Dubious Credentials and Mission of Proposed New U.S. Ambassador to Argentina

Marc R. Stanley, a Texas lawyer with longstanding links to the Democratic Party who worked on Joe Biden's presidential campaign has been chosen by Biden to become the next U.S. Ambassador to Argentina.

"Arrogant, provocative, contemptuous and scarcely concerned with concealing his intentions to interfere in internal affairs" is how Pagina 12 columnist Raúl Dellatorre described Stanley, after observing his performance during a confirmation hearing before a committee of the U.S. Senate on October 26. In his column, Dellatorre notes that despite his many years working for the Democratic Party, Stanley's arrogant and contemptuous style is more Trump-like than would be expected from someone nominated by Biden, with Stanley seeming more like a lobbyist for big business interests than a diplomat. In fact, Stanley who presents himself as a political activist and leader of the American Jewish community, has not had a diplomatic appointment before. His confirmation is still pending.

At his confirmation hearing Stanley described Argentina as "a beautiful tourist bus whose wheels are not working properly," then made a point of telling members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee what the government of Argentina was doing wrong or failing to do, and how he would intervene to address the situation if he is confirmed as the U.S. ambassador.

For example, he said Argentina had yet to "join the United States and others in pushing for meaningful reforms in countries like Venezuela and Cuba" and pledged to engage with the Argentine leadership at all levels "to seek ways to achieve our mutual goal of a hemisphere that honours our highest ideals." What this of course means is that Stanley will push Argentina to align itself more closely with the U.S. policy of isolating Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Asked by members of the Senate committee about his views on Argentina's relations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Stanley said he had pledged to both parties to "help Argentina restructure its IMF debt." "The IMF debt, at $45 billion, is huge," he said. "The problem, however, is that it is the responsibility of Argentina's leaders to come up with a macro plan to repay it, and they have not yet done so. They say one is coming soon." According to Dellatorre that last remark was made in an ironic, almost mocking tone.

Stanley told the Senate committee his determination to help Argentina address its economic challenges was because the country was "a great bilateral partner" in terms of trade and the economy, but first it needed to be economically healthy. Innocuous sounding words, but their implications for the Argentinian people who have a bitter experience with having to bear the burden of odious debts incurred by neoliberal rulers are anything but benign.

Dellatorre warns that Stanley's promise to insert himself into the Argentine government's negotiations with the IMF will be to push for an arrangement that guarantees, first and foremost, repayment of the enormous debt incurred by the previous government of Mauricio Macri and a payment plan current President Alberto Fernández has said is impossible to fulfil.

Nor did Stanley shy away from signalling his intent to interfere in Argentina's economic relations with China, in particular preventing it from gaining access to the latest Chinese advances in communications technology. He told senators: "As the United States sees increased competition with the People's Republic of China in Argentina and elsewhere, I will make it a priority to hold its feet to the fire, especially when products like 5G technology are entering the regional market, and allowing China access to all the data and information of the Argentine population."

In another Pagina 12 commentary about Biden's choice for the new U.S. ambassador, Argentine academic Atilio Borón writes, "Stanley's words oozed rancid interventionism, typical of the years of ‘gunboat diplomacy.' They confirm the validity of the Monroe Doctrine, which is about to turn 200 and continues to be the fundamental reference for the U.S. government when it comes to defining its relations with Latin America."

One thing may be how the U.S. defines its relations with Latin America in terms of a 200-year-old colonial doctrine. Another thing is how the people of both the U.S. and Latin America view them and what they will accept.


This article was published in

Volume 51 Number 12 - December 12, 2021

Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/Tmlm2021/Articles/M5101217.HTM


    

Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca