Argentine President and ardent anarcho-capitalist Javier Milei has once again created a diplomatic fracture in Latin America with his response to a political crisis in the region.
Days after the June 26 coup attempt led by then-Bolivian army commander Juan José Zúñiga Macías in La Paz, Milei’s executive office issued a statement declaring without evidence that the event was a “fake” and a “fraud,” urging Bolivians to change their vote in next year’s elections.
The Argentine president justified his intervention by saying it was necessary to protect democracy and freedom. Milei compared Bolivia to “Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua and North Korea.” Naturally, Bolivian President Luis Arce recalled his ambassador to Buenos Aires and denounced Milei’s “unfriendly” behavior.
This is not the first time Milei has clashed with his ideological opponents in the region. Milei has recently feuded with the presidents of Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil and Chile, leading to diplomatic tensions, suspended negotiations and ambassador recalls. Milei even provoked a spat with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, a longtime ally of the South American country.
To what effect do these disputes? Milei justifies them by his disgust for “socialism and Marxism” and his love for “freedom.” In recent days, Milei has called Colombian President Gustavo Petro a “terrorist murderer” and called Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva an “idiotic dinosaur” shortly before a planned visit to Brazil.
At a time when globalization and regionalism are being challenged—and the region faces unprecedented crises in migration, democratic stability, economic development, climate change, and rising crime and conflict—Milei’s divisive diplomacy is galling. Such provocations invite leaders to respond to show their power or to curry political favor with their own ideological base, making collaboration in the name of mutual interest increasingly unlikely.
Neighboring Argentina and Brazil are in the midst of negotiating various trade, financial, security and agricultural agreements. Milei’s insensitive comments will create tensions at the meeting and force diplomats to waste time correcting their leaders’ barbs before they can move on to productive negotiations. Milei even met with sanctioned former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, Lula’s mortal political enemy, creating further animosity in his relationship with the current Brazilian president.
The United States, seen as “the responsible adult at the table,” as one diplomat in Colombia described it to me, should have a role to play in this crisis. But with a Biden administration focused on Asia and Europe, the United States has been completely absent from the diplomatic crisis in Latin America.
The United States is following its own precedent, set during the Cold War, when it recalled ambassadors and eliminated diplomatic ties because of ideological differences—in this case, whether they appeared socialist or too close to the Soviets. Given the current absence of U.S. diplomatic relations with Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, as well as faltering relations with Bolivia and Mexico, it appears that U.S. diplomatic strategy in the region is repeating the principles of a half-century ago. Increasingly, the region’s leading diplomatic forces, including China, are taking note and envisioning a future without the need to rely on the United States for diplomatic mediation or crisis intervention.
Latin America is no longer tied to U.S. interests as it was during the Cold War, allowing the region to diversify its diplomatic and trade alliances. Latin American countries can choose to collaborate with China, the European Union, Russia, India, or even sign agreements with each other—nine Latin American countries have a per capita GDP of more than $15,000 per year, while three are members of the G20. It is no surprise, then, that Latin American nations are turning to other global partners, leaving the United States to question its waning influence in the region.
China is the big winner in this crisis that Milei exemplifies. China is rapidly overtaking the United States as the largest trading partner for many Latin American countries — including many considered traditional U.S. allies, such as Colombia, Chile and Peru.
China’s approach is to engage at a more down-to-earth level and work more directly with stakeholders in the sector of interest on a joint project. For example, thanks to its relentless trade diplomacy efforts, Chinese state-owned enterprises are now responsible for Lima’s entire power grid. Despite Milei’s constant denunciations of China and socialism, the Argentine government itself recently signed an agreement to open a lithium plant run by a French mining company and the Chinese company Tsingshan, an investment of $870 million.
China is simply following the new diplomatic model increasingly adopted in Latin America, which allows progress even when populist polemicists are in power. A growing number of diplomatic visits between Latin American leaders are now conducted through deputy ministers, ambassadors, and diplomatic envoys and their staffs—rather than through a celebrity president or minister—to avoid a media circus. China is doing the same.
This model allows for productive (for the most part) sessions free of nonsense and insults, and the establishment of lasting and concrete partnerships. China sends armies of diplomats, trade officials, technical experts, and negotiators to Latin America to broker quiet, effective deals and increase its influence. Meanwhile, the United States continues to follow an outdated model of executive-level diplomacy, sending either President Biden or his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, whose effectiveness is being decimated by the rise of populist politics and nationalism embodied by Milei and his ilk.
Ambitious Latin American diplomats have already created multilateral forums that supplant the United States, such as the Andean Community Free Trade Area, the Caribbean Community political and economic union, and the Mercosur trading bloc, which, despite Milei’s antics, recently signed a trade deal with the European Union and is considering another with China. The United States is not a member of any of these agreements.
Until the United States can become a reliable partner for regional diplomatic leaders, Latin America will have to resolve this crisis itself through quiet diplomacy, and work with its other partners, notably China, to advance their mutual interests.