Originally published in the Dialogue’s daily Latin America Advisor
Q: Tensions flared between the United States and Argentina after Argentine authorities, supervised by Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman, on Feb. 10 confiscated equipment, which Argentina said was not properly declared, from a U.S. plane. The plane contained items for a training program for Argentine police, according to U.S. officials. Where do U.S.-Argentine relations stand after the incident? Will the countries continue to cooperate on security issues? How important is that cooperation?
A: Peter Hakim, member of the Advisor board and president emeritus of the Inter-American Dialogue: “I cannot think of a theory of politics or international affairs that would explain Argentina’s behavior. Nor can I imagine how Argentina’s confrontational stance toward the United States advances the country’s interests one bit. My understanding was that President Fernández was doing her best to repair the long strained U.S.-Argentine ties, and had made real strides forward, in part by keeping a lid on any criticism of the United States regarding unflattering WikiLeaks documents. Timerman’s actions have erased whatever progress had been made and left the bilateral relationship in a mess. Surely, Mr. Timerman, you must be joking, I thought. By publicly throwing mud on what the United States intended as a goodwill gesture (rather than trying to resolve quietly what seems, at absolute worst, U.S. sloppiness), the Argentine government is now viewed in Washington and across the hemisphere as erratic and unreliable. This is not a good foundation for cooperation on any issue. It is hard to imagine, as some argue, that the incident was all about domestic politics, about the government taking advantage of anti-U.S. feeling in Argentina to bolster President Fernández in preparation for the October presidential election. Indeed, Argentina’s politics seemed to be moving in the opposite direction. In the aftermath of her husband’s death, the president was gaining ground by pursuing more moderate and pragmatic policies. My guess is that the Argentine government threw a tantrum because President Obama had not included a stop in Buenos Aires on his South American trip this month. It is now likely to be a long time before any U.S. president sets foot in the city. ”
A: Horacio Verbitsky, president of the Center for Legal and Social Studies in Buenos Aires: “We can see the tip of the iceberg, but do not know its true size. Last August, on another flight that was part of the same program, Argentine customs found rifles, automatic and semiautomatic pistols, hand grenades, grenade launchers and cartridges—all undeclared. U.S. Ambassador Vilma Martinez returned the cargo to Fort Bragg, apologized and asked that the incident remain secret. Argentina accepted then, but, on the next flight, in addition to weapons, U.S. military paratroopers tried to enter without declaring satellite and encryption communications equipment, narcotics and mysterious boxes of expired medications. This underlines a structural tension between two different concepts. After the last dictatorship, Argentina sharply split the police from the military in the same way as the U.S. Posse Comitatus Act did in 1878. For the Pentagon, this division does not apply outside of U.S. borders. Last year, the chief of the U.S. Southern Command, Gen. Douglas Fraser, told Congress that the Americas provided 52 percent of U.S. oil imports and almost twice the United States’ commercial trade with Europe and Japan combined. Also, he said the Americas receive as much foreign direct investment from the United States as Asia, the Middle East and Africa combined. Providing security to those markets is the mission of the Southern Command—not that of Argentina, which has its own agenda. It is very unlikely that the items will be returned before they are examined and Washington apologizes again—this time publicly. No one wants to escalate a conflict, and cooperation could continue but with respect for laws and later after clarifying some positions.”
A: Eduardo Amadeo, former ambassador of Argentina to the United States: “The main impact of this incident shall be on the credibility of Argentine diplomacy. Whatever the formal reasons behind the event, it could have been solved through dialogue and goodwill. However, the Argentine government decided to maximize the conflict for hard-to-understand internal reasons, which seem to include retaliation for the decision of President Obama to skip Argentina in his forthcoming trip to the region, as well as the need to remove from the newspapers other news related to corruption and drug trafficking. This is not the first incident that Minister Timerman has fomented with the United States on issues connected with training for security; but in all cases his position has been hard to justify on a rational basis, including references to the military dictatorship of the 1970s. Doubtless, U.S.-Argentine relations will be affected, though not in a stunning way. I do not think that the State Department wants to give additional reasons to the Kirchner government to escalate in its erratic foreign policy. However, future negotiations on this field, as well as in the many issues of a rich relationship, may show the impact of these incidents. But, again, the most important casualty of these episodes will be the reliability of Argentine foreign policy.”
Download below to view the full PDF edition.
