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

SUMMIT CHOREOGRAPHY TO BE PERFORMED IN PANAMÁ

CFK, Dilma, Obama, Maduro to face tense meeting this week

Summits can be quite effective, provided they have clear –as well as limited– objectives and all the players are in the same league. The recent meeting which shaped what seems to be an agreement with Iran on nuclear policy clearly belongs to this category.

But there are other kinds of summits. Later this week, on April 10 and 11, the Republic of Panama will host the 7th Summit of the Americas’. Its official aim, seems to need a long-winded description. In this particular case, the aim is “to discuss common policy issues, affirm shared values, mobilize ambitions and commit to concerted actions, at national and regional level, in order to strengthen democracy and governance, help reduce poverty and inequities, increase opportunities in the Americas and face new challenges”. If you have had the patience to read the preceding lines, you can also find out that the official programme adds that this year the focus will be on “Prosperity with Equity: The Challenge of Cooperation in the Americas.”

Undoubtedly, these are very positive aims and the main focus is clearly targeted at a serious issue. In fact the same can be said of the previous summits as well as of many others organized every year, all around the world. Unfortunately –if one is to be realistic– what is normally left of these aims and objectives is little more than a vast number of well-written and argued papers which –normally– have little chances of implementation in the real word.

So: what is the aim of this kind summitry? One could suggest that these summits offer the leaders of the less powerful countries the chance to rub shoulders with the more relevant players. They also offer a stage where every player –big or small– has the chance to have its say, knowing that –even if delivered in front of an almost empty room– whatever is said, will go on record. Not much for Mr Obama. But very attractive for the less powerful players. Especially if they want to go on record confronting the “rich and mighty”. And in some –albeit very few– cases, the small can defeat the powerful.

One case in point is what happened at the Mar del Plata summit back in 2005, where a number of countries managed to defeat the Bush initiative of a Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Another interesting aspect of these summits are “the margins”. In fact, at next week’s summit, the most significant portions of the political action will take place on occasion and in the context of the summit but –possibly– quite unrelated to the official event.

Barack Obama will be attending and he is likely to be very much in the public eye as one of the key participants in what may become the two main shows offered at this summit: the US’ rapprochement with Cuba and the barrage of anti-US criticisms that Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro plans to voice in Panama. The main target of the Venezuelan is likely to be the recent executive order issued by Obama, declaring Venezuela a “ threat to the US’ security”.

True to style, Maduro is reported to be collecting ten million signatures that endorse a letter demanding that Obama cancel the executive order. And –apparently– he plans to hand it over (symbolically?) in Panama. Clearly not in silence.

In addition to these impromptu events, there is the game of musical chairs of the bilateral meetings which take place or fail to happen at the summits.

The Argentine president has announced that she will be attending the summit and, so far, these plans appear firm. An educated guess is that she will be quite vocal in the support of her Venezuelan colleague. In addition to the permanent defence of Maduro, the bilateral disagreements between Argentina and the US keep piling up. The latest US statements about the poor state of the Argentine economy –as well as the reply from Buenos Aires– have made the list of existing friction points (vultures / holdouts case, the new troubles with Citibank) even longer. Unsurprisingly, there seems to be no plan for a bilateral meeting between Cristina and Obama.

Brazil’s Dilma Rouseff also plans to be in Panama. And it is far from clear if she will meet her Argentine counterpart.

In theory, such a meeting should be quite necessary. Given the vital role that Brazil plays in Argentina’s trade, the recent devaluation in Argentina’s neighbour is likely to have a quite negative impact on its economy and –after all– both countries are linked by Mercosur. But sources in Brazil mention the reasons that might discourage Dilma from holding a bilateral. One is China. Some Brazilians perceive that Argentina’s recent agreement with China is a stab in their back. It creates an unwelcome competition in the area, at a rather complicated moment. The Brazilians also accuse Argentina of imposing many trade restrictions to their exports and of refusing to revise the situation, or ignoring Brazilian complaints. And , finally, there is the fact that Cristina is one of the Sao Paulo industrialists’ favourite demons, due to such trade restrictions. Given Dilma’s own drop in popularity, some of her advisers are telling her that the last thing she needs is a one-on-one a photo with Cristina.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

OBAMA’S MISTAKE

The US decree transcends Maduro and will affect regional politics

An executive order issued by the US President stated that Nicolás Maduro is a threat to the United States. He was right: Maduro is a threat. But — and here is the mistake — Maduro is a threat to Venezuela and its citizens, not to the US or the North Americans. He has managed to cripple his country’s economy and has several opposition demonstrators dead on his record, not to mention the recent suicide (?) of a jailed opposition politician.

As Santiago O’Donnell — one of Argentina’s most knowledgeable and honest specialists in world affairs — wrote in his (reading-worthy) blog, Obama’s executive order has provided Maduro with “a phoney certificate of heroic anti-imperialism.”

Unfortunately, Obama’s mistake transcends Maduro and will affect regional politics and, perhaps, even his own presidency. The US’s relationship with Latin America has never been easy and a certain level of anti-US sentiment has always been politically correct among many sectors in the region. In the last few years, there has been a certain thaw in these feelings. And the US’s recent negotiations with Cuba have contributed to this. But the executive order, which brings back bad memories of the worst aspects of the US policy toward the region, is like a bucket of cold water on such expectations. Even the politicians who are friendlier to the US were forced to voice their criticisms, however reluctantly.

UNASUR is also affected. Maduro, as well as his defunct predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chávez, imagined this regional organization as an anti-US bastion of sorts. However, the presence of US-friendly or more moderate countries has so far prevented this, and UNASUR is a more reasonable regional forum than what many expected. But the executive order might have changed this. The organization’s statement, released two days ago was — of necessity — quite harsh. And it defined Obama’s decree as “an interventionist threat to sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states.” Moreover, they called on Washington to revoke the decree. A tall order.

If Obama revokes the decree, he will face a barrage of criticism from the Republican opposition which will accuse him of going soft on US enemies. And some within his own party may share that view. In fact, as O’Donnell suggests in his blog (http://santiagoodonnell.blogspot.com.ar/2015_03_01_archive.html#2277113325089002693 ), the Obama administration might have issued the decree as a token gesture to compensate the opposition for the current negotiations with Cuba.

So Obama is in a difficult position from which it seems impossible to recant. And so is UNASUR. Consequently, the best that both sides can expect — and hope? — is for the whole incident to be forgotten as soon as possible. Which, given Maduro’s reaction and the possibility of the Republicans getting into office next year, does not seem a realistic scenario.

Another consequence of Obama’s decision is that it has provided Maduro with a God-given excuse to tighten his grip over Venezuela. Waving the threat of the powerful US enemy, it will be easy for the government to silence the dissenters’ criticisms and, perhaps, even throw into jail those which are uncomfortably vocal.

Some pro-Maduro commentators argue that, traditionally, this kind of executive order issued by Obama precedes an armed intervention in the targeted country. This writer does not believe this to be the case. But — with the excuse of the US threat — Maduro’s government is engaging in a big military exercise. Allegedly, the purpose is to scare off Obama. Given that the possibility of small Venezuela scaring off the US does not exist, it seems that the real objective is to scare the internal opposition and, perhaps, some of Venezuela’s neighbouring governments that do not share Maduro’s ideology and politics.

But it gets worse. Caracas is making a point of highlighting that the exercises will include Russian weaponry and that some Russian ships have been “invited” to visit for the occasion. Moreover, it seems there will be Russian troops cooperating in the exercises that involve the Russian-made BM-30 Smerch missile launchers. Given the current state of relations between Russia and the US as well as the EU — especially, but not only, because of Ukraine — Maduro’s move seems quite provocative. Mainly because several voices have already expressed concern about the increase of Russian military presence in the region.

In addition to criticizing the US decree, UNASUR has sent clear messages about the need for Venezuela to reach peaceful political agreements which will strengthen democracy and limit internal confrontation. And it also makes a special point of stressing the need for free elections to take place this year. Provided the current crisis can be deescalated, then there is the possibity for UNASUR to act in the promotion of democracy. This would prove the influence of the more moderate States in the organization. And save the region from facing a very painful process.

@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

IN PRAISE OF PRAGMATISM

Our ‘strategic partnership’ with Russia may harm our future

Bad news: Argentina’s latest strategic partner of choice, Russia, is facing serious economic problems. The very bad news is that this happens at a time when the Republican Party is on the rise in the US — and is likely to win the 2016 presidential elections.

True, it could be argued that the term “strategic partnership” is —nowadays at least — rather rhetorical and vague. Only a notch above the term “memorandum of understanding,” or MOU in the parlance, a piece of paper often signed to justify official visits and provide a snippet of news for the newspapers.

By contrast, “strategic partnerships,” can, in some cases, even deserve a headline. Which, in the case of Russia and Argentina, could backfire with the US Republicans, who can be quite sensitive to this particular type of rhetoric.

Russia is not the superpower that it used to be in the good old days of the Soviet Union. In fact, its Gross Domestic Product is quite similar to that of Brazil and is only 15 percent of the United States’. But it is still a big power, which is determined to compete with the US. And that — under Russian President Vladimir Putin — dreams, once again, of restoring itself to its past glories. The Ukraine crisis offers sufficient evidence for this. But,more importantly, Russia is an atomic power. Unsurprisingly, “strategic partnerships” with the Russians are not taken lightly by those in Washington, especially if they happen to be Republicans. Who, in addition, do not seem to be particularly enamoured with Argentina of late. They also seem quite sensitive to President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s attitude towards the US. She, of course, does not seem to perceive Washington as a friend. And she shows it too.

Argentina’s strategic alliance with Russia was announced back in July. Then, in September, it became quite clear that Argentina would challenge the trade embargo imposed by the EU and the US on Russia, to punish its actions in Ukraine.

The following month — in a rather confusing style — it was announced that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be investing US$1,000 million in Argentine hydrocarbons. There were several other announcements, many of which were — to be realistic — just mere statements of intent.

Perhaps, on the strength of this, the Argentine president continued, or perhaps even increased, her aggressive attitude toward the US. In September there was her speech at the United Nations General Assembly, much of which focused on sovereign debt restructuring. Toward the US, it was far from kind. Neither were her latest comments last week on the Cuba-US rapprochement. The president denied Obama almost any credit and she conveyed her impression that the shift was a defeat for Washington. Even if that is the case (which it does not seem to be), it seemed quite unnecessary to rub Obama’s face in it. A comment about it being a ‘celebration for all sides’ — even if merely rhetorical — would have gone down much better.

True, the government has many reasons to feel unhappy at the US. It expected a helping hand on the legal confrontation with the hold-out/“vulture” funds and US Judge Thomas Griesa. But this never happened.

In addition, the US voted against the Argentine initiative on sovereign debt put forward at the UN General Assembly by the G77 and China. And then there are the negative comments on Argentine issues coming from the US government, including those from the Chargé d’Affaires at the US Embassy in Buenos Aires. So the unfriendliness seems to be somewhat mutual. And, perhaps, even justified.

Both countries have conflicting opinions about the way in which the Western world is organized. This includes bodies like the UN Security Council or international financial institutions. Clearly, Argentina has a different view. One which is, possibly, akin to that of the current Russian government. Unfortunately for both countries, they do not seem to be in the best position to challenge the status quo at this time. In addition to holding alternative views, they are experiencing financial troubles. There are, however, differences in terms of size, resilience and — why not? — muscle.

Putin’s government can get away with a number of things. At the end of the day it is still a big power and the US can, every now and then, request its cooperation to avoid some things getting out of hand in hot-button areas like the Middle East. Even if this cooperation is limited to not supporting a particularly troublesome group or state and allowing the US to deal with it on its own terms. In fact this has to do not only with Russia’s political and military muscle, but even with its geographical location.

Argentina lacks these advantages. And unfortunately, none of Russia’s plus points seems transferable to here. If, in addition, Russia’s economic problems preclude it from helping Argentina’s scarcity of foreign investment, then people are entitled to wonder what is the advantage of making so much noise about the strategic alliance and further provoking the US. While the president’s policy of alliances might seem totally coherent in terms of her vision of the world, it does not seem to carry much hope in practical terms. Perhaps the time has come for Argentina to exercise a much more pragmatic approach to foreign affairs? True, we may all feel a bit less heroic. And it will sad to abandon our diehard anti-imperialist mantra. But it might be much better for the country in the long term.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

OPTIONS AND PRUDENCE

All politics are domestic. This includes a country’s international policies. However, governments are or should be expected to base their foreign policy-making on reasons which go beyond short-term local political considerations.

Over the last 30 days, the government seems to have made a significant shift in Argentina’s international alliances and partnerships. This has gone down well with the president’s staunchest supporters.

It seems legitimate, however, to ask some questions about the implementation of these changes as well as the strategic vision behind them.

At the end of last week, the president made public the — very — strongly-worded letter she had sent to Obama to complain about the fact that Nancy E. Soderberg is both chair of the US government’s Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB) and co-chair of American Task Force Argentina (ATFA). The latter is the aggressive lobbying group that operates on behalf of Argentina’s holdout/vulture creditors.

The president’s point seems quite valid. There is a clear conflict of interest between Soderberg’s PIDB position and her moonlighting as a lobbyist against Argentina. What does not seem an adequate strategy is turning this into an issue at a presidential level. The same point could have been made — for the record — through diplomatic channels. Unfortunately, with equally slim chances of success.

Speeches like the one Fernández de Kirchner delivered at the last UN General Assembly might be important in terms of stating principles. And might earn some political points in Argentina. But not in the US. The same can be said about bravado letters to the US president.

So much for strategy. But there is another (equally worrying) point. ATFA has been around for some time. In fact our controversial moonlighter made a bizarre lobbying visit to Argentina on July 10 which, obviously did not go unnoticed by the government.

According to the PIDB’s website, Soderberg’s appointment dates back to November 16, 2012. But Argentine diplomats were apparently unaware of this conflict of interest.

Thanks to Google, finding out about somebody holding a government and a lobbying job at the same time does not take more than 20 minutes. And googling a player in the confrontation with the holdouts/vultures would be — one expects — a routine job for the diplomats involved.

So either the Argentine Embassy in Washington was looking the other way or the information was sent back to Buenos Aires and nobody acted on it before last week. Or, there might — just might — be another explanation. The government has been aware of the situation the whole time but made the tactical decision to only bring it up now.

This would be very good news. Especially because Argentina seems to be making a major foreign policy shift. At a time when tensions between Russia and the EU-US partnership are on the increase over issues like Ukraine, the Argentine government is getting significantly closer to Russia. It could be argued that business is business.

Consequently, selling foodstuffs despite the EU-US sanctions on Russia is simply a commercial decision. But the Argentine government’s narrative, which might delight its supporters and even go down well with part of the Argentine electorate, is not going down well with Western Europeans or the US. Which is not necessarily bad news.

It is not written in stone that a South American country cannot change its alignments and alliances. In fact it could be a very good strategy. Many of the president’s closest supporters are convinced that the traditional Western powers are falling apart and that the time has come for a change. But such a shift needs not only a well-thought, long-term strategy but also fine-tuned and professional implementation. It also requires a strong domestic consensus. One wonders which of these conditions — if any — have been met.

Argentine diplomacy does not demonstrate such a fine record. In fact, things with our brotherly neighbours are not exactly brilliant. Mercosur is frozen. The Uruguayans are not happy with Argentina. And the person most likely to become the next president of Uruguay, Tabaré Vázquez, is not precisely in love with Argentina’s current administration. In Paraguay, many say Argentina has a “vulture” policy regarding Yacyretá. And before thinking that powerful Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff will stand by us, perhaps we should think twice.

The Brazilian business sector keeps complaining about Argentine protectionism. True, their candidate lost the election. But Roussef’s advantage is narrow and she has already signalled her willingness to have a dialogue with all sectors.

Perhaps Argentine politicians should remember that Russia is far away, so keeping foreign policy options open might be wise. And that prudence is the best element of courage.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

GOOD AND BAD NEWS

Friday’s announcement that the G77 plus China are endorsing a debate on sovereign debt restructuring was good news for the government. As a matter of fact, Cristina and her team are more than entitled to take credit for a good international lobbying job. To make the news even sweeter, the International Capital Markets Association (ICMA) also issued a statement pointing out that there is a vacuum in the provisions for sovereign debt restructuring which — currently — place too much power in the hands of a minority of creditors.

Equally positive is the fact that, in the midst of their enthusiasm, when communicating the news, Kiciloff and Timerman included sobering remarks about the (sad) fact that whatever progress is made on this matter, namely an international convention setting the rules for debt restructuring, would not be applicable to Argentina’s current conflict with Judge Griesa and the holdouts/vultures.

The ministers managed to avoid the (very human) temptation to celebrate a success that is still in the making. And this qualifier applies to the possible future convention as well as to the case of Argentina’s own battle.

There are several reasons to moderate the optimism. First there is the UN. Although it represents the highest possible stage of civilization and relations between states, it is not the most efficient tool around. True it has a good list of successes in terms of international conventions. They range from UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea) to ICCPED (International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance). But — out of necessity — the negotiation processes are long and protracted. And, on occasions, the price of finally obtaining an agreement is to resign on matters that are important. In addition, there is the issue of getting the final result signed and ratified by each individual country. And the most powerful ones (that make the convention worthwhile) might tend to drag their feet. On this point, and at the risk of an unfair pre-judgment, there is the question about what the US position will be.

Side by side with some very worthy democratic values, there is a strong conservative core in the US political system. Witness Obama’s problems with issues like public health. And — closer to home — Judge Griesa might seem eccentric but — ideologically — he is by no means a “rara avis.”

There are countless examples of issues on which the American democracy has values which differ from those of, say, the Western European political systems. The existence of the death penalty or the political clout of the National Rifle Association are just two examples of this.

In fact, the US political context should also be taken into account when examining the Argentine case. The media is full of reports abut the close ties of the holdouts/vultures with the Republican Party. But the problem is not only conservatism. For better or worse, Judge Griesa’s rulings have been upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court. And however critical US politicians or commentators might be about the ruling, this is what counts the most. Not that they care for the plight of countries like Argentina less, but that they value their institutions more.

In addition, Argentina’s bilateral relationship with the US is not at its best. The president and some of her ministers have been openly critical of Obama’s government, not to mention his predecessors. This makes a good section of the Argentine electorate happy. And makes another significant section of the voters equally unhappy.

These conflicting visions are perhaps one of the best examples of the deep divide in Argentina’s political system. So — at the time of seeking support for the current confrontation with Griesa & Co — the government would be best advised to seek elsewhere. To make matters more complicated, the recent rapprochement with Russia and China, does not help. It might be the best option for Argentina’s national interest. But it does not earn brownie points in the US. The same can be said about Venezuela.

Government supporters get quite angry when the opposition claims that Argentina is “isolated from the world.” In fact some ministers’ narrative is focused on proving such assertion false. Perhaps things would be clearer if both government and opposition explain what they define as “world.” When government supporters refer to UNASUR, China or Russia they are absolutely right. But when the opposition refers to the US and a number of European countries, they also seem to have a point. The recent remarks from the German Finance Minister Wolfang Schäuble that Argentina has been — and continues to be — “an example of instability” underpin the views on Argentina’s isolation voiced by the opposition.

Unfortunately, the battle with the holdouts/vultures takes place in the US and — eventually — in Western Europe. A part of the world where G77 plus China do not cut much ice. So optimism about any future United Nations global regulations should be balanced by the less rosy prospects for the Argentine case in the near future

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD