UN = Unbridled Nationalism?

Argentine presidents addressing the annual General Assembly of the United Nations in New York over the years have tended to play to domestic galleries rather than the international audience in front of them – President Javier Milei was certainly no exception last Wednesday in pandering to the patriotism surging out of the World Cup but, the Malvinas issue aside, he also took sides in global geopolitics. Artificial Intelligence was almost as dominant a component of his speech as the sovereignty claims and here his uncritical support rejecting its regulation showed him to be striving to be the star pupil of United States President Donald Trump in the latter’s hometown, underlining the need for it to be guided by Western values rather than eastern despotism (with Trump rather than Europe or Canada or the US Democrats seen as the incarnation of those values).

This was the main innovation of Milei’s rhetoric rather than displaying his unflinching alignment with Israel yet again or his central Malvinas theme (which was almost a copy-paste of his nationwide broadcast at the start of the month). On almost all these points he was swimming against the international tide, given the widespread sympathies with Palestine and the recent buzz that AI has us on the eve of destruction but, unlike Groucho Marx, if you do not like Milei’s principles, he does not seem to have others.

Which does not rule out U-turns and contradictions because his uncompromising assertion of territorial sovereignty flies in the face of such investor-friendly policies as the RIGI and Super RIGI incentive schemes for major investments, as explicitly spelled out in Wednesday’s speech – Milei took advantage of the global forum to invite businesses to come and invest in Vaca Muerta shale while warning: “This invitation has its limits because we will not be indifferent towards those who exploit resources under illegal external occupation,” thus subordinating an open economy to populist nationalism and giving potential investors pause. Libertarians might argue that this is a means towards the prime end of winning next year’s election (prematurely the top priority and talk of the town) and thus ensuring the continuation of market-friendly policies but, given the Vaca Muerta glut of which Milei boasts, his push for South Atlantic offshore oil would seem to respond to nationalistic rather than economic logic.

Apart from this mixed message to investors, Milei was also contradicting his previous approach to the Malvinas issue by reverting to the Kirchnerite dogma of dismissing the island inhabitants as an “implanted population.” His previous pitch had been premised on making Argentina such an attractive country that the islanders would “vote with their feet.” Argentina can potentially reconcile territorial and popular sovereignty, proximity and self-determination (a possibility denied Britain for simple geographic reasons) and Milei’s previous approach would seem to be the way ahead along with multiplying the mainland links which proliferated before the 1982 war – not the economic warfare so dear to Trump.

Instead of presenting self-determination as a battle which Argentina could also win, Milei accused Britain of double standards in resisting it in its own territory, apparently referring to the recent pact between Celtic independence parties in the United Kingdom. This argument is not valid – in 2014 Scotland held a referendum on independence with 55 percent voting “no” while at the end of the past century there were referenda in Australia and Canada (both nominally under the British Crown) on ditching the monarchy and the separation of French-speaking Québec respectively. In all three cases the popular vote resulted in the late Elizabeth II remaining the head of state in Scotland, Australia and Québec but had it gone the other way, the verdict would have been respected. As it would be on the Malvinas, should the islanders vote for independence or joining Argentina.

Milei kicked off Wednesday’s speech by referring to his hosts in less than diplomatic terms, to say the least – "a useless organisation which only serves to feed a caste of fatally arrogant parasites, disguised as well-meaning bureaucrats" – but instead of making any constructive proposals as to how the UN could be reformed (such as expanding a Security Council excluding both Latin America and Africa), he used this presumed ineptitude to move straight onto his new-found urgency of deploring the impasse over the “national cause.”

For all his unambiguous alignment with Trump and Israel, it is hard not to conclude that Milei was falling in line with Argentina’s UN tradition of addressing domestic rather than global audiences.