trafficking. one of the most important transit countries of drugs in the world. a majority of drugs goes to europe and the united states goes through venezuela. restrictions of flights after they leave one as welve venezuela to other countries, maybe central america . othero from venezuela to countires. ries. the use of force, another blockade of drug traffickers, drugmation about the transporters.

it should be very easy to tell our forces to intercept and to block the drugs that come from venezuela. that is very important not only because the drug is a problem of everyone and for every country. because theportant drugs which came from money of going toficking is finance troops who act for venezuela. thatnational terrorism takes a lot of money out of venezuela and out of drug trafficking which comes from venezuela. it's verys complex. globalt is useful in a fight against this kind of

irregular fighters that app ears in the world scenario. and, that we have to confront in order to preserve freedom and democracy. thank you. >> ambassador simas, anything to add? >>yes yes, thank you. i think the ambassador mentioned legitimate aspects of the crisis adopting collective decisions. approachupport the that the treaty continues to be a tool to use in the situation. what i would like to address is a different element. there have been several international efforts by different groups of countries that have tried to be helpful and support president guaido and

support the democratic transition in venezuela. not only the lima group, but after that, you have the international group. others that have tried to be helpful in venezuela. in many ways, they have tried to in differente ways. leverage. their relations with venezuela, in order to help the transition in that country. what i think, to answer your question, what i think makes the use different -- this is a very short answer -- as ambassador brownfield mentioned, this is a legal framework. thosemandatory to all of part of the treaty. now we have a very important set

of resolutions adopted in the last six months which have put in place very effective and coordinated measures to sanctioned people associated with the regime. i agree. they should be extremely worried about our action in this regard. >> thank you. ambassador brownfield, you mentioned the rio treaty and 98% of this room. >> an honest 98%. >> i will briefly put into context a couple of relevant articles that i think apply to our discussion here on venezuela. i'm going to allow myself to read them out loud. the bear with me because language is a little updated now. wrong,correct me if i am but i believe the meeting is september 2019 was on the basis

of article six. that is why member countries agreed to pursue sanctions on venezuela. article six in the rio treaty of the the integrity ofritory or sovereignty political independence of any american state in the u.s. or any nation in the cause and it should be affected by an intercontinental conflict, or by any other fact or situation that endangers ofrica, the origin consultation shall meet and discuss. y theor, peru in a wa

presence of nonstate actors and others are increasing the insecurity of the region. there's a lot of trafficking, illegal mining. mining is creating devastation in the amazon region. there's enough reason to argue that venezuela is creating instability and affecting the peace of the region. that's article six and that is where member countries agreed to move forward. this is coming to you, ambassador brownfield, so be ready. article eight is also crucial because article eight -- bear with me -- for the purpose of this treaty, the measures of which the origin of consultation may agree will comprise one or more of the following. recall diplomatic missions. two, breaking of diplomatic relations.

three, breaking of consulate relations. four, partial or complete interruption of economic air,ions, or rail, sea, postal, telegraphic, telephonic communications and all of these facts. and it says the use of armed force. as ambassador simas said, the use of armed forces is not on the table from every countries, but there are a lot of other things that are on the table that are being discussed that are part of article eight. which of these tools, ambassador brownfield, do you think will be effective to keep helping , the peace of the region? >> in my opinion, the beauty, the charm of the rio treaty is an ample, yetha

owsxible document that a lall the states party to the treaty to determine which parts of the treaty they choose to apply or enforce. when they will apply or enforce them. and even it permits them to change their mind as the situation on the ground changes over time. the importance of the rio treaty, as we have all stated you can almost say ad nausea now, is that it is a legal document and a legal structure. that said, it is not a straitjacket. it does not say once we have invoked the rio treaty, we all must do every single element that is in the treaty. the drafters of the treaty 75 years ago, my think, were wise

enough to indicate these are possibilities or options that are permitted or could be implemented under the terms, but it is the states parties and their representatives, their leaders, their government that makes that determination. you know as well as i do, you know that i would be comfortable applying a great number of the authorities that are permitted in the rio treaty. however, since i am not an idiot, i also realize there are many, many people in this hemisphere, probably at this stage, a majority who believe --t some of the potential some of the authorities that could be potentially applied are not yet ripe for consideration, and certainly not ripe for application. that is fine. in my opinion, the message for

mr. maduro and his government, the message for the other international organizations in the world, the message for governments that are playing as far as this hemisphere is concerned, and on the helpful role in venezuela is the following -- the rio treaty is now in play. it if youwant to read want to see what options are available to the governments of this hemisphere should we ever reach the point where we feel we must apply those options. that would be my answer to the question. >> thank you. i want to make sure we have time for q&a. i promise you we will have about 25 minutes. just be patient. things ir, one of the like about this rio treaty is that it advocates not only a political crisis, it addresses

