US POLITICS AND NISMAN

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican and presidential hopeful decides to intervene in Argentina’s affairs — but why?

Meet US Senator Marco Rubio, a through and through Republican.

He decided to get involved in the Nisman affair. So he wrote to the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, a rather strong letter, which he immediately made public. Most of it contained criticism of the Argentine government which seemed to be a cut and paste job from local opposition media press reports. And it offered a rather undiplomatic comment: “It is difficult to see how such a government can be trusted to conduct a complete and impartial investigation into these allegations.” And, for good measure, he added: “I thus urge the administration to support the establishment of an independent, internationally assisted investigation into Mr Nisman’s suspicious death.”

Other US lawmakers expressed their concerns about the circumstances of Alberto Nisman’s death and sent their condolences to his family. Some were not too Argentine-friendly. But no one was as aggressive as Rubio.

Immediately, rumours started to circulate about a forthcoming visit of US lawmakers to Argentina, in order to inspect the government’s handling of the case. Then the rumours were toned down. And instead of the lawmakers, it would be their staffers who would be visiting Argentina.

In turn, the message from Buenos Aires was a letter from Argentine Ambassador Cecilia Nahón, addressed to all US lawmakers in which she rejected Nisman’s initial accusations and emphasized the Government’s “constant search for memory, truth and justice” and its “commitment to the fight against terrorism and international impunity.” So as to make the message more authoritative, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner published it via her Twitter account.

Interestingly, there were several (unconfirmed) press reports about Nahón telling a US Congressional staffer that Argentina “will not tolerate any invervention from the United States into the investigation of prosecutor Alberto Nisman’s death, and will consider any such attempt be an interference in the country’s domestic affairs and a violation of Argentine sovereignty.”

Even more interesting, a number of press commentators were convinced that the harsh message about Argentina’s sovereignty had been included in Nahón’s letter. Which was not the case.

Facts and rumours

So far then, facts and some rumours. Which pose some questions about Marco Rubio’s statements and compel some comments to be written about the Argentine reaction.

Rubio is an opposition politician. So he tells his government to organize “an independent investigation.” A quite provocative suggestion for — an already very susceptible — Argentine government. And seemingly more than unfeasible in practical terms. Something that Rubio knows perfectly well.

A diplomatic — and discreet — offer of cooperation on, say, forensics would have been much more effective. Either to help the Argentine government if it wants to be helped or to show its lack of interest if the offer of cooperation is refused. Moreover, if the senator is convinced that President Fernández de Kirchner is so untrustworthy, then a quiet word to increase US intelligence efforts in Argentina would have been more effective. In any case, the odds are that this is happening already. And that the Republicans are been kept well informed about progress and developments. The North Americans are well known to depose bipartisan confrontations on foreign policy, defence and intelligence matters when vital issues are at stake.

So why the noise and provocation?

2016 in his sights

It so happens that Rubio is very critical of US President Barack Obama’s policy on Iran which, he argues, is too soft and detrimental to US interests. In addition — and perhaps more importantly — he is a competitor for the Republican presidential candidacy in 2016.

Rubio is already talking to donors, asking them to support his campaign. And he recently said in an interview: “The decision I have to make is: where is the best place for me to serve America to carry out this agenda that I have to restore the American dream given the dramatic economic changes we’ve had in the 21st century? Where is the best place for me to achieve that? Is it in the Republican majority in the Senate or is it as a candidate, and ultimately as president of the United States? If I decide it’s as president, then that’s what I’m going to do, irrespective of who else might be running.”

It looks as if the senator and likely candidate is using the Nisman case as a tool for his own political ambitions. It is no secret that many members of the US Jewish Community are worried after Nisman’s death, and quite unhappy with the Argentine government on account of the memorandum signed with Iran. Consequently, making noises about Iran and Nisman seems to be a good way of attracting their votes and support. Currently, the senator’s way of doing politics, nasty as it may be, causes limited damage. But, if he ever makes it to the presidency, there will be cause for serious concern.

As for Argentina’s reaction to Rubio and his colleagues’ statements and actions, they seem to be quite adequate. The government has made many mistakes in its handling of the Nisman case, but on this particular point: chapeau! Ambassador Nahon’s letter was friendly but politely firm.

If the reference to the “United States’ intervention” would have been included, it could have triggered some sort of reply and possible escalation. Instead, a non-attributable rumour or leak, delivers the same message and, possibly quite important in the government’s eyes, sends a clear message about sovereignty — and a militant message to the Argentine public.

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD