uring a recent congressional hearing, Representative Maria Elvira Salazar called Argentine President Javier Milei “the most pro–America president in the history of Argentina” and called on the Biden administration to take steps to improve relations with the South American nation. While a Milei presidency offers an important opportunity for the United States to improve relations with Argentina, U.S. policymakers should be careful not to become too hopeful of improving relations based on a single leader—particularly one who is an ideological lightning rod. Given the drastic changes often seen within Argentina’s political landscape, U.S. policymakers should focus their efforts on deepening ties across the political spectrum as well as with unelected Argentine government officials and the private sector—a lesson that should be clear from the history of U.S.–Argentine relations.
A resolute libertarian, President Milei vowed to address the economic crisis facing the country and radically shrink the state. While his policies have been controversial, he has moved forward with delivering on his campaign promises. A Milei presidency offers opportunities for the United States to reengage with Argentina and improve relations with the country. In particular, Milei’s foreign policy has aligned with the Biden administration on key issues related to Ukraine and China. Milei has also made overtures to U.S. businesses to invest in the country and seeks to deepen trade between the two countries. Milei has also reached out to U.S. policymakers across the political spectrum and purchased U.S. military equipment. However, despite the opportunity, U.S. policymakers should be careful about placing all of their hope in a single president. Indeed, Milei is not the first Argentine president in recent history to seek to improve relations with the United States—only for relations to deteriorate under subsequent administrations.
‘Carnal’ relations
Argentine President Carlos Menem (1989–1999) sought to radically improve relations with the United States, which he saw as critical to improving Argentina’s own global position. At one point, one of Menem’s advisors went as far as describing the relationship as “carnal” in terms of its proximity. While the Menem administration supported a number of different U.S. led initiatives—including their support for the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) and the Summit of the Americas process among others—perhaps the area where Argentine relations with the United States became the closest was in the realm of defense.
During the Menem administration, Argentina closely aligned itself with several U.S. defense priorities. Most notably, Argentina sent 450 troops to Iraq along with the crew of the two warships and aircraft to support the U.S. during the first Gulf War. Additionally, the Menem administration expanded its support of UN peacekeeping operations. In addition to these direct military actions, Argentina played a crucial role in supporting the expansion of the Inter–American defense framework. Specifically, Argentina played a crucial role in supporting one of the key offshoots of the Summit of the Americas process—the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas (CDMA), with Argentina hosting the second Conference in 1996. This connection remains and the country will be hosting the XVI CDMA later this year. These actions led the Clinton administration to grant Argentina Major Non–NATO Ally status—the first Latin American country to receive this designation.
Confrontation
While U.S.–Argentine relations improved in the 1990s, they rapidly deteriorated in the 21st century. Dealing with an economic crisis at the turn of the century, Argentina had four presidents between 2001 and 2003. Coming out of the crisis, Nestor Kirchner assumed the presidency. Along with other leftist Latin American leaders elected as part of the region’s “Pink Tide,” Kircher opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the FTAA, and the general lack of U.S. interest in the Americas. During his tenure, Argentina actively confronted U.S. interests in the region by deepening ties with extra–hemispheric actors, such as Russia and Iran, and working to kill the FTAA negotiations. While there were hopes among some sectors within the United States that the election of Nestor Kirchner’s wife, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, would improve bilateral relations, U.S.–Argentine relations further deteriorated.
Relations improved briefly under the Mauricio Macri administration (2015–2019)—including a March 2016 visit by Obama to the country and U.S. efforts to take responsibility for its role in Argentina’s “Dirty War.” On the defense side, Argentina significantly increased its engagement in military exchanges. However, this detente was short-lived. Alberto Fernandez was elected in 2019, with Fernandez de Kirchner as his vice–president, and relations cooled once again.
The risk of pendulum politics to strategic relations
Argentina—like many countries in Latin America—frequently succumbs to radical shifts in political position between different presidential administrations. Spurred by high levels of inequality, frustrations with the state of democracy, and high crime rates, the political swings between the left and right in Latin America are common and lead Latin American watchers to identify waves of these pendulum swings. While the shifts in politics regularly result in domestic political changes, they also have important implications for Latin American foreign policy as leaders with varied political ideologies may align themselves differently depending on the geopolitical context. This shift is evident in the change from Menem to the Kirchners in Argentina.
Milei not only marks a shift in his approach to the United States, but a sharp change in economic policy. This swing of the Argentine political pendulum is likely to revert, and if the United States bases its foreign policy solely on the current Argentine administration, the relationship could return to a more confrontational approach. To avoid this, U.S. policymakers need to not just improve relations at the executive level, but deepen ties with an array of actors within Argentina. Improving perceptions of the United States across the Argentine political spectrum and deepening economic integration between the two countries may allow the United States—and Argentina—to avoid their relationship falling prey to the swinging pendulum of domestic politics in either country.
While the United States should take advantage of the opportunity provided by a Milei presidency to improve relations with Argentina, U.S. diplomats should take care not to become overly reliant on a single president as central to their strategy of improving relations with any individual Latin American country. If they do so, they run the risk of sacrificing strategic interests to the pendulum of domestic politics in the region. Although presidential priorities play a significant role in Argentine foreign policy, U.S. efforts to improve relations with Argentina must prioritize efforts to deepen ties with public and private sector actors across the political spectrum.
a global affairs media network
Of ‘carnal’ relations and pendulum politics in U.S.–Argentine relations
Image by Angelica Reyes from Unsplash.
June 12, 2024
While a Milei presidency offers an important opportunity for the United States to improve relations with Argentina, U.S. policymakers should be careful not to become too hopeful of improving relations based on a single, ideological leader, writes Adam Ratzlaff.
D
uring a recent congressional hearing, Representative Maria Elvira Salazar called Argentine President Javier Milei “the most pro–America president in the history of Argentina” and called on the Biden administration to take steps to improve relations with the South American nation. While a Milei presidency offers an important opportunity for the United States to improve relations with Argentina, U.S. policymakers should be careful not to become too hopeful of improving relations based on a single leader—particularly one who is an ideological lightning rod. Given the drastic changes often seen within Argentina’s political landscape, U.S. policymakers should focus their efforts on deepening ties across the political spectrum as well as with unelected Argentine government officials and the private sector—a lesson that should be clear from the history of U.S.–Argentine relations.
A resolute libertarian, President Milei vowed to address the economic crisis facing the country and radically shrink the state. While his policies have been controversial, he has moved forward with delivering on his campaign promises. A Milei presidency offers opportunities for the United States to reengage with Argentina and improve relations with the country. In particular, Milei’s foreign policy has aligned with the Biden administration on key issues related to Ukraine and China. Milei has also made overtures to U.S. businesses to invest in the country and seeks to deepen trade between the two countries. Milei has also reached out to U.S. policymakers across the political spectrum and purchased U.S. military equipment. However, despite the opportunity, U.S. policymakers should be careful about placing all of their hope in a single president. Indeed, Milei is not the first Argentine president in recent history to seek to improve relations with the United States—only for relations to deteriorate under subsequent administrations.
‘Carnal’ relations
Argentine President Carlos Menem (1989–1999) sought to radically improve relations with the United States, which he saw as critical to improving Argentina’s own global position. At one point, one of Menem’s advisors went as far as describing the relationship as “carnal” in terms of its proximity. While the Menem administration supported a number of different U.S. led initiatives—including their support for the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) and the Summit of the Americas process among others—perhaps the area where Argentine relations with the United States became the closest was in the realm of defense.
During the Menem administration, Argentina closely aligned itself with several U.S. defense priorities. Most notably, Argentina sent 450 troops to Iraq along with the crew of the two warships and aircraft to support the U.S. during the first Gulf War. Additionally, the Menem administration expanded its support of UN peacekeeping operations. In addition to these direct military actions, Argentina played a crucial role in supporting the expansion of the Inter–American defense framework. Specifically, Argentina played a crucial role in supporting one of the key offshoots of the Summit of the Americas process—the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas (CDMA), with Argentina hosting the second Conference in 1996. This connection remains and the country will be hosting the XVI CDMA later this year. These actions led the Clinton administration to grant Argentina Major Non–NATO Ally status—the first Latin American country to receive this designation.
Confrontation
While U.S.–Argentine relations improved in the 1990s, they rapidly deteriorated in the 21st century. Dealing with an economic crisis at the turn of the century, Argentina had four presidents between 2001 and 2003. Coming out of the crisis, Nestor Kirchner assumed the presidency. Along with other leftist Latin American leaders elected as part of the region’s “Pink Tide,” Kircher opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the FTAA, and the general lack of U.S. interest in the Americas. During his tenure, Argentina actively confronted U.S. interests in the region by deepening ties with extra–hemispheric actors, such as Russia and Iran, and working to kill the FTAA negotiations. While there were hopes among some sectors within the United States that the election of Nestor Kirchner’s wife, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, would improve bilateral relations, U.S.–Argentine relations further deteriorated.
Relations improved briefly under the Mauricio Macri administration (2015–2019)—including a March 2016 visit by Obama to the country and U.S. efforts to take responsibility for its role in Argentina’s “Dirty War.” On the defense side, Argentina significantly increased its engagement in military exchanges. However, this detente was short-lived. Alberto Fernandez was elected in 2019, with Fernandez de Kirchner as his vice–president, and relations cooled once again.
The risk of pendulum politics to strategic relations
Argentina—like many countries in Latin America—frequently succumbs to radical shifts in political position between different presidential administrations. Spurred by high levels of inequality, frustrations with the state of democracy, and high crime rates, the political swings between the left and right in Latin America are common and lead Latin American watchers to identify waves of these pendulum swings. While the shifts in politics regularly result in domestic political changes, they also have important implications for Latin American foreign policy as leaders with varied political ideologies may align themselves differently depending on the geopolitical context. This shift is evident in the change from Menem to the Kirchners in Argentina.
Milei not only marks a shift in his approach to the United States, but a sharp change in economic policy. This swing of the Argentine political pendulum is likely to revert, and if the United States bases its foreign policy solely on the current Argentine administration, the relationship could return to a more confrontational approach. To avoid this, U.S. policymakers need to not just improve relations at the executive level, but deepen ties with an array of actors within Argentina. Improving perceptions of the United States across the Argentine political spectrum and deepening economic integration between the two countries may allow the United States—and Argentina—to avoid their relationship falling prey to the swinging pendulum of domestic politics in either country.
While the United States should take advantage of the opportunity provided by a Milei presidency to improve relations with Argentina, U.S. diplomats should take care not to become overly reliant on a single president as central to their strategy of improving relations with any individual Latin American country. If they do so, they run the risk of sacrificing strategic interests to the pendulum of domestic politics in the region. Although presidential priorities play a significant role in Argentine foreign policy, U.S. efforts to improve relations with Argentina must prioritize efforts to deepen ties with public and private sector actors across the political spectrum.