it is a crisis that affects the stability and peace of the region which is the case in venezuela. that is very important to understand. are mentioning this all the time. to get the solution of venezuela, you have to have a diagnostic first. this ishe diagnostics, a state organized by organized crime and criminal activity. therefore, any solution needs to address those issues first, right? that is where i like the rio treaty because it is a mechanism, a multilateral legal mechanism to address, not a political, but a security matter. ambassador brownfield said humanitarian aid should be a priority. we have people dying and suffering just because of lack of food. how do you see applying the rio

treaty and implementing some sort of humanitarian response to crisis, and how will that affect the peace and security moving forward? >> i agree with ambassador iswnfield that the treaty open to very large choices of action. in the text of article six, the main part of the article is the hemispheric peace. peace in the west, in the americas. that is a very wide field for application of the treaty. in article eight, the , some of them are

named as a consequence of the times. it does not exist anymore. the idea is there, communication. of diplomatic representation has to be seen very carefully because the existence of embassies in necessary absolutely for the people who support juan guaido. acas, ifrefugees in car the embassy were closed, should now be in jail. to write the have treaty in a very smart way. i think it is possible. moises in his question opens another way. we have a humanitarian crisis in venezuela. people are starving.

there is a problem of lack of medicines. there's a lot of possibilities in helping the venezuelan regime but the maduro does not allow the aid to come into venezuela. the food and medicine inside venezuela. use ofre ways, the alitary forces, but nonconventional use of military force. we have to think about these kinds of solutions. i think the most important for this time is to be open of considering all of the solutions. in syria, there has been the use of force in order to give food and medicine to people, to starving people, to sick people.

that is something, in my length, discussed at among the states part of the treaty. i'm personally hopeful of these kinds of solutions. there may be many more. because i am a lawyer, i may be lawyer, but i think the people that want this treaty are very smart. the tragedy of our time do not have treaties like this one. text thatot of legal have a lot of holes, a lot of interpretation, a lot of misinterpretation. and, the rio treaty is a marvel in this sense. itis very well written and

opens a lot of possibilities inside the legal frame that is established by the treaty. >> do we have a date for the next meeting, when it is going to happen? >> yes, around march 20 of this year. in washington. >> is that the same date, sorry, the same date for the election of the new secretary-general? -- the foreignd ministers will be here. >> ok, that makes sense. that is good for all of us. any reaction so far before we open up the floor? >> thank you. this has been very interesting discussion. i really enjoyed the opportunity to join with you. on article eight, we have

state parties to the treaty. we have not precluded resort to any of the measures. we have to be really realistic also when we look at the way the treaty has operated in the last meetings. state parties to the treaty have agreed to participate if they were given some sort of assurance or reassurance that the use of force be on the table. resolution in the treaty. building a number of countries of support, adopting certain measures, we need to reach that threshold of 13 countries that support them. that is what we have done in the last two meetings. if you look at the recent meeting in december when we had

baned to the travel associated with the regime, that particular resolution had 13 votes. carefully very treading among the majority of the members of the treaty that support a certain line of action. i agree with ambassador brownfield is the beauty that other measures are available, but we also need to look at the fact that we need 13 votes in order to adopt any other measure. that is what we are doing. we are taking a step-by-step approach. proving first that the treaty is useful, that the treaty provides us with some leverage in terms of opposing nicolas maduro. but at the same time, we have to be pragmatic and realistic in working inside the body of the state parties. when i raised

initially the migration problem, it was never in my mind to imply that is not what we're saying. people moving? they can provide some additional socks for the question. they have tried to look at the situation and we support those venezuela. they have almost 2 million venezuelans living in the country. andcan see the difference

it has been enormously important for columbia. , we needoving forward to continue building the we have around the idea to provide additional pressure. look at -- we need with theery carefully way to apply an effective measure. comments?t withm quite comfortable where we have come out and you have heard it is a legal document. there is some flexibility within

the document and the human law of logic suggests the rio treaty can be applied only so far as the state party is willing to apply it in that means you must ine some degree of consensus terms of which part of the treaty and the sequence that will occur. the ambassador has said it perfectly in simple mathematics concerns. theare not going to apply concerns of the rio treaty. >> we have 13 countries, 15 and the other legislation for cuba. countries, who out of those 15 did not go on the

december resolution? companies? [inaudible] >> i think that was one of the that was one of the objections when you started. insideuntries had issues the national legal system.

nevertheless, they continue to be fighting in terms of moving the treaty in venezuela and they have problems with the legal systems, you can imagine why. >> that is good, especially on sanctions. i'm aware of many countries on the region have different legal barriers, so it's good to be mindful of that. -- thank you,hat i just need your name, affiliation and the question always ends with a? . i'm sure we will have enough time to go over your question. i see a hand on the middle and here too. it is very clear that the

forceas been a driving trying to find a solution to the venezuelan crisis. on the other hand, latin america has been more cautious. i would like to know what would be the middle point for both than that, but would be the lessons because venezuelan crisis. point to that?he my question is for the three

ambassadors, what will be enough proof from the regime that it could send military intervention timehy won't it be a great to thin the force by now? know what would of sending it through the united nations? have two questions, so feel free to jump in. >> for me, there's a very big

problem. suffering in used to see that is one of the [inaudible] decide the use of force is very and it is going out. when we start to talk about the you have 45 people

with this idea -- 45 people -- peoplele for or five [inaudible] very against the use of force in order to have 30 votes. that is what most people don't peopleand and a lot of talk to me and say what you doing? internationally, you do not get here to read you have more and you see now we have input.

you are asking people to [inaudible] to venezuela. you are asking them to send a vote to die in venezuela. thinking, you have an economic risk. is another thing is what is the idea of the mindoro regime for every country. it is not the same. we spoke about maduro in the same way. ambassadors, we should

say itard about people is not a very efficient government. they have an election that some people recognize come up and some people don't recognize and a half the problem and every country has a problem in the only way is to wait for the next and if you say it is a happens and waiting to do for years for another it ison and you see why not easy to have the support.

i spoke with the chair members, 13 votes.d the discussion is very easy. >> any other reaction? we have a question about what is the middle ground and regional positions in venezuela? >> let me offer two or three points. i insist, the year is 2020. three 11 talks about military options in 2020, one must not look at the problem said as though it is 1920. i do not believe anyone who is saying, who is capable of taking and reasoning is suggesting that

an international marriage of terry force -- international military force. i have heard no one make such a suggestion. i have heard people suggest that if the humanitarian situation, if the number of refugees, if the complete and utter breakdown of order in venezuela reaches a state where truly there is risk ,f millions of people dying then we should open the door to consider other options, but no one is suggesting the 1920 of.on that i am aware the suggestion on won't be the differencehat is the

in the u.s. approach and the approach of government and nations elsewhere in latin america? watch to figures, ladies and gentlemen. apologize because the one , in thean sitting here united states civil war, lincoln called the terrible arithmetic which is how many people must die before the other side agrees that we should stop this you apply on the part of the western hemisphere's government, it is how many people are going to be dying inside of venezuela from

malnutrition and starvation and black of housing and running water. at what level does it reach a point where the western hemisphere says we simply cannot tolerate this in our hemisphere any longer. the second number out there is how many refugees. it is connected to the first number, but what is that number? we are now between 5 million and 6 million. the overwhelming majority are in the western hemisphere. his 10 million the number of we finally say enough is enough? point, it will have an impact. it will be felt immediately by the neighboring countries.

i bet there is a colombian in the audience who will address or they say we without some more form of international response? be whato numbers would bring the u.s. position, which i am not certain as different from many latin american nations, but the other regional nations together at some common middle ground and that in turn would be in my opinion what would give people to say ok, we're not talking about an invasion, but is there something that can be done that has a military component question mark -- component that would address the humanitarian crisis in venezuela.

>> this raises the question with all the numbers we are seeing. in terms of people dying, there's no official numbers. i want to hear from the ambassador. >> thection so far terrible arithmetic. it is difficult to discuss that we are able to support. issues why we look at the from the other perspective from violating human

-- we continue to response anddoor there's nothing recently that would address the question increasing in particular, but i guess we would not change from inside the regime in order to get things changing. the point and however it is still bound by the fact of these conditions for support of other measures.

resorting to view other measures allowed under the we areand that is why convening every three months. ande had one in september one in march. just another connection here with another international treaty we have discussed here. this raises the question of if the numbers meet the urgency response, different fouroes it apply to different requirements that have to be met including the un

security council. thatraises the question they have led into international movement to discuss the application. we have time for one more round. this time, i will take three questions. i see one hand there and i see another hand on the back. >> my question is for anyone of you, i basically wanted to know the ways in which you try to entice former members of the are former secretaries, what are some ways

that you would entice them to in thespecially now fight against the maduro regime? [inaudible] just have been mentioned a few times on the migration crisis. officially 5 million and a smiling refugees and i iterationimportant which they have to congratulate. refugee a person is a

when they flee because of general violence, a public intervention. for any inthem applies for the country, specifically when maduro recognized that there are at least 3000 cubans in venezuela. onlyi say this it is not because it benefits refugees to give them permanent protection, probably the only way we have the international community to recognize that there is a because finited -- i wanted to add the

question, have you been affected or anyy on the border part of brazil because of the illegal mining that has been theeasing through not only armed forces, but regular groups and has been brazil -- has resulted in affected? back.have one more in the >> hello, my name is daniel chang. saidestion is, many of you

the treaty is illegal. what happens with one of the countries decide to have a the treaty,nd and the specific example was included among the travel ban, however a week later there was a change of government in does that alter the integrity of the treaty and what should we do? we have three important questions to address. i think ambassador, i will end with you. if you can, each of you

addresses those questions in two or three minutes, though it be great. >> [inaudible] is one of them. concern. i wanted to address, you have a and the in the back fact that the treaty is the decision that is mandatory in the enforce and it starts with none of the provisions in the treaty. adopted, i do not .ant to hear the reasons why

think the fact that we adopted it is important and even in argentina, they have denied regimeials to the maduro . it is important that even now argentina is abiding by the and to complete your in order to deal with the migrant situation, the scale tomuch less, we were able

put together an effort and i strongly recommend you read a one-pageport on the that deals with the answer of migration. together ae to put coalition on migration and have .ad support [indiscernible] >> they have been documented so we have in a

way to with three different options which they can decide to stay in venezuela and worked in bensalem the -- in venezuela. >> thank you. each andwo minutes then i will start with you. make the first and last of the three questions we took. the first was, what additional steps could be taken from the larger and more skeptical nations on application of the tr and rio treaty. i believe the example you offered was mexico and argentina and i will offer you a diplomat's response to that and ways, most there are

of them done in private, sometimes public messaging to have dialogue among governments and nationstates. one way is to appeal to humanitarian instincts. the point that in a sense we are making today is that this is not and thisly political is an issue of tens of millions of human beings who are andering from malnutrition complete of public health. as a result of those tens ofrian crisis, thousands, potentially hundreds of more refugees will arrive.

to what extent do you believe aat this constitutes in political issue for you and finally, this is the former diplomat the speaking one has to try to understand what are the concerns of the government that is not participating at this point in time? while some may be fundamental and you will not be able to address those, but others might be a matter of language if we say it in a different way. if we add an element to whatever the decision is, would that be least -- yourg at government into some aspects of application of the rio treaty. this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we pay huge sums of money -- because i'mat now no longer receiving any of it --

to professional diplomats in the hemisphere to try to find ways to reach a common position and finally, the last question answered, i'll be quick on this one, what do we do about governments that have, in fact, a sense voted for of certain aspects of t.r. but choose not to enforce them. ins is not the first time human history, ladies and gentlemen, in which this has occurred. when it occurs, you have both public dialogue. you also have to accept that governments, including my own, which i no longer work for but i miserable pension from, will at times pick and those obligations that it will, in fact, accept and enforce. a the end of the day there's certain amount of moral persuasion and to a certain and shaming if a government has, in fact, endorsed and accepted a certain

international obligation and then not complied with it, that at least should be drawn to the attention of the world at large and with that i stop so i would much ratherwould that's the ambassador offering better and more expert positions. >> this part of the discussion reflects the complexity of the problem, not only the legal complexity but the political and it changes that operating in the political situation. of all, two of the biggest, most important country continent, canada and mexico, are not part of the t.p. then government changes. thentina vote in favor of last of the two resolutions but the last vote was three days the change of government in buenos aires.

the applying ats votes that one country just before leaving and the new that enters and is treaty butked by the old extent what enter ine to argentina. but we have the change, there of changes. uruguay who announced it was retiring the treaty and out of in two months we are going to have a new president in am not sure what dosident lecaray is going to

but there is a new government in that may change. ecuador, who is not member of t.r., has not the position it had in the time of correa. that may add a new complexity but as ambassador brownfield say, there is no way to enforce t.p. demands. but there is a moral obligation, a legal obligation. waysiplomacy has a lot of in order to deal with this kind and this kind of problem. easy but istely not what we have. >> this has been a fascinating conversation. thank you so much, ambassadors, thank you for coming and thank to america's program for

putting this together. [applause] announcer: right now on capitol senate impeachment trial is underway. you can watch it live on c-span2. today, senators considering the rules for the trial. follow the impeachment trial live on c-span2, online at

c-span.org or listen live on the app.c-span radio announcer: the impeachment of watchent trump, unfiltered coverage of the trialol c-span2 live as it same-day re-airs. follow the process as it airs using the on the go free c-span radio app. announcer: president trump is in davao, switzerland. he spoke at the world economic forum this morning about the u.s. economy, energy, and the mexico, canada trade agreement. klaus: mr. president, welcome back to this stage, here in the beautiful swiss al.