VZCZCXYZ0003
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHBU #0587/01 0852046
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 262046Z MAR 07
FM AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7654
INFO RHMFISS/CDR USSOCOM MACDILL AFB FL//SCJ2//
RULGPUA/USCOMSOLANT

UNCLAS BUENOS AIRES 000587 
 
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; U/S NICHOLAS BURNS'S CRITICISM OF 
ARGENTINA; ARGENTINE TIES TO VENEZUELAN HUGO CHAVEZ 03/26/07; BUENOS 
AIRES 
 
 
¶1. SUMMARY STATEMENT 
 
Weekend international stories focus on the implications of US Under 
Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns' critical statements 
 
SIPDIS 
about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's anti-US President Bush 
rally in Buenos Aires. Daily-of-record "La Nacion" carries an 
editorial highlighting that "nothing could be worse for Argentina 
than if the Chavez regime were to be considered its main and best 
ally." 
 
¶2. OPINION PIECES 
 
- "Even though the US-Argentine spat is downplayed, the 
(US-Argentine) relationship is no longer the same" 
 
Ana Baron, Washington-based correspondent for leading "Clarin," 
penned (03/24) "US and Argentine diplomats downplayed the tension 
sparked by President Hugo Chavez's rally in Argentina and the 
exchange of statements it unleashed. Both sides said they will 
continue focusing on the issues in which the two countries agree. 
Nevertheless, some aspects of the bilateral relationship have been 
irrevocably damaged. 
 
"According to an unidentified US source, the White House considers 
the Ferro rally one more piece of evidence of what Under Secretary 
Nicholas Burns termed Argentine 'inconsistency' in its ties to the 
US... 
 
"... The Argentine Foreign Ministry argues that Argentina does not 
pose a threat such as that of Iran or North Korea. However, the 
country does not have the same strategic weight for the White House. 
Also, the Ferro rally is Kirchner's third public rebuff against 
Bush. And this is not a minor issue. You must recall that the first 
one occurred at the Monterrey Summit... Then came the Summit of the 
Americas... 
 
"US U/S for Political Affairs Nicholas Burs said that his February 
trip was so positive that he thought that the disagreement over the 
summit had been left behind. This is why, according to him, the 
Ferro rally was unfortunate. 
 
"Sources consulted by 'Clarin' said the Ferro rally put an end to 
any further attempt of 'presidential diplomacy.' If there was any 
possibility that Kirchner and Bush could meet again, this door has 
been totally closed." 
 
- "The US reaffirms its posture of criticism" 
 
Hugo Alconada Mon, Washington-based correspondent for 
daily-of-record "La Nacion," comments (03/24) "According to sources 
in the G.O.P. and outside of it, Nicholas Burns, number three at the 
US Department of State, expressed the prevailing feeling in the Bush 
administration about the Argentine Government, although he was wrong 
in the way he did so -- to the degree that he generated disagreement 
within the US Department of State. 
 
"According to a Washington source, the US position, which was 
expressed by Burns, is firm. 'The US and Argentina are very close 
and major allies in issues... such as non proliferation or 
terrorism.' 
 
"The prevailing view in the Bush administration is that Kirchner 
'gets as close to Chavez as he can to get money out of him' due to 
domestic needs. 'Kirchner has no foreign policy. Everything he does 
is based on domestic interests.' 
 
"... Behind the scenes, a high-ranking source at the Bush 
administration reaffirmed Burns and Shannon's stance: 'Argentina and 
Brazil's interests in South America are different from ours. 
However, both should acknowledge that Venezuela's purposes are 
dreadful and that, sooner or later, the Chavez administration will 
collapse and Argentina and Brazil will have to get more involved.'" 
 
- "A shot that hit the wrong target" 
 
Hugo Alconada Mon, Washington-based correspondent for 
daily-of-record "La Nacion," writes (03/24) "Nicholas Burns was 
wrong. Being one of the 'nine stars' of US diplomacy, with a 
thorough knowledge of Europe and the Middle East, (Burns) 
demonstrated he does not understand Latin America's manners and 
reactions. He wanted to convey an explicit message to Argentina and 
he did so based on his own perceptions. He was in Buenos Aires when 
Nestor Kirchner lashed out at the US due to its interest in 
purchasing Transener (February 9). One month later, on March 9, Hugo 
Chavez led his BA rally. Those two events in one month perhaps were 
too much in the Anglo-Saxon's view. 
 
 
 
"(Burns) mistreated the Argentine Ambassador in public in front of 
diplomats, academics and journalists... 
 
"He forced some reaction from Buenos Aires. As Tom Shannon knows 
well, Kirchner reacts to whatever appears on the front pages of 
newspapers... 
 
"He troubled the US-Argentine bilateral relationship... 
 
"He frustrated the debate that the US official silence had set off 
in Buenos Aires... Burns' statements made those who rejected 
Chavez's rally in Argentina appear to be pro-US. Not many in Buenos 
Aires would like such a connection. 
 
"He facilitated Chavez's work... and Kirchner's re-election or his 
wife's ascension... Between 60-70 percent of Argentines reject 
President Bush and a US claim would contribute votes to the 
Government rather than depriving it from them. 
 
"He strengthened the prevailing stereotypes about the US in Latin 
America. Washington is seen as an imperialist, clumsy and 
aggressive, elephant also in Argentina. 
 
"He contributed one more argument to Kirchner's usual 
mistreatment... 
 
"He weakened his own team for Latin America. The question is how 
much power Shannon has. Who is the boss? Why negotiate with him when 
John Negroponte, the number two at the US Department, or Burns, 
implement different policies in the region?..." 
 
- "Kirchner defies the US and Brazil at the same time" 
 
Joaquin Morales Sola, political analyst of daily-of-record "La 
Nacion," opines (03/25) "Something Argentina had never been able to 
do was promoting simultaneous frictions with the US and Brazil. 
Kirchner managed to do it. Washington also had its own satisfaction 
- just a few times before had a government publicly expressed a 
face-to-face complaint to another government through its ambassador. 
Nicholas Burns, Condoleezza Rice's most entrusted diplomat, did 
exactly this with Argentine Ambassador Jose Octavio Bordon. It must 
have been the most uncomfortable moment of Bordon's entire life. 
 
"Did the Argentine Government ignore that Chavez's rally in Buenos 
Aires, at the same time Bush was visiting Uruguay, could bother the 
US? Certainly, it is impossible that the Argentine Government could 
ignore it... Kirchner allowed Chavez to stage his anti-Bush stunt in 
Buenos Aires despite the opposition of most of his Cabinet. Why did 
he do it? According to an official version, Kirchner understood 
Bush's Latin American tour was an attempt to divide Mercosur 
countries. Bush was in Uruguay when Chavez's provocation took place. 
Unfortunately, Argentina and Uruguay do not need Bush to be divided. 
They already are, and the reasons for this can only be found in 
South America. 
 
"... According to important USG officials, consequences are easily 
predictable. No USG office will move one finger from now on to help 
Argentina in the renegotiation of its defaulting debt to the Paris 
Club... 
 
"Kirchner's behavior only weakens the moderates in Washington, Tom 
Shannon among them. U/S Nicholas Burns was also expressing personal 
disappointment, because he had trusted in Kirchner. 
 
"... The USG will not encourage its companies to invest in 
Argentina. This is another conclusion, although corporations can 
always make their own decisions." 
 
- "Chavez, Argentina and the world" 
 
Daily-of-record "La Nacion" editorializes (03/25) "After Venezuelan 
President Hugo Chavez's latest visit to Argentina, some have tried 
to downplay the implications of his rally for the country. The US 
claim, which was expressed by the number three at the US Department 
of State, Nicholas Burns, is against those impressions. 
 
"Having used the city of Buenos Aires as a stage of confrontation 
between Venezuela's strong man and the US President has been, at 
least, crazy according to the most basic diplomatic standards. 
Argentine authorities should have noticed that it was advisable to 
distance themselves from the most controversial aspects of Chavez's 
visit to the country. 
 
"Chavez has repeatedly infringed on the principle of 
non-interference in the domestic affairs of other nations, which is 
 
 
an explicit principle in the OAS Chart... 
 
"Chavez is also an unusual strategic ally of Iran, which is accused 
of ties to the international terrorism... In the arms race on which 
Chavez is embarked, he is purchasing sophisticated weapons from this 
country, which implies a threat to regional peace and security. 
 
"In this framework, Argentina continues without full access to 
international loan markets... In such a fragile situation, the 
national government has found in Chavez a creditor who is willing to 
purchase new Argentine public debts bonds and finance some of its 
projects. Nothing is for free in politics and less SO in 
international politics... 
 
"... Argentina has to work hard to build relations with those 
nations that share its democratic tradition and culture. Nothing 
could be worse for Argentina that the Chavez regime be considered 
its main and best ally." 
 
To see more Buenos Aires reporting, visit our 
classified website at: 
http://www.state.sqov.gov/p/wha/buenosaires 
 
WAYNE