Javier Milei exposes at the UN General Assembly, September 24, 2024.
Javier Milei made his debut on the United Nations stage with a speech that, beyond his incendiary rhetoric, marked a break in Argentine foreign policy. In an environment where words carry significant weight, the Argentine president chose to distance himself from the historical stances that characterized his predecessors. The break with Alberto Fernández, Mauricio Macri, and Cristina Kirchner, despite their ideological differences, became evident in each of his arguments.
The President of Argentina, Javier Milei, speaks during the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly at the UN headquarters in New York City on September 24, 2024
An Unprecedented Break
Milei's arrival at the UN not only represented a change in the political narrative of Argentina but also generated palpable tensions within his own cabinet. The Argentine ambassador to the UN, Ricardo Lagorio, was a clear example of this. Marginalized and criticized for his alleged lack of alignment with the new foreign policy, his presence at the negotiation table underscored the dissonance between the Casa Rosada and the Foreign Ministry.
Milei openly rejected resolutions that demanded Israel leave the "occupied Palestinian territory," as well as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a framework aimed at addressing global challenges. "I'm not here to tell the world what to do; I'm here to tell the world, on one hand, what will happen if the United Nations continues to promote the collectivist policies that they have been promoting under the mandate of the 2030 Agenda, and on the other hand, what values the new Argentina defends," he stated, presenting a strong critique of the multilateral initiatives of the agenda.
International Paradoxes
The most ironic part of all this is that Milei ended up aligning, even if temporarily, with countries like Russia, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela. These are the regimes he himself despises for being authoritarian, but in this case, he found himself sharing arguments against UN intervention in the internal affairs of states. What happened? They attempted to push an amendment for the UN not to "interfere" in what happens within their borders, and Milei, unwittingly, ended up on the same side as the regimes he criticizes.
Of course, that amendment failed with 143 votes against, and Argentina was not even present for the vote. That is to say, not only did Milei deliver the most disruptive speech one can imagine at the United Nations, but Argentina did not even show up to vote.
The Price of Disruptiveness
Milei's decision to break with established policies raises questions about Argentina's future relations with other countries. As he distances himself from traditional frameworks, there remains the doubt: is Milei willing to bear the cost of diplomatic isolation? His statements have resonated strongly, and the international community watches closely every move, every phrase, every decision.
In his critique of the 2030 Agenda, Milei described it as a "supranational socialist program" that, although well-intentioned, threatens state sovereignty and individual rights. With this assertion, the president reinforces his stance in defense of freedom and economic liberalism, rejecting any international intervention he considers a threat to national autonomy and fundamental rights such as life, liberty, and property.
Is the Price of Being "Libertarian" Isolation?
Milei's strategy of breaking with traditional alliances and blindly aligning with the United States, Israel, and Ukraine may work for a spectacular headline, but what does it leave Argentina? The rejection of the 2030 Agenda and the Global Digital Pact, which Milei didn't even bother to stop, presents the possibility of not only isolating the country from debates about the future but also places us in the position of being the odd one out.
Argentine Diplomacy on the Edge of the Abyss
It is impossible to ignore that Milei broke everything he touched during his time at the UN. Not only did he break with the foreign policy of his predecessors, but he also made it clear that consensus-building is not his style. It is evident that Milei's approach is to break with everything, even with decades of diplomacy that, with its ups and downs, at least attempted to maintain some level of coherence.
The problem, of course, is what remains for Argentina after all this. Relations with the international community are at risk, and meanwhile, the Argentine Foreign Ministry is preparing for what could be a long and complicated isolation. Because one thing is to want to be disruptive, and another very different thing is to upend the board and expect there to be no consequences. What is clear is that, with Milei, Argentina is constantly on the edge of the abyss and its role in global diplomacy is uncertain.
Comments