Julián Domínguez: "Our political leadership does not know the identity of who we are from the interior and we come from a life linked to the countryside"

—What did people vote for in 2019 and what is the vote matrix for 2021?

—In 2019, people voted to be disappointed in the government of Mauricio Macri. And in the STEP, which was the selection of candidates, Argentina expressed the state of anguish of the pandemic. It affected all of humanity. It implied a 10% drop in GDP in our nation. It generated a very significant level of anguish. We have to see what happens in November. It is important to discern that it was a selection of candidates. I don't know how the result will be in November. No one can anticipate it.

—What is the symbolic value of the presence of the Chief of Staff, Juan Manzur, of governors of five provinces, of other representatives of the national government, together with the leaders of the four entities that make up the Liaison Table when making ads on the subject of meat?

—Argentina is a federal country. Public policies must be planned not from the distance of some offices in Buenos Aires, but in agreement with the provinces. For this reason, that morning we had convened the Federal Council of Ministers of the provinces. We had a previous conversation with the deans of the veterinary schools. Thus we arrive at the presence of the governors in a common problem. Meat is part of our national identity; cattle are a constitutive part of our field. There are provinces in which livestock farming has a very high incidence. It was necessary to find a concerted and federal response to the problems raised. The Liaison Table embodied the difficulties of the producers. The coordination of the response must be federal. The claims are based on the problem fundamentally of the smallest farmers with the cow called category D, or E, the cow that has no calving capacity, the one with "eight teeth", whose destination is not national consumption, but exportation. to China.

—It is repeated like a mantra that the change in some ministers, including you, gave the Government greater “political volume”. What is “political volume” for you?

—It was not part of my life project to return to public service. He had commitments in private activity. I was working on the master plan for the automotive industry with the Smata union, in my studio and giving classes. Alberto Fernández understood that at this very special juncture I could help to overcome a delayed stage of dialogue in the pandemic. And here I am. I do not consider myself one of those who contribute political volume. I do bring the experience of the years lived in public service.

—How was the dialogue with Alberto Fernández when he summoned you?

—We had had many previous conversations in which I brought my vision to him. I expressed the enthusiasm that the Social Economic Council aroused as a space for agreement and construction of the future. In those dialogues I expressed my opinion about the sector, given my ties. The night before he had written to me, we had not been able to talk during the day. And quarter past nine on a Friday night, he called me. With my wife we ​​were going to go for a walk and eat at a service station. He told me that he needed me and that I should make the announcements.

—Was it by phone?

—It was on the phone. On Monday we had breakfast and agreed. I told him what I thought the instruments should be.

—The same Monday you swore?

—On the morning of the day we swore.

—Was it announced that you would be a minister having simply had a telephone conversation with the President?

—We had been chatting, but not about the possibility of returning to public service. I had told him that he was not part of my life project. With my wife, we were at the stage of enjoying our four grandchildren. Have a life a little more orderly and calm.

“Argentina is an agricultural country without an agricultural debate.”

—Both you and Aníbal Fernández are leaders who come from the time of Eduardo Duhalde, from a traditional Peronism and went through the fire and the crisis of 2001 and what happened until 2003.

—My militant experience comes from before, from 1983. I was a Peronist all my life, a full ticket Peronist.

—But you lived the singular experience of 2001.

—In 1983, Raúl Alfonsín inaugurated with Antonio Cafiero, with Carlos Menem, with Eduardo Duhalde, with Néstor Kirchner, a high-volume leadership.

—Would political volume be a metaphor for “thick skin” to resist complex situations?

—Yes. If politics is understood as a vocation and service to the country.

—To which is added resilience? Is this situation worse, the same or better than that of 2001?

—At that time, Eduardo Duhalde had the ability to summon all the actors. He built a great national agreement on the emergency.

—Who already came from the province of Buenos Aires, and also with Alfonsín.

—It was a policy of agreements, of establishing strategic axes. This allowed us to quickly get out of the 2001/2002 crisis with strong articulation with provinces and municipalities. It allowed ordering the business world, the different interests of society and starting a recovery cycle for Argentina. The Argentine dialogue was a fact of the time. It marked the way to solve difficulties in society. All civil society institutions participated.

—In the formation of the first cabinet of the first year and a half of Alberto Fernández, there were officials close to the Instituto Patria, La Cámpora or Cristina Kirchner and others closer to the President himself. The replacements that were produced incorporate traditional Peronism. To the governors, to ministers with experience. Was the cabinet lacking traditional Peronism?

—It is not appropriate for me to issue a rating. The President drives. And join a coalition.

—Is traditional Peronism thicker because it has more management experience?

—I think that those who were active, stood by the people, went through what the Romans called the cursus honorum of political life, acquired listening skills, seeking to build agreements. In Argentine politics there is value in the experience of those who are the product of the representation of the territory, of work, of clay, of the direct relationship with the people and those who by profession or academic suitability did not have that experience.

—To that is added a geographical question. The Peronism of the City of Buenos Aires could not develop this "cursus honorum" because it lost elections.

—It seems to me that it is essentially a matter of militancy, of commitment to party ideals. They are values ​​that make it necessary to go out to meet people to ride each era synthesizing the best solutions.

“There is no national project possible without going out to meet the other.”

—How is your current relationship with Aníbal Fernández?

—I'm going to be faithful to what I set myself the first day, not to talk about personal issues. We share the same cabinet. We had had a meeting at the request of Ricardo Pignanelli.

—When?

—Recently. But everyone has to work on the role. They did not choose us because of mutual sympathy.

—Why did Alberto Fernández give the center of the scene to Juan Manzur?

—Alberto doesn't cum. He is in the monitoring of daily issues and in the bilateral relationship with his ministers.

—I mean public visibility.

—Juan is hyperactive, enthusiastic. I did not know the previous stage, because I was not part of it. For this stage, Juan establishes future horizons. Encourages to go out to meet the other. He is an entertainer by nature.

—Is it correct to characterize that your appointment is a message to the electorate of Santa Fe and La Pampa, two agricultural provinces, key to obtaining the necessary senators to maintain their own quorum?

—I don't think I'm that important. One is a public servant. If the President and the members of the coalition thought that I could be useful, it is because they know me. I am a lifelong Peronist, with training and a vision.

—In Santa Fe, Juntos obtained more than 44% of the votes and the ruling party almost 29%. Do cases like Vicentin's influence, the waterway?

—Our political leadership does not know the capabilities, the dynamics, but above all the culture and identity of those of us who are from the interior and come from life linked to the countryside.

—The Buenos Aires bias generates paradigmatic blindness.

—It's a problem for the entire leadership. Paradoxically, Argentina is an agricultural country without an agricultural debate. In the economic media agenda, the main contribution of the national economy is not central. This unitarism, life concentrated in the great urban and suburban conglomerate, generates an agenda with its back to the countryside. The highest-grossing leaders are not those from the interior, but rather those with the best communication skills and the speed of the media. We have a different rhythm of life, and a calmer look, more linked to nature, not so much to the speed of new technologies. Those who thought of me know my origin and that I believe in dialogue to build. I feel culturally identified with the governors of Santa Fe and La Pampa. I am a friend of Omar Perotti and Sergio Ziliotto. We share the same vision. Sometimes they talk about the countryside, agriculture, livestock, regional economies, who do not know the idiosyncrasy. They make the mistake of thinking about it in economic terms. The interior of the country, the regional economies, is much more than a number. It is a constitutive tradition of our identity as a nation. Many say that it may be retrograde to say so. But we cannot deny our nature. With leaders from the interior I have more affinity because we have a vision linked to a broader space, better forestry and a different quality of life. Common values ​​unite us. For example, we like a jineteada, something criticized in urban centers. We like to see the animals.

—To get to a last president who could understand that, we have to go back a long way.

—Raúl Alfonsín was from Buenos Aires. And Eduardo Duhalde, from the Conurbano.

—You could say that Néstor Kirchner did not understand the pampas. And that Carlos Menem neither.

—But Néstor understood her better than anyone.

—But they did not understand it by osmosis, because they did not represent this rich center of agricultural production in Argentina.

—The origin determines the destination and the gaze. One is marked by the place of origin.

—You left a comfortable situation to get to the cabinet. What would a good ruling party election be like in November?

—I won't even tell you the things my wife told me. He did not go to the assumption, so you have an idea.

“As a leader of the State, I cannot be angry with what others think.”

—Imagine another post-election family Monday dinner, but in November. In which case would you tell him it was worth it?

—I couldn't say. My head was not previously set on the electoral. He was just another citizen, he had a political vision. I would be satisfied.

—Would reducing the difference be a good result?

—I would be satisfied to feel that I gave everything to serve the country. Ergo, to the interests of the administration. I can't think more than that. I can't share any guesses. I do not have it. You should see polls, analytics, study.

—Will that vote that expresses anguish over the pandemic continue in November?

—Society began to look to the future. When I received the second vaccine, I felt more confident to walk into the future. It seems to me that society thinks about the future. You are envisioning a final quarter of recovery in economic activity with improved expectations. For 2022 there is an expectation of GDP growth. In livestock, we are going to have a 2022 with a greater number of animals, with a greater volume of slaughter. We project a much better scenario. The same thing happens in agriculture. I see a hopeful scenario.

—How do you analyze the growth of the progressive wing of radicalism that runs Juntos por el Cambio from the center-right to the center and the phenomenon of Facundo Manes, another Buenos Aires native?

—We're neighbors. They bet on an internal process that enriched and gave volume to that political debate. It is what we need. Politics has to discuss again. You must return to discuss from the interests that each one represents. That happened, although Diego Santilli is a transplant. In all parties there are people trained to represent the interests of the Province. No one is going to represent her better than those who are part of her story.

—Does the growth of the Conurbano, which was much less in Alfonsín's time, generate a new scenario?

—There is a huge weakness in land planning. And that has effects on poverty indicators. Business was privileged and harmony was broken. We have high levels of population concentration where there are no criteria that order it. Giving up the order is a surrender of the leadership. One of the characteristics of the United Nations to determine levels is the quality of the habitat. We would have less poverty and difficulties if we had more friendly conditions to live. We have plenty of territory and resources to do it. We do not depend on anyone for that. He gave up on this. In CABA, which is beautiful, there is a model of progress that nobody knows where it is going. Period architecture is demolished to make amorphous towers. It is a challenge, if we want to improve people's lives.

—Even with the announcements of these weeks, Jorge Chemes, the president of CRA, said that "in the government there are people who hate the countryside." He used an emotional word, "hate." The 2008 rural crisis left a social mark. How can a reconciliation be reached?

—The Argentine countryside is constitutive of the national project. I have always worked, and I am doing it now, to get rid of the antagonistic visions that cause backwardness. We waste time discussing what leads nowhere. Atahualpa Yupanqui says: "Walk so much to get nowhere." The Argentine countryside has an unparalleled opportunity as food producers. This is given by the geographical position, the environmental quality, the value of the certification of production of origin, for being creditors of the climatic benefits. Thirty years ago, Argentina, with direct sowing, made a global revolution. The sector did a lot. They were the Argentine producers, the scientists, the biotechnology. I see no point in wasting time in such discussions. Whoever does it will have their reasons. But it wears us down, it discourages us. The President expressly asked me, after the pandemic, to meet the other, promote dialogue and build a vision of the future. In 2010, the Argentina 2020 Agrifood Plan was formulated. Universities, entities and producers set goals for this decade. You have to build a vision of the future. The countryside has a lot to contribute to the national project.

—In this same series of reports, the director of Syngenta, Antonio Aracre, said that the rescue of Vicentin proposed by Alberto Fernández in 2020 was a good idea, but poorly communicated. We also talk about the word "hate" expressed by Jorge Chemes. How cultural is there in the conflict with the countryside?

—It is resolved by going out to meet the other. Dialogue to find common goals and objectives. I can't make you change your way of thinking; but as a public official I am obliged to take the best of you to build a horizon for the future. I like it or not how you think. I can't get angry like you think. Chemes' opinion is absolutely respectable. My task as a minister is to take the positive from the entity. If there are things to correct, do it. I don't know of any other way to ride a possible nation project if not with this decision. From the State I have the function not of the bilaterality of the confrontation, but of seeking a synthesis. It is the unit, the polyhedron, of which Francisco speaks. If a part is missing, it is not unity. Getting on the rack of public service is with everyone, not just with those who think as one. It's biblical. Whoever is in the public function must assume the task. Welcome the difference. I am not naive. The nation's business in such an important area requires embracing the future, competing with biotechnological leaders, and being on the run from the decisions made by the big global players. It is necessary to take the best of each one and go out into the world.

—Mauricio Macri took office, removed the withholdings and released the dollar. When the deficit is discussed, what is omitted is that it grew because the withholding taxes were eliminated. It was a political decision. I thought that the countryside is the engine of Argentine exports and should receive double benefits; release the dollar and withholdings. Today it would be unimaginable. In fact, the Monetary Fund requested withholdings, which began with Duhalde, and again there are stocks. There are clearly two perspectives on the field. Do you feel that your mission is impossible?

—In 2001 there were many fields to be auctioned off. In Chacabuco, I had been mayor, there were owners of 600 hectares of land between the city and Junín, which the public banks were about to auction off. The devaluation meant that the hectare that was worth 700 dollars today has a value of 20 or 22 thousand dollars. The sector put its shoulder to the country. Nobody likes to pay taxes. If you find a volunteer who wants to pay taxes, we applaud and crown them. The sector makes an important contribution to the country and it must be recognized. It is a contribution to the common good in this Argentina of many difficulties. Macri realized that it was impossible to maintain a more or less balanced Argentina without the contributions of the sector. That is why he had to restore the path traveled.

—He realized it when the Fund asked him in 2018 for the fiscal balance.

—Neither did it reach that situation with fiscal balance and severe indebtedness.

—Finished with 0.5%. To get there he had to put the holds back on. Do you have to be an ambassador to the most difficult sector?

—Everyone tries to do their best. I am this and they thought that I can be useful. The fundamental task is to think about the future. Let history judge the past. From the public function I must think about tomorrow.

—It is stated that the Minister of Production, Matías Kulfas, within the Government, did not agree with the limitation of exports of heifers that went to China. Did exports affect the price of meat?

—We must analyze livestock as a whole. First, the stock. We have 53,500,000 animals. We are at a very low slaughter weight, and at an average productivity level of 62%. Ten years ago we had thought of a progressive increase in the slaughter weight agreed with the entities. That was left behind. Today we lack volume of meat. If we had progressively increased the slaughter weight, we would have a much more attractive export horizon. The internal market made a dietary balance throughout the decade. Ten years ago, when we announced the incentive to raise and train pigs, there is a famous phrase by Cristina about the effects of pork, we should go towards a more balanced diet and export more. If it had taken the steps to increase the slaughter weight and if the level of productivity had improved a little more, Argentina should be exporting a million tons of meat. Such was the goal ten years ago. At that time, I traveled to China four times in two years and we brought the Chinese Minister of Agriculture to Rosario to see the Argentine countryside, to see livestock. At that time, Argentina had been left out of the BRICS, because it was not the most important country in the region, a place that Brazil had. We stick to a commercial strategy with Brazil and we try to emphasize the opening of new markets. We were convinced that they were going to be a vacuum cleaner for the entire food supply in the world. Today China is a vacuum cleaner that has no limit. Everything we can sell and offer China will buy. Having said this, livestock must have a balance between the stock, the slaughter price, the level of productivity, internal consumption and what it wants to export. There must be harmony. 2020 was the year with the highest meat exports if a twenty-year cycle is taken. It exported 900 thousand tons. At the rate of Chinese demand, Argentina would be at those export levels. The first semester was above the second semester of last year.

—In 2018, meat exports to China were 206 thousand tons. 2019, 427 thousand. Something similar, 462 thousand in 2020. How many will there be this year?

—We're almost at the same levels. We are one point below last year. The first thing we must tell the public is that exports to China were not closed. I did a survey with our foreign service and our ambassadors tell us that the markets are open for everything Argentina wants to export. But we must define what policy and development model we want. Of course we want to export more, but we must have a horizon. Agriculture is different from livestock. They are other times, longer cycles. We have to define how we increase the slaughter weight. We have to do it progressively from next year. See how we stimulate productivity policies, to increase productivity.

“Meat is part of our national identity; cattle are a constitutive part of our field.”

—Didn't they stop exporting anymore? Wouldn't 8% more have been exported?

—We had no back. We have lost almost a million head of cattle at the rate we were coming. We will end the year with 700,000 more cows. We will have a harmony in the exportable capacity next year. This will be the second record year of meat exports. We have prices that fly. The Hilton Quota increased by 4 thousand dollars and almost all the exportable balance that Argentina has was anticipated. The American market is in an extraordinary dynamic.

—The FAO has just said that the increase in food from one year to the next was on average 30% in dollars.

—Yes. And Argentina took full advantage of it.

—There are forecasts that Uruguay would sign the free trade agreement with China during 2022. Would that affect anything?

—Nothing. Brazil has fewer animals than people. Argentina has more animals than people. And Uruguay has a marketing model where the generation of added value and the export business are not done locally. In Argentina, there is a participation of national producers and businessmen in the meat business.

—What nationality are those who do the work of generating added value for Uruguayan products?

—Basically, from Brazil and investment funds. In Argentina they are still flesh and blood businessmen.

“You cannot sustain some values ​​when you are in government and others when you are in opposition”

—What do you think when you see that there are Peronists in Juntos for the change?

—In the Constitution we establish that political parties are the representation of society as a whole to select candidates. But Argentine society devalued the institutionality of political parties. It's a problem. Political parties, as part of society, must order a set of ideas with a common vision. The break of political parties with society does not help the country. Predictability and building the future also depend on political parties that are solid in terms of their ideals, solid in their values, in which the leaders are accountable. Accountability is the difference between a political leader and one who is not. We do not have institutional solidity. Due to my condition as a Peronist, with a social and humanist, national vision, I have deep differences, but I don't feel in a position to judge anyone.

—Differences with the Peronists of Together for Change?

—I don't feel in a position to judge anyone. But Argentine society must take note. It is of no use, neither to political representation, nor to Argentine society, for leaders to permanently change their identities. When it comes to governing they hold one principle, and tomorrow, another. Credibility is in crisis.

“Since 1999 the province had delegates and not genuine representatives”

—Escobar's mayor, Ariel Sujarchuk, said "that the government has no vocation to seriously change nor courage to promote a true renovation”, referring to the province of Buenos Aires. Was an internship opened in the province of Buenos Aires?

—I think it's good that everyone expresses themselves. From 1999 onwards, precisely with this crisis of the political parties, we had delegates, but not genuine representatives.

—Was the last serious governor Duhalde?

—Without a doubt, because it represented a territory. The federal system is based on the representation of interests. The Constitution of the year 94 disarmed the base of federalism: the electoral college. There the interests of the nation were harmonized and synthesized in a common project. Broken the Electoral College, the political parties, we have a system and a State different from the model we thought of in 1853.

—Was that reform a mistake?

—It was grafting a practice that was not compatible with our constitutional system inherited from American independence. Our bicameral model adapts to a model of agreement and concertation of the provinces as in the United States. It comes from pre-existing agreements. We ended up building a very unitary system of political representation.

—Did you make the presidents from Buenos Aires or from the suburbs?

—There is evidence of it. Except Nestor and Cristina Kirchner.

“The social doctrine of the Church speaks of the universal destination of goods”

—The Land Workers Union has a proposal on land ownership that It is in line with some of Grabois's proposals. On their website they propose: “According to the State Assets Administration Agency, the Argentine State has 400,000 hectares of fiscal land. Meanwhile, more than half of the family farmers are forced to rent land to produce in the fruit and vegetable belts and this indicator can reach up to 90%. We work daily, we train so that our productions are better, healthy and diversified. However, we live impoverished and impoverished without the right to decent housing because we cannot build on the spaces we rent”. Does your assignment include any kind of legislation on access to land?

—We were talking about it. According to the last agricultural census, we lost 50,000 producers. From 320,000 producers, we went to 270. The trend of leaving the countryside and moving to the city is accelerating. Those who are losing ownership of the fields are the small producers. There is a concentration process.

—It is an inverse process to what happened at the time when fields were divided with inheritances.

—The development model is moving towards a place where we are going to have a lot of production with fewer producers. It is not good for a vision of development of the nation in which we all agree. The second piece of information from the period is family farming or fruit and vegetable complexes around large urban centers. The nation must create financing instruments so that land workers can access hectares. It is necessary to have a policy of strong stimulus and financing in this sense. Development is needed that emphasizes family farming.

—Juan Grabois was in Rome participating in the Vatican Forum on the end of poverty. He called for a revolutionary humanism based on land, roof and work, the so-called "three Ts", raised by Pope Francis, along with popular movements. What is your opinion about the role that the popular economy should have in the government's agricultural sector policy?

—The State should have a role that favors land ownership, as proposed by the Agrarian Federation, and other entities. We must recover the imprint of returning to colonize the Argentine countryside. We are in a connectivity project in rural areas carried out by private sectors. It will revolutionize the possibility of permanence in the countryside. We need policies so that the agrotechnical colleges, the rural schools, can return. That people have the opportunity to return to work and live in the countryside. It is an opportunity, but not for a party, or a sector. The development management model must be focused on agriculture with more producers.

—Did it bother you that the Pope remarked that private property is a secondary right to rural organizations?

—The social doctrine of the Church speaks of the universal destination of goods. We come from here. It is a thought of all time. The possibility that all of us who live under this sky have the possibility of growing, developing and having the possibility of land ownership. I want an Argentina with owners.

—How is your relationship with the Pope?

—It's been a long time since I spoke to the Pope. I feel a deep admiration for his conceptual mastery. He updated the debate on caring for our common home at a planetary level. He made prophetic announcements that should serve as a warning to the world's political leadership for the risks we are taking today. Already from the pre-existing documents to Laudato Si, it marks a vision in which the accent is placed on caring for the common home, the land and the environment. That is better quality of life.

—If the result of the PASO is repeated in November and the elections leave a weakened president, an alliance in permanent tension and two years ahead, can the Pope be a containment factor? Is he a capital of the country in a situation of political fragility?

—The Pope is a spiritual, moral authority. That is a point from which to look at the present and the future and illuminate the future.

—Would you have the authority to call Cristina and Alberto and contain them?

—It would be intrusive of me to comment on that. I never talked about it, nor would I. We Argentines would weaken the extraordinary opportunity to have spiritual leadership from a compatriot. He is also a porteño, which should be more pride for those who were born in the City.

Production: Pablo Helman and Debora Waizbrot.