Argentina/Spain dispute moves from oil corporation to too quality hams
Just days after finalizing the hostile takeover of Spanish-owned oil and gas company YPF, the Argentine government got even more hostile, freezing imports of Spain’s signature delicacy: ham.
The Cristina Fernandez administration agreed to the measure at the behest of the Argentine meat industry and farmers, who are looking to increase local ham production. The import freeze also affects Italy and Brazil.
“The embargo against ham doesn’t discriminate based on its origin. It will affect Spain, which exported 274 tons to Argentina last year, Brazil, with 241, and Italy with 199.”
Manuel González, the secretary general of Spain’s Professional Association of Meat Packing Factories and Meat Companies, has little doubt that the ban was driven by the conflict resulting from Argentina’s nationalization of the 51% stake Spanish oil giant Repsol had in YPF.
“It’s obviously a consequence of the economic and political conflict.”
Argentine meat industry representative Martín Gyldenfeldt defended the import restriction, saying it’s not dissimilar to trade barriers the European Union applies to Argentine meat.
However President Cristina Fernandez compared the restrictions on imports of Spanish and ham Italian with the Spanish Government decision to stop importing Argentine bio-diesel after the expropriation of the Spanish group Repsol YPF oil.
“I read today that the Spaniards are complaining because they say that we are not going to let the ham from Jabugo pata negra, and turns out to be that they just threaten us with not letting a single drop of bio-diesel into Spain,” Cristina Fernandez said in a ceremony at the Casa Rosada to announce public works.
Restrictions on the import of Spanish and Italian hams, announced this week by local media, are within the strategy of the Cristina Fernández government to curb imports and trying to increase exports to protect domestic industry and preserve the currency.
Suggested Stories
-
May 13th 2013
China to the rescue of Argentina with a 10 billion dollars equivalent swap
-
May 20th 2013
Polynesia in decolonization list; Pacific islands proposal supported by 193 votes in UN General Assembly
-
May 18th 2013
“Blue” dollar in Argentina picks up in last day of trading and reaches 8.95 Pesos
-
May 17th 2013
Argentina’s ‘autarkic project’ worsens bilateral relations and multiplies problems
52 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.
Cris: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
ha ha I cant believe It
I see you later friends I'm going to sleep
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ............
Seriously, Argtardia isn't even close to being the main market for their meat, so what on earth are they doing? It's madness I tell thee. I do however hope waitrose take up the slack by getting more delicious ham from spain and italy for my sandwiches.
Go ahead and ban it Cristina, because the rest of the world will buy it and you will be sanctioned eventually by the EU.... This is entertaining!
@6 I'll have that for my entrée thanks.
Spain will have no problem selling its top quality ham.We are importing more into the UK year by year.I am relatively new to Spanish cuisine but a combination of watching The Hairy Bikers Bakeation and being introduced to churros makes me keen to sample more.
And when, did it being madness, un ethical, or just wrong stop KFC from doing it? It just means that the Argentine ecomony will unwind faster, pretty soon there will be more legel writs and sanctions flying around in Aregntinaland than anything else.
I guess you still don't get it. Isolationism is what we want that's why no one complains, we want no relations with anyone. Not needed.
Even the Chinese have pulled out of the dodgy YPF deal, they know a bad investment when they see it.
There is a saying that is apt here, 'cutting off your nose to spite your face.'. CFK has certainly done that to Argentina, and continues the mutilation of your country. The ban on Spanish ham is just the latest in a long list of self-mutilation done by CFK.
You should wake up to the truth before it's too late for Argentina.
Not as extreme as North Korea, I would not end all trade, in fact the opposite. But everything else, yup, no relations with anyone in terms of cultural exchange, alliances, or fake diplomatic relations pretending we are friends with you are anyone else. You are not our friends, never were, never will.
By “you” I don't mean just the UK. Any alien nation applies.
But everything else, yup, no relations with anyone in terms of cultural exchange, alliances, or fake diplomatic relations pretending we are friends with you are anyone else.
These are internationall forums! maybe its time to lead by example!
Hmm, you either can't make up your mind, or you're being fed conflicting 'policies' by your La Campora masters.
Your politicians give conflicting messages all the time, have you noticed that? Or are you still learning the party line.
2+2 = 5
Black is white
Up is down
Wrong is right
Don't forget to repeat these mantra's 10 times before you go to bed each night.
This brings to mind another comment by Orwell's which is befitting of the Falklands issue. “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”. I'm personally quite glad that the islanders have some rough men ready.
Not sure about Spain, Italy and ham. I'm sure the only ones suggering will be the Argies.
There is no issue here. The only issue is your intransigence and complete lack of good faith in debate. You are just like automatons, no capability of discernment, with crass ken and distended pride.
Isolationism is like everything else, there are degrees. Or is it capitalism or communism (no shades of gray), direct democracy (citizens directly choose and make law), or one-man despotism?? Of course not, there's a gamut of variation of forms of government and economic systems with subtle differences.
You can live in an isolated village, keep to yourself, but still do transactions with neighboring villages for things you may need or want. Conduct the business fairly, quickly, and move on. That's all.
@24
It is all of you talking about my country here, the rule therefore does not apply. Believe me, talk about your countries and you will never see me again in such topics.
We in the free democracies can talk about who we want, and we wouldnt be talking about RG land if they stopped bullying a small island of 3000. Just stop and we can all get on with things.
Get over your humiliation of losing a war 30 years ago, and get a proper job not trolling for Kircheryouth on the internet.
You obviously don't have a clue about history. Horrible education system.
The USA and Argentina saw their BIGGEST eras of growth between the 1880s and 1930s. When they were ISOLATIONIST by policy. The word itself is an Americanism, Spanish already had a word (Aislamiento). In both countries, isolationism meant to stay clear of alliances (specially the old world), avoid too much cultural pollution from other countries, mind your own business, and let the two big oceans protect you.
YET BOTH ALLOWED TRADE.
Both countries prospered. Since then, the USA has flatlined (and since the 1970s its living standards declimed).... this coincides with the USA getting involved all over the world and ever rising military budgets.
Argentina declined in living standards by stopping to trade with others, and due to political instability.
It is obvious that isolationism with trade was a great and succesful formula in TWO countries, which proves it works.
My job is more secure than yours I bet. I guess none of you read the economic and social news from the EU/UK/US this week. It was dire.
Might want to re-read your arg-history books, they be not very good.
Interesting to note that Argentina came under a barriage of criticism at the World Trade Organisation the other week where the US, EU, Japan and TEN other countries accused it of tying up imports in red tape after the Argentine government imposed a new system to pre-aprove or reject every purchase from abroad.
Is this the way to encourage trade?
Perhaps countries will stop buying from Argentina and go elsewhere...
As good racist nations that you are, I'm not at all surprised. You forgive the same transgressions from fellow European and North American white nations, but pick on the latin nation.
Makes sense really, it ties up the attitudes seen here nicely.
@31
I disagree with not just CFK, but with the whole concept of the Falklands to begin with. I don't support the sovereignty cause there.
But it was my understanding that Argentina also had trade disputes runing with Chile, Brasil and Mexico..?
They are behaving like typical parvenus or arrivistes, so I'm not surprised either.
They really do seem to be a bunch of nationalists.
As one Argentinian proudly boasted they “grew” their nation from the size of France to the size of Western Europe by starting wars with every Colonial nation around them.
Any Argentinian reading this knows they are sitting on stolen land they have thieved from the native South Americans. Not content with this you then went to war with every other colonial nation you share a border with. You celebrate the genocide of three native tribes on a bank note, you are, in short, in the modern post-colonial world, pure scum.
You lot are a bunch of thieving parasites and I hope one day Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, the Falklanders and Brazil finally get fed up with you.
Learned it well from you, Mr. Scum.
2000 years of scumhood (UK and Europe in general), are not unscummed by 50 years of nuclear-imposed happy faces.
Sorry.
Allright, you guys don't. Some decency I'm gleaning, perhaps. Given 200 years of repentance and peaceful coexistence with others, European nations will have a right to moral citadels.
I've read some good thoughtful comments by you in the past on this great board.
The days of colonilalism of GONE, FINISHED, OVER.
Only Argentina doesnt understand it, and as such seems they need a collective “check-up from the neck-up” as us Brits say.
South America is young, we still have plenty of time for redrawing our borders (not the Falklands). Argentina could still use some expanding somewhere.
Eventually, yeah I agree.
You are welcome in London anytime. I have a spare room.
I will educate about why colonialism was so discracefull, it's now, and as a Yank/Canadian pointed out on this border, the borders were cemented at the end of WWII and from the cold war thereafter. Colonialism was very dead in the interventing 5 years. A discusting goverence second only to slavery which the Arabs had already perfected on the East Coast in the 600's, having wiped out the native population, and then proceeded to take 1 in 5 of the male fishermen from the coasts of Cornwall (The UK) at one point in the British History. ”type
Colonialism mate, dont you just hate the scum bags.
The Barbary slavers can be read here:
www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml
However at somepoint in human history we can be somehow proud of this shit angers me.
(Toby)
Tobias
Did you really say the USA was isolationist?
From the very moment they won independence they expanded and then intervened.
They attacked Mexico and took half of that country and made it their own. They kicked out the Spanish and the French, they bought Alaska. Once they had colonised half a continent they were desperate to project influence; they annexed Hawaii and the Philippines in the Pacific. They even set up a colony, Liberia, in Africa.
Then they really got going: WW1; then WW2 in the Pacific and Europe; financed the rebuilding of Europe; Korean War and the Vietnam war. Hum?
Doesn’t fit any definition of isolationist that I understand.
Up to the 1870s the US was expansionist. Once that period ended,the US got involved in a few things, but for the size of the country it stayed very much out of the main. From the 1880s to the 1940s the US was surprisingly little involved in others affairs, and they did great.
WWII was the turning point and that's when they became interventionist after 1945. The USA as an economy/culture/power peaked in the 1950s, which is why to Americans that decade is their pinnacle culturally and nostalgically.
Within 10 years of their interventionism era, they began a slow inexorable decline, with the 1960s being troubled social times, the 1970s a disastrous economic decade which continued into the early 1980s. Then the economy recovered a bit, but they began amassing massive deficits and the first decade the middle class shrank. They had the 1990s credit boom which were good times based on consumer credit, that ran its course by 2001 but then they found a way to get credit through their homes, creating another bubble that kept things going a few more years... until 2007 and we know what happened.
And through the 90s and 2000s the middle class continued to stagnate and inthe last 5 years shown a steep decline. Now 25% of American children are poor and unemployment ias 13% since the government fudges the figures. They have 16 trillion in debt with no end in sight.
Interventionism kills just as much as extreme protectionism/isolationism killed Argentina in the 1950-1980s.
The best choice of protein is chicken and beef!...Chuletas, milanesas y pollo asado with garlic y con vino...is the best meal for all argentinians!
I understand the difference, that is why I said “they expanded and then intervened”.
The reason they took a while to start intervening was that with such rapid expansion they had plenty of internal colonising to do, if you will allow the expression. They were only “out of the main” because it took a while to muscle in on the established world order. Not because they were pursuing some isolationist utopia.
I note with interest that the isolationist policy that you extol and long for in Argentina is essentially the post 1989 Chilean model:
1) stay out of regional trade blocks
2) negotiate free trade agreements with all the main regional trade blocks
3) hold no debt
The Atacama to the north, the Andes to the east and the Pacific to the west. Splendid isolation. Reinforced with with 180 brand new Leopard Mark II Tanks, 18 modern F-16s and a good fleet to protect the territories de ultramar (Easter Island etc).
Maybe you would be happier if el Cuyo were still Chilean ;)
Do you think it is working?
If you do, then you are proving I am right, and that what I have said here all along works.
Argentina followed that model of trade/export and stay out of world affairs and be no one's “ally” (even stay out of WWI and WWII to the eternal hatred of the USA), and everyone seems to agree Argentina reached great levels of prosperity in the 1880-1950 period.
So... doesn't it prove then that my line of ideology works? You can trade with people buy still stay out of their business. That is what many in the USA in the grass roots are saying the US should RETURN to... but the left party is too interested in social engineering and the right party to invested in global militarism. Both will doom them eventually if not already.
I'm very happy Cuyo is not part of Chile. Mendoza would have been a minor outpost too close to Santiago for any true development. Mendoza benefited enormously from the immigration era in Argentina (with Chile being far more anti-immigrant and still is), with the railroads bringing tens of thousands of immigrants and transforming the province.
Chile is lucky in that it has solid institutions with low levels of corruption. It also has, thanks to its very non-isolationist past, immense mineral wealth in the Atacama. Chile has a free market and encouraged massive foreign investment. The latter would not sit well, I think, with your version of isolationism. And it is that foreign investment that is key. It is possible to isolate yourself if all you do is export commodities like we do. In Europe it is much more difficult. Everything they make is the product of human capital, hence the greater the free movement of people and ideas the better.
If a country is isolated it becomes less and less competitive and eventually will fail. Chile has state of the art mines because there is copper and there is foreign investment. Codelco (the state miner) has 4 times as many employees as BHP, yet BHP produces more copper. If Chile had isolated itself entirely it would probably be horribly unproductive.
I am not sure from your posts if you are pro CFK, but what she is doing would seem to be the complete opposite of establishing the right conditions to emulate Chile’s success. She has set Argentina up for external manipulation by receiving money from Chavez, attempting to regionalize the Falklands dispute, requisitioning repsol and a whole host of other trade restrictions. You know, in the supermarkets here I can buy beef from Australia, USA, Brazil and Paraguay more easily than from Argentina. That didn’t used to be the case until they imposed those export tariffs??? What on earth was that about?
You mention the railroads...I’m pretty sure they were built by the British. Last time I took the train from BA to Mendoza it was in a bad state (does it still run?) You see, if you want a modern working railroad, get some foreign investment in! Probably best to ask the French nowadays. Of course they would ask for the cash up front given CFK’s antics.
Chile in fact I would argue took the Argentina 1880-1950 playbook... allow unrestricted flows of capital and foreign invesment, and export commodities. Argentina additionaly permitted unrestricted flow of people, so 9-12 entered Argentina, 6-7 stayed, but those times where different. Europe was desperate and Argentina was empty with tons of land gained from expansionist wars, campains and treaties.
Railroads no longer have a usable passanger use in Argentina or any country in the American continent. I have a good friend and he puts it well: it simply is not profitable.
It is profitable only in very highly dense population regions: China, Japan, Korea, and Europe. In countries like the USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina... the major cities are either too spread out (USA, Brazil), or not enough of them (Canada, Argentina). And in all four cases between the cities there is virtually nothing but empty farmland (the small towns don't count for passenger traffic). Thus rail passenger is not profitable compared to either faster point A to B flying, or to long-distance buses which in Argentina are extremely confortable and can quickly stop in small town bus stations without much expense (unlike trains which make it extremely unprofitable to stop too much).
On the railroad, I disagree. Freight and passengers use the same lines. If you are prepared to make the investment, the efficiency is there. Note, aerolineas loses U$2 million a day.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!