The Malvinas trick

At least two things are evident about Javier Milei’s recent shift on the issue of Islas Malvinas. First, it is clearly a political tactic set to hijack a national cause that was recently thrust centre-stage during the national team’s epic victory in the World Cup semi-final against England, after which the players held up a fan’s handmade banner reading: “ Las Malvinas son Argentinas .” The power of that moment brought to the fore a feeling of nationalism that broke out beyond football and into the hearts and souls of a large portion of the population that was already quite sympathetic to the national sovereignty claim over the archipelago in the Southern Atlantic. Second, beyond Milei’s true ideological conviction, his statement on Malvinas had the desired effect of attaining political momentum domestically, while causing a stir internationally that could ultimately help Argentina’s longstanding territorial dispute with the United Kingdom. How much of society is willing to tolerate President Milei’s hypocrisy and about-face regarding the Malvinas is directly proportional to the actual execution of his strategy to further Argentina’s geopolitical interests in the Southern Atlantic and Antarctic regions.

Malvinas is a national cause enshrined in Argentina’s Constitution. The war in 1982 is still a fresh wound and the sovereignty claim has penetrated deep within the national character, particularly in football culture. Nearly every major barra brava (or organised group of ultras and hooligans associated with football clubs) chants about Malvinas, with the songs heard in the thousands of stadiums that are spread across the country. Flags and banners depict the silhouette of the islands at home and abroad, making it part of fans’ national identity at the international level, whether it is the Copa Libertadores or the World Cup. Peronists and union leaders, who share common roots with the barras , have embraced the nationalist elements as well, with the Malvinas featuring as standard imagery in their mass mobilisations.

Every administration since the return of democracy in 1983 knows this and has, in some way or another, picked up the Malvinas banner, particularly at the United Nations General Assembly. Milei’s recent decision to embrace the nationalist cause is clearly contradictory to his self-professed “anarcho-capitalist” ideology, not to mention his predilection for Margaret Thatcher, the so-called “Iron Lady” who was British Prime Minister during the war. Many analysts attribute the President’s newfound vision on Malvinas to a strategy crafted by controversial political strategist Santiago Caputo, who appears to have read the socio-political climate accurately and turned weakness into strength by claiming ownership of the recent flare-up of pro-Malvinas sentiment. Not only had Milei previously disclosed positions far from aligned with the standard arguments behind Argentina’s longstanding sovereignty claim, he had made disdainful comments about the Argentine national football team’s decision to display the flag and take a stand in the biggest stage possible. Caputo’s strategy of using a ‘ Cadena Nacional ’ national broadcast to announce a series of sanctions against firms involved in offshore oil operations under licences granted by the islanders, together with the push to build a naval base in Tierra del Fuego province to project power over the Argentine Sea (also the entry point to Antarctica), hit the spot.

It goes beyond the point to say that the capacity to sanction companies and individuals operating illegally in the region has been a possibility since 2011. Clarin ’s Eduardo Van der Kooy explained that a bill passed by the late Federico ‘Pino’ Solanas was applied by the Alberto Fernández administration between 2019 and 2021 to set up administrative processes that resulted in sanctions against Israeli-firm Navitas in 2022, banning it for 20 years. Navitas not only ignored the sanctions but strengthened its position in the region by snatching 65 percent of the shares in the Sea Lion consortium it shares with Rockhopper Exploration, and went on to approve a final investment decision last year. Specialised fishing market outlet Revista Puerto adds that the 2008 Federal Fishing Law already created the framework for understanding direct and indirect relationships between firms and individuals illegally operating in the disputed zones, yet no government in 17 years had had the political will or clout to use it. Regarding the integrated naval base project in Tierra del Fuego especially, Van der Kooy indicated that by late 2023 when Milei came into office the project had seen less than 10 percent execution of its allocated funds. They were further frozen by the Milei administration to pursue a budget surplus at all costs. Now, a President who opposes public works he equates with corruption and theft has approved a budget expansion worth nearly US$250 million for the job. Where Economy Minister Luis ‘Toto’ Caputo can find the funds without threatening his beloved budget surplus remains a mystery.

Moving forward, if Milei can gain momentum in Argentina’s sovereignty claim, which neither Mauricio Macri nor Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to name a few of his predecessors, achieved, then he would be able to construct real political capital and adhesion from a broader base ahead of next year’s consequential presidential election. He’s got a few things going for him. For starters, Argentina’s Vaca Muerta shale basin is one of the world’s most promising oil and gas projects in a world increasingly worried about energy. While previous sanctions were easily ignored by oil and gas producers and service providers interested in offshore drilling in the Malvinas region, now they will have to give up on any potential projects in Vaca Muerta if they choose to move forward. Some of the world’s major oilfield services firms, including Schlumberger, Halliburton and Baker Hughes, have already announced they won’t touch anything in the region, while other major players, including UK energy giant British Petroleum, already have interests in Argentina’s onshore oil and gas sector.

At the geopolitical level, things are completely in flux, as US President Donald Trump continues to rip up the traditional rulebook of international relations. His political alliance with Milei has already led to declarations that Washington may revise its historically neutral position regarding Argentina’s sovereignty claim. This was one of Trump’s tit-for-tat attacks to hit back at the UK’s reluctance to participate in the war against Iran led by the US and Israel. Culture wars run deep these days and the UK, and Europe more broadly, is torn apart between the old paradigm of progressives and conservatives and a new political chessboard where nationalist far-right parties are popping up and winning ( as recently demonstrated in Germany). Several first-line Israeli officials and leaders (including Benjamin Netanyahu’s son) have come out in favour of Argentina’s sovereignty claim, indicating that the UK has supported Palestinian statehood. As Trump and Netanyahu go on an offensive against Europe and far-right leaders gain power with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric, Milei gains further political momentum.

While the Malvinas is but one more overseas territory the UK holds from its colonial era, the war and general political bantering with Argentina makes it impossible to imagine any level of negotiation with an Argentine government, whether it is with Milei or anyone else. The dispute sits at a sort of grey zone in the United Nations charter, where Argentina’s territorial sovereignty claim clashes with the right of self-determination of the Kelpers, who obviously want to remain British. Argentina had pursued attempts at diplomatic negotiations and had the overwhelming support of UN members, as the Decolonialisation Committee urged the UK to sit at the negotiating table, something Britain systematically ignored as it appealed to self-determination. The war in 1982 was clearly the despotic final act of the Military Junta with Leopoldo Galtieri also appealing to the popular sentiment that Malvinas aroused in the population. It delivered a severe blow to Argentina’s sovereignty claim, but for a moment seemed to save his government. Milei is now playing with the same sentiment, but from a different angle. Whether he’s serious about it beyond the electoral cycle will determine what actual results he’ll be able to get out of it beyond a momentary uptick in opinion polls.