IN PRAISE OF PRAGMATISM

Our ‘strategic partnership’ with Russia may harm our future

Bad news: Argentina’s latest strategic partner of choice, Russia, is facing serious economic problems. The very bad news is that this happens at a time when the Republican Party is on the rise in the US — and is likely to win the 2016 presidential elections.

True, it could be argued that the term “strategic partnership” is —nowadays at least — rather rhetorical and vague. Only a notch above the term “memorandum of understanding,” or MOU in the parlance, a piece of paper often signed to justify official visits and provide a snippet of news for the newspapers.

By contrast, “strategic partnerships,” can, in some cases, even deserve a headline. Which, in the case of Russia and Argentina, could backfire with the US Republicans, who can be quite sensitive to this particular type of rhetoric.

Russia is not the superpower that it used to be in the good old days of the Soviet Union. In fact, its Gross Domestic Product is quite similar to that of Brazil and is only 15 percent of the United States’. But it is still a big power, which is determined to compete with the US. And that — under Russian President Vladimir Putin — dreams, once again, of restoring itself to its past glories. The Ukraine crisis offers sufficient evidence for this. But,more importantly, Russia is an atomic power. Unsurprisingly, “strategic partnerships” with the Russians are not taken lightly by those in Washington, especially if they happen to be Republicans. Who, in addition, do not seem to be particularly enamoured with Argentina of late. They also seem quite sensitive to President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s attitude towards the US. She, of course, does not seem to perceive Washington as a friend. And she shows it too.

Argentina’s strategic alliance with Russia was announced back in July. Then, in September, it became quite clear that Argentina would challenge the trade embargo imposed by the EU and the US on Russia, to punish its actions in Ukraine.

The following month — in a rather confusing style — it was announced that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be investing US$1,000 million in Argentine hydrocarbons. There were several other announcements, many of which were — to be realistic — just mere statements of intent.

Perhaps, on the strength of this, the Argentine president continued, or perhaps even increased, her aggressive attitude toward the US. In September there was her speech at the United Nations General Assembly, much of which focused on sovereign debt restructuring. Toward the US, it was far from kind. Neither were her latest comments last week on the Cuba-US rapprochement. The president denied Obama almost any credit and she conveyed her impression that the shift was a defeat for Washington. Even if that is the case (which it does not seem to be), it seemed quite unnecessary to rub Obama’s face in it. A comment about it being a ‘celebration for all sides’ — even if merely rhetorical — would have gone down much better.

True, the government has many reasons to feel unhappy at the US. It expected a helping hand on the legal confrontation with the hold-out/“vulture” funds and US Judge Thomas Griesa. But this never happened.

In addition, the US voted against the Argentine initiative on sovereign debt put forward at the UN General Assembly by the G77 and China. And then there are the negative comments on Argentine issues coming from the US government, including those from the Chargé d’Affaires at the US Embassy in Buenos Aires. So the unfriendliness seems to be somewhat mutual. And, perhaps, even justified.

Both countries have conflicting opinions about the way in which the Western world is organized. This includes bodies like the UN Security Council or international financial institutions. Clearly, Argentina has a different view. One which is, possibly, akin to that of the current Russian government. Unfortunately for both countries, they do not seem to be in the best position to challenge the status quo at this time. In addition to holding alternative views, they are experiencing financial troubles. There are, however, differences in terms of size, resilience and — why not? — muscle.

Putin’s government can get away with a number of things. At the end of the day it is still a big power and the US can, every now and then, request its cooperation to avoid some things getting out of hand in hot-button areas like the Middle East. Even if this cooperation is limited to not supporting a particularly troublesome group or state and allowing the US to deal with it on its own terms. In fact this has to do not only with Russia’s political and military muscle, but even with its geographical location.

Argentina lacks these advantages. And unfortunately, none of Russia’s plus points seems transferable to here. If, in addition, Russia’s economic problems preclude it from helping Argentina’s scarcity of foreign investment, then people are entitled to wonder what is the advantage of making so much noise about the strategic alliance and further provoking the US. While the president’s policy of alliances might seem totally coherent in terms of her vision of the world, it does not seem to carry much hope in practical terms. Perhaps the time has come for Argentina to exercise a much more pragmatic approach to foreign affairs? True, we may all feel a bit less heroic. And it will sad to abandon our diehard anti-imperialist mantra. But it might be much better for the country in the long term.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

TIME FOR CHANGE (OF ATTITUDE)

Lima summit exposes Greenpeace irresponsibility

Last week, Greenpeace decided to make its own unique contribution to the difficult, stuttering negotiations at the COP 20, which finished yesterday in Lima.

True to style, they used a highly visible prank to make their point, illegally entering the Nazca Lines, a Peruvian archaeological treasure designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO around 20 years ago. Access to the site is prohibited due to the frailty of the works of art (the “lines”) which are between 1,500 and 2,000 years old. Once inside, they placed cloth letters on the ground,. and in the process, they are likely to have damaged the relic or its surroundings. The message was aimed — Greenpeace said — at the 190 delegates meeting in Lima.

In the organization’s own words “20 Greenpeace activists from seven countries unfurled massive letters at the historic landmark of Nazca in Peru, delivering the message: ‘Time for Change: The Future is Renewable.’”

The message was directed, the NGO said in a statment, at “the world leaders and ministers at the ongoing UN climate talks, in Lima, who are failing to take real climate action, while countries like the Philippines, which is again being battered by a massive typhoon, are paying the price of their inaction.”

In fact, the whole stunt triggers some other difficult questions.

The first one has to do with obeying the law. This is not the first occasion in which Greenpeace has sent activists to engage in unlawful activities. In addition, this was a clear show of disrespect by a foreign organization and its activists toward the Peruvian people. In fact, Greenpeace does not even have an office in Peru. Confronted with the uproar, the NGO apologized, in the manner of someone who has made a minor mistake. But, I ask, is it enough?

It might be argued that these, and other similar actions, are “minor transgressions” justifiable for the sake of the greater good. But what is Greenpeace’s mandate to embark on such actions?

