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

 

IS IT TOO LATE?

 

In all likelihood, Brazil’s recent devaluation will have a negative impact on its bilateral trade with Argentina, not least because the Argentine authorities are sticking to a monetary policy which tends to have different exchange rate objectives. It is interesting to note that most commentators are referring to “bilateral trade” while, in theory, it would be more appropriate to discuss the impact on trade within Mercosur rather than on the more limited bilateral dimension. But this seems to be a new proof that Mercosur continues to lose significance in the region.

The number of voices which are claiming that it is “game over” for Mercosur, and that new alternatives should be examined, is on the increase. In Brazil and Argentina, these voices come from the business sector. By contrast, in the cases of Uruguay and Paraguay, the two smaller original partners, there are a number of politicians who speak out their criticisms. But their Argentine colleagues still seem to be tied up by a political correctness which bans questioning the existence of Mercosur in the name of the sanctity of Latin American brotherhood.

By contrast, UNASUR’s relevance seems to be on the increase. True, it has a larger membership. But perhaps the reason is that UNASUR is — essentially — a political mechanism. Even more importantly, UNASUR’s decisions depend exclusively on the political will of its member governments. And such decisions rarely have more than a very limited — if any — economic and social impact.

Mercosur’s case is exactly the opposite. The recent controversy over the automotive trade between Argentina and Brazil had an impact not only on businesses but also on employment and, consequently, on trade unions. Decisions on Mercosur require the governments to reach some sort of consensus from the private sector or, alternatively, to be able to impose such decisions on businesses and unions.

The question is what will happen with Mercosur. It is a far cry from the dreams of those who created the block. Twenty years have passed since the Ouro Preto Treaty and the hope of a vigorous block with an impact on the global economy remains a dream. So much so that, for whatever reason, the different players blame each other — even the agreement with the European Union is still a draft. Moreover, Argentina has recently reached a strategic agreement with China that has — apparently — overlooked Mercosur.

Whether you believe that Cristina Kirchner’s China deal is right or wrong, just imagine, by contrast, what would happen in the EU if one of the big members entered a similar agreement ignoring its European partners. The fact that there were no visible consequences in Mercosur seems to indicate that none of the partners care too much or, alternatively, that they have given up any expectations they had about the bloc.

The global context has changed dramatically since the birth of Mercosur. Trade patterns, business alignments and growth rates — not to mention technology — are very different from what they were back in 1994. And change continues at increasingly higher speed. Mercosur is clearly falling behind. And, if it is to survive and have anything more than a merely formal existence, it will have to change radically.

However, as things stand now, the governments of the two biggest partners seem to be so immersed in other problems that thinking they can focus on Mercosur seems an optimistic dream with little chances of success.

Sadly, one possible option is that Mercosur will silently fade away — as it has happened with similar Latin American mechanisms in the past. Its meetings will be attended only by junior officials. In terms of money, it will continue to use a few pennies from governments’ budgets to pay salaries and provide a comfortable job for not-too-ambitious political cronies of the different parties. But it will only have a formal existence.

There is, however, some room for twisted optimism. It so happens that both Uruguay and Paraguay have more need of Mercosur than their bigger partners. And there are — in both countries — a number of voices pointing out that Mercosur is not delivering, so other options should be examined.

Some kind of trade agreement with the US features first on the list of possible alternatives. True, it would require courage from the government of a smaller partner to unilaterally bid farewell to Mercosur. Even more so if it means entering a partnership with the US. But sometimes need breeds valour, and such a possibility should not be ruled out. If such a thing were to happen, it could — but not necessarily would — trigger a reaction from the rest of the governments in terms of seriously examining ways and means to make Mercosur work. Provided, of course, that it is not too late.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

MEANWHILE... BACK IN THE REGION

Yesterday was an important day on both sides of the River Plate. In Buenos Aires, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner delivered her last “State of the Nation” speech of her presidential term. Across the river, in Montevideo, Tabaré Vazquez was inaugurated — for a second time — as President, replacing José “Pepe” Mujica who — five years ago — had replaced Vázquez.

CFK’s absence from Tabaré’s inauguration was unfortunate, but unavoidable. By contrast, the Argentine government’s management of this clash of dates across the River Plate was equally unfortunate but avoidable. True, formally, it is Vice-President Amado Boudou’s role to represent the president in a circumstance like this one. But — given Mr. Boudou, and his friend and partner Mr. Alejandro Vandenbroele’s problems with the law— sending such a representative was a serious mistake. After all, Vandenbroele is a fugitive of the Uruguayan courts.

Some imagination and creativity could have gone into sending somebody else. A major minister or the Lower House speaker were possible options. And words of good wishes from the president during her state-of-the-nation speech could have helped to make a point of friendship and good will.

Even more unfortunate, is the fact yesterday’s faux pass happens at a time when the bilateral relation is far from good. Many Argentines are unaware about the tensions with Uruguay. After all, it is a very small country and does not have a serious impact on Argentina’s trade and investment figures. But what is a mild bother for Argentina is an important headache for Uruguay.

Trade protectionism complicates Uruguayan exporters. And foreign exchange limits complicate the tourism industry, vital for Uruguay. And then there are other, less visible issues. One has to do with Argentina’s policies on ports which harm the Uruguayans. Then there is the bilateral management of the shared rivers, which also shows frequent confrontations.

Many could argue that Uruguay is far from innocent and will cite the issue of the pulp mills to support their case. These voices are right. But it is a fact of life that states — and especially neighbouring states that are so asymmetrical in terms of size, population and economy — have disagreements. But good practice demands that those “facts of life” are addressed, negotiated and solved. And this seems to be the missing part. Which triggers bad feelings across the river.

Recently, the now former President Mujica said that the region needs Brazil’s leadership and Argentina should accompany, but does not. (In fact his language was far more colourful.) In another interview he said that Argentina is immersed in a “very closed project”, and that this has consequences. With the implication that they are quite negative. Uruguayan opposition politicians are even harsher. And — to be realistic — with varying levels of aggravation many Uruguayans feel the same.

In theory, those in the Foreign Affairs Ministry that have the responsibility of dealing with Uruguay should start seriously focusing on Montevideo. After all, Argentina’s strongest confrontation with Uruguay, which was about the pulp mills, happened during Tabaré’s presidency. The new Uruguayan president has made it known that there are no hard feelings and that he wants to work on improving the bilateral relation. Assuming that this is not only diplomatic politeness, it should be clear to the Argentine side that it takes two to dance that tango. So Argentine diplomats could do worse than start getting ready.

It could be argued, in the name of political realism, that Uruguay is not a priority for Argentina which now has more important partners, like China, that play in the “big leagues.” And that Uruguay’s “nuisance power” to threat Argentina is negligible. However, rather than realistic, this view could prove short-sighted. And Mercosur is the weak point. The nearly lethargic state of Mercosur is acknowledged — albeit off the record — by many government officers from all member countries. And Uruguayans and Paraguayans are quite vocal about this. In addition, the recently arrived partner, Venezuela, cannot contribute much to a possible revitalization, due to its own dramatic economic woes. To make matters worse, the Mercosur-EU agreement seems to be a never-ending odyssey. Argentina and Brazil have other options. Argentina’s recent agreement with China is a good proof of this. But the smaller partners of Mercosur do not have that many options.

Uruguay and Paraguay suffer more damages from the state of affairs in Mercosur than their larger partners. And it is public knowledge that Uruguayans, as well as Paraguayans, are wondering out loud if their countries would not be better off reaching an agreement with the United States and forgetting about Mercosur. In parallel, it is also known that many current or future policy-makers in the United States would not be adverse to facilitating an erosion of Mercosur. It would allow them to strengthen their regional presence at a time when Argentina seems to be looking East.

Possibly the first inkling of such a move would make much noise. Especially within Uruguay’s Broad Front. But it should be noted that the Uruguayan leadership can be quite pragmatic. So, perhaps the time has come to start mending fences across the river.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

FORGET ABOUT WTO

It’s no news Argentina indulges in protectionist policies. Predictably, a number of commercial partners exercised their right to take the matter to the World Trade Organization. It ruled against Argentina. At a time when all eyes are on the confrontation with the holdouts/vultures and Judge Griesa, a slap on the wrist on a trade issue is unlikely to trigger much excitement.

A default — be it temporary, partial or said to be non-existent — is much more of a clear and present danger than a trade controversy. The memories of 2001 are still around.

Even if the issue of default is being exaggerated — as some government members seem to believe — the confrontation between the rather picturesque New York judge and the president and her loyal followers has an epic appearance that makes it quite attractive. Griesa fits very easily in the role of the person you like to dislike. By contrast, only low-profile grey-haired bureaucrats deal with trade grievances at the WTO. Hardly an attractive target for a crusade. But foreign debt being the main conflictive element of many periods of Argentine history, Griesa and the holdout / vultures seem to be the perfect tailor-made enemy to play on patriotic sentiment. Free trade is not.

As a matter of fact, Argentina is far from having a tradition of free trade. Many local industrial fortunes and many well-paid jobs flourished behind the walls of protectionism. And although the love of imported goodies is part of Argentine culture, so were the days when prices and salaries depended only on local market conditions. Was this an impediment for the development of a viable, globally competitive, industry? Perhaps. But, at almost any moment in time, the short term benefits of protection were much more tangible — for many — than the long term benefits of competition. And Lord Keynes was very clear on this: “In the long run, we are all dead.”

There are also some practical reasons not to be too worried about the WTO. The next steps of this choreography are quite predictable. Appeals (possibly unsuccessful) will be followed by negotiations and requests for extra time to adjust. All this implies longish processes. (Lord Keynes, again.) Moreover, Argentina has a bit of a trump card. Because the bulk of exports to the main plaintiffs (US, EU and Japan) are agricultural commodities, the victors might have to think twice about imposing the sanctions allowed by the WTO because some could backfire on their own local importers.

However, before placing the country’s trade problems in the bottom drawer of government officials’ desks or at the back of the minds of politicians and commentators, there is a point to be noted. While at the WTO, Argentine protectionism is only one of many issues, it is an open wound for our next-door neighbours. The Brazilian business sector is less than happy with Argentina. But Brazil being Brazil, it has the means to contain the damage of a trade dispute. It will agitate business chambers, government officials, specialized journalists but hardly anybody else.

That is not the case with our smaller neighbours, Uruguay and Paraguay. They are much more vulnerable to the vagaries of Argentina’s trade policies. Uruguay presents the additional problem of its dependence on Argentine tourism which makes the country an unwilling partner of Buenos Aires’ foreign exchange restrictions. The popular saying is that when Argentina sneezes its neighbours get the flu. Not a fatal pneumonia, mind you. But the flu can be quite irritating. And it could be ideal as political ammunition.

In Uruguay, which is in the midst of a presidential election campaign, comments about “Pepe” Mujica’s excessive patience with Argentina are frequent enough to cause concern. In the case of Paraguay things are not much better. The recent presidential visit to Asunción did not break much ice, if one has to go by the editorial comments of the local media. Most of them focused on the country’s grievances with Argentina — trade was definitely one of them — and remarked that Buenos Aires has not yet replaced its Ambassador to Asuncion whom was called back at the time of Lugo’s ousting back in 2012.

Becoming part of the political agenda within another country is — almost always — bad news. It is difficult to counter negative views without becoming involved in local political infighting and making matters worse. And any uncontested views are likely to remain in the public’s glare. Any which way, you lose.

Ideally, Mercosur should be the supranational space where these matters could be sorted out. But it seems to have become a forum mostly limited to rhetoric. One exception were the sanctions against Paraguay on account of Lugo’s impeachment. Production of statements on several issues — like debt — has been generous. Conflict resolution within Mercosur much less so.

