For Héctor Torresformer representative of Argentina before the International Monetary Fund (IMF)the governance of the president Javier Milei will depend on the electoral result of October 26not from the US financial salvage. However, the Minister of Economy, Luis Caputohe admitted that the secretary of the American Treasury, Scott Besentasked him to guarantee the continuity of the libertarian government Looking for consensus, to rebuild the deteriorated link with the Nation Congress and Governors.
Likewise, the IMF’s ex -intent ensures that bilateral financing agreements, this time with the US Treasury, maintain more discretionary demands than those proposed by the fund and lower transparency, almost nil. Already in the Besent account of the social network X it was explicitly reflected The request to ride 0% retentions declinedestined for exporters of the agricultural sector, which registered an income of U $ 7,000 million in just three days.
Regarding the exchange scheme, Torres ensures that Trump’s “support and Besent” is a very important political gesture that the government “He did not take the opportunity to float and announce a reservations purchase program”, Which allows to access the capital market again. Next, the full interview in dialogue with Scope.
Journalist: Gita Gopinath, already out of the back Accumulate reservations and modify the exchange scheme. Is it possible to begin Differences between the Board of Directors regarding the Argentine case?
Héctor Torres: There were always differences between the directors, but I doubt that someone can differ with the need for the Government to float to the weight, accumulate reservations and, above all, do not “spend up to the last dollar” of the IMF, defending an artificially overvalued exchange rate.
Q.: How could you describe the relationship between the United States and the IMF today?
HT: The US was always the most influential partner, the difference is that today, in addition, it is the most unpredictable and feared partner. Trump has no appreciation for multilateral institutions and IMF is no exception.
Q.: In terms of demands and compliance with payments, is the US Treasury one step above that the IMF?
HT: When a government approaches the IMF, the policy weighs, but the conditionality of its loans is transparent and its discretion is limited by rules. The discretion of the IMF is also limited because the other countries expect to receive equivalent treatment. When bilateral financing is requested, in this case to the US Treasury, discretion to condition the loan is enormous and the transparency little or null.
P.: The reviews by the Treasury and visits to the country can they occur more frequently than the ones that the IMF performs?
HT: Most likely, treasure delegates the monitoring of government measures in IMF. The Treasury will make its own evaluation, but I do not think that regular treasure visits are necessary; With those of the IMF it reaches.
Q.: Do you think that US support is a financial lifeguard or a guarantee of governance?
HT: At the moment there is no financial lifeguard but a promise to work in that direction, but only “after the elections.” Trump’s and Besent’s support is a very important political gesture that the government did not take the opportunity to float and announce a reservations purchase program, which allows the capital market to be reasons to re -access. The governance of Argentina does not depend on Trump but on the electoral result and the government’s ability to put together the necessary consensus to approve and implement the structural reforms that are proposed to be carried out.
Q.: In geopolitical terms, how is Argentina stopped? Should your speech of “freedom or communism” extreme after agreement with the US?
HT: Milei’s foreign policy is very simple: automatic alignment with the US and Israel. The “freedom or communism” dichotomy is an atavism of the last century. Today neither China is communist, nor liberal countries refrain from “guiding” companies. All governments, China and G7, play industrial policy, with growing influence on corporate decisions. Trump, for example, has just bought a state participation in Intel.
Q.: How much can exchange calm if the government does not accumulate reservations?
HT: Without reservations it cannot last and in fact it did not last even a week. The exchange calm was over and the government again established exchange restrictions.
Q.: Do you think an electoral defeat can put the agreement at risk?
HT: Definitely. For something Besent, very prudently, said that only after the elections he will begin to work with the government to define the terms of salvage.
Q.: How would you define the relationship between Argentina and debt taking? Does Argentina make irresponsible use of this economic policy tool?
HT: The debt is neither good nor bad. It depends on what it is used and with what conditions comes. What our history teaches us is that there is no sovereignty without access to the capital market. If there is no access to the capital market, you have to “pass the cap” in Washington or in Beijing or in some other capital.
Q.: Finally, how would you define Milei’s position as a negotiator against a power? And how is your request for help in the US and the ratification of the American forceful support?
HT: Americans are accustomed to capitalism seriously; That is, to capitalism with bankruptcies. The basis of legitimacy of capitalism is private risk. Private appropriation of economic surplus – always a social product – is legitimate because the capitalist risks its capital. Many companies are created in the US, but many also break. Using taxpayers money to save a company or a bank is to socialize the risk and, therefore, violate the basis of legitimacy of capitalism. It is in that framework that criticisms of Trump’s salvage appeared.
Source: Ambito
