MINDING THE FORT

Reforming the intelligence services has consequences that are not just domestic

If the controversial law replacing in the Intelligence Secretariat (SIDE) with the new Federal Intelligence Agency (AFI) is approved by the Lower House, then — perhaps — the government will begin a much needed reform of what became, a long time ago, a synonym for scandal and the abuse of power. As many have said, one of democracy’s outstanding debts.

Opinions are divided. Many in the opposition argue that the new AFI will be nothing more than a cosmetic change to the old agency. However, some pro-government commentators are moderately optimistic and say that the proposed changes are far from complete, but that the new law is a small step in the right direction. And they point out that that the AFI will be under much stricter control that its predecessor.

Even if that is the case — and democratic control would be a welcome change — there are a number of urgent issues which still seem to be pending.

Perhaps the most critical is about “who is minding the fort.” As useless and corrupt as the old SIDE might be, one wishes to think that it actually discharged at least a fraction of its real responsibilities. Although the plan is to have the new AFI fully functioning in four months time, it is doubtful that it will be fully operational that quickly. Unless, of course, the opposition is right and the only change is the letterhead on the stationery.

But — if that is not the case — one hopes that there are some stop-gaps, threat detection mechanisms in place. After all, Iran is, right now at least, at the top of the local political agenda. And matters concerning Iran are obscure enough so as to make it unwise to drop the ball. Especially after the discovery a few days ago of what seemed to be a terrorist presence in neighbouring Uruguay. Not to mention the fact that, at the time of writing this, it is not clear if late prosecutor Alberto Nisman was murdered and, if that was the case, by whom.

If, for the sake of optimism, one assumes that interim provisions are in place, as promised by the government’s legislators, there are other vital questions that cannot wait until a new and more comprehensive law is discussed and voted on.

A quite pressing one concerns alliances. Quite obviously, the priority threat to this country is global terrorism. The sad experience is that, in Latin American terms, Argentina seems to be a likely target. And there is no evidence that this will change in the near future. Consequently, it is worth asking just how solid the relations are with the traditional international partners of the Argentine intelligence services, namely the Americans and the Israelis. Have they been hurt by the recent turmoil in this country’s intelligence agency? If so, can they be fixed? In fact, the question transcends the spies’ world, and becomes political.

Lately, Argentina has made quite a lot of noise about its new strategic partnerships, namely China and Russia. How does this go down with politicians in the United States and Israel who, at the end of the day, are in charge of controlling their intelligence services’ alliances? In all likelihood, Argentina’s new strategic partners have intelligence priorities which do not coincide with this country’s. So, if the old links have deteriorated too much, it could end up being quite a lonely world out there.

Unfortunately, the new intelligence reform law was discussed in a hurry and without the involvement of the opposition. Both the government and its opponents are blaming each other for this. Perhaps they should share the blame? Or even worse — and even more frightening — it is not their fault and the problem is that the rift in Argentine society is by now so wide and so deep that both sides cannot even sit down and discuss something in a civilized way. In this case, a law which is strategic and has an enormous potential to create some very serious trouble, should something goes wrong.

A case in point: due to haste and the lack of dialogue, the role of the new intelligence apparatus in combating crimes that travel beyond borders, like drugs and people-trafficking or money-laundering, seems not to be totally clear. The new law says that the AFI cannot engage in topics against the intelligence activities unless they are so asked by “a specific judge for a specific case.” Sounds good in terms of democratic guarantees. But it also sounds unclear and is likely to be used by the bad guys to thwart efforts against them which originate in the AFI and are put forward by the prosecutors.

Beyond these urgencies, there are strategic questions which should be addressed. The first is, if this country wants its intelligence service to help its foreign affairs efforts, as well as contributing in areas like international financial or science and technology issues. It is quite clear that other countries’ intelligence services do, in addition to their cloak and dagger duties.

Take for example the holdouts/“vultures.” Over and above the legal action in Judge Griesa’s Court, the chaps from ATFA (American Task Force Argentina) got quite aggressive and abandoned the Queensbury rules. So Argentina was entitled to some — equally aggressive and impolite — retaliation.

In reply to the column published last week, “US politics and Nisman,” a Herald reader who lives in the US, Mr J (name withheld because it was a private email) kindly sent a message to this writer for which I am very grateful.

Mr J wrote: “I offer the suggestion that Senator (Marco) Rubio may have another reason for attacking the current government of Argentina. Perhaps he is satisfying his number two campaign contributor, Elliott Management. They have given him US$117,620 in the current campaign cycle. See https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00030612. Love your country. You have suffered enough US interference.

True, several Argentine government officials have mentioned Elliot Management’s relations with the Republican party. And the information was probably provided by the Argentine Embassy in Washington. But perhaps, the level of detail offered by Mr J would have been useful to counter AFTA’s actions in the US. It’s not James Bond stuff. But it’s quite useful. Especially if an intelligence service has good enough “desk researchers,” a must in any modern intelligence service.

Perhaps a totally reorganized AFI could use some of them as well.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

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

THE CHINA SYNDROME

The implications of Argentina’s ‘strategic alliance’

President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner seemed quite enthusiastic about her current visit to China and the prospect of consolidating a strategic alliance with the biggest economy in the world. Even if some argue that China has not yet surpassed the US economically, this fact makes no difference to Argentina.

This strategic alliance seems to be a quite sensible decision on the side of the current Argentine government. China comes immediately after Brazil in the list of this country’s major export markets. And lately, China has become, if not Argentina’s lender of last resort, at least a friendlier door for Argentina to knock at when in need for cash, than, say, the IMF, let alone the private markets.

In addition, this new strategic alliance is consistent with the president’s foreign policy of distancing Argentina from the US and — possibly — from the EU as well. The increased links with Russia, to include support of that country’s policy on Ukraine, not to mention Fernández de Kirchner’s public chiding of the US last September at the UN, are more than clear signals that this country is changing its international profile and alliances. So finding powerful new partners looks like the smart thing to do.

Even China’s political processes seem to make it an adequate choice at this point in time. Because the power is concentrated in the Communist Party, interlocutors are quite clear. And there is no need to lobby lawmakers — including those in the opposition — like is the case in the US.

In addition, Beijing would never dream of publicly chiding Argentina over an issue like the death of AMIA Special Prosecutor Alberto Nisman. That was not the case with the US.

There are, however, some risks worth taking into account. Many observers agree that the days of China’s two digits growth rate are gone forever. And that the current six or seven percent annual growth rate that seems marvellous by EU or US standards, might not be enough in the case of the Chinese economy, which seems to suffer some dark spots, especially in the (very) delicate public and private financial sectors.

Her hosts will possibly not mention this to the president, and it would not be polite to ask. But there is plenty of information available which shows that the largest or second largest economy in the world, is dangerously close to a real estate bubble burst similar to those which hit several Western countries a few years ago.

The signals are all there. Many empty buildings that do not find purchasers or tenants. And there are big bank loans that financed the over-building and which now have to be paid from a tighter cash flow than what was initially expected. Everything is big in China. So — if it happens — it will be a memorable burst.

True, the Chinese government might be able to avoid such a scenario. But there is still another threat. That country’s local governments seem to have gone quite wild in terms of borrowing. And have offered as collateral land which they own. Moreover, rumour has it that (in some cases) such collateral has been grossly overvalued. Should there be a problem in a couple of those local governments, the contagion effect could be fast and powerful, throwing even more real estate into an already saturated market. And banks would find themselves with devalued collaterals backing risky loans. Definitely not a good scenario.

Fortunately, Murphy’s Law does not always apply. So, although some observers describe a disaster scenario, others believe that there is much room for damage control, although there will be adjustments to be made. This is unlikely to affect Argentina’s soya related exports. After all, the Chinese government will want to keep its population’s current standards of consumption.

However, even if the possible crisis is limited, China’s usefulness as a strategic partner would be seriously affected. Especially in terms of financial assistance.

And this could be made worst if relations with the US continue to deteriorate. Angering the US (Democrats or Republicans) means angering a country which can make Argentina’s life difficult in those international organisations which — at a certain stage — could or would be necessary for Argentina.

The IMF is a clear example of this. Currently, this government does not want to have anything to do with the Fund. But it is not certain that this will be the case in the future. After all, the government will change on December 10 this year. And even if the next government shares the negative views on the US and the IMF, the fact is that need triggers pragmatism.

In any democracy, foreign policy is the exclusive bailiwick of the executive with the aid of Congress. Given the Victory Front’s legislative majority, the president has every right to enter any strategic alliance which she deems useful for the country.

But — in modern democracies — the opposition is consulted before making strategic decisions. Surely, such consultations are not binding, but the exchange of views is, more often than not, useful to all sides. This government can argue that the opposition is very fragmented. Or that it could use the consultations to play cheap political tricks. Unfortunately, this is not unimaginable.

We all know that a deep rift is currently hurting Argentina. And the decision making process which led to this — somewhat risky — strategic alliance with China is another example of the need for both government and opposition to make a serious effort to close that rift. Or, at least, to seriously commit themselves not to make things worse in this crucial election year.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD