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