THE MERCOSUR ROUTINE

Situation can force despair or trigger creativity

It is Mercosur Summit time again. This time in Paraguay. The presence of the new Argentine president Mauricio Macri is likely to be one of the most attractive items for the media. After all, he represents a significant change after 12 years in which Argentina espoused a totally different political regime under the Kirchner presidencies.

And there is an additional side-line: the current confrontation between Macri and Venezuela’s Maduro might provide some interesting headlines and reports from the accredited journalists. Apparently the Argentine president will raise the issue of human rights and political freedom in Venezuela. And as already reported in this column, the Venezuelan reply is unlikely to be friendly.

The skirmish is bound to trigger a debate in Argentina. Kirchner supporters will immediately accuse Macri of being part of a conspiracy to destabilize a democratic and popular (populist?) leader. The other side will reply that Human Rights do not have an ideology and that the same standards should apply to everybody,

Moreover, such a debate will rekindle a discussion which is discreetly taking place among some political analysts. They are wondering if Macri’s PRO means that a new kind of modern — and democratic — model of centre right political party is being born in Latin America. They are thinking in terms of a political format which can make social and human rights objectives, coexist with market oriented economic policies which — in addition — include some market regulation aimed at expanding democracy to aspects which — up to now — were a monopoly of the progressive side of the political spectrum.

In any case, should the controversy between the two presidents erupt, it would be simply one more obstacle in the way of this particular summit achieving much. There are others. First, there is the fact that the main partner, Brazil, is in the midst of a deep political and economic crisis. Not the best position to enter new long term commitments. In the case of Argentina, a number of sources suggest that different local government departments from within and without the Ministry of Foreign Affairs still have to agree on who is going to do what, and that, currently, there seem to be other priorities for the country’s economic and diplomatic teams. Some more or less as important as Mercosur but definitely more urgent.

This whole scenario would change dramatically if there were a solid hope about the possibility of finally reaching a free trade agreement with the European Union. The issue has been around since the birth of Mercosur approximately two decades ago. Both sides blame each other for the failure. And they are both probably right: simply put, there are too many interests to harmonize. Many say that this single item is the most frustrating issue on the Mercosur menu.

The stagnant Mercosur does not affect the five member states in the same way. Possibly, in the case of Venezuela, the political crisis simply pushes Mercosur out of the agenda unless it has to do with politics. Brazil and Argentina have a problem but have other economic and trade conflicts which create a more urgent and focused agenda. which also offers more options to explore. The two smaller partners, Uruguay and Paraguay get the short end of the stick. Mercosur limits their options and does not offer much in terms of compensation.

This situation can force despair or trigger creativity. Luckily, in the case of this week’s summit it has been the latter.

The Paraguayan Deputy FM announced last week that a list of approximately eighty non-tariff barriers for products manufactured and traded within the bloc had been identified. The idea is to scrap the antidumping measure and countervailing duties. This would ease up Uruguay and Paraguay’s life in Mercosur, allowing for increase trade, and, perhaps, more foreign investment.

It would be a good way of starting 2016. Not a break away from routine, but an interesting step in the right direction.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

MERCOSUR WELCOMES PRESIDENT MACRI

 

Trend of greetings transcends mere politics

A week from now, a new Mercosur summit will be held in Paraguay, the first one attended by the new Argentine president.

For better or worse, the bloc has not been a “hot” news issue for quite some time now, unless it appears linked to specific political issues affecting its member states. The new Argentine president managed to put Mercosur back on the front pages when he threatened to apply the bloc’s “democracy clause” to Venezuela, so as to punish Maduro’s alleged human rights violations. But the Venezuelan leader’s acceptance of his defeat in the December 6 elections made that confrontation unnecessary.

However, some special circumstances surrounding next week’s meeting suggest that perhaps — repeat: perhaps — we might see a departure from the rather uneventful tradition of the Mercosur and discover some changes. Not earth shattering, but nevertheless important.

The first is Macri himself. Many believe that his politics are — in theory — different from those of Mercosur’s heads of state with the possible exception of Paraguay’s Horacio Cartes. But this view might be simplistic.

The sole exception is, obviously, Nicolás Maduro, who has already removed all doubts about his views on Macri. But Venezuela has enough problems of its own to bully Macri. Or to muster Mercosur’s solidarity against him. There might be some noises coming from Paraguay, but the bet is that it will be rhetoric rather than business.

As for the other partners, there seems to be some real business worth paying attention to. In the case of the main partner, Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff made a point of offering Macri red carpet treatment when he visited her as president elect. But the welcome transcended politics.

The powerful Sao Paulo business lobby suddenly found the one Argentine (who happens to be the president) whose ideas they like. Many of them are quite critical of Mercosur, which they consider a barrier rather than a platform from where to expand to the rest of the world. And Macri has already voiced his opinions that it is important for the bloc to start looking at a wider — and more flexible — range of international trade options. Not to mention the fact that his Foreign minister went as far as suggesting that the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) is not necessarily “a bad word.” A total reverse of the views of those who were in government until last week.

In the case of Uruguay, despite former president Pepe Mujica’s open support for Daniel Scioli, it is assumed that the current President Tabaré Vázquez, let alone the Uruguayan people, expects that the new Argentine president will be friendlier to Uruguay than Néstor and Cristina ever were. There are a number of issues pending between both countries. And it should not be difficult for the new Argentine government to solve quite a few of them.

Others, especially those related with trade, might be more complicated. They depend more on the state of the economy than on political decisions.

But Uruguay’s interest might focus on aspects much wider than bilateral trade. Tabaré Vázquez is determined to use the opportunity of Uruguay’s presidency of the bloc, which begins next week, to “open up” Mercosur. In what seems to be a strong coincidence with Argentina’s new government, there is the view that Mercosur should start reaching towards a wider word (specially the Pacific) in search for trade and investment. The view seems to be “we cannot leave Mercosur because we would have to move Uruguay elsewhere.” But the way in which the bloc is working is far from satisfactory. Especially for the smaller partners.

In the last few years, Mercosur has been almost paralyzed. It remains to be seen if the recent political changes in the region impact on the workings of the bloc.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

 

WELCOME MS. MALCORRA

A new toolbox to tackle old problems of foreign policy

A word of warning: if you are absolutely convinced that the result of the presidential election is a blessing for Argentina, it is suggested you skip this column and invest your time in reading other sections of the Herald. The same applies if you believe that Scioli’s defeat is a tragedy. Again, do not waste time and read more valuable sections of the daily.

This column will focus on the appointment of Susana Malcorra as the incoming foreign minister, and has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of both the elected and incumbent presidents.

Her appointment came as a surprise at a time when most of the speculation suggested different members of the victorious alliance. All of them with clear political party commitments. By contrast, except for a minor involvement with the UCR, the lady is not a politician. In fact, the link with partisan politics is so tenuous that many of the press’ descriptions of the new foreign minster do not even mention it. And — in line with this — none of the reports about the participation of the UCR in the future Cabinet includes her as part of the deal.

The non-partisanship factor has caused surprise beyond Argentine borders. The foreign ministers of Uruguay, Chile, Bolivia and Paraguay are all active politicians. Just to cite further examples, the same happens in other countries, like the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany. The only possible exception would be Brazil’s Mauro Vieira. His merits for the job come mainly from a long, brilliant career as a diplomat.

But here again, there are no similarities. Some of the names mentioned as possible foreign ministers in a Macri presidency belonged or have belonged to the diplomatic service. In some cases as foreign ministers

But that is not the case with Ms Malcorra. She never served as an Argentine diplomat.

So what is so special about the new Foreign Minister? For starters, she was, until she shifted jobs, the UN Secretary General’s Chef de Cabinet. And before that, she had first been the Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Executive Director of the UN’s World Food Programme and then the UN’s Under-Secretary-General for Field Support. This last position implied guaranteeing the logistic for more than 100,000 people involved in peace-keeping activities. In addition, it should be noted that -before joining the UN - the lady had a very successful career in the corporate world.

Some Macri analysts or critics, suggest that Malcorra has been chosen for her top managerial skills in order to join peers with equally strong credentials. Both supporters and critics of the new president argue that he does not believe in traditional politics which, they argue, Macri feels can be replaced by professional managers.

It is strongly suggested that her managerial skills are a contributory bonus. But several other reasons associated with Ms Malcorra’s career path contribute to make her the ideal person for Mauricio Macri’s foreign policy needs, which are about conflict and high politics and not about logistics and management.

