A Miscalculation as to how Washington Sets Its Policies
Published in La Nacion
(Argentina) on 2 May 2014
by Martin Dinatale (link to original)
The Casa Rosada* made a grave miscalculation if it thought that U.S. support for Argentina to get the U.S. Supreme Court to end the predatory hedge funds’ lawsuit was going to turn into a blank check from Barack Obama in support of any political strategy promoted by Cristina Kirchner.
Nothing is linear and it will not be possible to expect automatic support from the United States for Argentina on all issues because of a simple equation that dominates American diplomacy: Washington does not tailor its foreign policy to the changing moods of a president. Rather, it sets state policies that remain in place regardless of who occupies the White House.
The fight against drug trafficking, the struggle against international terrorism, the battle against the black market and protectionist trade policies are some of the pillars that American diplomacy has always upheld.
The 2013 report on terrorism released by the State Department is not much different from other documents regarding this thorny issue, at least as it pertains to Argentina.
The Triple Border continues to be a relevant worry for Washington. For many years, American intelligence reports have warned about the regional ties between weapons, drug and human trafficking, counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering in the Argentinean northeast.
Perhaps the greatest novelty in this issue is that closer ties are beginning to be seen between terrorist activities financed by drug trafficking—although this should not be news to the Secretariat of Intelligence or the Defense Ministry, which for years have been receiving alerts from the DEA or the FBI along the same lines as the recent report.
Moreover, the new report about the terrorism situation in Argentina should not be news to representatives of the opposition or the government itself, who suffer the scourge of drug trafficking in their districts. Last March, Department of State Director for the Office of Brazilian and Southern Cone Affairs of the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, William Ostick, met in Buenos Aires with the Radical Civic Union, Republican Proposal, and Kirchnerist leaders. He made it clear to them that Washington wants to establish a “positive agenda” with Buenos Aires. But he also conveyed the United States’ concern over the growth of terrorism on the Triple Border.
Just like the report on terrorism, Ostick mentioned at a private lunch with representatives of the government and the opposition that no threat from a Hezbollah Islamist terrorist cell in the region has been detected in Argentina. However, Washington warns that the Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia axis is strengthening in the region. From the United States’ geopolitical perspective it is worrisome that this link may be strengthened due to the presence of Putin’s Russia in the region.
Another piece of news in the new report, and which perhaps caused the greatest impact in the Casa Rosada, is that the document was released simultaneously with strong words from the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson, who said, “What we’ve seen in Argentina most—I think most importantly in some ways, in terms of numbers in Brazil, is that the amount of consumption domestically in those countries has gone up, and it’s gone up pretty dramatically.”
Jacobson’s statement does not differ from Washington’s position, except that Obama’s official makes them bluntly public. In that case, behind the veiled American criticism of Argentina lies what could be done by the government but is not being done, or what has been done, but done unconvincingly. In practice that is: Washington’s desire for the DEA to take a more active role in the fight against drug trafficking in Argentina, as it does in other Latin American countries, or that, for example, the Government’s agreement with Iran over the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association issue had never existed.
All of this falls within Washington’s expectations of the country that clash with Cristina’s miscalculations.
*Editor's note: The Casa Rosada is the executive mansion and office of the president of Argentina.
Nothing is linear and it will not be possible to expect automatic support from the United States for Argentina on all issues because of a simple equation that dominates American diplomacy: Washington does not tailor its foreign policy to the changing moods of a president. Rather, it sets state policies that remain in place regardless of who occupies the White House.
The fight against drug trafficking, the struggle against international terrorism, the battle against the black market and protectionist trade policies are some of the pillars that American diplomacy has always upheld.
The 2013 report on terrorism released by the State Department is not much different from other documents regarding this thorny issue, at least as it pertains to Argentina.
The Triple Border continues to be a relevant worry for Washington. For many years, American intelligence reports have warned about the regional ties between weapons, drug and human trafficking, counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering in the Argentinean northeast.
Perhaps the greatest novelty in this issue is that closer ties are beginning to be seen between terrorist activities financed by drug trafficking—although this should not be news to the Secretariat of Intelligence or the Defense Ministry, which for years have been receiving alerts from the DEA or the FBI along the same lines as the recent report.
Moreover, the new report about the terrorism situation in Argentina should not be news to representatives of the opposition or the government itself, who suffer the scourge of drug trafficking in their districts. Last March, Department of State Director for the Office of Brazilian and Southern Cone Affairs of the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, William Ostick, met in Buenos Aires with the Radical Civic Union, Republican Proposal, and Kirchnerist leaders. He made it clear to them that Washington wants to establish a “positive agenda” with Buenos Aires. But he also conveyed the United States’ concern over the growth of terrorism on the Triple Border.
Just like the report on terrorism, Ostick mentioned at a private lunch with representatives of the government and the opposition that no threat from a Hezbollah Islamist terrorist cell in the region has been detected in Argentina. However, Washington warns that the Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia axis is strengthening in the region. From the United States’ geopolitical perspective it is worrisome that this link may be strengthened due to the presence of Putin’s Russia in the region.
Another piece of news in the new report, and which perhaps caused the greatest impact in the Casa Rosada, is that the document was released simultaneously with strong words from the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson, who said, “What we’ve seen in Argentina most—I think most importantly in some ways, in terms of numbers in Brazil, is that the amount of consumption domestically in those countries has gone up, and it’s gone up pretty dramatically.”
Jacobson’s statement does not differ from Washington’s position, except that Obama’s official makes them bluntly public. In that case, behind the veiled American criticism of Argentina lies what could be done by the government but is not being done, or what has been done, but done unconvincingly. In practice that is: Washington’s desire for the DEA to take a more active role in the fight against drug trafficking in Argentina, as it does in other Latin American countries, or that, for example, the Government’s agreement with Iran over the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association issue had never existed.
All of this falls within Washington’s expectations of the country that clash with Cristina’s miscalculations.
*Editor's note: The Casa Rosada is the executive mansion and office of the president of Argentina.
Previous article![]( "Al-Qaida Terrorists in Poland, Part 3: \"I Am Not Accusing Poland, Just a Small Group of People\"")
