29
Oct
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.
Source: http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/173177/the-russian-question