PUBLIC DIPLOMACY

Hits and misses of a historic visit: Obama meets with great success but made one big mistake

Government supporters as well as its diehard opponents agree in defining the US president’s visit as a complete success. Mauricio Macri’s followers argue that the visit has reconnected Argentina with the world, with the added bonus of the full and explicit endorsement from Barack Obama. And those in the opposition explain that the visit is instrumental to the needs of the world power — and its local ally, Macri — to finally deliver this country into the hands of its imperial masters. The former consider this moment as a blessing, while the latter think it accelerates Argentina’s plunge into very hard and dark times. In their eyes, Obama has — unfortunately for Argentina — succeeded.

A third, more moderate position, is that of those sympathetic to the government who choose to temper their optimism with prudence. They warn that the airplanes full of investors announced by some of Macri’s spokespeople are still in their hangars and their passengers have not as yet packed for the trip.

All three may be partly right, but in all cases, they might be looking at the issue only through the perspective of the immediate political impact — and failing to examine the long term implications for the bilateral relation and standing of the US in Argentina. Not today or next time there is an opinion poll but — at least — a couple of years down the line. Not in short term political impact but in terms of how Joe Public feels about Americans.

In any embassy, improving the long term perceptions about the country they represent is one of the jobs of its Public Diplomacy team. Just as it is their job to expand the network of contacts, not only political but also in terms of trade, investment as well as cultural and scientific cooperation.

Considered from this perspective, an event like President Obama’s visit can be a wonderful opportunity and the best possible tool that a Public Diplomacy team could dream of. But, unfortunately, the reverse is also true. The results of a mistake could have a long term political impact and burn away years of painstaking and resource consuming work.

In all likelihood, by last Saturday personnel at all levels of the US embassy in Buenos Aires were breathing normally again. Obama is gone and, with him, the toughest challenge that an embassy like the American can face: an official visit by its head of state. True, the efforts and toils of all the agencies involved in the protection of the US president were more attractive in terms of media coverage due to their size and high visibility. But the fact is that the long-term impact of the presidential visit will depend on the wisdom qualities and abilities of the embassy’s public diplomacy department. Much in the same way as — in all likelihood — it was the organizer of many of the activities that involved and supported Obama’s presence in Argentina.

True, the embassy team had an advantage: the Obamas are a dream come true for anybody dealing in public diplomacy. They are charismatic, terrific speakers, spontaneous and relate well to their audiences. Moreover, their personal histories vouch for the values they espouse. Their performance with the youngsters — Barack with young entrepreneurs — ranged between very good and perfect. So did the choice of venues, themes and audiences. Full credit to the embassy’s Public Diplomacy team.

However, in the context of such success in terms of delivering good messages, it could be suggested that there was one big mistake which seems attributable to Obama himself or his close circle.

Obama’s celebration of the new times of Macri’s Argentina seems quite overdone. In fact, it sounded as the celebration of a new regime that takes over after a dictatorship. This is not the case. Macri won a democratic election with a slim margin over another candidate — Daniel Scioli — who also has strong democratic credentials. The US president has no business implying anything different about former president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. The line he took was tantamount to becoming involved in Argentina’s internal affairs. Which is not the done thing.

Some argue that this was Obama’s payback to CFK for her continued attacks at the UN and elsewhere. True as this may be, if he had a problem with CFK he should have addressed her directly. Getting the president into the crossfire could boomerang on Macri.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

OPTIONS MIGHT BE NEEDED

Macri heads to Davos summit as major BRIC partners exhibit economic clouds ahead

Neither supporters nor detractors are surprised by President Mauricio Macri’s planned attendance of the World Economic Forum in Davos later this month. Both sides will agree that his views have many points of contact with the free market credo of the meeting, which was not the case for his two predecessors that made a point of giving Davos a miss.

However, it would be wrong to place too much emphasis on the politics of Davos. The last Argentine president to attend the summit was Eduardo Duhalde back in 2003, and his visit had less to do with political affinities (possibly not too strong) than with the main purpose of delivering the message that Argentina had put the 2001 crisis behind. Duhalde tried then to emphasize that the country was, once again, an attractive option for investors. Today’s Argentina is a far cry from 2003, but foreign investment remains a top priority.

There is something else which is likely to be among the Government’s priorities — having more options in terms of international partnerships, something which was clearly explained by Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra. To this end, the government is working hard in repairing the bridges with the EU and the US, but — at the same time — it continues sending friendly messages to the partners it inherited from the Kirchner presidencies. In short, speaking about options, the more the better, which seems a wise decision in view of the not-too-optimistic forecasts for 2016.

A very recent World Bank report expressed concern about this year’s global economy. Much of the concern is focussed on the performance of the biggest emerging economies, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Should these five countries, also known by the acronym BRICS, suffer a slowdown in their economies, the impact on the rest of the emerging markets would be immediate. And this, in turn, would have negative consequences on the financial markets, creating the conditions for “a perfect storm.” Cristina Fernández de Kirchner invested heavily in the partnership with the biggest emerging economies, particularly Brazil, China and Russia. But, currently, the particular circumstances of each of these countries make the partnerships less promising than years ago. This does not mean that they are over, but it clearly makes the search of more options quite advisable. Davos seems a good place to find such options.

Brazil is one of the obvious priorities in terms of partnerships. Nevertheless, things are not looking good for the big neighbour. Its economy is expected to shrink by eight percent in 2016. And the price of the country’s commodity exports has dropped by 41 percent in the last four years. As a result, two credit rating agencies have drastically dropped Brazil’s debt issues to the lowest category, leading to “junk” bonds. In addition to its economic woes, Brazil is in the midst of a serious political crisis triggered by mega-corruption scandals and general dissatisfaction. Meanwhile, Dilma Rousseff’s approval rating in the opinion polls reaches a meagre 12 percent.

None of this means that Argentina’s partnership with Brazil is over, but it does hint at a likely drop in its bilateral trade and investment.

China is another one of Argentina’s important partners which also seems to be in trouble. Last week, the Chinese stock exchange suffered another dramatic drop, which had an immediate impact on the rest of the world’s markets. Additionally, more devaluations of the Yuan are expected. The international financial institutions are keeping a careful eye on China. Especially because many observers agree that the most worrying aspect of it economy is not what is known but what is not known. They do not trust China’s data about its growth rate which, they argue, has been exaggerated. Again, a partnership with question marks.

Soon after being sworn in, President Macri had a phone conversation with Russia’s Putin. They exchanged commitments of continued cooperation. But Russia has big problems of its own. First and foremost, the drop in the price of oil is hitting the Russian economy very hard. In spite of this, Vladimir Putin seems determined to restore Russia to its old glory, which may be making matters worse. Part of this determination shows in the country’s current conflicts, Crimea being the best example. The US sanctions in terms of food exports are a big problem for Moscow and the same can be said of the sanctions imposed by the EU. All this could affect Russia’s value as a partner.

At this point, this writer would like to correct a mistake which slipped into the column published on January 4. Unlike the US, the EU sanctions do not include an embargo on food exports to Russia as reported. Instead, the EU’s sanctions include the ban on imports of products originating in Crimea into the EU as well as exports of certain goods and technologies to Crimean companies.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

OLD AND NEW FRIENDS

New approaches to Uruguay and the US, but signs of a continuation of policy with Russia

This week, President Mauricio Macri is scheduled to visit his Uruguayan counterpart, Tabaré Vázquez, which is mostly seen as a new start for the bilateral relationship. During the Kirchners’ governments, the link had soured. This was due to a number of reasons ranging from the Botnia pulp mills to the way in which Argentine trade and monetary policies had a negative collateral impact on Uruguay. Many argue that — in spite of ideological affinities — the lack of a good interpersonal chemistry at presidential level added to the problem.

By contrast, Macri’s visit to Montevideo is a friendly gesture, which takes place at a time when Uruguay becomes a beneficiary of the reversal of Argentina’s monetary and trade policies, while the Argentine president seems to be in favour of Mercosur exploring trade options in the Pacific. Which was a long standing demand of Uruguay, one that was frowned upon by the bigger partners in the bloc.

This is not the only change in the country’s foreign policy. At last month’s Mercosur summit, Macri voiced harsh words about the human rights record of Venezuela’s Maduro. Once again, that meant a far cry from the previous presidents’ policy and a friendly gesture to Maduro’s critics both in the US and the EU.

None of this should come as a surprise. Both the president and his foreign minister made it abundantly clear that the US and Europe are now topping the list of friendly partnerships to be cultivated. Critics and supporters of the Kirchner governments agreed in defining this as a return to Argentina’s traditional foreign policies. On both sides, some went as far as announcing a return to Guido Di Tella’s times of “carnal relations” with the US.

It might be the case that both sides are failing to see the full picture.

While it is true that, for better or worse, Argentina’s foreign policy is in a process of change, it is also true that the “old times” are not there anymore, because the world has changed. In addition, Argentina now has long term agreements with China and Russia which are not easy to ignore, regardless of the changes in the choice of foreign partners.

In fact, Foreign Minister Malcorra acknowledged this quite clearly. True, she stressed that the Argentine government’s interest is a rapprochement with the EU and the US as she also dismissed ideology as the main factor at the time of making foreign policy decisions.

There are those who might argue that, in some cases — China being the best example — the foreign minister is making virtue out of necessity. Argentina has entered long-term agreements with Beijing. Some would like to walk away from them. Even if — I repeat, if — they are right and such a move is desirable, it would not be so easy. While it could be possible to walk away from financial arrangements by returning the money borrowed from China’s Central Bank, the same cannot be said of agreements related to long-term infrastructure projects. Besides, of course, of the fact that it would be difficult to justify discontinuing projects of this kind without very solid reasons. Moreover, it is unlikely that the new partners in the game would demand such a thing.

There is, however, what may be considered an unfortunate exception, namely the agreement that allowed China to install an aerospace base in Neuquén. The terms of this deal appear to include access restriction for Argentine authorities. And the fact is that all of China’s aerospace activities are under military control. It is difficult to imagine the EU, let alone the US, happy with a military controlled Chinese aerospace base in South America, even if it is, at least officially, solely a “scientific” project.

The Cold War may be over forever but geopolitical tensions between the big powers persist. A current example is the fact that China is insisting on asserting its rights over the South China Sea, which is likely to increase tensions with the US and its allies in the region. Last November, US B-52 bombers flew over the area, triggering Chinese anger as the US insisted on its right to make such flights over international waters. So, on this one, the foreign minister might have an unwelcome source of concern, especially if one of the two sides — the existing China partner or the new US one — demands explicit political support. Fortunately such demand is, at this time, purely hypothetical.

That is not the case with Russia. The EU and the US imposed an embargo on food exports to Moscow as a sanction for its policy on Crimea. On the other side, Argentina specifically rejected the sanctions and continued — or perhaps increased — its food exports to Russia. This was very clearly Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s political decision, and Macri seems ready to pursue a similar strategy.

On December 16, the Argentine president and Malcorra had a phone conversation with Putin. According to the information provided by the president’s office, they agreed that Argentina would continue to be “a reliable supplier of food products” for Russia, which implies that Argentina will continue with the policy of not joining the EU and US in their sanctions policy. This, in turn, diminishes the desired impact of the sanctions. Not an insurmountable confrontation for Argentina, but clearly not an ideal signal of good will towards a new (or renewed) partner.

In all likelihood, the process of changing Argentina’s foreign policy is going to have easy moments like this week’s meeting with Uruguay. But Malcorra is also likely to have some more cumbersome moments which, as she well knows, come with the territory.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

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