The work of any country’s diplomats is to promote its national interest. Praiseworthy of course. But frequently conflictive. Two or more sides determined to win, but often without much regard for rules and ethics. Or even life and death, if the stakes are high enough. Terrible, but such is life.

By contrast, the UN is mostly in the job of managing conflict. Keeping the peace even if the deep roots of the conflict cannot be solved. Stopping famine and feeding people even if it is done on the basis of donations from member governments. The UN is quite successful at limiting damage. Conflict resolution is always there as an objective. But damage containment is, perhaps, as much as you can ask for.

A review of many of Argentina’s current foreign policy problems show a striking similarity. Issues cannot be sorted out. Perhaps because they are too complicated, but they can be managed so things are not paralyzed causing even greater damage.

There is no shortage of examples. Rightly or wrongly, the next government plans to revise the alliances which —again, rightly or wrongly — the Kirchner governments entered into with Russia and China. In both cases, but especially in relation with China, there seems to be complicated business and cooperation arrangements from which it is not easy to walk away. So, at the same time that Argentina wants to try a rapprochement with its traditional EU and US partners it is also engaged in a deal with China that raises eyebrows from its newest would-be partners.

And then there is Brazil. The world economy, not to mention its own political situation, is harming Brazil, which — in turn — harms Argentina. Once again, the problem cannot be solved, there are too many independent variables at play, including the businesses from both sides. Realistically the best possible scenario seems to be one where conflict has to be managed without much hope of definite solutions.

And related to Brazil is Venezuela. Macri has decided to raise the political ante. He wants to punish Venezuela on account of Nicolás Maduro’s human rights policies. He has decided to pick up a fight and to try to apply Mercosur’s democratic clause on that country. Thus, our next President is choosing a fight not only with Maduro, but also with Brazil that is in favour of Maduro. Not to mention the barrage of local criticisms from Kirchnerite quarters. Susana Malcorra will have to find delicate balances in order to avoid having situations getting out of hand. And her UN experience, placing her above the problems in order to attempt damage containment, is likely to be more useful than any experience in defending positions of petty fights at nation state level.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

BEYOND THE PARIS ATTACKS

Violent road lies ahead and there is little to negotiate

Some, including this writer, believe that last Friday’s outrageous terrorist attacks were part of a general assault aimed at triggering a massive reaction from both the public and governments against Muslims living in the EU and the US. The objective is to push more Muslims living in Europe into the ranks of ISIS. And that the timing and targeting of this particular incident had to do with the fact that, in three weeks, regional elections will take place in France.

There is a strong chance that Marine Le Pen’s right-wing Front National, which holds strong anti-immigrant and anti-Islam views, will be favoured by the voters’ reaction to what happened in Paris. Her immediate response to the terrorist attack was a reiteration of her call for much stricter immigration laws and an abandonment of the Schengen agreements which allow people to circulate within most of the EU freely, without border controls. Curiously, her speech was more moderate than what could have been expected. The Front National’s messages were there, but the rhetoric was acceptably democratic especially in light of the circumstances.

The message of the rest of the relevant political leaders was adequate and — above all — responsible. It promised that justice will fall on the perpetrators but it also remarked the commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. A cynic would define them as politically correct. But a realist would note that in some circumstances — and this is one of them — political correctness, as trite as it may sound, is the only available option. A couple of wrong phrases in the heat of a speech delivered in understandable anger could trigger reactions from the general public which would only make matters worse. And would play into the hands of the terrorists.

However, beyond the statements, last Friday’s events are telling us that the EU, the US, and most of the world are facing a very serious problem which is totally different from the terrorist threats of the past. And that, in order to analyze its nature, it might be necessary to look again at less idealistic views of the world in which we live.

This means accepting that humanistic philosophy, which suggests a weakening of religious dogmatism as a source of conflict, might be a good wish rather than an adequate description of today’s world.

Back in the early 1990s, the Soviet bloc had disappeared and many believed that there was a conflict-free future ahead. There were some strongly discordant voices challenging this view. Perhaps the most memorable was that of Samuel Huntington, a political scientist who published an article with a disturbing title: The Clash of Civilizations.

His view was that conflict between ideological blocs and/or nation states would be replaced by a clash of civilizations which was destined to dominate global politics. And he offered detailed descriptions of the main cultures and their points of conflict.

His remarks on Islam are worth revisiting in view of the current situation. Huntington wrote: “Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years. After the founding of Islam, the Arab and Moorish surge west and north only ended at Tours in 732. From the 11th to the 13th century, the crusaders attempted with temporary success to bring Christianity and Christian rule to the Holy Land. From the 14th to the 17th century, the Ottoman Turks reversed the balance, extended their sway over the Middle East and the Balkans, captured Constantinople, and twice laid siege to Vienna. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, as Ottoman power declined, Britain, France, and Italy established Western control over most of North Africa and the Middle East.”

True, the conflict became much more moderate, but it never disappeared entirely. It is about a compound of issues which range from views about God and religion to everyday life. A perhaps minor but nevertheless significant example of this clash, which has to do precisely with France is that Muslim females were banned, in 2004, from wearing their burqas in French public schools.

In other words: French commitment to a non-religious republic against ISIS’ commitment to fundamentalist religious rules.

Noticeably, with a few exceptions, like Palestine and Israel, the conflict transcends the issue of nation states. Israelis can negotiate with groups fighting for an independent Palestinian state. Ironically, even if they are confronting through violence, they can nevertheless negotiate with each other or through third parties. They have something to negotiate about which is quite concrete. Territory and independence. They might not reach an agreement, but both sides have clear final objectives and are mutually aware of them.

By contrast, ISIS’ demands which include elements like “death to all the infidels” are not negotiable. A definitely violent road ahead.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

BEYOND THE OPINION POLLS

Ignore the surveys — a new tool is helping to predict elections

The aftermath of the 25 October election is as follows: happy faces in the group supporting Mauricio Macri, worried faces in the Victory Front (FpV) crowd, and egg on the faces of the pollsters who did an interesting job out of getting most of their forecasts wrong.

A more private consequence for many was an increase in calorie intake for the numerous Argentines who were collecting their winnings and paying off their debts, as a result of gambles they made on the outcome of the election.

“A dinner says that (Macri/Scioli) wins on 25 October” was a phrase repeated in many social circles over the last month.

A very Argentine tradition, it’s bad for those watching their weight but with great benefits in terms of amusement, friendships and socializing.

Whilst Argentines were settling their particular gambling debts, in the United States a more institutional commemoration was taking place. The “PredictIt” organization celebrated its first year in business. (http://www.predictit.org/)

This is the latest tool available for political practitioners. In its own words, PredictIt “is a new real money game that tests your knowledge of political and financial events by letting you make and trade predictions.” And this organization is not the brainchild of a Wall Street broker. It is a project of the Victoria University, in Wellington, New Zealand, which was “set up to research the potential value of prediction markets in understanding the future.”

For good measure, the people from PredictIt end their presentation with the enticing line: “Our job is to study the wisdom of the crowds, yours is to make you most educated prediction.”

The “game” is quite simple. Predictions about future events are formalized by buying shares in the outcome, either “Yes” or “No.” Each outcome has a probability of between one percent and 99 percent, with the sum of the two always naturally adding to 100 percent. And these percentages are then converted into US cents.

This is not a high-stakes betting game. The limits are quite low and the money element is a device to encourage players to play rather than being the object of the business. The highest possible single deal is currently US$850. In fact, its 37,000 members have traded a total of approximately US$10 million, which averages out to about U$S270 per individual.

The object of the exercise is orientated toward research, in as much as prediction markets like this one are attracting a lot of academic and practical interest. And, perhaps more importantly, what happens in the PredictIt markets can have an immediate impact on “real-life” politics.

Recently, staff of the US Republican Party presidential candidate Jeb Bush learned this at their own expense. They use PredictIt as one of the indicators about their candidate’s chances. And when the predictions market indicated that Marco Rubio was ahead of Bush in the Republican party race for the nomination, campaign donors started to shy away. And in US politics at the moment, it seems easier to recover from a temporary setback to your ranking in the game than from having your donors looking for the exit door.

Fans in Wall Street

According to Bloomberg, the case of Jeb Bush is not isolated. In their view, Wall Street donors (obviously, amongst the biggest contributors to campaigns) look more at information offered by the likes of PredictIt than at opinion polls. The view, held by many economists, is that betting markets are more accurate in predicting political events than opinion polls. Even if they have a lower number of participants.

Interestingly, this prediction market offers numerous themes and options on which to bet that go way beyond the US presidential race. Amongst the US topics open to prediction are if — after the 2016 elections — the party which wins will be unified in government and Congress. Which is possibly related to the primaries and their occasionally bitter quarrels.

Or you can bet on whether a law will be passed by Congress. On international matters, the market is open on issues like whether Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro or Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff will last out their terms in office. You can even bet on the possibility of a woman becoming the next UN Secretary General.

But there appears to be no Scioli-Macri option on PredictIt. It’s left to you ,dear reader, to imagine the possible questions/options that could be offered around this issue — and the odds.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

FOREIGN POLICY: WHAT NEXT?

Regional integration high up the agenda for next president

Next Sunday’s presidential elections will trigger the curiosity of a significant number of foreign observers. They include journalists (both correspondents and special envoys), diplomats posted in Buenos Aires and businesspeople, mainly from the financial world but also from other sectors of the economy.

Their interest is not merely academic. Foreign policy decisions impose themselves as a significant segment of the next government’s agenda, and they include a wide range of issues with many different short-, medium- and long-term implications. Negotiations with the holdouts/“vultures” have long ago ceased to be merely financial affairs. They now have serious political implications. Regional integration —and more specifically the Mercosur — is another item waiting for a policy which materializes into action. And there is a long list of other items, including relations with Russia and China and their impact on Argentina’s links with its more traditional partners. They all raise questions about the “next steps.”

Many of those questions can be linked to the need to assess the influence of the Peronist tradition in Argentine foreign policy. It is indistinct if Juan Domingo Perón’s heirs are in government or in opposition. In the latter case, they will have enough nuisance power so as to make the government’s life difficult. And, in any case, two of the three leading candidates, Daniel Scioli and Sergio Massa, have very strong links to Peronism. As for the third one, Mauricio Macri, his party has a not insignificant Peronist component. Moreover, two of the most relevant PRO foreign policy spokespeople — Diego Guelar and Fulvio Pompeo — come from the Peronist camp.

But defining Peronist foreign policies are far from easy. Since the return of democracy, some Argentine Peronists, like Carlos Menem, have aligned the country with the United States, without any doubts or regrets. Menem went as far as contributing to US military actions in the Middle East, sending a war ship to Iraq. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner went the other way. She made a point of entering, with quite significant fanfare, a strategic alliance with Russia’s Vladimir Putin who — despite the fact that the Cold War ended long ago — is definitely not on Washington’s list of favourite leaders.

Looking back into the origins of Peronism, the father of the creature was a true — and very able — pragmatist. His “Third Position” narrative — “We are far from both imperialisms” (sic) — was normally combined with moves which placed Argentina alternately near one or the other, according to the needs of the moment. During his first two presidencies he rejected US pressure to join in fighting the Korean war, whilst, at the same time, accepting Washington’s continental defence policies, by adhering to the Act of Chapultepec in 1945 and the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (Rio Treaty) in 1947.

Perón’s third — and very short — presidency was also a display of pragmatism in action. The foreign policy programme published on 12 October 1973, the day he was sworn in, talks of “adapting to the international situation, favouring political realism rather than ideology.”

However, neither Menem nor CFK seemed to share Perón’s pragmatism.

A certain consensus

There seems to be a certain consensus on some foreign policy issues, amongst the three main candidates. They have all made noises about negotiating with the holdout/“vultures.” Likewise, all three have spoken about rebuilding relations with traditional partners — in other words, the European Union (EU) and the US.

In Scioli’s case the noises are less audible and combined with signs adhering to the more Kirchnerite policies. These signs have included a short visit to Cuba, as well as images showing himself in the company of interlocutors like Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Uruguay’s “Pepe” Mujica and Brazil’s Dilma Rouseff .

It remains to be seen — if and when Scioli becomes president — if such gestures were targeted at a general audience or were merely a signal to the diehard Cristina supporters who still, albeit more silently, accuse him of being a right-winger in disguise. Which brings up the question of CFK and her close followers’ reactions to the different foreign policy changes which will inevitably start to emerge under a new president.

One can reasonably expect that, if the new policies are implemented by Macri or Massa, they will meet with opposition from CFK.

But what will happen in the case of a Scioli presidency moving away from existing foreign policy? How far will CFK go in her opposition? And how many of the more traditional Justicialist Party (PJ) leaders will align with her?

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

THE TRUMP CARD

Argentina’s relationship with the US moves into spotlight

Once again, Argentina and the United States are embroiled in deep controversy, one which still seems to be escalating. The issue is serious enough so as to have prompted President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to bring it up at the recent United Nations General Assembly. She did, however, avoid naming names. But it was obvious that the president was referring to the missing former spymaster, Antonio Stiuso, who is rumoured to have taken refuge in the US.

CFK’s supporters had the chance — once again — to celebrate the president’s anti-imperialist courage. Her detractors though were quick to point out that it is not “the done thing,”discussing these kinds of issues in a forum like the UN.

Thrilling as spy adventures may be, the importance of each specific case should not be overstated. There are the obvious exceptions. The famous Cambridge spy ring led by Kim Philby is a case in point. The tragic case of the Rosenbergs who were executed in the United States during the Cold War is another. But otherwise, governments normally prefer to deal with espionage issues relatively quietly. Spies are, after all, a fact of life. As is dealing with adversaries, ideally through quiet negotiations rather than noisy scandals.

CFK’s public criticism of US President Barack Obama is not new and in the past, has taken in a variety of issues. Earlier this year, on April 11, at the Summit of the Americas which took place in Panama City, she ridiculed Obama’s decision to declare Venezuela a national security threat to the US. And a few days later, at the opening of a Honda manufacturing facility, she picked up on a comment from the US president — regarding the fact that he preferred looking toward the future rather than back at the past, at history — to remind him about the nuclear bombs dropped by the US over Hiroshima and Nagasaki toward the end of World War II.

Government supporters feel comfortable with these unilateral skirmishes — the US very rarely gets involved in replying — and celebrate the anti-imperialistic stance and rhetoric of their leader. Opponents feel equally comfortable criticizing the government and complaining about the shift of alliances away from the US and the European Union to Russia and China.

Interestingly enough, a recent opinion survey about the confidence that the people from different countries have in the president of the US seems to reflect this. It was carried out the by US-based Pew Research Center and it covered 40 countries. The key question was: “Tell me how much confidence you have in each leader to do the right thing regarding world affairs.” The responses included “a lot of confidence,” “some confidence,” “not too much confidence,” and “no confidence at all.” But the report conflates the four options to two. “Confidence” combines the answers of those who chose “a lot of confidence” and “some confidence,” while “no confidence” tallies up the totals of “not too much confidence” and “no confidence at all.”

Only 40 percent of Argentines were “confident.” Six countries returned lower levels of trust: Lebanon (36 percent) , Venezuela (26 percent), the Palestinian Territories (15 percent), Pakistan (14 percent), Jordan (14 percent) and Russia (11 percent). By contrast, 94 percent of people in the Philippines trusted the US president, as did 88 percent of South Koreans and 83 percent of French citizens.

One thing that CFK’s critics need to accept is that either she is very good at detecting the Argentine mood, or — alternatively — she is a very persuasive leader.

In 2008, at the end of former US president George W. Bush’s time in the White House, a similar Pew survey showed that only seven percent of Argentines trusted him.

But, when Obama won the November elections, CFK’s congratulatory letter said, amongst other welcoming phrases: “The period that starts today in your country, above all else, is a great milestone in one of the most impassioned odysseys in history, the struggle against discrimination and for equality of opportunities.”

At the end of 2009, Obama’s presidency was welcomed — 60 percent of Argentines said they had confidence in the US leader.

But things change.

Four years later, in September, 2013, after a G20 meeting, CFK shot from the hip, accusing Obama of practising “fictional multilateralism.” Obama had failed the Argentine president by refusing to support her position on the holdouts/“vulture funds.”

In addition he refused to place the question of military action against Syria in the hands of the UN. Trust in the US president reflected this — only 44 percent of Argentines then said they trusted him.

In a few weeks time, Argentina will have a new president. And exactly one year later, in November, 2016, the US will hold its own presidential election. However, though the confrontations between CFK and Obama have made things difficult, there is no guarantee that the change of presidents will make things better.

Many pundits are convinced that the time for the Republicans has arrived. And that the US is entering a new conservative mood. True, this might not be a problem. In fact, some of the candidates with good chances in the Argentine election could be on the same ideological wavelength as many Republicans.

But in terms of candidacies, we are not talking about “many Republicans.” One of the candidates is ahead of all the rest in eight out of nine opinion polls within the GOP.

His name is Donald Trump and he is famous because it is said that his personal wealth will allow him to finance his campaign without the need for donors. Unfortunately, his other claim to fame is his determination to expel hundreds of thousands of Mexican immigrants back home.

The foreign affairs advisers of the next Argentine president would be well advised to start thinking hard and fast about how to manage Donald Trump sitting in the White House.

One year goes by very quickly.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

SOFT POWER AT WORK

Pope Francis illustrates how to approach UN resolutions

On September 9, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted in favour of an Argentine initiative establishing basic principles to be followed in cases of debt restructuring. The principles — nine in total — are designed to protect debtor countries in default from illegitimate pressures or reprisals from creditors.

Of the 183 votes cast at UNGA, 135 nations voted in favour, 42 abstained and six said nay.

The government was ecstatic. President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was quoted by this newspaper saying: “After the vultures preyed on Argentina and tried to prey on the world, an absolute majority of countries ended up supporting these basic principles.”

CFK is not alone in her views.

Last Friday, Pope Francis also referred to the IMF and similar agencies. He told the UNGA that the “international financial agencies should care for the sustainable development of countries and should ensure that they are not subjected to oppressive lending systems which, far from promoting progress, subject people to mechanisms that generate greater poverty, exclusion and dependence.”

The bad news is that, despite the majority vote, the UNGA resolutions are not binding. And the six countries that voted against the “principles” include the US, the UK, Germany and Japan. In other words, the world’s key financial markets, which are unlikely to give in to the moral pressure of a non-binding list of principles. As the pope told the UNGA, referring to multilateral organizations: “We must avoid every temptation to fall into a declarationist nominalism which would assuage our consciences. We need to ensure that our institutions are truly effective.”

The UNGA vote does not guarantee the “true effectiveness” demanded by His Holiness, but it might be a step in the right direction.

True, neither the pope, let alone Argentina, have the political, military or financial power to enforce the UNGA-approved principles. But they can exercise their “soft power,” which is the ability of a country — or, in this case, the Vatican — to persuade others to do what it wants without force or coercion, be it (again, in this case) financial or political. In fact, soft power, a given for important states, is a must for those nations lacking such attributes.

Pope Francis’ visit to the US was a perfect example of soft power at work. A case in point was his defence of immigration, delivered to a gathering of some 40,000 Latinos, which took place in Philadelphia. It was a strong message from the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, that is, 17 percent of the world’s population. Seventy million of them live — and vote — in the US. These figures should encourage Donald Trump and his followers to think twice about building walls at the borders and expelling millions of people.

Soft power is about credibility, legitimacy and picking the right fights. In the US, His Holiness got full marks on these three items.

Argentina has a sound case to put forward, based on its own experience, one that underscores its legitimacy and credibility. Its very advocacy for a solution to an issue that affects — or that may affect — many other countries is definitely a legitimate battle in which to engage.

While it’s true the government presented the UNGA victory to the Argentine people in a manner that was overly enthusiastic, and although it exaggerated the real effects of the vote — perhaps linked to enthusiasm or the needs of an election campaign — such a position is more than compensated for with the good work involved in actually securing the UNGA vote. It surely took long hours of research and legwork, as well as similarly long hours of quiet negotiating and lobbying.

The government invested a good deal of resources to get to this point. Continuity is the necessary condition to validate such an investment. If the nine principles are going to be something more than a mere statement, both the Economy and the Foreign ministries must keep working and negotiating. On the one hand, there is the need to strengthen the commitment of the nations that voted in favour of the principles. Additionally, it is necessary to use the UNGA vote as leverage to start negotiating with the four countries that voted against the principles. Some lobbying by means of lectures and public discussions, as well as press action, could prove to be quite useful.

The main bone of contention with the four negative votes is that these countries argue that the international financial institutions, and not the UN, are adequate agents with which to negotiate the issue of sovereign debt. It is indispensable to convince them that times are changing.

Given the imbalance of financial power in their favour, persuasion and negotiation seem to be a more realistic option than a shouting match. Pope Francis’ actions and speeches in his recent visit to the US seem to present the model that should be followed.

But before even considering any of this, it is important to note that on December 10 there will be a change of government in Argentina. It would be important for CFK’ successor — especially if it is not Daniel Scioli — to commit to continuity on this issue. If not, all that was done so far will have been wasted.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD