Obama y Cristina (English and Spanish)
El escenario
Obama ya no espera nada de Cristina
Entre Barack Obama y Cristina Kirchner (o entre sus administraciones) hay un conflicto político. Tal vez existan también ciertas decepciones de cada uno respecto del otro. El gobierno de Obama creyó siempre que la salida de George W. Bush de la presidencia, y el fin de algunas de sus políticas, podían cambiar fundamentalmente la interlocución norteamericana con muchos líderes del mundo. La presidenta argentina cultiva más la ideología que las cuestiones prácticas: un gobernante demócrata en lugar de un republicano en Washington, se convenció, abriría la posibilidad de una nueva era en las relaciones bilaterales. No hacía falta nada más.
Sólo en ese contexto, en el que últimamente se dieron varios acontecimientos siempre negativos, puede explicarse la dura carta de Obama al Congreso, en la que comunicó la cancelación de las facilidades para exportar algunos productos argentinos. El argumento formal (pero no por eso menos cierto) fue que la Argentina no cumple con las sentencias del tribunal internacional del Ciadi, que condenó al país a pagar resarcimientos a dos empresas norteamericanas.
El gobierno de Cristina Kirchner quiere llevar esos juicios terminados a los tribunales argentinos, instancia que nunca estuvo prevista en ningún acuerdo; es una estrategia para demorar los pagos. No es mala: los jueces argentinos podrían estar varios años sentados sobre esos expedientes.
Pero ¿se habría llegado simbólicamente a tanto si no hubiera existido antes un clima de frialdad, de distancia y, por momentos, de tensión? La decisión de Obama es, en efecto, simbólica. El monto en cuestión es de apenas unos 300 millones de dólares, un monto muy pequeño en el volumen total de las exportaciones argentinas. Tampoco cierra las puertas de los Estados Unidos a las importaciones argentinas, ni siquiera a las afectadas directamente por esta decisión. Sólo las despoja de un excepcional sistema arancelario.
El problema es político, en efecto. A Washington le pasa lo que le sucede también a gran parte de las capitales occidentales: no saben cómo tratar a la Argentina ni cuáles son los temas con los que disienten o cuáles son las cuestiones con las que acuerdan. No hay, por lo tanto, una clara agenda política. La indiferencia es tan grande que Obama tomó esa decisión comercial pocos días antes de la próxima Cumbre de las Américas, que se realizará el 14 y el 15 de abril en Cartagena, Colombia.
DESPUÉS DEL MALTRATO
Ya no espera nada de la presidenta argentina. En la anterior cumbre, en Trinidad y Tobago, Washington pidió especialmente a Cristina Kirchner que no hiciera mención a la cismática cumbre de Mar del Plata, en 2005. El entonces presidente norteamericano, Bush, se fue ofendido y maltratado. Washington nunca olvidó, ni aun con Obama, ese agravio a la institución presidencial norteamericana. Cristina Kirchner dedicó en Trinidad y Tobago la mayor parte de su discurso, al revés del pedido washingtoniano, a elogiar los desenfrenos de Mar del Plata. ¿Qué podría esperar ahora Obama de la líder argentina?
El hilo de las ofensas y sus respuestas se hizo luego muy largo. Obama visitó América del Sur, pero viajó a Brasil y a Chile, sin pisar la Argentina. El gobierno argentino le contestó a ese desplante con la incautación de un avión militar norteamericano y su carga, que había aterrizado en Ezeiza para trasladar tropas y material sensible para un curso acordado de entrenamiento a policías argentinos. Una de las valijas decomisadas en el aeropuerto personalmente por el canciller Héctor Timerman guardaba las claves secretas del Pentágono, que debieron ser cambiadas en el acto.
Washington comenzó a votar después, sistemáticamente, contra la concesión de créditos a la Argentina en el BID y en el Banco Mundial. Aparecieron, además, dos protagonistas con enorme poder de lobby en Washington: las dos empresas norteamericanas que no cobran las sentencias del Ciadi, por un lado, y los últimos tenedores de bonos argentinos en default desde 2001. Estos bonistas no aceptaron entrar a ninguno de los dos canjes propuestos por el gobierno de los Kirchner, en 2005 y en 2010. El lobby existe, pero tiene más poder cuando no existe ningún interés político que lo modere.
ESCANDALIZADOS
Sabe a extraño que el gobierno argentino se haya escandalizado por un medida arancelaria que dificulta las exportaciones argentinas. ¿No es eso lo que hace Guillermo Moreno, sostenido por la pública defensa presidencial, con las importaciones de cualquier procedencia? El mundo está lleno de pecadores en materia comercial. China traba muchas importaciones y también Brasil. Eso sí: cometen pecados metódicos, perfectamente reglamentados. Ninguno ha depositado en la voluntad de un solo hombre la decisión de abrir o cerrar las puertas de sus aduanas. La diferencia puede parecer pequeña, pero no lo es. Puede haber reglas buenas o malas, pero mucho peor es que no las haya.
La política comercial de Moreno (y de la Presidenta) le ha quitado al país la autoridad moral para denunciar el proteccionismo de las naciones más desarrolladas. Esta política de denuncia del proteccionismo fue ejercida por los gobiernos argentinos desde Alfonsín hasta Néstor Kirchner. Resulta que ahora la Argentina se ha convertido en el país más proteccionista de Occidente. ¿Cómo reprocharles a los otros lo que uno mismo hace?
En esa encrucijada sin explicación tiene sentido la extravagante queja del canciller Timerman, que dijo que el país no cumple con las sentencias del Ciadi, pero sí cumple con los juicios de resarcimiento a los familiares de las víctimas de las violaciones de los derechos humanos. No hay relación alguna entre una cosa y la otra. Pero fue una manera de llenar con palabras la carencia de argumentos. Fue, también, la insistencia en un método demasiado repetido en los últimos tiempos: halagar los oídos de la Presidenta con las cuestiones que a ella le agradan. El método puede ser eficaz, pero termina cambiando de tema y enterrando los problemas, irresueltos.
The scenario
Obama no longer expect anything from CristinaBy Joaquin Morales Sola | THE NATION
Between Barack Obama and Cristina Kirchner (or between their administrations) is a political conflict. Perhaps there are also certain disappointments respect of each other. The Obama administration has always believed that the departure of George W. Bush's presidency, and to some of his policies could fundamentally change the American dialogue with many world leaders. Argentina's President grown more ideology than practical matters: a Democratic president rather than a Republican in Washington, was convinced, would open the possibility of a new era in bilateral relations. It did not take anything else.
Only in that context, in which there were several events lately always negative, can be explained Obama's harsh letter to Congress, which announced the cancellation of the facilities to export some Argentine products. The formal argument (but certainly not least) was that Argentina does not comply with the judgments of international ICSID tribunal, which condemned the country to pay reparations to two U.S. companies.
Cristina Kirchner's government wants to bring those trials completed to the Argentine courts, a body that was never under any agreement, is a strategy to delay payments. Not bad: Argentine judges could be several years sitting on these files.
But symbolically it would come much earlier had there not been a climate of coldness, distance and at times of stress? Obama's decision is indeed symbolic.The amount in question is only about $ 300 million, a very small amount in the total volume of Argentine exports. Nor closes the doors of the United States on imports from Argentina, not even the directly affected by this decision. Only sheds an exceptional tariff system.
The problem is political, indeed. Washington is what happens happens also to much of Western capitals: they know how to deal with Argentina and what are the issues with which they disagree or what are the issues with which they agree.There is, therefore, a clear agenda. Indifference is so great that Obama made that business decision a few days before the next Summit of the Americas to be held on 14 and 15 April in Cartagena, Colombia.
AFTER ABUSE
We no longer expect anything from the President of Argentina. At the previous summit in Trinidad and Tobago, Washington asked especially to Cristina Kirchner did not mention the schismatic summit in Mar del Plata in 2005. The then U.S. President Bush, was insulted and mistreated. Washington never forgot, even with Obama, that injury to the U.S. presidential institution. Cristina Kirchner in Trinidad and Tobago spent most of his speech, unlike Washingtonian order to praise the debauchery of Mar del Plata. What should I expect Obama now the leader in Argentina?
The thread of the offenses and their responses were made after lengthy. Obama visited South America, but traveled to Brazil and Chile, without stepping Argentina. The Argentine government responded to this rebuff with the seizure of a U.S. military aircraft and its cargo, which had landed at Ezeiza to move troops and material sensible for a training course agreed to Argentine police. One of the bags seized at the airport personally by Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman kept secret keys of the Pentagon, which had to be changed instantly.
Washington began to vote after systematically against lending to Argentina in the IDB and the World Bank. Appeared, in addition, two players with huge lobbying power in Washington: the two U.S. companies that do not charge the judgments of ICSID, on the one hand, and the last holders of defaulted Argentine bonds since 2001. These bondholders agreed not to enter any of the two exchanges proposed by the Kirchner government in 2005 and 2010. The lobby exists, but has more power when there is no political interest than moderate.
Outraged
It tastes strange that the Argentine government has been shocked by a tariff measure that makes Argentine exports. Is not that what makes Guillermo Moreno, supported by the presidential public defense, with imports from all sources? The world is full of sinners in commercial matters. China locking many imports and Brazil. That's right: commit sins methodical, perfectly regulated. None has been deposited in the will of one man's decision to open or close the doors of their customs. The difference may seem small, but it is not. Rules may be good or bad, but far worse is that they are not.
Moreno's trade policy (and President) has removed the country's moral authority to denounce protectionism of developed nations. This policy of denunciation of protectionism exercised by the Argentine government from Alfonsin to Nestor Kirchner. It is now Argentina has become the most protectionist country in the West. How reproach unto others what you yourself do?
In this crossroads without explanation makes sense of the bizarre complaint Chancellor Timerman, who said the country does not comply with the rulings of ICSID, but does comply with the judgments of compensation to the families of the victims of human rights violations. There is no connection between one thing and another. But it was a way to fill with words the lack of arguments. He was also the insistence on a method too repeated in recent times: to flatter the ears of the President to the issues that she likes. The method can be effective, but ends up changing the subject and burying the problems unresolved.
Between Barack Obama and Cristina Kirchner (or between their administrations) is a political conflict. Perhaps there are also certain disappointments respect of each other. The Obama administration has always believed that the departure of George W. Bush's presidency, and to some of his policies could fundamentally change the American dialogue with many world leaders. Argentina's President grown more ideology than practical matters: a Democratic president rather than a Republican in Washington, was convinced, would open the possibility of a new era in bilateral relations. It did not take anything else.
Only in that context, in which there were several events lately always negative, can be explained Obama's harsh letter to Congress, which announced the cancellation of the facilities to export some Argentine products. The formal argument (but certainly not least) was that Argentina does not comply with the judgments of international ICSID tribunal, which condemned the country to pay reparations to two U.S. companies.
Cristina Kirchner's government wants to bring those trials completed to the Argentine courts, a body that was never under any agreement, is a strategy to delay payments. Not bad: Argentine judges could be several years sitting on these files.
But symbolically it would come much earlier had there not been a climate of coldness, distance and at times of stress? Obama's decision is indeed symbolic.The amount in question is only about $ 300 million, a very small amount in the total volume of Argentine exports. Nor closes the doors of the United States on imports from Argentina, not even the directly affected by this decision. Only sheds an exceptional tariff system.
The problem is political, indeed. Washington is what happens happens also to much of Western capitals: they know how to deal with Argentina and what are the issues with which they disagree or what are the issues with which they agree.There is, therefore, a clear agenda. Indifference is so great that Obama made that business decision a few days before the next Summit of the Americas to be held on 14 and 15 April in Cartagena, Colombia.
AFTER ABUSE
We no longer expect anything from the President of Argentina. At the previous summit in Trinidad and Tobago, Washington asked especially to Cristina Kirchner did not mention the schismatic summit in Mar del Plata in 2005. The then U.S. President Bush, was insulted and mistreated. Washington never forgot, even with Obama, that injury to the U.S. presidential institution. Cristina Kirchner in Trinidad and Tobago spent most of his speech, unlike Washingtonian order to praise the debauchery of Mar del Plata. What should I expect Obama now the leader in Argentina?
The thread of the offenses and their responses were made after lengthy. Obama visited South America, but traveled to Brazil and Chile, without stepping Argentina. The Argentine government responded to this rebuff with the seizure of a U.S. military aircraft and its cargo, which had landed at Ezeiza to move troops and material sensible for a training course agreed to Argentine police. One of the bags seized at the airport personally by Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman kept secret keys of the Pentagon, which had to be changed instantly.
Washington began to vote after systematically against lending to Argentina in the IDB and the World Bank. Appeared, in addition, two players with huge lobbying power in Washington: the two U.S. companies that do not charge the judgments of ICSID, on the one hand, and the last holders of defaulted Argentine bonds since 2001. These bondholders agreed not to enter any of the two exchanges proposed by the Kirchner government in 2005 and 2010. The lobby exists, but has more power when there is no political interest than moderate.
Outraged
It tastes strange that the Argentine government has been shocked by a tariff measure that makes Argentine exports. Is not that what makes Guillermo Moreno, supported by the presidential public defense, with imports from all sources? The world is full of sinners in commercial matters. China locking many imports and Brazil. That's right: commit sins methodical, perfectly regulated. None has been deposited in the will of one man's decision to open or close the doors of their customs. The difference may seem small, but it is not. Rules may be good or bad, but far worse is that they are not.
Moreno's trade policy (and President) has removed the country's moral authority to denounce protectionism of developed nations. This policy of denunciation of protectionism exercised by the Argentine government from Alfonsin to Nestor Kirchner. It is now Argentina has become the most protectionist country in the West. How reproach unto others what you yourself do?
In this crossroads without explanation makes sense of the bizarre complaint Chancellor Timerman, who said the country does not comply with the rulings of ICSID, but does comply with the judgments of compensation to the families of the victims of human rights violations. There is no connection between one thing and another. But it was a way to fill with words the lack of arguments. He was also the insistence on a method too repeated in recent times: to flatter the ears of the President to the issues that she likes. The method can be effective, but ends up changing the subject and burying the problems unresolved.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario