MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

“Legal insecurity” becomes top issue of Argentina’s political agenda

The Kirchner administration seems to have over reacted to Valenzuela’s remarks

Top United States official remarks about the lack of “legal security” in Argentina echoed in Copenhagen’s climate conference where Foreign Secretary Jorge Taiana approached Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to about these “unfortunate statements”.

Argentine diplomatic sources confirmed that Taiana spoke with Hillary Clinton in the sidelines of the climate change summit about US Under-Secretary of State for the Americas Arturo Valenzuela remarks during his visit this week to Buenos Aires.

The controversy was triggered when Valenzuela in a meeting with the Buenos Aires press shared US corporations’ doubts about “the current management of the Argentine economy”.

Valenzuela who has a long experience and knowledge of Latinamerica as an academic and for having spent eight years in top jobs related to the region under President Bill Clinton administrations, also said he noted a “change” in the climate investment atmosphere among US corporations, recalling that in 1996 under the administration of Carlos Menem “there was great enthusiasm in investing in Argentina”.

His remarks triggered immediate reactions from President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner administration top officials: cabinet chief Anibal Fernandez; Planning minister Julio de Vido and Interior minister Florencio Randazzo.

“Valenzuela statements have been unfortunate and even less fortunate his mention of President Menem’s years, 1996, as a period of great economic surge when exactly the opposite was happening : Argentina was steaming full ahead towards its greatest financial crisis in history”, said Taiana quoted in Copenhagen.

“We regret Mr. Valenzuela has shown so little knowledge about Argentina”, added Taiana.

“We’ve been saying so for over two months: there are no specific claims from, or problems with US corporations. Certainly not from the over 500 US corporations established in Argentina”, insisted Taiana.

Cabinet Chief Fernández charged against Barack Obama's envoy by declaring that “there is no legal insecurity in Argentina” and emphasized that “this man is not the United States”.

He also commented during a radio interview that people “should be careful with the expressions they use” and pointed out that ”(both administrations) should be working to strengthen a relation that they all need it to happen”.

Planning Minister De Vido also rejected Arturo Valenzuela's comments and declared that “when contracts are violated by private companies, it feels as if we are back on a neo-liberal economy”.

The minister also questioned “people who talk about legal insecurity when it's the state that has to make sure that contracts are not violated by private corporations” and complained that “people talk about legal insecurity when it was actually the government that passed a legitimate law that would allow the state to partially recover funds belonging to pensioners, which were being horribly administered.”

Argentine Ambassador to the US Héctor Timmerman also joined the controversy saying that “we'll have to analyze which are the underlying factors behind Valenzuela’s words: whether there has been a change in stance or if we are been demanded to state a new position.” He added: “Judicial safety was not part of Valenzuela's agenda.”

Timmerman declared that he had received a letter from Valenzuela before his visit, “where he pointed out the topics he was to be dealing here, and ‘judicial safety' was not a part of the list”. And he stated: “We are highly disappointed; dialogue with the United States was supposed to be different.”

In addition, Argentina Ambassador considered that Valenzuela's agenda in Argentina “clearly shows his ideological position.” Timmerman described Obama's envoy comments as “a complete ignorance of Argentine reality” and deepened: “They can be seen as a personal interest to block dialogue”.

Timmerman is convinced that Valenzuela is seeking ways to move this bilateral relationship backwards, “to level it with that of Menem, De La Rúa or Duhalde's administration; he is not willing to see that Latinamerica is living a whole different reality nowadays.”

But in spite of strong reaction not all Argentines agree. The farming sector showed support. Hugo Biolcatti, Argentine Rural Society president, specified: ”Valenzuela is right; there is indeed an enormous legal uncertainty to invest”.

Joaquín Morales Solá, probably Argentina’s most respected and knowledgeable political analyst recalled that the lack of “legal security” and lack of “reliable of rules of the game” is a recurrent problem in the Kirchner-couple’s Argentina.

Not only has it been expressed several times by the US ambassador in Buenos Aires Vilma Socorro Martínez but also Chief Justice Ricardo Lorenzetti in his farewell speech dedicated several paragraphs to the issue in “terms very similar to those expressed by Valenzuela”. Leaders from the Argentine opposition have stated it openly while different industrial groupings have done so low key.

More over Morales Solá recalls that Valenzuela, born in Chile, is a very much respected political scientist on Latinamerican affairs and “has been travelling regularly to Argentina for the last fifteen years”.

“It is hard to understand why the Kirchner government made an international scandal of something which did not exist and would have not existed had it not been for the press coverage of local top officials from the Argentine administration”.