The election of the organization’s leadership does not involve any kind of popular vote. They are appointed at its International Annual General Meeting which involves the regional boards. And where do these boards come from? Who elects them?

According to Greenpeace “boards are usually elected by a voting membership of volunteers and activists, who are firmly rooted within the local environmental communities and are well positioned to represent the wider public in influencing Greenpeace decisions and policy.”

Please note the vagueness of the word “usually” and the phrase “represent the wider public.” It very much seems that — like most others in the world of NGOs — authorities and boards get to their positions because they are part of well-organized but informal (and never too explicit) professional NGO network.

Another question: was the message really targeted at the delegates?

For better or worst, mitigating the effects of climate change is about national and business (often conflicting) interests, as well as the economy and jobs.

Did the Greenpeace strategists really believe that such a message would influence national governments and get them to change their positions? It does not sound too credible. A cynic might be led to think that the real objective of the stunt was further promotion of the Greenpeace brand among the general public. But Mr and Mrs General Public did not have any immediate say in the COP 20 meeting taking place at the time of the prank. Thus, God forbid, some cynics might even say that such brand-promotion is directly linked to fundraising targets.

In fact, we are talking big money. In 2013, Greenpeace received US$282 million in donations from across the world. And they spent slightly more than 50 percent of that money — US$144 million — on fundraising (US$98.8 million) and organizational support (US$45.6 million). Quite a sizeable kitty.

That, combined with its numerous international staff, thousands of volunteers and millions of supporters worldwide means a lot of power in the hands of people who, whatever their good intentions, have no other mandate than their own.

True, their objectives are sound — and possibly are — worthy, even though in some cases they might appear slightly unrealistic. But sympathy for their objectives cannot mean endorsing their actions when these challenge the law. Especially, if such actions put people — Greenpeace volunteers or third parties — in harm’s way. A risk which the Greenpeace authorities themselves presume to exist.

This is clear from reading their 2011 report: “Security Policy describes Greenpeace International’s duty of care to our people who operate in places of higher risk, be this due to local conditions or as a result of our campaign activities. It obliges us to put measures in place to manage risk, and explains the limits to this, allowing our staff to make informed decisions prior to committing to activities on behalf of Greenpeace.”

The whole idea of a non-state organization engaging in activities that put their people in “high-risk” situations does not sound right. States have defence and security forces which, by the very nature of their duty, take risks. Non-governmental organizations have no legitimacy or mandate for putting anybody at risk. Even if they are volunteers.

In fact, nowadays, democratic states have enough trouble with “the bad guys” so as to have to deal with “the good guys” from Greenpeace. Its leaders might want to look again at the way they are doing things, as well as their attitudes toward the law and state authorities.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

CFK, AS SEEN FROM MONTEVIDEO

On why the president should be elected to Parlasur

On a weekend trip to Montevideo, this reporter was surprised to find an unlikely supporter for President Cristina Kirchner’s bid to claim a seat in the Mercosur Parliament. It was in the form of a friend with close ties to Uruguay’s new President-elect Tabaré Vázquez, who is no fan of his boss’ Argentine counterpart, but would like to see her taking the helm of South America’s regional bloc nonetheless.

Political gossip exchange is a two way street, and with the aid of a generous amount of Uruguay’s wonderful Tannat red wine, I asked my friend, a member of the Broad Front, to put the argument to me, in exchange for enduring a grilling on 2015 from his side of the table.

My interlocutor listened carefully as I first explained the mounting controversy here over the president’s possible Mercosur candidacy. He immediately made his opinion clear: the clamourous Argentine opposition has got it wrong. Contrary to what they say, it would be ideal to see Cristina in that institution.

Let it be known, this softly-spoken Uruguayan is an expert on European Union theory and practice. So he knows how regional bodies work. Although he is no pro-Washington fanatic, he is convinced that Uruguay would be much better off closer to the US, even if that means being further from Mercosur. But he knows the inevitable political tensions that would arise between Uruguay and its two most powerful neighbours, Argentina and Brazil, would be untenable for Montevideo. Thus Mercosur remains the only available option.

But the regional body is in desperate need of a revival — and the current Argentine president could be the person to make this happen, he says.

There are many items on the agenda of a potential renewal. First, there is the fact that Mercosur lacks a full-time leader with strong political clout. The three different agencies which are supposed to lead Mercosur are headed by ministers, or deputy ministers, from the member countries. They are not full-time officers and the Mercosur does not seem to be their main priority, with individual domestic concerns more pressing. By contrast, the first manifestation of what is today known as the European Union — the European Coal and Steel Community — was by led by the French political operator Jean Monnet. True, he was not an elected politician in the traditional sense. But Monnet had cooperated with French, British and US leaders during the two World Wars, as well as the interwar period, to forge the basic elements of a long-term regional integration project. In 1919, France’s Georges Clemenceau and Great Britain’s Arthur Balfour appointed him deputy secretary-general of the League of Nations.

My friend remarks that Monnet had a lifelong commitment to the economics of peace, as well as a forceful and principled personality. So forceful that he ultimately resigned his position in the League of Nations in 1923, frustrated by the organization’s lack of effectiveness. He adds that credit for getting the European unity process in motion also goes to committed politicians such as Italian statesman Alcide De Gasperi, West Germany’s Konrad Adenauer and France’s Robert Schuman. He reminds me that each time the EU has appeared to be sinking to the doldrums of paralysis, it has been under the unfortunate stewardship of less capable European officials who lacked the clout to make things work.

Possibly the strongest complaint that the Uruguayans have against Argentina these days is protectionism. My interlocutor agrees with Vásquez that although “legitimate,” trade protectionism does his country no favours. He also points out that what may be negligible losses for Argentina translate into big deals for Uruguay. So, Argentina could perhaps be more selective over its protectionism. But to make that happen, some permanent and efficient mechanisms should be in place first. He is not alone in this view: only yesterday, this newspaper made the same point in its editorial.

It is always interesting to challenge an expert. So I pointed out that it took 27 years to get from that original European Coal and Steel Community to the first direct elections for a European Parliament. Even back in 1952, the original organization was better structured than today’s Mercosur. Not to mention the fact that, to this day, the European Parliament is not as powerful as the European Council and Commission. The Parlasur is unlikely to be operational any time in the near future, and its powers will be more than limited once it is finally here.

