WE ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE

The credibility of the judicial system is damaged

Perhaps you are one of those who believe that Prosecutor Nisman’s is right in accusing President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman and others, of conspiring to cover up Iran’s responsibility in the AMIA bombing. If you are right, then Argentina is in serious trouble. Alternatively, you might be among those who believe that Nisman is lying in association with — or encouraged by — Jaime Stiusso and the other victims of the recent purge at the Intelligence Secretariat (SI). Once again, if you are right, then Argentina is in serious trouble. And in both cases, the trouble will have a quite negative impact on the workings of this country’s foreign policy and security.

Unfortunately, the current scandal is not about corruption or similar issues which cynics associate with the conduct of governments in many countries around the world. The biblical “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” often applies in those cases.

But global terrorism is and has been a major concern in this 21st century. And the AMIA bombing falls exactly in that category. So, associating the Argentine president in any way to that outrageous crime, is likely to raise many more eyebrows than, say, the ownership of hotels in Calafate. Even if, come February, a judge dismisses Prosecutor Nisman’s accusations. Which links to the complicated issue of the Argentine judiciary and its impact on foreign affairs.

The deep divide within those in charge of administering justice in this country seems to be quite unique. The fact that a Judge (Servini de Cubría) rules against a Special Prosecutor’s request to interrupt the yearly recess in order to deal with a serious matter, like an alleged presidential association with terrorism, looks quite strange by international standards. If the ruling is right, then the quality of Argentine prosecutors is called into question. Alternatively, others might wonder why a relevant Argentine judge like Servini shows so little concern about terrorism. In any case, the credibility of the system is damaged. And — because many local political controversies end up in court —this has a direct impact on the credibility of this country’s foreign policy.

In fact, the Memorandum of Understanding which Argentina entered with Iran on January 2013 and which is at the centre of the current controversy is a good case in point. For the record: this writer believes it was a total and absolute mistake. But, when the Argentine judiciary ruled the Memorandum unconstitutional, despite the fact that it was ratified by Congress, it called into question the credibility of any international agreement which this country may subscribe to in the future, regardless of who is in government. Especially because such judiciary seems to be very politicized, deeply divided and, consequently, highly unpredictable.

Unfortunately, the same can be said about the country’s intelligence service. The spy-trade has changed quite a bit in the last decades. Countries continue to spy on each other, but currently, much of the intelligence service’s efforts focus on terrorism. And because this is a global threat, international intelligence cooperation tends to be the norm among countries which, although not close allies, share anti-terrorist policies. One imagines that such change somewhat lowers some previous ultra-secrecy standards. But exaggerated exposure continues to be unwelcome. The quite public spat between the government and the former head of counterintelligence, Mr. Stiusso, is definitely not the thing to do in such circles. Especially because it included prolific mentions and details about Stiusso’s contacts with foreign counterparts. In all likelihood, his international interlocutors are less than happy. And it would not be surprising if — in their eyes — this makes further contacts and intelligence sharing with Argentina much less attractive.

True, currently Argentina does not seem to be an immediate terrorist target. But taking comfort from this assertion could be quite short-sighted. First, because terrorism is quite unpredictable. Second, because nowadays terrorist activity is not only linked to shooting or bombing people: the financial side of the activity is increasingly important. And this implies money laundering at global level. An area in which this country seems to be quite vulnerable. In addition, terrorism is increasingly being linked to drug trafficking. Another area in which Argentina has a recent history of lost battles. In both cases, the cooperation of foreign intelligence services can be invaluable. Losing it puts the country in a more vulnerable position. Especially because the current scandal has also involved the other mechanism of international cooperation in law enforcement: Interpol.

Over the past few days, Foreign Minister Timerman has, time and again, gone public using his exchanges with Interpol to show that the government had not asked the international requests for the arrest of the Iranian suspects to be cancelled. One can imagine foreign police officers asking themselves why does the Foreign Minister of a democratic nation need an international organization to vouch for him in his own country. It sounds strange and does not help Argentina’s credibility. The obvious explanation — internal politics are complicated for Mr Timerman — might not be good enough. The job of these international police officers is to fight international crime. Not to get involved in the petty local politics of a member country. In all likelihood, there will be credibility prices to be paid here as well.

In short, regardless of the end of this saga, Argentina’s foreign relations and credibility as well as its international links in quite sensitive areas have suffered significant damage.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD