An article by Universo Online (UOL) news website's correspondent in Europe, published in December 2022, shortly before Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's return to power in Brazil, reported that the nation’s foreign service had set up a “clandestine” diplomatic network (a euphemism) to contain the positions and outbursts of the then-president Jair Bolsonaro in areas such as the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 and climate change, the situation in the Middle East, the human rights situation across the world and the war in Ukraine.
Some similar was expected to happen at the Palacio San Martín, the home of Argentina’s Foreign Ministry, following the arrival of Javier Milei to power. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth.
Itamaraty, the highly sophisticated Brazilian Foreign Ministry, could not prevent Bolsonaro's Brazil from speaking out in 2019 for the first time at the United Nations in favour of the embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba. A topic, it seems, that escaped Milei's control and has ended in the dismissal of Foreign minister Diana Mondino.
On Wednesday, Argentina today respected its 32-year tradition and voted against Washington’s embargo against Havana. The position in favour of Cuba was supported by 187 countries out of 190 present.
Did the UN mission receive instructions on how to pronounce itself? The versions coming out of the Casa Rosada and the Palacio San Martín are contradictory. At the Foreign Ministry, a version of events is circulating that says that there were instructions to maintain the nation’s historic position. “The United Nations votes as instructed. Always,” said a source at the Ministry.
Did Milei know? The episode has triggered Mondino’s dismissal, but that is no surprise. Days had long been numbered for the economist, a woman who cultivated incorrectness even before Milei's arrival on the political scene. It was only a matter of time – and how.
The Foreign Ministry has been placed under virtual trusteeship since the middle of last year. Presidential chief-of-staff Karina Milei and top presidential advisor Santiago Caputo had imposed two officials who answer directly to the Casa Rosada: adviser Ursula Basset and new Worship Secretary Nahuel Sotelo.
Does the Foreign Ministry need a parallel administration, one that is no longer ‘clandestine’ but that answers to the Presidency? The answer is obvious: foreign policy is the prerogative of the Executive branch. With pendulum swings depending on who is in power (although in general responding to permanent interests), it is the President of the nation who sets the course in foreign affairs.
In normal situations, the decisions taken by the Executive branch are the result of consultations with specialists from the Foreign Ministry and technicians from the governing party – i.e. trained people. But what we are experiencing is not the norm.
Mondino was damaged by a series of gaffes, typical of someone unfit for his functions. Minor errors? Possibly – the best remembered is her statement that the Chinese people “are all the same,” dropped into the ears of a journalist upon her return from a trip to Beijing, where he went to ask for the renewal of Argentina’s currency swap.
In order of importance, it is also known that Milei was particularly annoyed with Mondino when he learned that a representative from the Palestinian Authority was attending a meeting of Arab diplomats at the King Fahd Islamic Cultural Center and mosque in Buenos Aires that the President was to address. This was apparently a turning-point in their relationship.
Even more serious was the recent renaming of the Malvinas as the “Falklands” in a joint document produced by the Foreign Ministry and Defence Ministry. Within the foreign affairs portfolio, versions circulate that this episode and the UN vote were aimed at demolishing Mondino and making her position untenable.
The whole thing is further muddied if one recalls the message Milei devliered in September to investors at the New York Stock Exchange.
“I would like to highlight,” said the President, “the enormous work carried out by you, Madam. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Trade, International Trade and Worship and your team during these months in which you have been entrusted with the titanic task of leading a process of profound change in the Argentine Foreign Ministry ... In this sense, yesterday, my great Foreign Minister, Dr. Diana Mondino gave a real lesson on why the United Nations should not move away from its original objective of maintaining peace and should stop embracing the whole socialist agenda, which only leads to impoverishment.
“From pride to defenestration,” noted one lucid observer.
This is a classic story of palace intrigue, which begs the question of who is the true beneficiary? Ambassador Gerardo Werthein, who has a close relationship with the President, will leave the Embassy in Washington in the next few hours to be sworn-in as the new foreign minister. On the eve of the US elections, it has been rumoured that he himself will choose his successor.
None of this is important if one looks instead at the communiqués issued within days of each other by the Office of the President on the fundamentals of libertarian foreign policy.
On October 19, Milei recommended to the diplomatic corps that those who “are not in a position to take on the challenges posed by the course adopted” by the President “should step aside.” The President thus justified Argentina's decision to oppose Agenda 2045, also known as the “Pact of the Future,” an extension of the UN's Agenda 2030. A roadmap to address growing challenges such as sustainable development, climate change and digital cooperation, among others. The “Pact of the Future” was endorsed by 143 countries – including the United States and Israel – though Argentina is not aligned.
Milei’s note, of unusual characteristics, generated enormous confusion. As stated, it is the Executive branch that determines the course of foreign policy. Wednesday's communiqué could be remembered as the beginning of an era of darkness in Argentine diplomacy.
“The country is going through a period of profound changes and this new stage demands that our diplomatic corps reflect in every decision the values of freedom, sovereignty and individual rights that characterise Western democracies,” reads the three-paragraph text. “Our country categorically opposes the Cuban dictatorship and will remain firm in promoting a foreign policy that condemns all regimes that perpetrate human rights violations. The Executive branch will initiate an audit of the career staff of the Foreign Ministry, with the aim of identifying those who promote anti-freedom agendas.”
No-one knows what this disturbing announcement will mean in practice.
At his best moment, blessed by the markets, Milei moves on. His pretend leadership of the free world continues to encounter contradictions – such as his latest rapprochement with China, a partner who apparently “asks for nothing” – but onwards he heads towards the libertarian utopian horizon, embarking on a cultural battle to shift the nation’s foreign service.
