VZCZCXYZ0021
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHBU #0353/01 0540926
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 230926Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7357
INFO RHMFISS/CDR USSOCOM MACDILL AFB FL//SCJ2//
RULGPUA/USCOMSOLANT

UNCLAS BUENOS AIRES 000353 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR INR/R/MR, I/GWHA, WHA, WHA/PDA, WHA/BSC, 
WHA/EPSC 
CDR USSOCOM FOR J-2 IAD/LAMA 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KPAO OPRC KMDR PREL MEDIA REACTION
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION; KIRCHNER-CHAVEZ ALLIANCE VIS-@-VIS THE 
U.S., BLAIR AND PARTIAL PULLOUT OF UK TROOPS FROM IRAQ, 02/22/07; 
BUENOS AIRES 
 
 
¶1. SUMMARY STATEMENT 
 
Papers lead with President Kirchner's strong defense of Argentina's 
alliance with Chavez while defying U.S. pressures to contain him, 
and PM Blair's announcement of a reduction in the number of UK 
soldiers in Iraq, in sharp contrast to the U.S. troop buildup in 
Baghdad. 
 
¶2. OPINION PIECES 
 
- "Kirchner Warns U.S. he Won't Keep Chavez at Bay" 
 
Lucas Colonna, on special assignment in Venezuela for 
daily-of-record "La Nacion", writes (02/22) ".... During his visit 
to Puerto Ordaz, and without any margin for second interpretations, 
Kirchner elliptically launched a tough warning to the U.S. by 
assuring he does not and will never keep Chavez at bay in the 
region, because he considers him a strategic ally. 
 
"His definition was aimed at the Bush administration... 'Nobody can 
feel upset about the integration of our two peoples. We have to put 
an end to patronizing theories from an institutional and political 
viewpoint,' he said after signing bilateral agreements in the 
Orinoco oil basin. 
 
"'Much has been said lately, about some countries having to keep 
others at bay, regarding President Lula or myself, having to contain 
Chavez. This is an absolute mistake. Together with brother Chavez, 
we build South America as a space of happiness for our peoples,' 
Kirchner added. The place and time he picked for this warning were 
not by chance. In fact, this presidential trip took place under 
Washington's eyes, only two weeks after the Burns/Shannon visit. 
 
".... Kirchner's studied gesture was undoubtedly clear. He offered 
strong support to Chavez, with whom he redoubled his partnership 
during this last visit which ended yesterday. 
 
".... Kirchner's words sparked satisfaction and some surprise in 
Chavez, who stared at him in awe, standing at his side. And when it 
was his turn to talk, he took the opportunity to thank him for his 
words. 
 
"'I want to thank you for saying what you just said. The oligarchic 
Empire is never tired of trying to sow discord between us,' said 
Chavez in turn. 'And if Kirchner and Lula are those who keep Chavez 
in check... in Buenos Aires there are some who say that a 
relationship with Chavez is inconvenient. Those are the ones that 
gave in to U.S. Imperialism and allowed it to ransack the country.' 
 
".... By the end of the meeting, Kirchner had already made clear a 
highly valued political support for the Bolivarian leader in his 
fight with the U.S." 
 
- "Uneasiness in Washington" 
 
Hugo Alconada Mon, daily-of-record "La Nacion" Washington-based 
correspondent, says (02/22) "Kirchner's criticism in Venezuela 
yesterday sparked uneasiness in Washington, where nobody is 
surprised by his alliance with Chavez. But the Bush administration 
maintained its official silence, in sync with the more pragmatic 
vision it pushes forward in its bilateral relations. 
 
"'With President Kirchner we have different views on Venezuela,' 
said a USG source before the presidential trip kicked off. 'He 
believes Chavez can be moderate and we believe he jeopardizes 
Venezuelan democracy,' said the source. 
 
"For the time being, the White House doesn't trust Buenos Aires will 
be able to bring any solution for Venezuela, according to people in 
the Republican Party, who also expressed their 'displeasure.' 
 
- "Gesture Towards Caracas that Doesn't Break Ties With Bush" 
 
Jorge Rosales, daily-of-record "La Nacion" deputy-editorialist, 
opines (02/22) "In President Kirchner's logic, moving towards a 
strategic alliance with Chavez doesn't mean breaking ties with the 
U.S. But his pragmatism places him in a key position of support for 
the Bolivarian leader's projects, which are against Washington's 
interests. 
 
"Kirchner's tough response to those who want him - together with 
Lula -- to contain Chavez' far-fetched ideas seem to have more to do 
with Venezuela's domestic affairs than Chavez' intentions to export 
the Socialist revolution to the rest of Latin America, standing on 
his petrodollars. 
 
".... There are founded fears on the institutional risks faced by 
Venezuela due to Chavez' scarce respect for Republican institutions 
and democratic harmony in his country. And there is also the 
suspicion that the economic power of Venezuela may be used to fuel 
organizations that have little to do with democracy in certain 
countries of the region (such as the unstable Bolivia). 
 
".... Is Kirchner's gesture to the Bolivarian leader a sign to turn 
his back on the U.S. and punish Bush, on the eve of his imminent 
trip to the region? This doesn't seem to be his primary goal at this 
stage of bilateral relations with the U.S., in which its officials 
have learned to recognize the Argentine President's pragmatism in 
some of his moves, and his acknowledgement of the need for harmonic 
relations. 
 
"It's, instead, a direct gesture to Chavez himself, who became the 
country's key financial support with the issuance of bonds for 4.2 
billion dollars. 
 
".... With the terribly bad image of the U.S. President in the 
region and his loss of domestic power due to Iraq, punishing him 
doesn't seem profitable in terms of domestic politics like it was 
some months ago. 
 
"When in 2003 the U.S. distrusted of the new Argentine President's 
rapprochement with Chavez, Washington received a comforting message 
from Buenos Aires: Kirchner might contain the coup-monger. But those 
were other times. The region's reality is different now and, above 
all, oil price is very different. The value of the oil barrel 
allowed Chavez not only to consolidate his domestic power, but also 
to strengthen his intention of becoming the leader of Latin American 
opposition to the U.S. 
 
"This is why the U.S. believes Argentina may play another role, 
because it no longer has the strength to back Chavez. In order to do 
this, it will need the help of more powerful nations". 
 
- "Jugglers" 
 
Fernando Gonzales, leading "Clarn" political editor, writes (02/22) 
"It's not easy being Chavez' friend. Kirchner and Lula usually move 
as skilful jugglers in their relations with the garrulous 
Venezuelan. With him they share the idea of a more powerful regional 
market and even the rejection of some U.S. symbols. But their paths 
move in different directions when Chavez refers to Bush as 'the 
devil' or exchanges words of praise with the Iranian President. In 
order to calm the U.S., Argentina and Brazil usually offer 
themselves as mediators of Chavez in every regional summit. But of 
course, yesterday, in Venezuela, and given Chavez' lavish financial 
display, 'Latin American brotherhood' prevailed." 
 
- "New Complexity" 
 
Mario Wainfeld, leftist "Pagina 12" managing editor, opines (02/22) 
".... The scenario combines an era of 
political changes in South America, a bountiful age for commodity 
prices and the emergence of gas riches in Venezuela and Bolivia. 
 
"Chavez is an additional factor in this context. It's not the first 
time his country benefits from oil bonanza, but the vast political 
project headed by the Bolivarian leader, taking advantage of his 
particular richness ad this particular time, is a novelty. 
 
"The State Department is right on one thing: the big news of this 
era is Chavez, his political decision, his drive. His strategic 
decision to join Mercosur implies both a leap in the quality of the 
process as well as a crisis. 
 
"'Some partner', may Lula and Kirchner say of Chavez. The Argentine 
and the Brazilian, using their good judgment, preferred to risk 
having a powerful, rich and untamed ally, rather than making the 
double mistake of losing him...." 
 
- "Brits and Fear That a 'Pullout" May Conceal a 'Move Forward'" 
 
Graciela Iglesias, daily-of-record "La Nacion" London-based 
correspondent, writes (02/22) "... Yesterday, nobody - not even the 
most eccentric activist in Westminster - celebrated the announcement 
of the beginning of a UK troop pullout. 
 
"The lack of euphoria, far from being a surprise, is another signal 
of Tony Blair's damaged credibility. 
 
".... Cynicism prevails in the public opinion right now. The fact 
that Blair mentioned a 'pullout' immediately led some to interpret 
his words in the opposite direction. More specifically, as the 
 
indication of an 'up-coming' but yet veiled, 'allied move forward', 
not in Iraq, but on neighboring Iran. 
 
".... The gradual withdrawal of British soldiers from Basra is aimed 
at reducing the risk of becoming targets of attacks from an 
infuriated community, over the eventual U.S. intervention on the 
other side of the border. In this context, Secretary Rice's reaction 
to yesterday's announcement saying 'the coalition remains intact' 
must be considered a genuine declaration which confirms this. 
 
"But even those who don't believe in this hypothesis, criticize 
Blair. Because in their opinion, the reduction in the number of 
soldiers from 7,100 to 5,500, without a precise timetable, is viewed 
more like a gesture of domestic political convenience rather than 
the 'beginning of the end.' 
 
".... Blair's chances of bowing out from the political arena amid 
hail and praise seem now as remote as prior to the announcement." 
 
- "Reactions in Washington" 
 
Ana Baron, leading "Clarin" Washington-based correspondent, says 
(02/22) "Following Blair's announcement yesterday, President Bush is 
as isolated as ever. All opinion polls indicate that 70% of the 
American people are against his policy in Iraq. 
 
".... Powerful senator Ted Kennedy referred to the withdrawal of 
1,600 British soldiers as 'a call of attention'. And his colleague, 
Joseph Biden, said Bush 'ought to follow Blair's example.' 
 
".... Nevertheless, the White House decided to ignore reality once 
again, saying the pullout indicates things 'are improving' in Iraq. 
 
".... Blair's decision couldn't take place at a worst time. 
Precisely when Bush is trying to convince the U.S. people to support 
his initiative to send 12,000 more troops to Iraq, the British 
withdrawal goes in the opposite direction of Bush's strategy. It's 
another indicator of his isolation." 
 
To see more Buenos Aires reporting, visit our 
classified website at: 
http://www.state.sqov.gov/p/wha/buenosaires 
 
WAYNE