Two setbacks seem to have marked Cristina Fernández at the beginning of the impeachment trial against the Supreme Court in the Deputies commission.
The first was related to the summit that
could not be with the president of Brazil, Lula de Silva.
Product, among various reasons, of her war divorce with Alberto Fernández.
The second was
inexplicably self-inflicted
: the unusual presentation that Horacio Pietragalla, the government's secretary of Human Rights, made at the UN Human Rights Council.
He denounced the "lawfare" in the country, accused the Judiciary, the opposition and the media of persecuting the vice president.
The incident seemed to be formally concluded when the UN recommended that the Government take care of ensuring the independence of Justice.
The consequences will last for a long time.
"Never in its history has the Council attended a show of this type," said a spokesman for the High Commission chaired by the Austrian Volker Türk.
He is about the man who replaced the former president of Chile, Michelle Bachelet.
The woman who, with her reports on human rights violations in Venezuela, bothered the link between Kirchnerism and Nicolás Maduro.
Türk won the fight at the time for the position that now holds the Argentine ambassador to the UN, Federico Villegas Beltrán.
The diplomat lagged behind due to his lack of opportunism: he fought for that chair while he was a frequent interlocutor with the ambassadors of Russia and Cuba.
Nothing wrong, of course,
if it hadn't happened at the inaugural times of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
Villegas Beltrán was sitting next to Pietragalla after intense lobbying between Geneva and the Foreign Ministry.
Santiago Cafiero doubted the appropriateness of the staging.
He even thought about the ambassador not attending.
The pressure from the Instituto Patria became unbearable for the minister.
The extravagance showed other nuances.
Pietragalla was presented at the annual sessions of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
It is a special process that has been in force since 2006 in which member states present the measures taken in their countries to improve human rights.
No one attends to file internal complaints
.
The diplomatic gesture seemed out of place with the general strategy designed by Cristina and her family.
If their corruption cases continue to advance in all instances, the idea would be to resort to the UN Council and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which depends on the Organization of American States (OAS) to challenge those procedures.
Hence the misunderstanding with the Pietragalla maneuver.
Argentina's foreign policy doesn't help either.
Alberto has had
a confrontation with the OAS Secretary General, Luis Almagro,
for years .
The discord between the two has a broad agenda, although it emphasizes Bolivia (when Evo Morales had to resign in 2019 due to a rebellion from office) and the Venezuelan situation.
Our country boycotted the re-election of the Uruguayan in 2020, with a mandate until 2025. Things are not good.
Neither the OAS nor Washington are unaware of the ulterior motives that some of the leaders of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) would hide.
At least Alberto, Evo and Nicolás Maduro are in that line.
Reduce the already declining influence of that organization to transfer it to the community in which administrations with a "progressive" bias predominate.
What Luis Lacalle Pou, president of Uruguay, described as a "club of ideological friends."
That claim did not bear fruit at the last summit either.
There were several reasons.
Lula is not willing at the dawn of the complicated third term to alter international relations.
Less, in defiance of Washington.
Nor is it new.
In his first term, with fewer years and greater effervescence, the Kirchner couple was able to verify it.
He received George Bush in São Paulo one day after having attended the 2005 Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata. of Free Trade).
The PT leader once again gave a lesson in priorities and pragmatism.
He became the center of gravity of the CELAC summit.
His subsequent gesture was the state visit to Uruguay.
He enabled there the discussion on the need for the commercial opening of Mercosur promoted by Lacalle Pou.
He did not miss the opportunity to visit José Mujica who, along with former president Julio María Sanguinetti, was also at Lula's inauguration ceremony.
A bell, perhaps, for Together for Change.
The opposition coalition seemed charmed with the purpose of interfering in the supposed presence of Maduro.
Success was awarded.
He missed the opportunity of even a formal meeting with Lula.
If it is true that he plans to govern from 2023, he could have done something to get closer to the man who will lead the main business partner for four years.
Another problem for Alberto's intentions was the way in which the mandate was resolved in CELAC.
The President assumed, without foundation, that he could extend his term until the middle of the year.
From that regional top he would intervene as a candidate in the campaign.
There was no solidarity or from his close allies to consummate the plan.
The choice ended up falling on the premier of the Caribbean island of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalvez.
Held at a distance by the absent Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the president of Mexico.
That reality does not favor Cristina's plans linked to her judicial situation.
Neither now nor in the future.
Adding to the false step in the UN Council is the history of the IACHR of the OAS.
The organization has never validated removals of judges from its member countries.
It still substantiates an emblematic episode.
The rejection of the dismissal that Nayib Bukele, president of El Salvador, made for example with five magistrates of the Constitutional Chamber of the Court of Justice.
The procedure was carried out by the National Assembly.
The IACHR accused that the basic constitutional norms that should regulate such exercise, according to inter-American standards, were not complied with.
What could you think about a Supreme Court trial, like the one that substantiates Kirchnerism, supported by the ignorance of sentences and illegal espionage?
How would you see, in this context, the recurrence of the vice president to that body in the event that her sentences progress?
It is enough to have an answer by reviewing a 2021 IACHR ruling related to Paraguay.
Also signed by Raúl Zaffaroni, former member of the Supreme Court and summoned for the trial in Deputies.
The IACHR maintained that the impeachment trial or eventual dismissal of judges as a consequence of the content of the decisions they have handed down is "unfeasible."
In the accusation against Horacio Rosatti, Carlos Rosenkrantz, Juan Carlos Maqueda and Ricardo Lorenzetti there are three verdicts: the one that declared the modification of the Magistracy Council unconstitutional;
that of the co-participation of the City and the controversial two for one (subsequently corrected) also applicable to the computation for the imprisonment of those convicted of crimes against humanity.
That same ruling of the IACHR established that "a political trial cannot be made for cases that are still pending."
He understood that it would be an improper way to put pressure on any court.
This is precisely the condition of the conflict that broke out
when Alberto, in the midst of a pandemic, cut off funds from Horacio Rodríguez Larreta.
The Court ruled on the amparo presented by the Buenos Aires chief.
The substantive opinion is missing.
The legal course of action is not closed.
There are other singularities: a complaint by Juliana Di Tulio against the judges in her role as ultra K senator;
another as a common citizen.
An accusation against Rosatti from his days as mayor of Santa Fe.
An opinion will be essential for each judge and two thirds of Deputies to approve the accusation.
Impossible numbers for the ruling party.
The Senate would act only in the event that the accusation against the magistrates progresses.
Before all this there will be a step that Kirchnerism intends to take advantage of.
The admissibility of the 14 requests for impeachment against the judges will be voted on February 9.
Its authors must expose the fundamentals.
There is noise in Together for Change.
Among the paperwork remain two lawsuits that Elisa Carrió has against Lorenzetti.
One is for "obstruction of the Legislative Power."
Her allies have asked the Coalition leader for her to give up so as not to collaborate with the Kirchnerist party.
She resists.
Kirchnerism would care very little for all these weaknesses.
The political objective would be to demonstrate, especially to their own,
that there is no Justice in Argentina
.
Just a manhunt against the vice president.
Hence, he was so hurt by the absence of "victimization" along with Lula.
Or the marginalization of Eduardo De Pedro, Minister of the Interior, in an appointment with the leader of the PT and the organizations of DD.HH.
Internalism burns again.
Kirchnerism never imagined that Alberto's present anger would induce him to be a
collaborator of such pranks.
Nor did the President imagine that, right now, Pope Francis would speak the way he did about poverty and inflation in Argentina.
Many things have happened – including the abortion law – since the reconciliation between the two in 2017 also allowed a bridge with Cristina.
Francisco knows how to forgive, but not always and not that much.