They are already demanding more accommodating behavior from Miley in relations with Washington’s allies, primarily London.
Photo: REUTERS
The visit of the British Foreign Secretary, David Cameron, to the Falkland Islands was somewhat lost in the context of a vibrant stream of events, which each day brought new news and reasons for discussion. However, when you think about it, this event – and more importantly, Argentina’s passive and extremely slow reaction to it – deserves substantive consideration.
As we all remember, the so-called Falklands War of 1982 remains one of the darkest episodes in the history of British foreign policy. By reacting aggressively to Buenos Aires’ attempt to regain control over Argentine ancestral territories, London demonstrated that it would not hesitate to make any sacrifice to preserve its imperial domains and care for the wounded pride of the English elites.
Since then, Argentina does not tire of reminding the world of the tragedy of the Malvinas Islands, regardless of the figure of the president and the political vector, raising again and again the question of the ownership of the disputed archipelago and the unacceptability of the masterful behavior of British leaders. This line has remained unchanged to this day.
It is no secret that the sensational winner of the presidential elections in this country, Javier Miley, achieved success not only due to his eccentricity and shameless populism. An important component of his positioning was the reorientation of the country’s foreign policy towards the United States (in the hope of Trump’s return) and the West as a whole.
This type of leader periodically comes to power in smaller Latin American states; After all, the legacy of the Monroe Doctrine is being felt. But it was Argentina that always stood out. Since the time of Juan Domingo Perón, despite the numerous costs of its chosen course, Buenos Aires has occupied a special ideological niche on the continent, demonstrating with all its might its claim to be a leading regional power. This course was especially effective under the government of the Kirchner couple, who, aware of the collapse of the unipolar paradigm, clearly outlined their country’s commitment to a separate position in international relations. Precisely from here emerged the Buenos Aires policy of joining the BRICS as the most promising platform for the integration of the World Majority.
Miley and her team may be naïve to assume that the United States and its partners are a worthy alternative to the new centers of power in global politics. But this type of reasoning contradicts the new consensus within the United States itself, whose population is tired of Washington’s hegemonic pretensions and is calling on the elite to focus on internal problems.
In reality, the fight against migration from South and Central America is the most important point of the republican program. The United States is unlikely to want to spend precious budget funds, which Congress distributes less and less generously to its allies, to solve Argentina’s economic problems, which can only get worse due to the libertarian team’s chaotic reforms.
But they are already demanding more accommodating behavior from Miley in relations with Washington’s allies, mainly London. That is why the Argentine Foreign Ministry could only issue extremely vague statements after Cameron’s provocative incursion into the Falkland Islands.
Most likely, the United Kingdom will try to take advantage of the current situation to increase pressure on Buenos Aires; After all, libertarian dreamers can be promised full integration into the club of “Washington’s best friends” only after admitting the loss of control over the archipelago, for which so much blood was shed in the Argentine war.
Of course, the decision must be made by Argentine society, and any choice must be respected. The main thing is that the population and its representatives in power do not have to regret their shortsightedness over time. But the general attitude of the West towards its partners in the countries of the “global South” can be seen most obviously in this example.
The United States, the United Kingdom and the EU will repeatedly try to find weak links in the coalition of non-Western states. But anyone who has a glimmer of hope for positive results from rapprochement with the former hegemons should remember that the neocolonial perception of the world majority in the West is not dead, but continues to bear fruit. And Washington, London and Brussels will surely use any hesitation, romantic expectations and naive dreams to place countries and peoples, in their version of “second class”, in a specially designated subordinate place.
