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

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

BEYOND THE PARIS ATTACKS

Violent road lies ahead and there is little to negotiate

Some, including this writer, believe that last Friday’s outrageous terrorist attacks were part of a general assault aimed at triggering a massive reaction from both the public and governments against Muslims living in the EU and the US. The objective is to push more Muslims living in Europe into the ranks of ISIS. And that the timing and targeting of this particular incident had to do with the fact that, in three weeks, regional elections will take place in France.

There is a strong chance that Marine Le Pen’s right-wing Front National, which holds strong anti-immigrant and anti-Islam views, will be favoured by the voters’ reaction to what happened in Paris. Her immediate response to the terrorist attack was a reiteration of her call for much stricter immigration laws and an abandonment of the Schengen agreements which allow people to circulate within most of the EU freely, without border controls. Curiously, her speech was more moderate than what could have been expected. The Front National’s messages were there, but the rhetoric was acceptably democratic especially in light of the circumstances.

The message of the rest of the relevant political leaders was adequate and — above all — responsible. It promised that justice will fall on the perpetrators but it also remarked the commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. A cynic would define them as politically correct. But a realist would note that in some circumstances — and this is one of them — political correctness, as trite as it may sound, is the only available option. A couple of wrong phrases in the heat of a speech delivered in understandable anger could trigger reactions from the general public which would only make matters worse. And would play into the hands of the terrorists.

However, beyond the statements, last Friday’s events are telling us that the EU, the US, and most of the world are facing a very serious problem which is totally different from the terrorist threats of the past. And that, in order to analyze its nature, it might be necessary to look again at less idealistic views of the world in which we live.

This means accepting that humanistic philosophy, which suggests a weakening of religious dogmatism as a source of conflict, might be a good wish rather than an adequate description of today’s world.

Back in the early 1990s, the Soviet bloc had disappeared and many believed that there was a conflict-free future ahead. There were some strongly discordant voices challenging this view. Perhaps the most memorable was that of Samuel Huntington, a political scientist who published an article with a disturbing title: The Clash of Civilizations.

His view was that conflict between ideological blocs and/or nation states would be replaced by a clash of civilizations which was destined to dominate global politics. And he offered detailed descriptions of the main cultures and their points of conflict.

His remarks on Islam are worth revisiting in view of the current situation. Huntington wrote: “Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years. After the founding of Islam, the Arab and Moorish surge west and north only ended at Tours in 732. From the 11th to the 13th century, the crusaders attempted with temporary success to bring Christianity and Christian rule to the Holy Land. From the 14th to the 17th century, the Ottoman Turks reversed the balance, extended their sway over the Middle East and the Balkans, captured Constantinople, and twice laid siege to Vienna. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, as Ottoman power declined, Britain, France, and Italy established Western control over most of North Africa and the Middle East.”

True, the conflict became much more moderate, but it never disappeared entirely. It is about a compound of issues which range from views about God and religion to everyday life. A perhaps minor but nevertheless significant example of this clash, which has to do precisely with France is that Muslim females were banned, in 2004, from wearing their burqas in French public schools.

In other words: French commitment to a non-religious republic against ISIS’ commitment to fundamentalist religious rules.

Noticeably, with a few exceptions, like Palestine and Israel, the conflict transcends the issue of nation states. Israelis can negotiate with groups fighting for an independent Palestinian state. Ironically, even if they are confronting through violence, they can nevertheless negotiate with each other or through third parties. They have something to negotiate about which is quite concrete. Territory and independence. They might not reach an agreement, but both sides have clear final objectives and are mutually aware of them.

By contrast, ISIS’ demands which include elements like “death to all the infidels” are not negotiable. A definitely violent road ahead.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

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

PUZZLES FOR THE NEWCOMER

Relationships will be far from simple and straightforward for the new administration

Frequently, foreign policy is not a key agenda issue at election time, and the forthcoming presidential elections are no exception. However, foreign policy advisers to the three key candidates have offered some clues in several talks and press interviews. There seems to be a confluence of opinion with regard to rapprochement with the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). However, there also seems to be agreement among the advisers about protecting current relations with China as well as Russia.

And while it’s true that there are differences in the level of priority that each candidate assigns to these objectives, in all cases they are at the top of their agendas. And they all ascribe great importance to the relationship with Brazil in particular.

This is very good news, especially given the politicians’ harsh controversies about the national agenda, partly due to the needs of political campaigning but mainly reflecting the profound rift in Argentina’s society. Continuity, predictability and rational players are always a welcome asset in foreign policy.

The bad news for those that will sit inside the Casa Rosada and the Palacio San Martín after 10 December, is that existing and, perhaps, future close relations with the above named countries will be far from simple or straightforward.

Close to home, Brazil, our next door neighbour, is stomaching an explosive mix. The country’s very poor economic performance of late, which is widening its deficit gap, combined with the saga of the corruption scandals — in which a number of government officials and lawmakers are involved — has resulted in a dramatic drop in the president’s public-approval rating. She is also weathering strong political pressures from different — and often opposing — sectors ranging from the São Paulo industrialist lobby, to citizens indignant with corruption, in addition to the social pressures derived from increasing unemployment.

It is in this context that Argentina has to reach agreements on bilateral trade, as well as the way in which Buenos Aires and Brasilia will go about negotiating on the EU and Mercosur fronts. Whilst everybody agrees that both foreign ministries have very adept officials, the fact is that both governments might be forced, in the near future, to prioritize their own internal interlocutors at the time of negotiating with each other. This sort of scenario can be very frustrating for all parties involved.

The China question

Overseas, China, has recently been in the news because of the weakness of its financial markets. But this is only part of the problem, and perhaps the least significant part. The way in which China commemorated the recent Victory Day holiday (against the Japanese), with a very impressive military parade, is sending out the clear signal that — despite the headlines in the global press — its aspirations of being a major power remain intact. Moreover, some observers have voiced suspicions about the possibility that the excessive fall of the Chinese currency was self-inflicted and perhaps a deliberate move aimed at showing off its ability to be a financial nuisance.

As I’ve stated previously in this column, China’s real objective is to increase pressure on the IMF in order for the Yuan to be admitted as part of that organization’s basket of currencies. The SDR, which stands for Special Drawing Rights, now includes the US dollar, the Euro, the Swiss Franc, the Japanese Yen and the Pound Sterling. The IMF says that it will only accept China into that club when the Yuan is traded on the free market, without any government intervention. This looks unlikely to happen very soon.

In addition, China continues to confront the US through quite unsubtle gestures. The guest list for the Victory Day military parade was a roll-call of heads of state that are unfriendly toward the US. Predictably, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro were quite prominent guests. They are also part of this country’s current circle of friends. Less prominent was Argentina’s Amado Boudou. Please note that it is up to the reader to decipher whatever message may be gleaned from this last reference.

Another Chinese gesture is the recent opening of a Yuan clearing bank in South Africa, thus giving Beijing a somewhat privileged position. This happens at the same time when Nelson Mandela’s original party, the African National Congress (ANC), has increased the volume of its anti-US rhetoric. Next month, the ANC is expected to issue a foreign policy statement blaming Washington for about everything which was and is going wrong in the world, from the Tiananmen massacre in Beijing 26 years ago to the current conflict involving Russia in Kiev.

Argentina’s foreign policy after 10 December will be to pursue a double objective of rapprochement with the West and maintaining and strengthening ties with the East, all set against this very complicated background. While relations with Brazil do not imply geopolitical choices between two sides, current and planned ties with the different players definitely does.

Optimists will call this scenario a challenge for the new administration. Pessimists (or realists?) will call it bad news. Make your choice.

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD