By Sebastián Lacunza
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
Nothing is as it seems. Spin-doctors have taken control of the campaign as has rarely been seen in Argentine history. They did their best to squeeze all life out of the candidates’ proposals. Thus they outlined a “normal,” archetypal presidential candidate, who appeals to the “average citizen.” The ideal hopeful espoused an elusive discourse and did not have a past, a contrasting reality for a country like Argentina that has known plenty of inspiring politicians.
Convinced that the electorate that will tip the balance in the eighth presidential race support some degree of change with continuity, the three main contenders ended by outlining a proposal that essentially vows the same thing — to keep the good and change the bad.
According to what they said, neither Daniel Scioli, nor Mauricio Macri, nor Sergio Massa will promote a sudden devaluation, even if they all allowed their own economists to suggest the contrary. None will privatize pensions, the state-run oil company YPF nor free-to-air soccer matches. Social plans will remain intact and could even be expanded, and all the candidates vowed to pursue a degree of a tough-on-crime approach. The three main contenders will fiercely negotiate with the “vulture” funds that have been helped by New York District Judge Thomas Griesa. Apparently, Scioli, Macri and Massa will observe the law, they will not tolerate corruption cases and will encourage dialogue among Argentines. Everything is nice. The fact that an ad-man, Ernesto Savaglio, has been campaigning for the three candidates (not simultaneously, that is) imust be seen as a mere coincidence.
However, everything doesn’t sound so similar. One of the points in which Scioli and Macri showed significant differences is in their approach to the international arena, particularly Latin America.
Buenos Aires Governor and Victory Front candidate deployed a high-impact agenda of meetings with Uruguay’s José Mujica and Tabaré Vázquez, Brazil’s Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva and Dilma Rousseff, Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Cuba’s Raúl Castro, and also phoned Ecuador’s Rafael Correa and Chile’s Michelle Bachelet this week. The ecumenical Scioli who does not reject a photo-op with anyone showed a sharper tilt toward the region, even travelling to celebrate electoral victories of the Workers’ Party (PT) in Brazil and the Broad Front in Montevideo.
The political shift experienced in Latin America over the last fifteen years led to new blocs, such as UNASUR, sustained in part on the affinity of its presidents, a fact that translates into a crucial challenge over the coming years. In this context, the foreign policy of Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner ranged from the “Bolivarian” caucus — dwindling after the death of Hugo Chávez — and less confrontational countries — or even friendly — toward the United States such as Colombia, Peru and Chile. Being the second South American economy but far from the importance of being Brazil, Argentina played its role as an intermediate point between the two groups, provoking caution and even confusion among foreign analysts.
Beyond the nuances, UNASUR countries agreed to block external interference. Given the explicit intention of Washington to get involved in Venezuelan politics, which resulted in calls to Latin American governments to join its rhetoric, the response was generally negative, except for Colombia’s Álvaro Uribe.
Macri promises a dramatic change that would place Argentina at the forefront of the confrontation with Caracas. The Let’s Change candidate anticipated that unless President Nicolás Maduro frees opposition leader Leopoldo López — sentenced to nearly 14 years in prison for his alleged responsibility in the violent revolt of 2014 — he would call on Argentina’s partners at the Mercosur and UNASUR to enforce the so-called democratic clause, which would entail the exclusion of any country that violates constitutional freedoms.
“This week something really important happened — the Brazilian representative to the electoral observers body for the mid-term elections, which take place in December, left the mission,” Diego Guelar, International Relations Secretary at Macri’s PRO party, told the Herald.
“This means that we are close to what we think should be the full real agenda with Brazil, to end this sort of sponsorship of a regime that does not meet full democratic conditions,” said Guelar, a conservative Peronist who used to serve as lawmaker and ambassador.
Indeed, Rousseff’s government withdrew its delegate to the observer mission that had been challenged by the Maduro government.
Guelar does not hesitate: “Venezuela is not a democracy.”
By contrast, the democratic clause was put forward by members of the Mercosur and Unasur (since 2014), but as a warning to the Venezuelan opposition, which was accused of preparing a “coup” by politicians from almost the entire continent. According to Guelar, protests in Venezuela did not intend to break the constitutional order. “Our attitude is in absolute solidarity with the opposition.”
Macri announced that his first trip, if elected president, would be to Brazil, where he would propose Dilma Roussef trigger sanctions against Venezuela. Beyond the changing relationship between Brasilia and Caracas, it does not seem at all likely that the weakened Rousseff would be willing to lead an attack against Maduro that would inevitably lead to a confrontation with other presidents in the continent (namely, Morales and Correa).
However, Let’s Change seems determined, as is the opposition in countries like Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Uruguay and Ecuador.
Until now, a key factor that defused any chance of foreign intervention in Venezuela were the clean elections, which were held properly and in a timely manner, leaving little room for criticism abroad. A vote will allegedly take place in December. If it doesn’t, the situation will force a fresh approach.
Those elections will coincide with the swearing-in of Argentina’s new president.
@sebalacunza