FOREIGN POLICIES OF ALFONSIN
From 1983 until the end of 1999, Argentinean society witnessed great change in the foreign policy traditions in that country. Of course, these great changes did not take place overnight. Beginning with the presidency of Raul Alfonsin, who became the first democratically elected president of Argentina at the end of a very violent and harsh period of military dictatorship, was required to construct a new political scheme primarily focused on achieving a major shift in foreign policy in order to change the generally negative perceptions of Argentina throughout much of the West.
Throughout his presidency Alfonsin focused on determining certain principles, with he and his ministers careful to present policies that were morally consistent. At a meeting in 1985, Dante Copputo, Alfonsin’s first foreign minister, explains the nature of this policy position very clearly: “There are no two policies nor two morals nor two conceptions of life, liberty and democracy.” .”(Coputo D 1985) This statement demonstrates the radical government of Alfonsin as directed at the unification of internal and external policies by following certain ideals which would prove to the world that Argentina - now out of a military dictatorship - was ready to embrace her past and build a strong and independent democracy. For Alfonsin, following these ideals was not just a pragmatic option which would ultimately enable Argentina to free itself from the rusty and self-destructive Argentinean exceptionalism and help it move closer to world powers.
Roberto Russell in his article Belief Systems and Argentinean Foreign Policy argues that the universal principles which were cornerstones of the discourse of protection of human life and dignity that Alfonsin was so strongly emphasizing in both internal and external policies were actually perceived as a way of protecting the country against the actions of the powerful states. They were also understood as a specific tool with which to recover the prestige that the country lost during the military dictatorship years. . (Russell R 1996)
Transition to democracy was the hardest task that Alfonsin needed to accomplish during the first phase of his presidency. The level of anti-Americanism in society was still at such a level that it also had a pronounced impact on the choices of the public during the elections. During the first years of eighties a majority of Argentineans considered the United States poorly for its support of ferocious actions of the military in Argentina.
Therefore when Alfonsin came to power it was not a surprise that he kept a distant relationship with United States, chose to support the idea of “self determinism” and strengthened country’s position in the Non-Alignment Movement. External debt passed on by the military dictatorship was a large burden for Alfonsin’s radical government. In order to deal with this problem, the country required reconstruction of its relationships with neighboring countries and reinforcement of trade activities with them. The peace treaties with Chile, as well as the negotiations that resulted in the formation of Mercosur, should therefore be seen as important steps in reconsolidating the country’s position in the region.
Apart from these activities, Alfonsin focused on playing a role in changing the rules for international commerce, which favored developed countries and largely ignored the interests of developing ones. Dante Copputo in his speech at the Uruguay Round stated: “The belief of equal development between nations causes us to ignore the profound historical, social and economical differences between countries and also contributes to strengthen the asymmetries.” (Coputo D) This demonstrates that as a developing country, Argentina, was not pleased with the injustices occurring in the world trading system, and by opposing these injustices showed a more neutral position in its international relations. The decision to visit India in 1987 and become part of the Group of Six and strengthen economic bounds with developing countries can be understood as the results of the search for national autonomy, which enabled the country to have an independent foreign political agenda.
Reconciliation with the European countries, especially the treaties signed with Italy and Spain, enabled Argentina to improve its social and economic relations with European countries. In comparison to the foreign policies of the military dictatorship, Alfonsin’s government aimed to stay away from the persistent clash between two major powers and find other spaces for Argentina to seek security and secure its economic interests. The Group of Six, which Argentina formed together with India, Greece, Tanzania, Mexico and Sweden, was aimed at opposing the arms races between the superpowers. However as argued by Roberto Russell, Alfonsin’s radical government lost its credibility by not ratifying Tlatelolco; by failing to join a TNP; and by continuing to develop Project Condor II (Russell R 1996) .
In the second half of 1984, Alfonsin’s government began to change its foreign policy priorities and place priority on relations with the United States. This change caused severe opposition in the parliament and was understood as a betrayal of his government’s original policies. As Reficco argues in his article “ Foreign Policy and Political Culture: Argentinean democracy case 1983-1985”, Alfonsin’s two visits to the United States can be seen as the beginning of a new alignment with the United States as well as a significant mark of departure from the traditional foreign policies that Alfonsin had attempted to compose. Reffico defined this major step as el giro realista, or the “realist turn”, which later in Menem’s presidency accelerated and was ultimately widely accepted by Argentinean society. .(Reficco E 1996)
FOREIGN POLICY OF MENEM
When Menem came to power in July 1989, he faced an Argentinean society more focused on the country’s devastating economic situation than any of its ideological conflicts. It would therefore not be wrong to state that Menem’s approach to politics and the economy was in fact a result of the demands of the majority of Argentineans. His idea of bringing prosperity and peace to the country was very much directed at the goal of rendering Argentina a rising power, performing at its maximum economic and political capacity. In order to accomplish this goal Menem’s policies were very much focused on short-term goals with an accompanying lack of consistency. Reficco in his article argues that Menem redefined the idea of being part of the Occident. Unlike his predecessors, instead of focusing on the ethical and cultural features of the Occident, Menem elected to highlight the role of politics and the economy. . (Reficco E 1996)
Global political and economic dynamics had gone through a radical change with the fall of the Soviet Union and this change was felt as strongly in Argentina as elsewhere. It was therefore not unexpected to see that Argentinean domestic politics was greatly affected by these changes. Indeed the foreign policy decisions of Menem could be seen as an outcome of these changes. For example, acknowledgement of the position of the United States as sole super power rendered Menem’s government more determined to seek ways to strengthen its alignment with that country. In order to accomplish this, a movement away from the policies of former radical government was inevitable. It was therefore essential to be able to present a rational defense of his new foreign policies to society. Menem, together with his first foreign minister Domingo Cavallo, attempted to convince society that the efforts and decisions made by the former government on foreign policy issues were not sufficient to improve Argentina’s position in the international arena. Due to the radical changes happening around the world, economical interdependence had to be part of every country’s reality in order to survive. As a consequence, as Amalia Stuhldreher argues in her article “Regimen Politico y Politico Exterior en Argentina. El caso del primer gobierno de Carlos Menem (1989-1995)” Menem started to advocate a new political scheme, which would be run by three concepts: realism, pragmatism and normality. (Stuhdreher A 2003). By embracing realism and pragmatism Menem’s government applied a policy which made economic relations a priority.
Being a strong ally of United States meant certain sacrifices, such as losing the ability to act independently in certain circumstances. In security issues, Menem’s government supported United States interests even in places where Argentina had no direct interest, such as by sending troops to the Gulf War without even waiting for the ratification of the parliament. This particular support can be seen as a pragmatic decision of the Menem government, which enabled Argentina to strengthen economic relations with the United States. Economic crisis, high inflation and foreign debt were sufficient to legitimize his neoliberal posture. In order to solve these domestic problems Menem utilized foreign policy as a tool to convince Argentinean society that only by integrating through strategic and economic alliances could Argentina be better off in the long term.
Menem’s charismatic leadership played a great role in convincing the masses that his government was ready to make all necessary changes to consolidate its place alongside the world’s biggest powers. The strong relationship with United States that Reficco defines as reconnection caused Argentina to move away from the Non Alignment Movement and implement Plan Condor II. It similarly caused Argentina to give greater attention to United States interests.
Meanwhile, Menem continued to foster the integration process with Brazil, Uruguay and other neighboring countries. Latin America, along with Europe and United States
In light of the fact that Argentina’s economic and strategic interests continued to have great importance in Menem’s government’s foreign policy.
Another important subject considered as a significant deviation from previous foreign policy was Argentina’s relationship with Britain. So-called demalvinization of foreign policy was an important issue for Menem’s government. He and his foreign ministers believed that this issue harmed the position of Argentina in international arena and this drove his government’s efforts to reconsolidate relations with Britain. The treaty, which was signed by both countries in Madrid in 1990, was the outcome of Menem’s departure from former policies on the Malvinas issue.
COMPARING THE FOREIGN POLICIES OF ALFONSIN AND MENEM
Both Alfonsin and Menem play major roles in the contemporary political history of Argentinean. Both were forced to create new political schemes to adapt to changing international conditions. The times at which each came to power also played a significant role in their contrasting decision-making processes in relation to foreign policy. Alfonsin came to power at a time when great transition was taking place in Argentina. Passing from military dictatorship to democracy was a hard task to accomplish. Political tension was still high and society was still fragile as a result of the unpleasant experiences of those years. Alfonsin’s foreign policy was no doubt affected by these internal conditions. Initially, the radical government felt in need of restoring the prestige that the county had lost. The foreign policy of Alfonsin was consequently very much focused on accomplishing this task. His government signed numerous treaties in order to prove to the world that Argentina would stick to democracy and protect human rights, thereby distancing itself from the military dictatorship.
Unlike Alfonsin, Menem took power when the democracy was consolidated. He therefore he did not feel the same need to rationalize his policies by recourse to universal ideals. Rather, it can be seen that Menem chose to rationalize his foreign policies by using the argument that his government was focused upon the most urgent necessities of the Argentinean people, which at that time were the result of bad economic conditions.
Similarly, at the time that Alfonsin came to power, Argentinean society was continuing to perceive the United States as responsible for helping the military to commit horrendous crimes. Therefore it was out of question for Alfonsin’s government to build strong relations with United States. For this reason by taking Argentinean society’s needs and beliefs, Alfonsin’s government chose to emphasize the idea of independent foreign policy, based on promoting democratic and peaceful values around the world. In order to do that his government chose not to take sides and support the non-alignment movement.
The priorities of the foreign policy of Alfonsin for a very long time was to improve the relations with the Latin American countries by fostering the integration process especially with the neighbors and, afterwards try to demolish the isolationist policies of the military dictatorship which caused Argentina to go backwards for a long period of time. In order to do that, in contrast to Menem, Alfonsin tried to form new alignments with developing countries. Only in the last years of his presidency, due to the unresolved economical problems of the country, did Alfonsin move away from his former policies and try to strengthen the relations with United States. It would not be wrong to state that Alfonsin’s departure from traditional foreign policy in turn became the foundation for Menem’s approach to foreign policy.
The case of Malvinas is another subject that stands out as a significant difference between the policies of these two presidents. Unlike Alfonsin whom did not change the prevailing approach on this issue, Menem, again due to the pragmatic reasons, chose not to take a hostile or uncompromising attitude on this issue. Once again, the international political climate and the radical changes that took place such as the end of Soviet Union played a significant role in Menem’s foreign policy decisions. The impact of the end of bipolarity on Menem’s government decision to give priority to strengthen the relations with United States should not be underestimated.
Meanwhile, foreign debt, which continued to grow, together with high inflation rates, caused a drastic change in the articulation of expectations and necessities. The political conflicts that arose from ideological differences were replaced with the day-to-day necessities which were the result of urgent economic problems.
The role of finance and multinational companies in the Argentinean economy similarly had a huge impact on Menem’s foreign policy decisions in favor of economic interdependence.
As a result, the radical changes that occurred at both the international and domestic level were in fact the major determiners in the foreign policy agendas of both presidents. It should also be mentioned that both presidents used different arguments to legitimize their policies. Alfonsin’s idea of autonomy was completely different than that which Menem perceived. The priorities in their respective foreign policies were very much shaped by societal demands.
It is therefore largely impossible to make a comparison without accounting for the domestic and international conditions encountered by each president. In this way a comparison of the respective positions of Alfonsin and Menem demonstrates that foreign policy is inevitably a product of the contemporary political culture of a country.
