Considerando la repercusion que tuvo este tema, y como se discutio en el foro, me parece interesante mostrar como el diario interno de Harvard vio la charla que dio Cristina y la imagen que dejo. El otro thread se desvirtuo demasiado, por lo que parece mejor crear uno nuevo para los que tengan ganas de charlar constructivamente.
Son dos notas, en ingles obviamente, completas en los links, pero brinda una interesante vision de 2 personas un poco mas objetivas, sin banderas politicas argentinas en su espalda. Marque algunos puntos en negrita que me parecieron bastante interesantes de la primera donde habla particularmente de su reaccion a las preguntas y el manejo que tuvo.
Nota 2Cristina, Get Serious
The Argentine president’s misguided perspective threatens her country
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the president of Argentina, is a remarkable individual by any measure. The first woman to be elected president of her country, her tenure has seen the enactment of the first same-sex marriage law on the continent and the establishment of a Ministry of Science, Technology, and Productive Innovation. She’s been a forceful leader, unafraid to make controversial decisions in the face of strong opposition.
However, the choices she makes are increasingly the wrong ones. And the cause of this seems to be personal, not political.
Let’s get back to the talk, however. At first, I was pleased to have landed a front-row seat, giving me an unobstructed view of President Kirchner. When the question-and-answer session started, however, I quickly wished I were someplace else. The manner in which she responded to pointed, critical queries made me cringe in my seat, and I’m sure I wasn’t alone. Following some of her statements, the entire room let out a gasp, as if to express, “She did not just say that.”
So how did President Kirchner respond to this student? “We’re at Harvard. Come on, please. Those things are not from Harvard,” she sentenced, her voice dripping with exasperation. In her view, since this particular Argentine studies abroad and has access to dollars, he had no right to pose such a question. “You think you can really talk about these currency problems?”
To call her response disrespectful would be a euphemism. Whether this young man lives abroad or not is irrelevant—as an Argentine citizen, he has the right and duty to express concern about an issue that impacts his family, his friends, and his country at large. This aside, however, the president’s abrupt dismissal of his question by means of an ad hominem attack suggests something about the way her intellect functions. Kirchner’s initial reaction to any criticism—her only reaction, perhaps—is emotional rather than rational. She’s an intelligent woman; she was perfectly capable of a well-reasoned, respectful response to the question. Yet she felt the immediate need to assert her power rather than justify the way she’s using it.
Need another example? When another student asked if Argentina’s economic and security woes meant it was time for some self-criticism, she sarcastically said she expected better questions from an Ivy League audience. Once again, Kirchner turned a constructive debate into negative mudslinging.
I don’t mean to draw my conclusions solely from one public appearance. Rather, this event merely confirmed the media’s portrayal of President Kirchner as a testy, autocratic populist. Many Argentines joke that their country is a “dedocracy,” from the Spanish word for finger, because her fingerprints are on every government action. She has surrounded herself with a small circle of laughably incompetent advisors, providing herself with an environment in which no one contests her final word. Kirchner actually spent most of the summer waging what many perceive as a campaign of vendetta against Daniel O. Scioli, the popular governor of the province of Buenos Aires, who suggested that he might compete in the next presidential elections. Ironically, he belongs to the same political party as her.
This, then, is the image of herself that President Kirchner left us with at Harvard. Arrogant? Certainly. Narcissistic? Don’t doubt it. Megalomaniac? That might be going a bit too far, but she’s certainly on the right track.
The irony of my position isn’t lost on me—I’m criticizing President Kirchner in personal terms for her personal attacks on others. The problem is that, for Kirchner, the political and the personal are no longer separate. Until she learns that they are, she’ll capsize her country along with her personal reputation.
Jorge A. Araya ’14, a Crimson editorial executive, is an economics concentrator in Dunster House. His column appears on alternate Mondays.
Kirchner’s Lack of Answers
When Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner visited Harvard last Thursday, she had to do something she rarely does: Openly answer questions from the public and media. One student even thanked her for the “unique” opportunity. But Kirchner just dodged the tough questions about her failed leadership.
President Kirchner has launched a campaign of harassment against the media and journalists, executing a strategy of information control we believe is designed to perpetuate her power. This trend is deeply troubling, not just for the journalists who are under threat, but also for the rights of a democracy to know what its government is doing.
The Kirchner administration employs numerous tools to restrict and pressure the press, including directing government advertising towards friendly media outlets and controlling distribution networks for newsprint in the name of “national security.” Physical attacks against journalists are increasing. The government has pushed through a variety of laws that restrict media rights, including the creation of a politically appointed media regulatory body, and two 2011 laws that dramatically increase government control of the press. One gave effective government control over Papel Prensa, the country’s only newsprint manufacturer, by declaring that the production, sale, and distribution of newsprint were of “public interest.” The other law expanded the definition of terrorism to include any news or commentary seen as threatening to the government.
When asked at Harvard about the encroaching censorship, President Kirchner made the extraordinary claim that there “has never been so much freedom of expression as now.” She then sought to divert the issue by bringing up the Bush Administration’s jailing of a New York Times journalist for refusing to reveal her source. But there is no denying the facts about her crackdown. Freedom House’s annual Freedom of the Press index notes that during successive Kirchner administrations, Argentina has experienced a significant deterioration in media freedom conditions—one of the most sustained declines worldwide.
Her attitude and policies towards the media are part of a larger pattern of irresponsible policies. The Argentine Government has consistently refused to honor court judgments around the world regarding this debt, including 114 in New York alone. It also refused to allow the International Monetary Fund to perform a standard audit, the only country in the world to do so, while reporting blatantly false inflation figures. And the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering is investigating Argentina for failing to meet its obligations under international anti-money laundering agreements.
President Kirchner may think she can hide these policies from the Argentine people in her bid to remain in power. As she learned in Boston, she must answer to her actions in an honest and direct manner…and without the state media behind her.
Ambassador Nancy Soderberg is a former Ambassador to the United Nations. Dr. Karin Karlekar is the project director of Freedom of the Press at Freedom House.
Espero esto ayude a aquellos defensores de la postura que tomo Cristina a reflexionar sobre si todo el mundo esta errado y si es positivo que se haya portado de forma tan infantil al contestar. Es decir, estas no son opiniones de alguien que labura en clarin ni anti-k.