The Argentine ambassador to Uruguay, Alberto Iribarne, received Bloomberg Línea in Montevideo.
From his office at the diplomatic headquarters, he spoke about Argentine business people settling in Uruguay.
He also spoke about the tension with the government of Luis Lacalle Pou due to Uruguay’s intention to move forward with a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with China despite internal resistance in Mercosur.
“I think that, in the case of most business people, it is because of a fiscal issue, to pay fewer taxes specifically,” answered Iribarne when asked why he believed that businessmen such as Alejandro Bulgheroni, the founder of MercadoLibre Marcos Galperin, and Globant’s Martín Migoya, have settled in Uruguay.
Regarding Uruguay’s negotiation of an FTA with China, the Argentine ambassador said that the government of Alberto Fernández is waiting for the administration of Lacalle Pou “to put the terms of the agreement on the discussion table of the bloc”.
So far, the Uruguayan government has declared it as reserved.
“If there were a unilateral decision by Uruguay to sign the FTA with China, it would go against the functioning of the basic rules of Mercosur,” he added later.
Iribarne, former Minister of Justice in the government of Néstor Kirchner, also gave his opinion on the attack against Argentine Vice-President Cristina Fernández and the so-called “Vialidad” case.
The following interview was edited for the sake of length and clarity.
What do you think happened the day a man tried to assassinate the vice president?
The first reaction was astonishment, astonishment, and repudiation of the assassination attempt. Fortunately, it did not happen.
One does not try to make history against facts and even less with this, but I suppose it would have been a tragedy for Argentina.
Fortunately, it was possible to arrest the perpetrator, which facilitated the investigation of the event. Within the tragedy, I think it is important that the perpetrator was arrested.
In general, I think this event should call for the reflection of all political, economic, and social leaders on the issue of violence.
In Argentina, we have gone through countless crises, but one of the things that 99% of Argentines agree on is that democracy is the best system of government and that the exclusion of violence as a way to solve problems is intrinsic to democracy.
And that social agreement is signed by 99% of Argentines. Sometimes verbal violence can lead to physical violence; fortunately, it has not happened.
So, when there is a situation like this, the moral of the story is to reaffirm the pact between Argentines to exclude violence. The first reactions have been like this from all the leaders.
The government has talked a lot about the discursive violence of the media and the opposition. Do you also include the government itself in the responsibility of lowering a little the decibels in the public agenda?
Yes, yes. We have to banish the idea that politics is something to be solved between enemies. That is what happens in war. In war, you try to eliminate the enemy.
In politics, he is an adversary, so you can disagree and disagree on many things, but you respect him because you have to live together.
Of course, there is dialogue, which is not a magic question where you will solve everything, but obviously, you reach a point where if you disagree, you vote for it.
Politics is different from war because there are no enemies; there are adversaries. We have to recover that concept.
Lowering the levels of verbal violence will be positive in avoiding the other violence, which is physical. I believe that we are all there.
Obviously, within the opposition, media, and government, there is a plurality of people in which we cannot say that this is so and so concerning each one.
But if we analyze it, we will see where we can find those pockets of verbal violence. It is everyone’s task to correct it.
Is there any lesson Uruguay can offer with the recent fact of Lacalle Pou taking a pension reform proposal to the opposition headquarters or embracing Mujica with Sanguinetti in the Parliament?
Of course, there are many, but I would return to Argentine history.
After 1983, the support for democracy of all political sectors in the face of the Carapintadas uprising, what was the 1994 Constitution, which for the first time was not a Constitution imposed by one sector to another but by agreement of 95% of the political forces.
And I think the first reaction after the attack against the Vice-President also reflected that.
Obviously, Uruguay has more moderate rules of coexistence, and the examples you mentioned reflect that. Political discussion is much more respectful, even if there are differences.
When President Lacalle Pou contacted me to express his solidarity with the Argentine people, we talked about the fact that in Uruguay, sometimes there are some outbursts of violence that we have to be attentive to so that they do not happen again.
The basic concept of democracy is that violence must be avoided because there are other ways to solve problems.
Did the president come to talk about any issue in the bilateral relationship?
No, he called to express his solidarity simply because of this issue. That was it.
You were a minister during the government of Néstor Kirchner; you coincided with José López. The question is whether you share Alberto Fernández’s view that Cristina Kirchner did not know about handling public works and the diversion of funds to public works in Santa Cruz.
I do not know what the relationship was, but I first say that there is a presumption of innocence. A third or fourth-line official has no reason for the president to know what he was doing.
At the last Mercosur summit, President Alberto Fernandez said they do not rule out the possibility of making the block more flexible. Was there any negotiation after that?
No. What we are waiting for with the issue of the Free Trade Agreement with China is for Uruguay to put it on the discussion table of the bloc, what it has advanced and what it wants to do, which so far it has not done.
The expectation is that Uruguay will inform the rest of the members. Still, it has not yet been asked what the negotiation status is and what would be the objectives pursued by Uruguay.
Do you still think that this puts the bloc at risk?
We say that if Uruguay made a unilateral decision to sign the FTA with China, it would go against the functioning of the basic rules of Mercosur.
It does not mean that if it moves forward in the discussion, it will put the whole into consideration.
Still, we do not believe it can do it unilaterally because that would be against the spirit and the letter of the creation of Mercosur.
The Uruguayan government has said that the agreement is confidential. How can a Mercosur member not have access to everything?
That is a little bit the question that Uruguay has been asked informally. It is essential to know what we are discussing.
The Uruguayan Chancellor has been in Europe in the last few days in search of relaunching the agreement between Mercosur and the European Union. What is Argentina’s position on the matter?
We favor the agreement ratification and believe it could be a good opportunity.
Europe was slowing down the progress of the signing of the agreement. Maybe because of the changes that are taking place due to the Ukraine war, these things will make it easier to move forward with the deal.
Is there any date foreseen for the bridge between Monte Caseros and Bella Unión?
I hope it will be accelerated. There is absolute consensus between the two governments to move forward.
Uruguay seeks to move forward with the dredging to 14 meters for the entrance to the Port of Montevideo. What is Argentina’s position as to whether it is 13 or 14 meters?
It is 13 meters. There is agreement on that. They have not yet submitted the request to dredge to 14 meters. I understand there will not be any inconvenience, but it has not yet been formally presented.
Would Argentina allow it?
I understand it would. There will be some questions about environmental impact, of how it influences the Río de la Plata regime, but I understand that there is no political obstacle. There are technical issues that have to move forward.
Why do you think successful entrepreneurs such as Marcos Galperin of MercadoLibre or Martín Migoya of Globant have decided to settle in Uruguay in the last few years?
I think it is a tax issue. The bulk of the business is still in Argentina, or the operation in Argentina is very important.
The struggle of men, especially those with large fortunes, is very old to pay fewer taxes. The question of proximity also has an influence. There may have been others.
It is like in Argentina, the one who lives in Buenos Aires and goes to San Martin de Los Andes or Villa General Belgrano, who can work from home, to change the rhythm of life a little.
But I think that, in the case of the most influential business people, it is due to a fiscal issue to pay fewer taxes.