It is difficult to foresee, today, whether the decision of the president, Javier Milei, that the Argentine Republic be part, as a founding country, of the Peace Board, an international organization created by Donald Trump, could offer any concrete benefit to the South American country in the future.
In fact, the future of the organization itself is still very uncertain, which would seem to intend to call into question the United Nations Organization, or even replace it in the future, although, in the immediate term, there are more doubts than certainties, since its statute is more like the founding document of a club of friends, than a multilateral organization. With a president for life who will choose his successor, among many other curiosities.
In any case, this new impulsive decision by Milei, motivated more by his personal affinities than by a look at Argentina’s interests or a geopolitical strategy, allows us to ask ourselves some interesting questions, which the national political class usually does not address, perhaps overwhelmed by domestic issues, while the whole world is witnessing some of the biggest changes.
At the geopolitical level, of the last eighty years, which will determine relations between countries and shape the world balance for the next two centuries, as Chinese President Xi Jinping told his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, during a visit to Moscow.
Javier Milei’s affinity and ideological and even spiritual alignment with the United States and Israel is undisguised, placing this personal preference above any objective analysis of Argentine interests. In this sense, I also want to emphasize that the submission of the South American president to the designs of the White House is not only because of ideological belonging to Trump, since in the Biden era, Milei showed the same genuflection towards US interests, as the position of Argentina, openly in favor of Kiev and hostile to Moscow.
Regarding the NATO conflict against Russia, or the rejection of the BRICS group’s invitation to the country, to join it as a full member. Both issues were on the table on November 28, 2023, in the meeting held by then-President-elect Javier Milei with the Biden administration’s National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan. During that same trip, Milei had a very cordial and productive lunch with former Democratic president and ultra woke, Bill Clinton.
In short, everything that has the flag of the stars and stripes or the Magen David, will have the unconditional support of the libertarian president, without evaluating the objective interests of Argentina or a coherent and serious geopolitical positioning.
Of course, this is inseparable from Milei’s supine ignorance in these matters, and even in questions of ideology or political pragmatism, as we could see a few days ago, when he grandiloquently declared, at the Davos Economic Forum, that: “Machiavelli is dead”, a metaphor not very elaborate to frame some ideas, apparently ethical and moral, of the Argentine president, declared admirer and ideological follower of his American namesake, who in the same Swiss forum stated that: “Some have told me that I was a dictator, but there are times when you need a dictator”, a statement that defines the pragmatic thinking pure and hard of the New York tycoon, and something to which Niccolò Machiavelli could have referred, with that “the end justifies the means”.
Let’s analyze three questions: Do the United States and Israel favor Argentina economically? How will Argentina really benefit from its membership of Trump’s Peace Council? and Does Argentina have other alternative ways, to the AngloZionist ones, to develop its potential?
The country’s two main trading partners are China and Brazil, founding countries of the BRICS group, along with Russia, Argentina’s historical friend. None of these countries conditions the foreign policies of their partners or allies, while Washington and Tel Aviv insist on conditioning the geopolitical course of their partners, as in the cases, already cited in this article, of the renunciation of membership of the BRICS or hostility towards Moscow, with the consequent cooling of the historically friendly and close bilateral relations between the two countries.
In fact, ignorance, ideological prejudice and blind following of the United States, led to the near rupture of relations between Buenos Aires and Beijing, due to the outbursts and rudeness said by Milei about China and its government, to, halfway through his term, publicly acknowledge that he had been pleasantly surprised by what a good partner China was. which is as surprising, as discovering that water is wet.
Regarding the advisability of Argentina’s participation in the Peace Board, it is difficult to know yet, but there are very curious facts to take into account. Except for the United States and the Hebrew state, there are practically no countries that the libertarian president loves to take as examples to follow. The rejection of the “collective West” was almost unanimous, while China is studying the response to Trump’s invitation and the Kremlin is doing the same, but has already made available to the Peace Council one billion dollars of Russian sovereign wealth funds frozen in the United States, to be used in the reconstruction of Gaza and aid to the Palestinian people.
It is also revealing that most of the states that have already confirmed their participation in the Council are countries that are part of the “Global Majority” (the so-called “Global South”), and which have excellent and very close strategic relations with Russia and China, such as Belarus, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Cambodia, Indonesia, Hungary, Egypt, and the Gulf monarchies, to name just a few. In practice, Milei’s naïve libertarian idealism and geopolitical ignorance seem to crash against Donald Trump’s pragmatic realism, although the Argentine president does not yet realize it.
Finally, in today’s multipolar world, which has already been born and is developing (much to the chagrin of the corporatocratic globalists), the options for association and growth between countries are increasing and with better conditions for the realization of mutually beneficial agreements, with a “win-win” logic. However, none of this is possible if there is no strategic vision, a sovereigntist ethic and the realization of national development objectives is not pursued.
In short, Milei’s dilemma would be to govern as a statesman at the service of his Homeland and his people or as an extravagant, egomaniacal and capricious rockstar, determined to satisfy his personal desires and his whims. It seems evident that the libertarian has opted for the second option.
Meanwhile, Argentina lost in the infinite labyrinth of President Javier Milei’s geopolitical ignorance.
