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