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