With a cheeky smile, my friend explains that the beauty of Cristina Kirchner being elected to Parlasur is not the additional status that she will accrue — even though this is something she will no doubt enjoy wholeheartedly. It’s that the position will truly afford her the necessary credentials to push things forward.

In his view, she has several things working in her favour. First, there is her current high-profile which, by the way, she obviously enjoys. Then there is her strong political ambition and equally strong will to make her own mark on history. She seems to have a strong commitment to South American unity, I’m told, coupled with (or perhaps triggered by) a certain rejection of the “powers that be” — by which he means the EU and the US. And then there is her personality, which can rub people the wrong way, but can get things done.

She is authoritative (possibly authoritarian?) and wants things done without too much regard for any institutional intricacies that may arise. She would be able to use both her credentials and her personality to shake Mercosur out of its inertia and cut through regional red tape. Some of the institution’s mechanisms are quite basic, but they could be used to breathe new life into Mercosur. And to do this, says the expert, you have to kick some ass. This does not necessarily require a seat in the still non-existent Parlasur, but rather access to a platform from which to do a bit of targeted screaming and look irate every now and then. And judging by her TV performances, she is still very good at that.

@andresfederman

CRADITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

WARNING: 2015 AHEAD

Foreign affairs take back seat — and that’s a good thing

The Presidential elections are likely to be — by far — the most relevant political event of next year. And most local political issues, from crime rates to inflation or unemployment get linked to — and influenced by — an electoral campaign that seems to have started quite early.

Normally, foreign policy matters do not enter into that debate. The pressing issues seem to be closer to home. So candidates seem more interested in explaining to their voters how they plan to improve day-to-day life than to expand on their vision about how Argentina links and relates to the world. Horrible as it may sound, this might not be such a bad thing.

The truth is that messages that may go down well with the domestic voters, do not necessarily help to solve problems and find solutions with foreign counterparts. This is especially true in the case of high-profile issues. The paper pulp mill dispute with Uruguay seems to be a good example of this.

Many argue that the late Néstor Kirchner’s support of the Gualeguaychú environmentalists, which made Uruguayan’s life miserable over the Botnia pulp mill, is a good example of how decisions aimed at local political gains,trigger complicated foreign policy situations. In fact, the bilateral wounds from those episodes have not closed totally. Not to mention the fact that Uruguay’s next president Tabaré Vázquez was who, when in office, had to endure the pressures of “the big neighbour.”

Unfortunately, 2015 seems to bring another high profile issue in tow. Starting on January 1 — and once the RUFO clause expires — discussions will (or should) start, on the matter of what to do with the holdout/“vulture” funds. The latter are far from popular in Argentina. So the temptation to take a hard line against them is high. It would be easy for the government to rally support for a confrontation with the “vultures” and the US. Burning US flags is a popular hobby in many sectors of Argentine politics.

There is another possible scenario: the Government might prioritize gaining access to the international financial markets and decide to — grudgingly — reach an agreement with the creditors. In that case, some opposition candidates might choose to wrap themselves in an Argentine flag and denounce the government’s negotiations as damaging to the country’s best interests. To make matters worse, the new US Congress is not likely to be friendly to Argentina. And might not dismiss anti-American tirades as a mere ingredient of electioneering narrative. They could take them seriously.

The issue of the holdouts/“vultures” is possibly the most serious, given the risk of it becoming a campaign issue and getting out of hand. But is by no means the only one confronting Argentina’s foreign policy in 2015. Although they are unlikely to be in the campaign agenda, they will (hopefully) be in the Foreign Ministry’s radar. And the opposition candidates would be well advised to follow developments in those fronts closely, just in case they get into office.

Close to home is the above-mentioned case of Uruguay. President Mujica tended to have a quite patient attitude toward Argentina in spite of a few sparkles every now and then. It remains to be seen if his successor will follow suit, or if — based on his previous experiences — he has already dismissed the possibility of Argentina being a friendly partner. After all, there are a number of conflictive issues which range from the use of port facilities to Uruguayan complaints about Argentine protectionism.

Then there is Brazil. Dilma Rousseff seems ready to endorse an adjustment policy which might mean a slowdown in her country’s economic activity. Argentina’s exports to Brazil would be hit. And given Argentina’s own foreign trade needs, the government might need to put its best negotiators to work in order to keep the Brazilian door for Argentine exports as widely open as possible.

Further north, there is the case of Argentina’s friendly (some say too friendly) relations with Venezuela. President Nicolás Maduro’s government seems to be in serious trouble and making big efforts to blame its predicament outside its borders. The US is the obvious candidate. And in that process, Venezuela seems inclined to make alliances with governments that are not too palatable to Europe nor the US. There is the danger that — given the Chavista sympathies of a few politicians close to the government — some of his foreign policies could try to involve Argentina. Something that this country does not seem to need at all.

And then there is the case of Russia, Argentina’s latest “strategic partner.”

Over and above its policy on Crimea, Russia seems determined to anger the EU further by financing far-right European politicians, with the sole intention of making life more difficult for Europe’s traditional political parties. This is not seen positively within the EU. Being too closely associated with Putin could be read as an endorsement of such policies.

Again, something that Argentina does not need at all.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

IN PRAISE OF CYNICISM

The G20 summit has come and gone. Given the amount of time and space dedicated to the subject, some stocktaking seems advisable. Not only on what seemed to be the Argentine government’s main objective — the inclusion of the holdout/ “vulture” funds issue on the G20 agenda — but also in terms of foreign policy priorities.

The good news for ministers Kicillof and Timerman is that they can show written proof of their feats. Those who feel close to the government will agree with Kicillof that it is a landmark achievement. Those in the opposition will remark that a 17-word mention in point 12 of the final document (“We welcome the progress made to strengthen the orderliness and predictability of the sovereign debt restructuring process”) is not too impressive given it is part of a 21-point, 2,343-word document..

The same applies to the paragraph included in the “Issues for further action” annex. Supporters will see it as more proof of a job well done. Opponents will remark that the paragraph is only a recommendation to follow the advice issued by the International Capital Markets Association (ICMA) last August. Moreover, those who prefer to base their analysis on cynicism rather than political preferences, will remark that the phrase “issues for further action” often become the worst-kept promises found in these kinds of international documents.

To be fair to the ministers, it is true that their achievements were not obstacle-free. Argentine bureaucrats are no different from their international colleagues. They all seem to enjoy a good negotiation or fight over a couple of lines in a rather lengthy international document that will only be read by a few people, to be then quickly summarized for senior politicians, and more often than not, forgotten during the return flight home from summits. In this particular case, rumour has it that the US was reluctant to allow even a short mention of the holdouts/ “vultures” issue. Hardly a surprise. But this time David overpowered Goliath. And — as usual in this dyad — David plays the role of the morally inspiring nice guy. But, is this good in terms of international politics?

The title of one of the classics on this matter, Hans Morgenthau’s Power Among Nations, seems to have the answer. Power and not the moral high ground is the key instrument of international politics. Argentina is not the US’s David by choice any more than Uruguay is happy about having its own Goliath in Argentina. Do not repeat this to the children, but the desirability of the role of David might be overrated.

However, one values its G20 achievements. The government has to be credited with the honesty of acknowledging that none of these achievements will have an impact on Argentina’s current confrontation with US judge Thomas Griesa and the holdout/ “vulture” funds. Nobody can complain of being misled on the fact that the benefits of this struggle are part of President Cristina’s legacy to the world. The problem is that the world is quite large and often quite alien.

The list of possible beneficiaries does not seem to include Argentina’s Latin American neighbours and partners. Fortunately, for them there is no sovereign debt restructuring on their horizons. Which begs the question: what are the other priorities in Argentina’s foreign policy agenda for, say, the next three years?

One of the biggest challenges is the country’s most important partner: Brazil. Despite winning the elections, President Dilma Rousseff has lost power to the sectors that have better chances of broadening the horizons of Brazil’s international partnerships. And Rousseff — being the able politician she is — will not ignore those signals. The impact on Argentina’s economy, and thus the local political scenario, is likely to be significant.

Still close to home, there is the long list of unresolved issues with Uruguay and Paraguay. They range from trade to energy and once again there are plenty of sectors with grievances against Argentina. True, they are Goliath Argentina’s “Davids.” But in the next few years this Goliath’s power will be hindered by its economy. So some serious thinking and subsequent negotiation seems quite advisable. And, in all three cases, there are bilateral and multilateral factors to be taken into consideration. While it does seem dormant, Mercosur is still there. And sooner or later its founding members will have to decide where they want it to go with it.

Still in Latin America, there are other issues which seem to deserve some foresight. Some argue that Venezuela is at the top of that list. That country’s quite-unstable political situation might trigger surprise changes at very short notice. Given Argentina’s “special relationship” with that country, it is likely that there are a number of loose ends to sort out in terms of both politics and economics. Some of them have more political implications abroad, which transcend Latin America.

First there is the Middle East factor, in which Venezuela seems to play a role associated, in some cases, to the more complicated players in that area. In turn, this bring into focus the relationship with the US, especially the “new” US with a Republican majority in Congress.

And in an interdependent world, this poses some questions about Argentina’s newest “special relationship” — Russia, which is at odds with what members of the opposition will denominate “traditional partners.” The US is, obviously, at the top of that list. In such a complicated scenario, realism (cynicism?) might prove to be the best option for planning Argentina’s future foreign policy.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

THOSE WERE THE DAYS

Countries once knew where they stood — and CFK is making her position known too

Yesterday marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The date is thought to be the symbolic end of the Soviet Union. Or — to put it in Vladimir Putin’s words — the moment when the US became the victor of the Cold War. For some, those were better times. And among the nostalgic are staunch anti-Communists with memories of a more stable, predictable world in which two organized nation-states with quite clear institutional arrangements and decision-making processes managed the big picture.

There was clear communication and established mechanisms for predictable demands which were — at least partially — negotiable. And such demands did not involve the establishment of caliphates or massive religious conversions.

This had nothing to do with kind souls. It so happened that both sides had the military resources to trigger their mutually-assured destruction. And the sheer madness of the idea made them careful. No airplanes crashing against the World Trade Centre or suicide bombers killing innocent citizens in the town markets of the former Soviet Union. Even volatile places like the Middle East had predictable alignments. But make no mistakes — that world was far from perfect.

Behind the peaceful façade both sides would fight “proxy wars” through third countries which would pay the toll of death and destruction. Add Vietnam into the equation and it becomes quite clear that there is not much room for nostalgia. Which — in any case — is a rather useless sentiment, at least in terms of politics. That said, it is also true that in many ways it was a simpler world. A country like Argentina knew that it was aligned with the United States. Even if such alignment allowed for some departures... like the sale of wheat to the USSR back in 1980, in open defiance of the embargo imposed by the US to sanction the invasion of Afghanistan.

History repeating itself

Now, 34 years later, history seems to be repeating itself. And Argentina is — once again — defying a US trade embargo on Russia. This time on account of Ukraine. But, nowadays, the context seems to be quite different.

Argentina did not support the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, But it is backing Russia’s policy regarding Ukraine. This does not seem to be an isolated decision. The country’s foreign policy seems to be in the process of a major shift. And the government seems determined to make this as clear as possible.

In terms of new alliances, China and Russia seem to be at the top of the Cristina Fernández de Kirchner administration’s agenda. This is not necessarily right or wrong on itself.

Even at the risk of incurring in a simplistic analysis, it should be noted that the Republicans obtained a landslide victory in last Tuesday’s US midterm elections. And that their views in favour of Argentina’s holdout/vulture creditors are noticeably stronger than those of the Democrats, which might make the search for renewed partnerships even more necessary.

But prudence calls for some further examination. Especially, because in bilateral relations it takes two to tango. In the case of Russia, the country is facing serious economic troubles. Some of which are not dissimilar to those Argentina faces, like intense capital flight and a weakened currency. Add to that Putin’s plans to spend a lot on Russia’s military and the final result could be a troublesome partnership. A situation in which the Russian president attempts to rally patriotic fervour to distract his people from an economic crisis is not totally unthinkable. Some even argue that something like that is behind the current situation with Ukraine. Not exactly an ideal partner for a country which, like Argentina, needs some time to recover its breath while it sorts out its own economic affairs.

The development of relations with China seems to require less caution. However, some would argue that Argentina’s policy-makers are overvaluing the strength of that relationship. True, there have been positive noises, perhaps slightly more moderate than those coming from Russia. And the recent currency swap has been presented to the Argentine public as a friendly and generous move by a good friend. Unfortunately, there seems to be no such thing in international politics.

Some critics urge everybody to look at the small print of the — apparently life-saving — swap agreement with China. Rumour has it that the main objective of the swap is to facilitate Argentine imports of Chinese goods. Useful, but a far cry from the epic narrative of certain government-friendly voices which presented the last swap as a quick Chinese move to help out a friend in need. In a perfect world, what seems to be a major policy shift should have strong cross-party consensus. This does not seem to be the case.

Given the fact that foreign policy issues normally do not win or lose votes, there seems to be a serious advantage in getting government and opposition foreign policy-makers to try to reach some sort of consensus on the nitty-gritty of Argentina’s foreign policy approach for — say — the next three years. If all those involved could agree on to a quiet consensus-seeking analysis, committing themselves to not making an electoral issue out of these discussions, they would do a big service to the country, which will make everybody’s life easier beyond 2015.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

OPTIONS AND PRUDENCE

All politics are domestic. This includes a country’s international policies. However, governments are or should be expected to base their foreign policy-making on reasons which go beyond short-term local political considerations.

Over the last 30 days, the government seems to have made a significant shift in Argentina’s international alliances and partnerships. This has gone down well with the president’s staunchest supporters.

It seems legitimate, however, to ask some questions about the implementation of these changes as well as the strategic vision behind them.

At the end of last week, the president made public the — very — strongly-worded letter she had sent to Obama to complain about the fact that Nancy E. Soderberg is both chair of the US government’s Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB) and co-chair of American Task Force Argentina (ATFA). The latter is the aggressive lobbying group that operates on behalf of Argentina’s holdout/vulture creditors.

The president’s point seems quite valid. There is a clear conflict of interest between Soderberg’s PIDB position and her moonlighting as a lobbyist against Argentina. What does not seem an adequate strategy is turning this into an issue at a presidential level. The same point could have been made — for the record — through diplomatic channels. Unfortunately, with equally slim chances of success.

Speeches like the one Fernández de Kirchner delivered at the last UN General Assembly might be important in terms of stating principles. And might earn some political points in Argentina. But not in the US. The same can be said about bravado letters to the US president.

So much for strategy. But there is another (equally worrying) point. ATFA has been around for some time. In fact our controversial moonlighter made a bizarre lobbying visit to Argentina on July 10 which, obviously did not go unnoticed by the government.

According to the PIDB’s website, Soderberg’s appointment dates back to November 16, 2012. But Argentine diplomats were apparently unaware of this conflict of interest.

Thanks to Google, finding out about somebody holding a government and a lobbying job at the same time does not take more than 20 minutes. And googling a player in the confrontation with the holdouts/vultures would be — one expects — a routine job for the diplomats involved.

So either the Argentine Embassy in Washington was looking the other way or the information was sent back to Buenos Aires and nobody acted on it before last week. Or, there might — just might — be another explanation. The government has been aware of the situation the whole time but made the tactical decision to only bring it up now.

This would be very good news. Especially because Argentina seems to be making a major foreign policy shift. At a time when tensions between Russia and the EU-US partnership are on the increase over issues like Ukraine, the Argentine government is getting significantly closer to Russia. It could be argued that business is business.

Consequently, selling foodstuffs despite the EU-US sanctions on Russia is simply a commercial decision. But the Argentine government’s narrative, which might delight its supporters and even go down well with part of the Argentine electorate, is not going down well with Western Europeans or the US. Which is not necessarily bad news.

It is not written in stone that a South American country cannot change its alignments and alliances. In fact it could be a very good strategy. Many of the president’s closest supporters are convinced that the traditional Western powers are falling apart and that the time has come for a change. But such a shift needs not only a well-thought, long-term strategy but also fine-tuned and professional implementation. It also requires a strong domestic consensus. One wonders which of these conditions — if any — have been met.

Argentine diplomacy does not demonstrate such a fine record. In fact, things with our brotherly neighbours are not exactly brilliant. Mercosur is frozen. The Uruguayans are not happy with Argentina. And the person most likely to become the next president of Uruguay, Tabaré Vázquez, is not precisely in love with Argentina’s current administration. In Paraguay, many say Argentina has a “vulture” policy regarding Yacyretá. And before thinking that powerful Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff will stand by us, perhaps we should think twice.

The Brazilian business sector keeps complaining about Argentine protectionism. True, their candidate lost the election. But Roussef’s advantage is narrow and she has already signalled her willingness to have a dialogue with all sectors.

Perhaps Argentine politicians should remember that Russia is far away, so keeping foreign policy options open might be wise. And that prudence is the best element of courage.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

THE RUSSIAN QUESTION

On October 9, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner surprised many by exchanging niceties on TV with her Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. In fact, they did not only share niceties but also a hefty dose of criticism of the dominant media which, they agreed, tend to shape public opinion by hiding the truth.

Earlier, there had been other signals that Argentina and Russia were getting closer to one another. There was Putin’s planned visit to Argentina and the invitation for Cristina to attend the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) meeting in Brazil. Although the significance of such an invitation was then toned down and diluted when other members of UNASUR were also invited.

Above and beyond gestures, there were some hard policy decisions as well. Argentina defied the trade sanctions imposed on Russia by the EU and the US in reprisal for its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. The country announced it would increase food exports to Russia to mitigate the impact of the sanctions. For some old timers with a good memory, this sounded like an echo of the attitude of the Argentine Military Junta back in 1980 when it defied Jimmy Carter’s embargo on grain sales to Russia, which were imposed as a sanction for Moscow’s invasion of Afghanistan.

But Argentina does not have a tradition of close relations with Russia. Distance and cultural differences are only part of the explanation. During the Cold War, Argentina was aligned with the US. And some very powerful sectors in Argentina were rabidly anti-communist and had the US as a role model. The pro-Soviet Communist Party in Argentina was banned for years. Even having a Soviet Union stamp in one’s passport was considered suspicious.

True, the world has changed and the Cold War is over. So improved relations with Russia do not raise any eyebrows. But in terms of consumer trends — from technology to TV series and films as well as tourism and many other day-to-day goods and services — the US still seems to be a major reference point for Argentine society. Not to mention the fact that over 400 US companies are established here. And — until Griesa appeared in Argentina’s life — New York used to be the financial port of call for the Argentine government and the country’s businesses. Moreover, many argue that on sensitive issues like enforcement of anti-drug and anti-terrorism measures, both countries’ security agencies continue to cooperate actively, albeit with a low profile.

Despite it all, it is quite clear that Argentina’s relationship with the US is far from optimal. It is not a new occurrence since there have been periods of tension before. And quite naturally given that the Argentine government has often made it a point to look at other options in terms of its own international alliances. These recent moves could be interpreted as a repeat tactic.

But there is a new element that calls for an additional perspective. And it is that both Putin and CFK have gone on the record with very similar lines of criticism of the United States. What they criticized was not a specific event or a particular policy. This time, both presidents targeted the entirety of the US foreign policy and its institutional context which dates back to the end of World War II.

The first shot was fired by Cristina at the last meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on September 24. She questioned the veto powers of the Security Council and called on the General Assembly to recover such powers. She firmly denounced current peace-keeping provisions and accused the US of backing rebel movements in the Middle East which then became new enemies, in a policy of endless confrontation.

The president also denounced US unilateralism and called for a complete reorganization of the international institutional arrangements that emerged post WWII, suggesting that the existing bodies only served the interests of a few powerful countries led by the US.

Curiously, last week, Vladimir Putin chose a high-profile event to deliver a speech along very similar lines. He chose the annual gathering of the Valdai Club in Sochi, one of the top local and international Russian policy forums. Qualified observers suggested that this was Putin’s most important foreign policy speech since 2007.

The theme chosen for the international conference speaks for itself: “New Rules or a Game without Rules.” He bluntly asserted his view that there is no certainty “that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals.” Even more bluntly, he placed the full blame for the situation on the US. He pointed out that “the so-called “victors” in the Cold War had decided to stoke events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests.”

The similarities between Cristina’s and Putin’s discourses are quite striking.

Their criticism of the dominant media could be attributed to frustration at domestic political problems, while Putin inviting Argentina to the BRICS meeting as the guest of honour — at least, to begin with — might be attributed to low-cost gesturing.

When it comes to Argentina’s defiance of the EU-US embargo on food exports, this can be explained in terms of commercial opportunism in difficult economic times. But these kinds of solid policy statements, as well as the possibility of Russia becoming a permanent arms supplier to Argentina and Argentina’s alignment with Russia on a number of international issues, beg questions about the government possibly making some drastic changes in Argentina’s international allegiances. This is not necessarily good or bad. But definitely worth some reflection. Especially from opposition politicians who seem quite silent on the matter.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

BAD TIMING

The tussle with the holdout “vulture” funds is at the top of the government’s foreign affairs agenda. And its diplomats have scored some important points in terms of rallying relevant international support for Argentina’s position even within the United States.

In many ways, it was a classical public diplomacy effort aimed not only at governments but also at qualified and influential players and opinion makers.

However, one of the president’s last moves might backfire in as much at it provided ammunition to the holdout “vulture” funds for their own lobbying effort targeted at discrediting the Argentine position and standing.

On October 9, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner shared a broadcast videoconference to announce that a Russian government television signal will now be available to the Argentine public. They exchanged niceties about the bilateral relation and criticisms to unfriendly media both local and international. A day later, the following two paragraphs were posted by ATFA on its website factcheckargentina.org.

“President Kirchner held a videoconference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, trumpeting the countries’ growing ties. The two leaders jointly announced the launch of a Spanish language version of Russian state-owned TV channel ‘Russia Today’ in Argentina. Radio Free Europe reported, State-run satellite channel ’Russia Today,’ a major platform for getting the Kremlin’s message to audiences abroad, has extended its reach with the inauguration of Spanish-language programming in Argentina.’”

Reminder: ATFA stands for American Task Force Argentina and is the very active lobby organization of the holdouts “vulture” funds headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, across the river from Washington, DC.

As for Radio Free Europe, it might ring some bells with readers born before 1970. It was one of the minor icons of the Cold War, based in West Germany, and broadcast to the then existing Soviet Union and its Eastern Europe satellites, financed by the US government. Nowadays, it is based in Prague and it describes its mission as reporting the news “in 21 countries where a free press is banned by the government or not fully established.” One of these 21 countries is Russia. The radio station explains that it “is funded by the US Congress through the Broadcasting Board of Governors” which is “a bipartisan federal agency overseeing all US international broadcasting services.”

It is easy to dismiss ATFA’s relevance if one looks at its lobbying efforts in Argentina. The actions included the publication — in several dailies — of two paid advertisements and a short visit to Buenos Aires in order to meet local journalists. It seems fair to say that they did not cut any ice.

Locally, there is an almost unanimous negative view of the “vulture” funds, even among those who think that the government should try to reach an agreement with them as soon as possible. But, unfortunately, Argentina is fighting this battle in the US. And ATFA can find there a significant sector of relevant players which is receptive to its lobbying. More so if it can associate it with values and views like those espoused by Radio Free Europe. These include a quite negative opinion about Putin.

Last week’s videoconference showed the president supporting the Russian president. A view which is reinforced by the fact that Argentina is exporting foodstuffs to Russia in direct opposition to the US and the EU’s sanctions on account of the Kremlin’s policy on Crimea. Nothing of this goes down well with many US movers and shakers and is being smartly used by ATFA to add more ammunition to its lobbying against Argentina. And it would be a mistake not to realize that Argentina already collects a number of negative points in the eyes of a sizeable portion of US public opinion. The presidential criticism of the US government are an obvious liability. The fact that some of them were voiced at the UN does not help. In addition, the non compliance with Judge Griesa’s rulings — however justified that might sound in Argentina — is not easily digestible for the US political culture. Not to mention the fact that the well-informed North American politicians, analysts and journalists are aware that Argentina is near the top of the list of countries where the people have anti-US feelings.

In addition, it was made quite clear by State Department spokespersons that Argentina is not the flavour of the month within the United States government.

True, it could be argued that the previous paragraph explains the public appearance with Putin. And that such a signal is aimed at underpinning the luring of more investments like that of Gazprom, the objective of increasing Argentine exports to Russia and even using Russia’s influence to tighten up relations with the coveted BRICS, the loose association of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

Unfortunately the issue of the holdouts “vultures”, and its impact on Argentina’s access to the international financial markets seems to be too urgent to be compensated in terms of both volume and timing with the — undoubtedly positive — developments of more exports to and investments from Russia. And the BRICS connection — if it ever happens — is far from immediate. So, however smart the Putin move is, it definitely seems badly timed.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

WELCOME TO BUSY TIMES

On September 25 the US Embassy’s Chargé d’Affaires Kevin Sullivan welcomed two recently arrived members of his staff: Public Affairs Officer Thomas Mesa and Assistant Cultural Affairs Officer Katherine Ordóñez. In all likelihood, their posting in Buenos Aires (by the way, a coveted destination in many diplomatic services) was decided months ago. But new circumstances might mean that their workload will be heavier than that of their predecessors.

It is quite obvious that the bilateral relation is far from excellent or even good. And that — while the US is trying to tone down the disagreements — the Argentine government is trying to be as vocal as possible about them. Moreover, it does not seem likely that this state of affairs will change in the near future. Even if it does, the damage done to the US image and prestige in Argentine society will last longer than the intergovernmental spat that caused it in the first place. Controlling the damage and (ideally) reverting it, is a public diplomacy job. While traditional diplomacy is usually a government-to-government affair, public diplomacy is about engaging with the society of the host country, delivering messages, clearing misperceptions and fostering cooperation. Despite their individual efforts, this is not the day to day job of commercial or military attachés or even political councillors.

This is the job of people like Mr Mesa and Ms Ordóñez. Both their jobs are at the core of any public diplomacy effort. So let us meet them both with some bad news. For openers, anti-US feelings run quite high in Argentina, despite the local craze to visit Miami and New York. According to a recent opinion poll carried out by the Pew Research Centre only 36 percent of Argentines have a favourable view of the US.

Then there is the fact that they have arrived at the home of conspiracy theories. Many people find it difficult to accept that most things happen without being masterminded by “hidden powers.” And — unfortunately for the two recent arrivals — the US tops the league of those “hidden powers.”

The saga of Judge Griesa’s rulings in favour of the holdout / vulture funds is a good example of this. Many in the Argentine government continue to accuse the White House and the State Department of being in collusion against Argentina with Griesa and the plaintiffs. The fact that the US government is on record trying to help Argentina, albeit respecting the independence of the US judiciary, seems not to be registering. Never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Although this environment might seem discouraging, the bright side of public diplomacy work is that it is not about winning elections. And that only in very rare occasions it is required to deliver messages or influence the sum total of the population. In a world of scarce resources, Embassies tend to target their audiences and their messages quite carefully. And try to obtain results which are measurable in terms of quality and quantity. One interesting example is the above mentioned matter of the alleged collusion between the US Government and Judge Griesa. It is the kind of misperception which, if allowed to survive, could harm the US image as a business partner. Or harm the credibility of the US judiciary’s rulings in matters affecting global politics. Especially in a country like Argentina, where the independence of judges is such a sensitive issue. The target of messages about this is quite specific, and includes the local judiciary as well as current and future leaderships.

Another point in which the US Government is likely to have to deliver clear messages is that of sovereign states’ debt restructuring. Together with a number of countries, the US is opposing Argentina’s view that the issue of debt restructuring should be regulated by the UN. The US view is that international finance contains enough specialised elements so as to need the intervention of technical organizations like the IMF rather than a simple aye or nay at the UN. And because the IMF is many people’s demon of choice, to deliver positive messages about the US position will not be easy. Again here, there are specific audiences to be reached.

Finally, a note of colour to add to the newcomers’ concerns. Not-so-young people will recall that the late Juan Domingo Perón, the most important (not necessarily the best) political leader in twentieth century Argentina, was firmly convinced during many years that the world was governed by a “synarchy” collectively ruled by The Vatican, Zionism, Communism, Capitalism and — last but not least — the Freemasons. Fortunately for Argentina, in the last years of his life he seemed to have abandoned this theory. And today’s picture shows us that Moscow is not communist any more but a coveted member of the BRICS, the association of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa which (in the mind of some of Argentine government followers) is called to replace the US as a world power. And the Vatican now has an Argentine pope so the pilgrimage of Argentine politicians seeking family photos with Francis seems unstoppable. As for the Freemasons, they seem to have faded away from conspiracies.

So this is a point to celebrate. Possibly over some good beef and wine, another of the privileges of being posted in Argentina. Provided, of course, you are not a vegetarian.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

IDEALISM OR DIVERSION?

September has been a good month for Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman. On September 9, diplomacy obtained a victory at the UN General Assembly with regard to the “vulture” funds.

The UN General Assembly voted in favour of drafting an international legal framework for the restructuring of the sovereign debts of countries in financial difficulties. The initiative — which thanks to the efforts of the diplomats led by Timerman had the support of the non-aligned G77 + China group — is aimed squarely at the holdout/vulture funds.

The measure would essentially force them to submit to the decisions of the majority of creditors in sovereign debt restructurings, thus ending their power to blackmail an indebted country.

And last Friday, the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) voted along similar lines in Geneva. Thus, the Foreign Ministry was able to report that “the HRC passed the Resolution that condemns the vulture funds and requests they be investigated.”

On September 26 — and under the headline “Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures” — the Council condemned “the continued unilateral implementation and enforcement by certain powers of such measures as tools of political or economic pressure against any country.”

The measure moved to “appoint, for a period of three years, a Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures” with the instruction “to submit each year to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly a report on the activities relating to his or her mandate.”

It was another victory for the minister, who can proudly claim that his efforts put the presidential words against the “vulture funds” at the General Assembly into action.

Timerman said he “has no doubts that this is a big success for Argentina’s foreign policy” because “we have managed to include the issue of vulture funds in the agendas of the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, two highly significant instances in the United Nations.” He added that “this the first time in its history that it will focus and try to sort out matters regarding the international financial structure.”

Pessimists will be quick to remark that — even if the convention suggested by the General Assembly is ever approved — the process will take several years. And that, in any case, it is doubtful that the countries where the big financial centres are based would adhere to the measure.

As for the resolution voted by the HRC, pessimists will also point out to a similar one, voted by the Council 10 years ago, on 16 April 2004, which had an almost identical text. It condemned “the continued unilateral implementation and enforcement by certain powers of such measures as tools of political or economic pressure against any country.” The headline was identical: “Human rights and unilateral coercive measures.”

True, the old resolution specified “developing countries” and warned against “preventing these countries from exercising their right to decide of their own free will their own political, economic and social systems.” Instead of appointing a special rapporteur, it called on the existing ones to keep an eye and report on the use of unilateral coercive measures. But pessimists will argue that the old text encompasses the new one, so to call the recent vote a victory is a wild exaggeration. At least in terms of Argentina’s present — and pressing — national interests. And herein might be one of the reasons for the very frequent controversies about President Cristina Fernández Kirchner’s foreign policies.

As reported by this newspaper last Saturday, the government is more or less open about the fact that any progress on the vulture funds issue will benefit other countries from facing in the future the problems that Argentina is facing now. But that progress will not come in time to help Argentina. So what Timerman defines as a victory for Argentine foreign policy is a victory of principles and ethics that transcends the sphere of the country’s immediate national interests.

Students of International Relations will immediately define this kind of policies as “idealist” or “Wilsonian,” in honour of Woodrow Wilson the US president who, after World War I, strove to create the League of Nations in order to prevent the horror of wars. Predictably these values sound very positive. But they are likely to be challenged.

Some critics will immediately retort that “charity begins at home.” And that the idealism of the League of Nations failed miserably, giving way to the realpolitik of World War II. Moreover, they will quote theorists like Hans Morgenthau and practitioners like Henry Kissinger pointing out that a State’s survival depends on the defence of national interest, which should be the major — if not the only — concern.

According to this view, the government’s handling of the holdouts issue or of its relations with the United States is far from being in Argentina’s national interest. And that the efforts at the UN are — at best — a waste of political capital and resources. Or, at worst, an attempt to divert public attention from the real problems of recession, inflation and a couple of nasty etceteras.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

UNITED (?) KINGDOM

So Scotland remains as part of the United Kingdom. But the story is — by no means — over. The next chapter of this story will be written when the British government makes good the concessions it promised to the Scots in order to keep them within the fold.

And if the Scottish feel that the promises they have been made are thoroughly delivered and are not a mere exercise in window-dressing.

Moreover, it remains to be seen how Wales, Northern Ireland and — why not — England will react to the changes and their economic, social, institutional and political costs. A pessimist would go as far as saying that the United Kingdom remains “United” only for the time being.

Unfortunately, in the life of States the concept of “unity” is not linked only to a single flag or an anthem. There are serious constitutional, management and economic issues involved not to mention lifestyles and what the beneficiaries consider “rights” and those on the other side of the divide, privileges. And most, if not all, of these issues, carry costs and consequences, economic, social or political. Worse still, often both sides of any claim end up dissatisfied because they fail to find all their demands met completely.

In the particular case of the recent referendum, Prime Minister David Cameron as well as other political leaders like former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown made promises that could turn thorny at the time of delivery.

One example is that of the devolution of spending powers to the Scottish Parliament, which could trigger several issues, One of them is that it automatically will create inequality with — say — Wales. Then, there is the question about where will the money come from. And then, there will be the need to agree if the powers which are transferred really honour the campaign promises.

But there is more. The promises made to Scotland, and the way in which they are supposed to be implemented, are being divisive within the British political parties. Many members of the Conservative Party are less than happy with the promises which their Leader made in order to “buy” (say the angry Tories) a vote against independence. And the Labourites have their own grievances. The vast majority of Scottish MPs are either Labour or Scottish National Party. As a quid pro quo for devolution, Scottish MPs would lose their right to vote in Parliament about matters which concern exclusively England. So the Tories would have an absolute — guaranteed — majority on those votes.

There is already talk about changes to the British Constitution. For many admirers of that — unwritten — example of institutional excellence, the sole idea seems tantamount to the change of a civil Bible. Moreover, although “Britannia does not rule the waves” any more, there is some concern that the Scotland issue could a herald more international problems of similar nature. Spain’s Catalonia seems to be the most immediate. With the added problem that whilst the Scottish referendum took place in a situation of consensus, that does not seem to be the case between Barcelona and Madrid. So it remains to be seen how the issue is sorted out.

Many years ago, Europe was the continent of civil wars, with countries like France and Germany jumping at each other’s throats with certain frequency. Then came World War II.

The sheer horror of it, pushed for imaginative solutions. Which came by unifying European countries in common goals. First came the “European Coal and Steel Community” (ECSC). Although established as an economic alliance, the real objective of the ECSC was far more ambitious. In the words of one of its founding fathers, the aim of the Community was to “make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.” The trick was to make supranationalism prevail — in some instances — over sovereignty. A bold thought for the times.

The experiment worked, and the new creature — with six European members — evolved first into the European Economic Community in 1957, and then (in 1993) into what we now know as the EU with a total membership of 28 member countries. The good news is that their interdependence has contributed to a peaceful Europe. The bad news is that separatist tensions in some of them seem to be very much at work.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD