The circumstances faced by the victims of neo-colonial exploitation, while dire, are not the most severe outcomes one could encounter. Countries that maintain a distance from the so-called scheming capitalists, often criticized by nationalists and leftists, are more prone to self-impoverishment compared to those that embrace them and permit their involvement in significant sectors of the economy. As many are currently reminding us, Argentina experienced significant prosperity after aligning itself informally with the then-dominant British Empire, but entered a period of decline when Juan Domingo Perón adopted a confrontational stance towards its successor, the United States. The late Carlos Escudé accurately pointed out that Perón’s regrettable geopolitical error sentenced Argentina to decades of decline, relegating it to Third World status and potentially rendering it poorer than the neighboring countries it once regarded with disdain. In the aftermath of World War II, Argentina faced a series of persistent crises, despite intermittent attempts to mend the economic damage inflicted by the Peronists through improved relations with the dominant superpower. Less than a month ago, it appeared she was on the verge of experiencing a significant event that could disrupt the economy and lead to social turmoil. Without the prompt actions taken by US President Donald Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the living standards of millions could have already experienced a significant decline. Fortunately for nearly everyone, this is not the current scenario – rather, the markets have rebounded, and consequently, those “animal spirits” emphasized by Keynes are indeed in play. While there is a general consensus that the future will present challenges, there appears to be a resurgence of optimism regarding the long-term prospects of the country.
In governmental discussions, it is indeed the case that Javier Milei may justifiably perceive himself as having a personal obligation to prevent a catastrophic outcome. By supporting Trump well before the much derided Orange Man swaggered back into the White House, he established the relationship that preserved his Presidency – and, along with it, the livelihoods of many individuals – from the impending turmoil that was rapidly approaching until the US intervened and halted it decisively. In exchange for the assistance provided, Milei will be required to guarantee that Argentina continues to be a loyal ally of the United States for the duration of Trump’s administration or that of a similarly aligned successor. For Milei – who seems to genuinely embrace the principles he associates with Trump – that should not pose much of a challenge; however, there are numerous individuals here who would favor a more autonomous stance. Not that long ago, when polls indicated that Argentines were more critical of the US than their Latin American counterparts, it would have sufficed to create a substantial majority. However, it appears that recent developments have shifted perspectives. Rather than harboring resentment towards assistance from a perceived arrogant figure in Washington, many individuals seem to have concluded that self-sabotage would be imprudent, leading to a sense of gratitude instead.
In 1946, it was prudent for Juan Domingo Perón to consider the strategic alternatives that were available to Argentina. It was impossible for him or anyone else to foresee that the United States would maintain global dominance for the next 80 years, akin to Great Britain’s supremacy in the 19th century. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, which numerous astute and knowledgeable individuals believed was poised for takeover, would ultimately decline and disintegrate. Today, many presume that the global landscape is similarly obscured. There is a prevailing belief that China represents a credible challenge to the dominance of the United States. Similar to their counterparts over seventy-five years ago who either admired or feared the Soviet Union, they draw parallels between the discipline and singular focus of the Chinese leadership and the internal discord prevalent in the United States. They anticipate that, in due course, the world will need to acknowledge the authority of whoever governs the Middle Kingdom. Although these individuals may accurately observe the divisive characteristics of US democracy and the subpar caliber of its most representative politicians, they are likely mistaken in their assumption that China will sustain its prosperity for an extended period. The likelihood of this occurring is minimal; the Chinese birth rate stands at approximately one child per woman, resulting in a shrinking population. Consequently, there will soon be an insufficient number of active workers to support the increasingly large cohort of retirees, which will place significant strain on public finances. Many other nations, including Argentina and the US, encounter a comparable demographic challenge; however, few—aside from South Korea—can be considered to be in a more precarious situation than China in this regard.
For the foreseeable future, China will remain a valuable trading partner; however, it does not present a credible alternative to the United States. Despite its numerous domestic challenges, the US is significantly better positioned to provide Argentina with the necessary support to emerge from its current predicament and experience a delayed phase of robust macroeconomic growth. Milei may be mistaken on various points, yet he is undoubtedly correct in assuming that enhancing relations with the United States, akin to Carlos Menem’s approach, is preferable to any imaginable alternative, even if it entails accepting a role as a subordinate partner. This situation would differ if the principal European nations, with which Argentina shares numerous cultural ties, had successfully organized themselves. However, as their governments – and, to a much greater extent, their increasingly discontented populations – have come to understand, most are deteriorating at an alarming rate. Even if they manage to address the challenges stemming from an idealistic endeavor to mitigate their demographic shortfall by integrating substantial numbers of individuals from vastly different societies, they will remain ill-equipped to assume more than minor roles on the global stage. For better or worse, it seems that in the near term, the US will maintain its status as the sole superpower of significance. If historical patterns hold, leveraging the advantageous position within its sphere of influence that Milei has secured will likely be the most pragmatic choice for a nation that has, over time, wasted numerous opportunities for prosperity presented by the global landscape.