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

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

FOREIGN POLICY AFTER DECEMBER 10

It won’t be plain sailing for the winners of the next elections

What will be the shape of Argentina’s foreign policy under a new presidency? Most pundits agreed, even before last Saturday, that there are only two candidates with serious chances in the next Presidential elections: Mauricio Macri and Daniel Scioli.

Macri’s message is quite straight and clear. He espouses market-friendly policies and a tougher line against crime. And, on foreign policy, a return to the traditional international partnerships with the EU and the US.

As for Scioli, he is (was?) considered to be a moderate politician and people imagined him to be more market-friendly than the national government. The same could be said about his foreign policy. So much so that, at some stage, there even was speculation that President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was not in favour of him being the Victory Front’s (FpV) candidate.

However, last week brought significant surprises.

The candidacies being put forward by the “Cristinistas,” from Carlos Zannini for the vice-presidency to some of the hard-liners nominated for the seats in Congress, predict a continuity of current policies should the FpV win the elections.

And the national government’s foreign policy leaves no doubt about preferences, sympathies and alignments. Last week, this daily reported Economy Minister Axel Kicillof as saying that ties between Buenos Aires and Moscow were “a fact, not a wish,” praising the bilateral relationship’s “natural understanding.”

He was by no means a lonely voice in the government. Earlier this year, on April 23, during her visit to Moscow, Argentina’s president told her Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, that “both our countries are commemorating the 130th anniversary of the bilateral relationship by signing an ‘agreement on Strategic Integration.’”

Russia is not the only non-Western power with which this government has forged close links. During her visit to Beijing the president entered an “Integral strategic alliance” which — in her words — should not be limited to trade and investment but also extend to cultural and communications affairs. In her speech, Cristina also mentioned Argentina and China’s mutual support over their respective international claims.

Mauricio Macri shows a similar determination, but in the opposite direction. Last December, when he visited Europe he clearly specified his preference for Argentina rebuilding its links with the European Union and the United States. He was critical of the links with President Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela as well as — albeit with less vehemence — with the alignment with China and Russia.

True, the old times in which the then-Communist Soviet Union and the — also Communist — People’s Republic of China were a unified block, are something of the past. And that China as well as Russia have trade, investment and financial relations with the EU and the US. But it is also true that China and Russia do confront each other on different issues — sometimes as allies — with the Western countries.

In the case of Russia, currently the most serious issue of confrontation is Moscow’s policy toward Ukraine. There is also a — not as burning — battle with the US to gain influence in Latin America.

China has its own problems with the US. One of them is the dispute over the South China Sea as well as some of its islands. There are several — and in some cases conflicting — claims against China from Indonesia, Taiwan, The Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand and Singapore. Some of these countries are close allies of the US which makes its presence known in the area so as to prevent China using its military might to intimidate its weaker neighbours. The usual choreography in those cases — military exercises or “exploratory” flights over the region in conflict — triggers angry protests from Beijing.

In addition, there are several disputes over trade. The basic problem is that China’s very low labour costs turn that country into a complicated competitor, something that affects manufacturers in many countries, some of which do not have many options because they need other things from Beijing. But the US manufacturers have enough political clout so as to stop Chinese exports and to get their government to lobby against other governments on their behalf.

Some more trouble

Some international observers note that both China and Russia are facing economic troubles which affect their people. And one of the ways in which both governments could be tempted to mitigate their own political difficulties is with some doses of anti-US nationalism. The solution of which, is definitely not conflict-free.

The optimists in the “Cristinista” camp could be happy. They believe that they are playing the right foreign policy game. But they might be wrong. Argentina depends on the US and the EU over a number of issues. The most urgent — but not the only one — is access to financial markets. So at some stage, they would have to try and have some kind of rapprochement. Which might not be easy if the alignment with “the other side” gets stronger.

The optimists in Macri’s side might be equally happy. The open arms of the EU and the US are likely to be waiting for them. However, they could also be wrong. The recovered old friends might expect some signals in exchange. But Argentina’s strategic alliances with China and Russia go beyond statements at the UN General Assembly. There are contracts signed, joint ventures agreed upon and financial aid has been accepted. Disengaging from them is far from easy and could be quite expensive.

There will not be easy times ahead for the winners of the next elections.

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

THOSE WERE THE DAYS

Countries once knew where they stood — and CFK is making her position known too

Yesterday marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The date is thought to be the symbolic end of the Soviet Union. Or — to put it in Vladimir Putin’s words — the moment when the US became the victor of the Cold War. For some, those were better times. And among the nostalgic are staunch anti-Communists with memories of a more stable, predictable world in which two organized nation-states with quite clear institutional arrangements and decision-making processes managed the big picture.

There was clear communication and established mechanisms for predictable demands which were — at least partially — negotiable. And such demands did not involve the establishment of caliphates or massive religious conversions.

This had nothing to do with kind souls. It so happened that both sides had the military resources to trigger their mutually-assured destruction. And the sheer madness of the idea made them careful. No airplanes crashing against the World Trade Centre or suicide bombers killing innocent citizens in the town markets of the former Soviet Union. Even volatile places like the Middle East had predictable alignments. But make no mistakes — that world was far from perfect.

Behind the peaceful façade both sides would fight “proxy wars” through third countries which would pay the toll of death and destruction. Add Vietnam into the equation and it becomes quite clear that there is not much room for nostalgia. Which — in any case — is a rather useless sentiment, at least in terms of politics. That said, it is also true that in many ways it was a simpler world. A country like Argentina knew that it was aligned with the United States. Even if such alignment allowed for some departures... like the sale of wheat to the USSR back in 1980, in open defiance of the embargo imposed by the US to sanction the invasion of Afghanistan.

History repeating itself

Now, 34 years later, history seems to be repeating itself. And Argentina is — once again — defying a US trade embargo on Russia. This time on account of Ukraine. But, nowadays, the context seems to be quite different.

Argentina did not support the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, But it is backing Russia’s policy regarding Ukraine. This does not seem to be an isolated decision. The country’s foreign policy seems to be in the process of a major shift. And the government seems determined to make this as clear as possible.

In terms of new alliances, China and Russia seem to be at the top of the Cristina Fernández de Kirchner administration’s agenda. This is not necessarily right or wrong on itself.

Even at the risk of incurring in a simplistic analysis, it should be noted that the Republicans obtained a landslide victory in last Tuesday’s US midterm elections. And that their views in favour of Argentina’s holdout/vulture creditors are noticeably stronger than those of the Democrats, which might make the search for renewed partnerships even more necessary.

But prudence calls for some further examination. Especially, because in bilateral relations it takes two to tango. In the case of Russia, the country is facing serious economic troubles. Some of which are not dissimilar to those Argentina faces, like intense capital flight and a weakened currency. Add to that Putin’s plans to spend a lot on Russia’s military and the final result could be a troublesome partnership. A situation in which the Russian president attempts to rally patriotic fervour to distract his people from an economic crisis is not totally unthinkable. Some even argue that something like that is behind the current situation with Ukraine. Not exactly an ideal partner for a country which, like Argentina, needs some time to recover its breath while it sorts out its own economic affairs.

The development of relations with China seems to require less caution. However, some would argue that Argentina’s policy-makers are overvaluing the strength of that relationship. True, there have been positive noises, perhaps slightly more moderate than those coming from Russia. And the recent currency swap has been presented to the Argentine public as a friendly and generous move by a good friend. Unfortunately, there seems to be no such thing in international politics.

Some critics urge everybody to look at the small print of the — apparently life-saving — swap agreement with China. Rumour has it that the main objective of the swap is to facilitate Argentine imports of Chinese goods. Useful, but a far cry from the epic narrative of certain government-friendly voices which presented the last swap as a quick Chinese move to help out a friend in need. In a perfect world, what seems to be a major policy shift should have strong cross-party consensus. This does not seem to be the case.

Given the fact that foreign policy issues normally do not win or lose votes, there seems to be a serious advantage in getting government and opposition foreign policy-makers to try to reach some sort of consensus on the nitty-gritty of Argentina’s foreign policy approach for — say — the next three years. If all those involved could agree on to a quiet consensus-seeking analysis, committing themselves to not making an electoral issue out of these discussions, they would do a big service to the country, which will make everybody’s life easier beyond 2015.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD

THE RUSSIAN QUESTION

On October 9, President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner surprised many by exchanging niceties on TV with her Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. In fact, they did not only share niceties but also a hefty dose of criticism of the dominant media which, they agreed, tend to shape public opinion by hiding the truth.

Earlier, there had been other signals that Argentina and Russia were getting closer to one another. There was Putin’s planned visit to Argentina and the invitation for Cristina to attend the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) meeting in Brazil. Although the significance of such an invitation was then toned down and diluted when other members of UNASUR were also invited.

Above and beyond gestures, there were some hard policy decisions as well. Argentina defied the trade sanctions imposed on Russia by the EU and the US in reprisal for its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. The country announced it would increase food exports to Russia to mitigate the impact of the sanctions. For some old timers with a good memory, this sounded like an echo of the attitude of the Argentine Military Junta back in 1980 when it defied Jimmy Carter’s embargo on grain sales to Russia, which were imposed as a sanction for Moscow’s invasion of Afghanistan.

But Argentina does not have a tradition of close relations with Russia. Distance and cultural differences are only part of the explanation. During the Cold War, Argentina was aligned with the US. And some very powerful sectors in Argentina were rabidly anti-communist and had the US as a role model. The pro-Soviet Communist Party in Argentina was banned for years. Even having a Soviet Union stamp in one’s passport was considered suspicious.

True, the world has changed and the Cold War is over. So improved relations with Russia do not raise any eyebrows. But in terms of consumer trends — from technology to TV series and films as well as tourism and many other day-to-day goods and services — the US still seems to be a major reference point for Argentine society. Not to mention the fact that over 400 US companies are established here. And — until Griesa appeared in Argentina’s life — New York used to be the financial port of call for the Argentine government and the country’s businesses. Moreover, many argue that on sensitive issues like enforcement of anti-drug and anti-terrorism measures, both countries’ security agencies continue to cooperate actively, albeit with a low profile.

Despite it all, it is quite clear that Argentina’s relationship with the US is far from optimal. It is not a new occurrence since there have been periods of tension before. And quite naturally given that the Argentine government has often made it a point to look at other options in terms of its own international alliances. These recent moves could be interpreted as a repeat tactic.

But there is a new element that calls for an additional perspective. And it is that both Putin and CFK have gone on the record with very similar lines of criticism of the United States. What they criticized was not a specific event or a particular policy. This time, both presidents targeted the entirety of the US foreign policy and its institutional context which dates back to the end of World War II.

The first shot was fired by Cristina at the last meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on September 24. She questioned the veto powers of the Security Council and called on the General Assembly to recover such powers. She firmly denounced current peace-keeping provisions and accused the US of backing rebel movements in the Middle East which then became new enemies, in a policy of endless confrontation.

The president also denounced US unilateralism and called for a complete reorganization of the international institutional arrangements that emerged post WWII, suggesting that the existing bodies only served the interests of a few powerful countries led by the US.

Curiously, last week, Vladimir Putin chose a high-profile event to deliver a speech along very similar lines. He chose the annual gathering of the Valdai Club in Sochi, one of the top local and international Russian policy forums. Qualified observers suggested that this was Putin’s most important foreign policy speech since 2007.

The theme chosen for the international conference speaks for itself: “New Rules or a Game without Rules.” He bluntly asserted his view that there is no certainty “that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals.” Even more bluntly, he placed the full blame for the situation on the US. He pointed out that “the so-called “victors” in the Cold War had decided to stoke events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests.”

The similarities between Cristina’s and Putin’s discourses are quite striking.

Their criticism of the dominant media could be attributed to frustration at domestic political problems, while Putin inviting Argentina to the BRICS meeting as the guest of honour — at least, to begin with — might be attributed to low-cost gesturing.

When it comes to Argentina’s defiance of the EU-US embargo on food exports, this can be explained in terms of commercial opportunism in difficult economic times. But these kinds of solid policy statements, as well as the possibility of Russia becoming a permanent arms supplier to Argentina and Argentina’s alignment with Russia on a number of international issues, beg questions about the government possibly making some drastic changes in Argentina’s international allegiances. This is not necessarily good or bad. But definitely worth some reflection. Especially from opposition politicians who seem quite silent on the matter.

@andresfederman

CREDITS: BUENOS AIRES HERALD