Do the two small neighbours need Argentina? Very much so. But nothing is cast in stone. And it would be a serious setback if one or both countries decide they are better off strengthening extra-regional alliances or prioritizing Brasilia over Buenos Aires. Argentina’s government and opposition could do worse than thinking about this in the time left free by Griesa and Co.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

URGENT OR IMPORTANT?

When last month the US Supreme Court refused to revise Judge Griesa’s ruling against Argentina and in favour of the holdouts/vultures, the decision threw this country’s government, media and politicians into a sort of “single-issue frenzy.” The frenzy is still here and — in all likelihood — will be part of Argentina’s daily agenda until the Griesa hurdle as been removed. And rightly so, because the risks involved, transcend the figure of US$1.3 billion demanded by Argentina’s unfriendly and rebellious creditor. So it is vitally important to remove the threat.

Argentina being Argentina, the “Griesa crisis” became politicized from day one. So much so, that opposition commentators tell their audiences that President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s government is actually trying to push the conflict to the limit, in order to recoup popular sympathy. Be that as it may, the threat is there, and its removal is vital.

The very bad news is that, once the Griesa factor is removed, nothing will have changed for Argentina in terms of foreign economic policies and strategies. The current debt crisis is a typical example of urgency getting in the way of addressing important issues. There will probably be congratulations and celebrations. Unfortunately there is the fear that the joy will hide all the important items of foreign economic policy which are not moving forward.

One of these problems is a languishing Mercosur, which is doing quite little to fulfil its mission of optimizing trade and investment within and between its member countries as well as optimizing the relations with other economic blocs like the EU. The 46th Mercosur Summit which took place at the end of July is a good example of what is going on. Or — much worse — of what is not going on. The public has been informed that one of the outcomes of the summit was the Mercosur’s support for Argentina’s position on the Griesa issue.

Perhaps it is time to face the fact that support statements which sound well are never lacking. Especially, if you do not mind predictability, they are quite readable and make good headlines. But — unfortunately — they are not great feats.

A young graduate from ISEN (the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs academy) should be able to negotiate this sort of statement with little effort. Especially because nobody pays much attention to the full text, and it is easy to play around with words in order to suit the political commitments both internal and external of those who subscribe to the document. The snag is that the document is likely to fail the acid test of effectiveness in terms of contribution towards solving the specific problem it is addressing.

Mercosur seems focused on a number of “institutional” issues like new memberships like Venezuela, or the expulsion ad re-admission of a country facing constitutional problems, which was the case of Paraguay. But not on addressing the nitty-gritty issues which affect jobs and trade in its member countries. The Paraguayans complain about Argentine protectionism, the Uruguayans have their own grievances and then there is always the looming problem of the trade between Argentina and Brazil. The list of shortcomings is obviously much longer. And they do not need large and costly summits to be sorted out. Instead, they need the dedicated work of specialists from the ministries that — in each country — deal with these problems.

So perhaps, it is time for regional governments to realize that, while emergencies like Griesa need urgent attention, there are important and very strategic issues that need hard work and a signal of commitment from political leaders showing that they can manage the emergencies like Griesa together with day to day progress of institutions like Mercosur.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

NUCLEAR BOTNIA

Meet Diokitec S.A. The company is owned 99% by Argentina’s National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA) and 1% by the Mendoza province government. According to its self-description, its mission is to “guarantee the supply of uranium dioxide for the nuclear fuels used in the Atucha I and Embalse nuclear power plants.”

The plant is based — up to now — in Córdoba. But as many of its kin, it is not a welcome neighbour. So much so, that there are plans to move it quite soon to the northern province of Formosa.

Diokitec S.A. is a textbook case of the NIMOBY effect. The acronym stands for “not in my own back yard,” the kind of things with which we do not necessarily disagree, provided they are placed far from where we live or work. True, nuclear power plants, are quite controversial. But the controversy gets more philosophical and less urgent the further away these facilities are from us.

Predictably, the planned move has already triggered protests in Formosa from concerned neighbours and from national environmentalist NGOs. Moreover, Greenpeace has already gone public, albeit in the context of its well-known views against this source of energy. But what makes this case even more interesting is that the protests are starting to come from across the border. There is increasing talk in Paraguay, about the environmental hazards associated with such a neighbour placed near the frontier.

The word Botnia immediately springs to mind. But — on this occasion — it would be Argentina playing the villain’s role. In any case, a new example of cross-border environmentalism in the region. And, perhaps, the chance to start building more cooperative mechanisms and processes to deal with this kind of issues. Although a final decision about locating Diokitec in Formosa has not been reached, there is still a public hearing to take place on July 15, the odds are that the plans will go ahead.

The very bad news is that there will be no way of avoiding negative reactions on both sides of the border. Nuclear energy generation was, is, and will be a sensitive issue. The question is if something can be done to avoid it becoming a permanent thorn on the side of the bilateral relation.

Some of the Argentine government’s moves seem to be pointing in the right direction. Last week, the head of the CNEA, Ms Norma Boero, headed a delegation that visited Paraguay to inform the authorities about the plans. And three months ago, she hosted a delegation headed by her Paraguayan counterpart with a similar objective.

According to the information provided by the CNEA, they arranged on a (much needed?) update of the 1967 bilateral agreement on the peaceful use of atomic energy as well as on personnel exchanges. Perhaps more important, they started to discuss bilateral cooperation on regulatory matters. If both sides are serious, is the best way of offering safeguards to Formosa’s neighbours.

On a more pessimistic note, there are some awkward news. A bill is working its way through the Paraguayan Senate asking President Cartes to state his government’s opposition to this project. And it seems to have cross-party consensus.

Even more awkward, the Paraguayan Senators Arnoldo Wiens (Partido Colorado), Fernando Silva Facetti (Partido Liberal) and Arnaldo Giuzzo (Partido Democrático Progresista) visited Argentina to discuss the issue with their local counterparts. They met with five opposition Senators: Luis Naidenoff, Alfredo Martínez, Eugenio Artaza, Roberto Basualdo and Norma Morandini There were no Victory Front (FpV) senators there. It is worrying if they were not invited to the meeting. And equally worrying if they were invited but declined to attend.

The obvious risk is that an issue, which is sensitive per-se, becomes part of a toxic blend of foreign and domestic politics in which things are likely to get out of control quite quickly. And in terms of foreign policy this transcends the bilateral relation with Paraguay. The bilateral aspect is likely to be noisiest. Not least because it happens at a time when there are other Mercosur and non Mercosur issues straining the bilateral relation. Trade and Yaciretá are two of the contentious problems.

But it should be noted that matters related to nuclear power generation are the subject of close international scrutiny and regulation. Argentina has a good reputation as an international supplier of this kind of sensitive technology which it wants and needs to protect. It would be a pity to see petty domestic political squabbles find their way into the broader international agenda.

If one has to go by what the senators from both countries said, Argentina’s Foreign Affairs Ministry has failed to comply with their requests for information. If that is the case, the Ministry has the chance of fixing its mistake quite quickly. And if the fault lands on its Paraguay counterpart’s doorstep, the fact remains that it is in Argentina’s best interest to be seen to act transparently. And make sure the information gets to all those who request it, including the press, the politicians and — vital in this case — civil society organizations.

Nobody should have any illusions that a nuclear fuels plant can be installed without controversy. But common sense indicates that all efforts should be made to limit as much as possible the usage of the issue to further non-related political agendas. And the way of doing this, is for the Argentine government to engage all possible audiences, on the other side of the border, with clear and credible information.

Expect no miracles. This will not be pain-free. But a proactive approach might help everybody to limit the risk of having a second Botnia in Mercosur.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD