Since the reestablishment of democracy in 1983, our country used two foreign policy models to relate to London in the Malvinas Question that can be summarized synthetically as
the juridical-principlist and the pragmatic
. The first, rooted in the broad diplomatic tradition of adherence to multilateralism and international law, implies a high dose of militancy and raising the issue of seeking dialogue to resolve the controversy at any opportunity that the bilateral and multilateral agenda allows, preparing a political discursive confrontation with the other party.
Examples of this approach were developed in different tones by the governments of President Alfonsín, Néstor and Cristina Kirchner and Alberto Fernández. On the other hand, we found a friendlier approach that seeks to de-malvinize the link with the United Kingdom by advancing specific work issues without including the underlying dispute as a priority. Examples of this strategy were the steps taken by the Menem and Macri governments.
With the first, agreements were reached on fishing, hydrocarbons and flights
under the formula of the umbrella of sovereignty embodied in what will be called Madrid Agreements I and II. For its part, the Macri administration, following the same logic, expressed the link through the Foradori Duncan statement that sought to
“eliminate obstacles”
in the bilateral relationship to develop the most earthly fields to the maximum.
With these two paradigms succinctly explained,
what can we expect from Milei's government?
This administration has been linked to the Malvinas issue through a series of proposals that could have put into play the bases of the historical defense of the national position on the issue but that were corrected within hours.
Furthermore, consider that
this was the only government that since 1983 failed to mention the island issue in its inauguration speech on December 10
and at the opening of ordinary sessions of the National Congress.
Third, contempt for language (interest or rights of the inhabitants of the Malvinas) or “letters” (formal diplomatic complaints against unilateral acts prohibited by UN resolutions) tend to devalue the controversy, taking it to the lowest possible levels with
the objective of promoting foreign trade, financing and investments with the United Kingdom.
But if Milei seeks to develop something new and disruptive in the relationship with London, it will have to pay attention to a decisive fact to consider the type of relationship it decides to establish strategically: despite the fact that the Menem and Macri governments prioritized the bilateral link and were concessive in the different issues that involved the negotiations in the South Atlantic (fishing, hydrocarbons and flights)
bilateral trade between Argentina and the United Kingdom was greater in the efforts of Cristina Kirchner
comparatively with respect to Menem and that of Alberto Fernández with respect to Macri, a despite the fact that the governments that strengthened trade have been classified as “harsh” and “hostile” towards the United Kingdom and the islanders. Exploring alternatives to these two models in a changing international context brings opportunities. Improvising brings risks.