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