March 3, 2010
Exclusive: Hillary in Argentina: One More Foreign Policy Misstep
Mark Falcoff
If you thought that Hillary Clinton was a jagged-edged take-no-prisoners political street fighter (and you’d be right), you should know that she met her match last week in Buenos Aires with Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.
For those who don’t follow such matters, Señora de Kirchner is a more successful version of our former First Lady. A lawyer much involved in questionable financial transactions while her husband was governor of the small, backward (but gas and oil-rich) Argentine province of Río Negro during the ‘90s (does this sound a bit familiar?), Mrs. Kirchner sat in the Argentine Senate during her husband’s presidency between 2003 and 2007. Then, to avoid term limits, Nestor Kirchner stepped aside two years ago, opening the way to his wife to succeed him. He’s now preparing another run in 2011, and unless the earth stops turning on its axis, Mrs. Kirchner will return to power in 2015, and her spouse in 2019... There are Kirchners in Argentina’s future as far as anyone can see. Those reckless souls in that country’s congress, media or political community who object to this cozy arrangement are routinely accused of plotting to overthrow the government by force. Would that the Clintons could have figured out a scam as comfortable as this one!
What made the meeting in Buenos Aires last week newsworthy (at least in the Argentine prints) was the fact that only days ago in an interview with the Spanish language version of CNN Mrs. Kirchner blasted President Barack Obama as a “big disappointment for Latin America”. In the same interview she accused the State Department of involvement in the overthrow of the president of Honduras last year (who knew?), in tandem with unnamed “ultra [right-wing] think tanks” (The Center for American Progress? The Brookings Institution?). The State Department promptly responded by omitting Argentina from Hillary Clinton’s extensive Latin American tour, though it already included that country’s immediate neighbors Chile and Uruguay.
Since then all has been forgiven. Mrs. Clinton made it to Buenos Aires after all, using the tragic earthquake in Chile as an excuse to cut short her visit to Santiago. This supposedly opened the way for an overnighter in the Argentine capital, which the Kirchners naturally represented as a victory for themselves and a concession by the United States. While the two ladies continued to disagree on Honduras at their meeting, at their joint press conference Mrs. Kirchner roped Hillary into taking a neutral position on the Falkland Islands. This cheerless archipelago, several hundred miles off the Argentine coast, is inhabited by 2,000 British citizens and even more penguins. All Argentine governments have claimed the islands as theirs, positing the right of self-determination, though not that of the actual residents of the islands.
Mrs. Clinton seems unaware of the institutional history of the question. During 1981 a military government shaken by an economic crisis decided to invade the Falklands militarily. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher responded by dispatching an expeditionary force to recover the islands, and the Reagan administration, at considerable cost to its standing in Latin America, came down on the side of the British. True, all Mrs. Clinton actually said at the press conference was “we would like to see Argentina and the United Kingdom sit down and resolve the issues between them across the table in a peaceful, productive way.” But this is surely not the way the remarks will be “read” in Argentina, or for that matter, in the United Kingdom. Rather, it represents a move away from support of the status quo and an open invitation to the Kirchners to dabble in foreign policy adventures in order to divert attention from their own economic problems.
Part of Mrs. Clinton’s rather shameless pandering to the Kirchners is, of course, simply standard State Department practice – at Foggy Bottom any relationship, no matter how bad, is regarded as better than none at all. Process is much more important than outcome; in fact, to most U.S. career diplomats, outcome doesn’t generally matter much at all. But the episode is also an illustration of one of the fundamentals of Obama foreign policy – to treat enemies like friends, and friends like enemies. Apparently there is no difference between Great Britain, our oldest and staunchest ally with troops fighting side by side with our own in Afghanistan, and Argentina, a country with which we have few interests in common, which has generally wished us ill, which has remained questionably neutral in almost all of our great conflicts, and which is currently an associate member of Hugo Chavez’s coalition of Latin American loser-states flirting (or more than flirting) with Iran. Say what you will about all of this, it was a good week for Cristina Kirchner.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Mark Falcoff is resident scholar emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute. His books on Latin America include "Small Countries, Large Issues", "Panama's Canal", and most recently, "Cuba the Morning After: Confronting Castro's Legacy" (AEI Press).
Kirchner was governor of Santa Cruz Province, not Rio Negro.
Gordon
posted by: Gordon Pasha
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 08:07 AM
Its typical . Instead of slamming the door hard on any presence to Falklands Island sovereignty Clinton has left the door open to encourage the Argentine's to continue on this flawed journey. It was this kind of ambiguity by Britain and its allies which encouraged the Argies to invade in the 80's. A poor show Hilary.
posted by: malcolm cowing
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 08:32 AM
First of all you should notice that Kirchner is from Santa Cruz province not Rio Negro.
And second, Argentina is far away from Iran and support every US movement. In fact Argentine is still accusing today Iran (even in Interpol against their leaders) from the 1990s Buenos Aires bombings.
posted by: jor
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 07:50 PM
I stand corrected on the province--and I thank readers for the correction. However, I did not suggest a close connection with Iran--Argentina is only an "associate member" of the loser-states, some of whom, like Venezuela, ARE strategic allies of Iran. The Argentines should remember, however, the old saying, "when you lie down with dogs, you get fleas."
posted by: Mark Falcoff
Saturday, March 6, 2010 at 04:19 PM
Argentina is a "associate member" of Venezuela as the USA, Brazil, etc. Do they buy their oil ?? Kirchner just accepted Chavez loans in a moment when nobody care. After re paid the IMF debt Argentina is not much closer to Venezuela than Brazil or any other south american country with the exception of Colombia of course which is up to the neck dependant of US help. Again you should take a minute and distinguish in what issues are coincident Argentina, Brazil, Chile etc with Chavez.
posted by: jor
Saturday, March 6, 2010 at 07:11 PM
And Santa Cruz (nor Rio Negro) arent small neither backward. Are the biggest in size and with US$ 16550 per capita is the Argentina's third-highest.
All Hillary's speech is here
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/03/137539.htm
posted by: jor
Sunday, March 7, 2010 at 07:42 AM
