In March this year, Argentina voted against the resolution in the UN General Assembly (GA) that proposed proclaiming an “International Day of Peaceful Coexistence.” Of the 193 members, only Israel and the United States (US) shared this position.
Last month, at the same forum, Argentina rejected a resolution reaffirming the ban on torture, adopted by 162 countries excluding the United States and Israel.
Also in November, at the last meeting of the G20 group, the Argentine government again sided with the USA and abstained from signing the final declaration adopted in Johannesburg, South Africa.
This close following of the Trump administration in return for financial support, business promises and lower agricultural tariffs takes on an untenable character when these measures are examined closely.
The International Day of Peaceful Coexistence, for example, complements a similar General Assembly resolution that was unanimously adopted in 2017 with the inclusion of Argentina.
The non-binding initiative aims to promote mutual respect between states. In this sense, it invites nations to promote educational and cultural activities that promote peace and coexistence. In Mexico, for example, universities will organize interfaith forums and social media campaigns to promote tolerance.
However, the USA and Argentina rejected this, arguing that it corresponded to current diplomatic interests. Read: because it strengthens multilateralism and global governance based on rules and agreements.
On the other hand, the resolution banning torture follows a long tradition that began in the last decades of the last century. And its objectives ratify the absolute prohibition of torture at any time and in any place and call on States to prevent torture, punish it and guarantee reparations to victims.
Given our recent history, it is a relevant and sensitive issue. But the US and Israel justified their rejection of Argentina’s support on the grounds that it could be used in political issues. In good Creole: It would enable international objections to what is happening in the conflict in Gaza and the Middle East.
The G20 is a group of nineteen countries plus the European Union that was founded in 1999 after the Asian crash. Taken together, together with all their members, excluding those who normally attend as guests, such as Chile, Vietnam and Spain, they account for about 80% of gross product and world trade.
In the first phase, the G20 functioned with the presence of finance ministers and central bank governors. In 2008, after the international financial crisis, it became a summit of heads of state and government, making statements on financial stability, trade and climate change at the end of each meeting.
Among them, those that formulated a response to the global crisis (Washington, 2008) and a recovery for emerging economies (Seoul, 2010) stand out. Also those that led to the reform of world trade rules (Buenos Aires, 2018) and the inclusion of the African Union (New Delhi, 2023). The Johannesburg document generally reaffirms the G20’s commitment to global cooperation, assistance to developing countries and the energy transition.
The Trump administration, which earlier this year signaled its interest in controlling the Panama Canal and Greenland, excused itself from attending the South African summit, saying those issues conflicted with its administration’s priorities.
These priorities are expressed, as well as publicly, in an effort to reshape the global commercial and technological environment in favor of the United States. In addition, the spheres of influence should be divided with China and, in particular, the actions of this power in Latin America should be restricted. A region with great natural resources, geopolitical attraction and strategic points in terms of security.
In fact, his policies have been referred to by some analysts as the Donroe Doctrine. A neologism that arises from the fusion of Donald (Trump) and Monroe (James Monroe), the American president who spoke of “America for Americans” at the beginning of the 19th century, with the idea of preventing the large European countries from having weight in the hemisphere.
The national government attended the meeting in Johannesburg but did not sign the final declaration as it did not meet the consensus of all members. In other words: US approval was lacking.
A position that is not consistent with the production, labor and economic interests of our society. This has required investments from various nationalities and extensive and diversified foreign trade with all markets in the world for decades. Except, of course, for those who see the future in swaps and debt instruments.
Universal literature offers three characters that authorities might consider when making foreign policy decisions. Polonius, who goes out of his way to please King Claudius in “Hamlet,” Shakespeare’s unique play. The submissive and flattering angelic face in “El Señor Presidente” of Asturias. And why not Samuel Tesler, who in Arlt’s “The Seven Fools” gives in to his leader’s delirium with blind fanaticism. But be warned: in the end the three will be humiliated and destroyed without their boss caring about their fate.
