The Kirchners under increased international isolation
Argentina’s ruling couple, the Kirchners growing international isolation has been highlighted by Buenos Aires political analysts. The only leader who seems to visit Buenos Aires quite often is Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, while differences accumulate with neighbouring Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, with the more distant Mexico and Israel and there seems to be a growing distancing from the Obama administration.
In effect local observers claim President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is definitively “out of Obama’s agenda”, while Argentina’s strategic partner, Brazil’s Lula da Silva has already been to the While House and next June 23 neighbouring Michelle Bachelet from Chile will be in Washington on a special invitation.
Meantime in Buenos Aires an anti-Semitic rampage of hooligans on celebrations for the state of Israel’s creation day motivated a strong protest from the Israeli government. The news travelled round the world and it is known that the catch-all grouping that surrounds the Kirchners has many admirers of Iran and the Middle East fundamentalist extremist groups.
Joaquin Morales Solá, a leading political analyst, writing a column in La Nacion enumerates other fumbled decisions: the disdainful and cold cancelling of flights to Mexico alleging the swine flu; unending trade disputes with Brazil which have Mercosur on the brink; compulsory unilateral energy rationing to Chile; the blocked international bridge with Uruguay (over two years running) and the latest financial decree which virtually bans financial exchanges alleging Uruguay is a fiscal paradise; banning the crossing of Bolivian and Paraguayan soybeans through Argentine territory.
Mr. Morales Solá recalls that there have been no major foreign visitors to Argentina for over two years, precisely since then President Nestor Kirchner left the Queen of Holland waiting at an official ceremony; he never turned up and never apologized. The only and sporadic “business” visits have been from Chavez, Lula da Silva and Bolivia’s Evo Morales.
With the return of the Democrats and President Barack Obama, Cristina Kirchner was expecting closer relations. It needs to: Argentina has no access to global financial markets and would like access to the more flexible IMF loans, but husband Nestor has made the IMF the mother of all evils befallen upon Argentina, and continues with the same tune in the campaign for mid term elections.
Morales Solá also points out that Obama recently named as his man in the region, Arturo Valenzuela, Chilean born, US educated but a brilliant interpreter of both cultures. It’s hard to see a Chilean accepting that the Argentines have suddenly become good neighbours.
US diplomacy also has present the discourtesy and diplomatic scandal when the 2005 Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata. Then President Kirchner was most rude with US leader George Bush before the thirty odd peers present. The US State Department was also convinced that a counter summit, with Chavez and Morales, in Buenos Aires had been organized by President Kirchner.
Although the Argentines denied it, a notorious pickets’ leader shunned by Kirchner recently confessed he had been sent to Cuba and Venezuela to help organize the “free peoples of the Americas summit”, on instructions from Mr Kirchner himself.
Furthermore Obama is not Bush, he’s one of the most popular world leaders and Chavez short of oil revenue can’t attack the US president. Nevertheless says Morales Solá, the only leader visiting Argentina is heading for the perfect dictatorship: a ban on the import of books and only official Chavez, Bolivar and Marx texts at school. The leader of the Venezuelan opposition and elected mayor of the country’s second largest city was forced to take refuge in Peru; the nationalization of industries, confiscation of companies and land advances since “private property” can’t be an impediment for the revolution. Chavez is determined to end with the independent media and has virtually broken relations with Israel and the local Venezuelan Jewish community.
And as some Argentine media and from Spain pointed out with a touch of irony: this time Mr. Chavez, --distrustful of his messengers... was back in Buenos Aires to personally give his full support to the Kirchners battling to retain congressional majority next June 28.
During the previous election when Cristina succeeded her husband in 2007, one of his envoys was surprised by local Buenos Aires Customs with a suitcase full of dollars (800.000) for the Kirchner campaign which became an international scandal involving United States.
In effect a very flimsy cover-up operation trying to coerce the Miami resident messenger to admit his personal guilt, ended with five prison convictions by a US federal court. The messenger, a regular Buenos Aires and Montevideo visitor, fearing revenge, had turned into an FBI informer, trapping the group of five working on instructions from Venezuelan intelligence.
Suggested Stories
-
Feb 10th 2012
US/Argentina discuss bilateral relation and regional democratic stability
-
Feb 10th 2012
Timerman on Friday formalizes at UN complaint against UK ‘militarization’ of Malvinas dispute
-
Feb 10th 2012
State Department ratifies Falklands’ dispute is a bilateral Argentina/UK issue
-
Feb 09th 2012
Chilean community in Falklands march in support of the air link with Santiago
14 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Chavez is clearly playing on borderland territory with regards to democracy and the Kirchners have consistently had an aggressive and confrontational attitude, both internally and internationally. That is an objective fact, like it or not.
It is difficult to know who to vote for these days. Certainly not Menem. Winnie the Pooh caused much laughter in the Falklands and nobody took the so-called seduction policies seriously, rather looked on them with curiosity at this strange Argentine manuifestation rather than think they were of any practical use or actually sincere.
Talking of standards of democracy, if it is the policy of Argentina to protect the 'interests' and 'way of life' of Falkland Islanders why are you so shy of talking to them directly about what you mean by this? They have a democratically elected Government (a new one due to be elected in November this year) so why not deal with them directly if you are really sincere?
Besides that, United Nations invites only the Uk and Argentina to talk about sovereighty. they didnt said anything about a third partie in this equation. So its way of life and interests means that if we regain sovereighty we shall not expell them or change their britishness, their culture, giving them the right to be represented democratically with elected members . Honk kong for example changed sovereighty without changing its way of life and respecting their interests
As I have explained before, to live in the Falklands you need a connection of some kind. Even if you were not born there, you will need some kind of connection to live there (eg. you have a parent born there). Or a job offer. The vast majority of the Falkland Islanders (including those not born there) have a FI connection.
Argentina is a country of immigrants, most Argentines have a heritage elsewhere, but that did not stop you deciding on your own destiny. Why do you deny that right to the Falkland Islanders?
The UN has invited Argentina and the UK to resolve their sovereignty dispute but the UN has NOT said the only outcome is Argentine control of the islands. There are two other options. Continued UK control or complete independence. Anyway, as has been shown many, many times Argentina's claim is very weak.
As Bubba has pointed out, Hong Kong is a poor example. Most Hong Kong residents have no British heritage, and another thing, most of Hong Kong (the New Territories) were on a 99 year lease from China, only a very small part of Hong Kong (HK Island and a bit of Kowloon) was British territory.
Bubba is also right. If you had not taken aggressive action in 1982, the UK might have even handed sovereignty to Argentina by now. This process was under way in the 1970s, with the Navigation agreement etc. You only have yourselves to blame for the Islanders not wanting to trust you...
About the rest is not true.I said “Hong kong changed sovereignty without changing its way of life or interest” what did i said wrong? well i should have used the word administration instead of sovereignty.
Justin the uk can give malvinas the same status as Australia, Canada, New Zealand or whatever but it does not mean it is recognized by the world becouse the uk do so. Personally i dont care what status the uk gives to them, its irrelevant.
Justin, let me put it this way. The illegal colonial government in malvinas has nothing to do with our sovereignty rights, so if malvinas have or not a legal government it does not affect our claim at all. Having said that, if Argentina one day decide to forget that claim in favor of another solution why should we recognize a government in malvinas where its autorities were born in the north hemisphere.
If malvinas inhabitants has the right to choose between Argentine government or british government dont you thing that having almost the entire government in the islands being born in england or scotland will have influence in that decision?
So the question is, a government that is born elsewhere with a population born elsewhere have the right to selfdetermination? definitely not.
The United Nations recognize there is a sovereignty dispute. The uk denie there is any dispute. The UN invite the two part to resolve the problem of sovereignty to end with decolonization of those islands. So the United Nations recognize the islands are a colony. And you are right Justin the UN has NOT said the only outcome is Argentine control of the islands but they neither said that they should be independent or that they have the right to selfdetermination.
And anticipating to your response everybody have the right to selfdetermination but as i cant ask for selfdetermination of a piece of walles you cant ask for selfdetermination in Argentine territory, in this case malvinas.
I cannot let your unsubstantiated assertions go unchallenged. You clearly do not understand your own history or the historical context. You are judging something that happened 177 years ago by a new set of standards post WWII. This is a ridiculous argument.
You are also quite wrong that the Islands would have without doubt been handed to Argentina if it were not for the war. The reason for the conflict was that the UK had made clear to Argentina that without the consent of the Islanders the British Parliament would not agree to any kind of handover. This is what prompted the Argentine military to attack the Islands and occupy them illegally.
You fail also to recognise the origins of your own people from the Northern Hemisphere if it was legitimate for you why not the Falklands? You operate double standards that’s why. Er? Galtieri, is that a Spanish name? Give us a break from propaganda. When natural born islanders were a clear majority in the 1960’s and 70’s you still did not treat with them correctly. The shifting sands of your arguments are pathetic.
There is no illegal colonial government in the Falklands it is perfectly legal and recognised by the UN as the government of the administering power, reports on its progress to self-determination are submitted to and accepted by the UN on a regular basis.
Argentina's attempt at the UN this year to get the UN to agree that existing sovereignty disputes negated the right of the colonial countries to self-determination failed miserably. It was outvoted.
It was made it clear to Argentina in 1829 when the then illegal Government of Argentina announced its intention to set up a Colony in the East Falklands that this act was considered in breach of the UK’s rights but the UK’s protest though acknowledged was left unanswered. Then after Moreno made his first protest in 1833 at the UK’s re-occupation of the Falklands it was made clear to him that the UK was settling an old dispute with Spain and it was none of the new state of Argentina‘s business.
What was his reply? OK then well “Just let us have one of the Islands then.” Check it out.
Spain certainly had not ceded the Falklands to Argentina in 1833. Where is your proof? It did not even recognise Argentina as an independent country until 1859.
Besides there is no right of succession to new states that have obtained their independence by violent means, the extent of the territory of the new state is determined by its ability to hold on to that land against all comers and Argentina failed in a number of respects to do this. Several new states were created out of the former vice royalty or parts of it and their boundaries with Argentina (so called United Provinces or rather not united till the 1850's and later) were decided by violence and various agreements. There was no succession to the territories of the former Vice Royalty or the Spanish Empire. The only difference with the Falklands is that so far Argentina has failed to recognise the final frontier.
That day will come of course.
What you fail to underestand is that in Argentina in the time of the colony, mayority of people were born in this nation, the population was between 500 and 700 thousands people of which 6000 were spaniard who BORN in spain obviously but ejerced government with an argumentation of etnic type to maintain domination. More important is that our governments after independence were not controled by spain nor the usa or britain.
What would happends if the war did not exist? i can only assume and you can agree or not.
If you suggest that the United Nation recognize the government of malvinas as an independent one its a lie bigger than those islands. The UN recognize that the administering power of the islands is the uk. ADMINISTERING. It specifically state that the uk is only the adminitering power not its sovereignty owner.
About Mariano Moreno give me the links where he said that.
Then you said “”“Spain certainly had not ceded the Falklands to Argentina in 1833”“””. Spain went home long before that year. In 1833 Argentina controled the islands and before that, in 1825 England recognized Argentine independence with an Agreement without protest for our governance in malvinas.
Expat comparing the subjet with anything only confuses people, the only thing you forgot to mention were comparing the killings of the natives with the expelled of argentine settles in malvinas.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!