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