Washington Critics Unite Themselves Against the Argentine Government
Published in La Nacion
(Argentina) on June 19, 2008
by Hugo Alconanda Mon (link to original)
(Argentina) on June 19, 2008
by Hugo Alconanda Mon (link to original)
Translated from
by Holly Fernandez.
Edited by .
The United States looks at what is happening in Argentina with unrest; important voices in this capital press to weave a consensus and solutions with speed. They lament that the government continues to support a “zero sum” game in which one gains what the other loses and vice versa.
They also feel that the Casa Rosada (the Argentine governmental house) decided to use the conflict with the field (agricultural workers) as “the point of a lance” to reaffirm its agenda at a complicated moment.
“It is natural that when a country has a crisis, as the one that Argentina experienced in 2001, society closes rank behind some political leaders. But it is also natural that when the worst of that crisis is over the dissension emerges to improve their position,” commented a voice of reference in the American capital to La Nacion Newspaper.
The undersecretary of state for Latin America, Tom Shannon, avoided interfering in what is defined as “a domestic affair”, in a dialogue with La Nacion. He as well as his team in the State Department continues concentrating on improving the relationship following the earthquake of December around the case of Antonini Wilson.
This is why Shannon anticipates traveling to Buenos Aires next month.
Different Position
But that first vision, and the public caution of Shannon combine with other more critical positions outlined in the Capital and in the Academy to the query of La Nacion.
“These first six months were a failure for the Kirchners in many ways”, affirmed the expert from the Council on Foreign Relations, Shannon O’Neil.
“First, the negative economic and inflationary effects of their monetary and fiscal politics escalated more rapidly than anyone hoped. Second, the political decisions of Cristina—in particular the highest taxes on agricultural exports—aggravated the political tension and are harming the economy not only in the immediate by means of the shortage, but also in the medium and long term”, she lamented.
Three months after the encounter between the chief of the Republican bench on the Senate subcommittee for Latin America, Richard Lugar, and the ambassador to the White House, Hector Timerman, the legislator observes the Argentine evolution. “It worries us a lot that the Argentine people might have another crisis. We hope to see the situation normalize itself”, explained his principal assessor for the Latin American region, Carl Meacham.
Searching for Alternatives
O’Neil, in charge of directing a group that analyzes politics of the United States towards Latin America and how to improve it, proposed that the Casa Rosada should explore another way: “In the short term, in order to reduce tension, the government should change course with the agricultural workers. Perhaps more important, they should change their direction in order to make possible sustainable economic growth in the long term, strengthening the investment in the agriculture sector. If not, Argentina shall fall into the classic “curse of resources” in which the higher prices of commodities could bring less production due to the official intervention into these areas of the economy”.
Meacham indicated a collateral effect of these governmental policies that are combined with the “Argentinization” of some assets that were in the hands of foreigners, the voluntary withdrawl of others by Americans, Spanish, and French, the repudiation of the International Monetary Fund, or the absence of an agreement with the Paris Club.
“If there is a crisis, they will be more alienated than in 2001. There are not many American or European companies urging their governments to involve themselves as they had seven years ago. If the situation worsens to whom will it be more important? To the Brazilians with investments there?”, commented Meacham.
They also feel that the Casa Rosada (the Argentine governmental house) decided to use the conflict with the field (agricultural workers) as “the point of a lance” to reaffirm its agenda at a complicated moment.
“It is natural that when a country has a crisis, as the one that Argentina experienced in 2001, society closes rank behind some political leaders. But it is also natural that when the worst of that crisis is over the dissension emerges to improve their position,” commented a voice of reference in the American capital to La Nacion Newspaper.
The undersecretary of state for Latin America, Tom Shannon, avoided interfering in what is defined as “a domestic affair”, in a dialogue with La Nacion. He as well as his team in the State Department continues concentrating on improving the relationship following the earthquake of December around the case of Antonini Wilson.
This is why Shannon anticipates traveling to Buenos Aires next month.
Different Position
But that first vision, and the public caution of Shannon combine with other more critical positions outlined in the Capital and in the Academy to the query of La Nacion.
“These first six months were a failure for the Kirchners in many ways”, affirmed the expert from the Council on Foreign Relations, Shannon O’Neil.
“First, the negative economic and inflationary effects of their monetary and fiscal politics escalated more rapidly than anyone hoped. Second, the political decisions of Cristina—in particular the highest taxes on agricultural exports—aggravated the political tension and are harming the economy not only in the immediate by means of the shortage, but also in the medium and long term”, she lamented.
Three months after the encounter between the chief of the Republican bench on the Senate subcommittee for Latin America, Richard Lugar, and the ambassador to the White House, Hector Timerman, the legislator observes the Argentine evolution. “It worries us a lot that the Argentine people might have another crisis. We hope to see the situation normalize itself”, explained his principal assessor for the Latin American region, Carl Meacham.
Searching for Alternatives
O’Neil, in charge of directing a group that analyzes politics of the United States towards Latin America and how to improve it, proposed that the Casa Rosada should explore another way: “In the short term, in order to reduce tension, the government should change course with the agricultural workers. Perhaps more important, they should change their direction in order to make possible sustainable economic growth in the long term, strengthening the investment in the agriculture sector. If not, Argentina shall fall into the classic “curse of resources” in which the higher prices of commodities could bring less production due to the official intervention into these areas of the economy”.
Meacham indicated a collateral effect of these governmental policies that are combined with the “Argentinization” of some assets that were in the hands of foreigners, the voluntary withdrawl of others by Americans, Spanish, and French, the repudiation of the International Monetary Fund, or the absence of an agreement with the Paris Club.
“If there is a crisis, they will be more alienated than in 2001. There are not many American or European companies urging their governments to involve themselves as they had seven years ago. If the situation worsens to whom will it be more important? To the Brazilians with investments there?”, commented Meacham.
Previous article![]( "When the Wives Become Four: Polygamy in the USA")
