News Analysis
Marcos Brindicci/Reuters
By SIMON ROMERO
Published: April 18, 2012
Related
Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
But here in Brazil, Latin America’s rising oil power, and elsewhere in
the region, financial experts greeted Mrs. Kirchner’s abrupt decision
with dismay, saying the nationalization and other economic policies were
making Argentina more of a hemispheric outlier than a leader in a bold
new economic era.
“Argentina’s capacity to err seems unlimited,” said Míriam Leitão, one
of Brazil’s most influential columnists on economic issues, in an essay
comparing the YPF expropriation to Juan Domingo Perón’s
nationalizations in the 1940s and ’50s, which left Argentina hobbled
with anemic state enterprises.
While Brazil’s government has maintained control of Petrobras, it has
also exposed the company to market forces, starting in the ’90s when its
monopoly was broken, energy experts here point out. Since then,
Petrobras has grown into Latin America’s largest company.
Argentina, on the other hand, repeatedly clashed with YPF’s Spanish
owner, Repsol, before expropriating its controlling stake, creating a
diplomatic dispute with Spain and tension with the European Union.
“Crazy queen” was how one prominent Brazilian humor columnist described Mrs. Kirchner this week.
In a different tone, Chile’s economy minister, Pablo Longueira, said the
nationalization could be harmful for Latin America as a whole, turning
it into a “less trustworthy region” compared with Asia. “Capital flows
exit to those places where there is more investor confidence,” he told Reuters.
Even in Mexico, where Lázaro Cardenas carried out in the 1930s what was
arguably Latin America’s most symbolically important oil nationalization
of the 20th century, creating Pemex, political leaders disparaged Mrs.
Kirchner’s move.
Speaking to business executives this week, Mexico’s president, Felipe
Calderón, said the YPF nationalization “did no one any good.” Two of
Mexico’s presidential candidates, Enrique Peña Nieto and Josefina
Vázquez Mota, also criticized the move.
At another end of the political spectrum, Mrs. Kirchner’s
nationalization plan drew support from Venezuela, where President Hugo
Chávez has asserted state control over dozens of companies, including
huge oil projects, in recent years.
And in Uruguay, President José Mujica, a former member of the Tupamaros,
a guerrilla group, expressed solidarity with Mrs. Kirchner’s decision,
calling it a response to “rich Europe” and a correction to the “error”
that Argentina made in privatizing YPF in the ’90s.
Yet in Brazil, where Petrobras’s achievement of energy independence and huge offshore oil discoveries
have made it a model for oil companies in other developing nations, the
YPF expropriation served as an opportunity to draw important contrasts
with the situation in Argentina.
As recently as 2000, Brazil still relied on oil imports from Argentina
to meet energy needs, buying about 74,000 barrels of a day from its
neighbor.
Now the tables are turned. Petrobras, through its acquisition of Perez
Companc, an independent Argentine oil company, has aggressively expanded
in Argentina to the point where concerns have emerged here as to
Petrobras’s exposure if Mrs. Kirchner opts to expand her
nationalizations.
In the run-up to the announcement of YPF’s nationalization, the province
of Neuquén in Argentina abruptly pulled an exploration concession held
by Petrobras. Maria das Graças Foster,
the chief executive of Petrobras, is set to meet on Friday with Julio
De Vido, a top aide of Mrs. Kirchner whom she has appointed as YPF’s
supervisor.
In the meantime, Brazil’s energy minister, Edson Lobão, has tried to
assuage concerns over the expropriation, saying this week in the
capital, Brasília, that every country is “sovereign” in their capacity
to decide on matters “as they see fit.”
The nationalization, which follows state takeovers of an airline and of
pension funds, has its critics in Buenos Aires. Nevertheless, the
nationalizations resonate in a country where strong resentments persist
about the privatizations carried out under the liberal economic policies
of the ’90s, which preceded a chaotic economic crisis at the start of
the last decade.
The authorities are “taking back what belongs to us,” said Manuel
Rivera, 27, who peddles flags and souvenirs at the Plaza de Mayo, in
front of Mrs. Kirchner’s palace in Buenos Aires.
New posters blanketed the city’s avenues on Wednesday, exhorting
Congress to pass the nationalization law. “Not a peso more Repsol,” read
the posters, in which the letters YPF were illustrated with the blue
and white stripes of Argentina’s flag.
A crucial question in Argentina is whether the nationalizations will
stop with YPF. A prominent union leader, Óscar Lescano, had his own
answer on Wednesday, saying in comments broadcast on radio that state
takeovers could spread to the electrical sector.
A rising group of young officials with nationalist leanings in Mrs.
Kirchner’s government will have sway in molding Argentina’s economic
landscape after the YPF nationalization. Prominent among them is Axel
Kicillof, a 40-year-old economist she named to help lead YPF.
Mr. Kicillof, sporting sideburns that might have made Elvis Presley
smile, vehemently defended the policy when he appeared this week before
Argentina’s Congress, accusing Repsol of “hoarding” fuel to try to force
the government to raise domestic energy prices to international levels.
He belongs to La Cámpora, a militant youth movement founded by Mrs.
Kirchner’s son, Máximo. Reflecting the return of resource nationalism in
a country that has recently made big discoveries of shale oil, the
group’s members enthusiastically chanted before Argentina’s president
when she announced plans to nationalize YPF.
Like fans at a soccer stadium, they shouted their refrains. “The wealth
will stay in Argentina,” they yelled, hands slicing through the air.
“I’m a soldier for Cristina.”
But the critics, including Daniel Altman, an expert on Argentina’s
economy at the Stern School of Business at New York University, were not
impressed. “Brazil’s leaders have a more global view of their future,”
he said, “while Argentina has a government that is ultimately
self-destructive.”
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário