In September 2024, the President of Argentina, Javier Milei, addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York. While many lauded the speech as a great libertarian event against the statist status quo, the truth is that Milei only continues to prove that he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

True to his contradictory style, Milei started the speech reminding the audience that he “is not� a politician—that he “never had the ambition to do politics.� But this no longer makes sense. Milei had been a congressman for two years, and unless he had been compelled by force, he entered politics and became a candidate for the presidency voluntarily. Anyway, Milei became a politician.

The United Nations

Milei took the opportunity to alert the nations of the world about the danger of the UN not fulfilling “its original mission,� and warned that the UN keeps promoting collectivist policies. After offering the UN an acknowledgement of its founding, main objective and fundamental principles, Milei emphasized that under the tutelage of the UN in the last 70 years, although the scourge of war has not disappeared, “humanity experienced the longest period of global peace in history, which also coincided with the period of the greatest economic growth.� And “no conflict escalation to global proportions was achieved,� said Milei, “under the mantle of an order that allowed the whole world to integrate commercially, compete and prosper.�

Here, we may remind Milei that the world has integrated commercially, competed and prospered despite the mantle of the statist world order that the UN—as an organization that owes its existence to that of all nation-states—aspires to maintain forever. And it should be noted that the economic growth that he speaks of has nothing to do with UN tutelage, but with free markets and capitalism—despite the fact that taxes and public spending worldwide have risen significantly in the last 70 years.

In any event, according to Milei, the UN ceased to uphold its principles: An organization intended “to protect the Kingdom of Man was transformed into a multi-tentacled Leviathan,� which seeks to decide “what each nation-state should do� and “how all the world’s citizens should live.� From an organization “that pursued peace,� it became one “that imposes an ideological agenda on its members on a myriad of issues.� For Milei, the once “successful� model of the UN—founded “on the cooperation of nation-states�—can be traced back to the ideas of Woodrow Wilson, who spoke of the “society of peace without victory.� A model that has been replaced by one “of supranational government of international bureaucrats, who seek to impose a certain way of life on the citizens of the world.� Subsequently, Milei pointed out the deepening of a model that requires defining a new social contract on a global scale, redoubling the commitments of the 2030 Agenda, which

… is nothing more than a supranational government program, of a socialist nature, that pretends to solve problems… with solutions that threaten the sovereignty of nation-states and violate the right to life, liberty and property of the people… that pretends to solve poverty, inequality and discrimination with legislation that only deepens them.

Milei also criticized the new UN’s Pact for the Future, and argued that the UN’s long list of mistakes and contradictions has resulted in the loss of its credibility “before the citizens of the free world and the de-naturalization of its functions.� And while Milei pretends to give the UN a stature close to a world government, the reality is that the UN has no more power than any nation-state over its own citizens, no matter how much these states excuse themselves with whatever ideological promotion emanating from the UN. Of course, there are interest groups concerned with ideological causes that can bribe UN bureaucrats as a breeding ground for promoting policies that favor special interests, but this does not give the UN power as such to impose anything on the citizens of the world.

Indeed, even the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, Diana Mondino, demystified Milei’s speech. Two days later, Mondino clarified that these agendas—the 2030 Agenda or the new pact—are of voluntary application, and said that Argentina will adhere “totally or partially� to some of the things included in these agendas. Mondino said that Argentina has never disassociated from the type of policies or agreements related to these agendas, but emphasized that Argentina will not accept the totality of what others tell them they have to do. In this sense, regarding the control of digital media, Mondino assured that they will allow issues that they do not consider ethical to limit.

In October 2024, Undersecretary of Environment, Ana Lamas, stated that the Milei administration pursues “a firm integration of biodiversity in public policies.� Lamas noted Argentina’s potential “to contribute to the world with critical minerals and renewable energies needed for the energy transition,� and made it clear that there is no mandate from the executive to get out of international agreements. And in fact, they remain in the Paris Agreement and committed to environmental goals, and the National Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Plan systematizes Argentina’s climate policy and contains the set of measures and instruments to be implemented until 2030.

Even so, Milei indicated that it was the adoption of the 2030 Agenda that put the UN on the wrong track, and denounced the UN as one of the main advocates of the systematic violation of freedom in the 2020 lockdowns, which he considered to be “a crime against humanity.� No doubt, the UN was a major promoter of the lockdowns, but it also came out against covid passports in a time when many states imposed these passports. Yet, if Milei really wanted to rebel against the statist status quo and the international establishment in his speech, he should have focused much more on the major beneficiaries and culprits of this horrendous advance against freedom, that is, on the spurious vaccine business carried out between pharmaceutical companies and states. And what about the forgotten libertarian struggle to abolish all compulsory vaccination programs? These are present in Argentina as well, and Milei has never fought against this atrocity.

Argentina

For Milei, the principles that order the process of change in Argentina are also the ones that will guide Argentina’s international conduct. Milei proclaimed his belief in limited government, and defended that all peoples should live free from tyranny and oppression—as Milei declares, this should be supported diplomatically, economically and materially, “through the joint force of all countries� that defend freedom.

Those familiar with neocon Milei may already know that the joint force to “defend freedom� means allowing the United States and NATO to wage unjustified wars throughout the world and the State of Israel to defend Western values by killing thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East.

In Milei’s view, the doctrine of the new Argentina is the “true essence� of the UN—“the cooperation of the United Nations in defense of freedom.� Milei expressed Argentina’s dissent on the Pact for the Future and invited the nations of the “free world� to join the dissent and the creation of a new agenda for the UN: “the agenda of freedom.� And then Milei affirmed:

… the Argentine Republic will abandon the position of historical neutrality that characterized us and will be at the forefront of the struggle in defense of freedom.

Argentina had already abandoned neutrality under the Milei administration before this speech. But contrary to this position, Murray Rothbard—the intellectual most named by Milei all these years—wrote that “libertarianism seeks to induce neutral states to remain neutral in any interstate conflict and to induce belligerent states to observe fully the rights of neutral citizens.� On the other hand, the “free world� phrase, which gained prominence with US propaganda during the Cold War, is not new for Milei, who has pronounced the phrase several times, even before he was president.

The Falkland Islands

In 1982, the United Kingdom and Argentina went to war over an overseas territory, known as the Malvinas Islands in Argentina. The war claimed the lives of 255 British, three islanders and 649 Argentinians. The UK argued that its claim dated back to 1765. In 1833, the British sent a warship to the islands and expelled Argentine forces that had sought to establish sovereignty. Argentina said that the UK illegally took the territory that year, violating the principle of territorial integrity.

Milei complained that the UN did not fulfill its mission of defending the territorial sovereignty of its members, as in this case of the Falkland Islands. And as appealing to the patriotic and collectivist sentiments of the nation-state is always effective to win popular support, the issue was present in Milei’s presidential campaign as well.

For the recovery of the islands, candidate Milei proposed an agreement similar to the one made between the United Kingdom and China with respect to Hong Kong. A certain period of time passed, certain objectives were met, and the UK returned Hong Kong to China, Milei explained. He wants to do it by taking into account the will of the people living on the island. Milei’s idea involves reminding the British that the way in which these things are defined favors Argentina, and trying to reach an agreement that will return the islands to Argentina in the long term. Thus, Milei would be looking for a peaceful and diplomatic solution that contemplates the position of the islanders.

Already as president, Milei emphasized that it could take decades to try to regain sovereignty over the islands. He criticized other politicians who beat their chests demanding sovereignty without any result. That being said, besides admiring Winston Churchill, Milei also admires Margaret Thatcher, who was the UK prime minister that ordered the torpedoing of the Argentine naval cruiser the General Belgrano in the war, which resulted in the deaths of 323 people on board.

Days after Milei’s speech, Mondino herself expressed the conviction that the islands “are and will be Argentine�, and stressed that Argentina has the support of the UN on the issue. However, in February 2024, the UK’s Foreign Secretary visited the islands and said their sovereignty was not up for discussion. As Milei acknowledges that the territory is in the hands of the UK, he considered that this was not a provocation and that the British had the right to say so. And when asked about the reason for the UK to agree, Milei recognized that they might not want to negotiate today, but said that many positions have changed over time.

In fact, Milei’s rhetoric is tamer than his predecessor, who called the islands “stolen land� and the UK’s claim on them “disgusting.� And while sovereignty over the islands remains a fraught topic across Argentina and public transport units display signs reading “The Malvinas are Argentine,� the fact is that 99.8% of the islanders voted in 2013 in favor of remaining under British sovereignty. At any rate, Milei’s ideas on the issue are neither sensible nor anarcho-capitalist:

First, because Milei assumes that both states can rightfully own any territory they purport to and transfer it voluntarily. Yet, while individuals are normally the just owners of all they have in order to decide what to do with it, states cannot claim the same—they do not own properly and justly the entire land area of their dominion. The land should be properly and justly owned by individuals. It should have been so before the war, and it should be so now.

Second, because promising the recovery of the islands while taking into account the wishes of the islanders is rather a far-fetched dream than a sensible idea, since it would be virtually impossible for Milei’s proposal to work with a population that definitely does not feel Argentinian and is highly unlikely to ever drastically change its mind.

And third, because even if the islanders no longer wanted to belong to the United Kingdom, it is more possible that they would simply prefer to form their own country without remaining under the sovereignty of any other state.

In April 2024, after clarifying that his ally is the United States (whether Democrats or Republicans), Milei stated that the announcement of a joint naval base with the US military in Ushuaia, Argentina, was the greatest act of sovereignty in the last 40 years, because it was allegedly the first step to start thinking about the recovery of the islands. But in reality, it is unreasonable to consider the permanent presence of the US military, especially in view of its rampant imperialism, as an act of sovereignty in any sense—much less to view this as a step towards Milei’s plans for the islands.

And if Milei denounces the UN for not defending the territorial sovereignty of its members, what about denouncing the United States for not respecting the same of several members of the UN to this day? But this will not happen soon, because the US ambassador has declared that the two countries had never had such a close relationship.

Zionism

Then, reaffirming his Zionist agenda, Milei pointed out:

[In the UN] which claims to defend human rights, they have allowed bloody dictatorships such as Cuba and Venezuela to enter the Human Rights Council… [In the UN] they have systematically voted against the State of Israel, which is the only country in the Middle East that defends liberal democracy, while simultaneously demonstrating a total incapacity to respond to the scourge of terrorism.

Milei should be asked how much bloodier the dictatorships he mentions have been compared to Israeli foreign policy. And second, whether it is a matter of appreciating or criticizing the UN in the interests of the State of Israel, then Milei might recall that it was precisely the State of Israel that arbitrarily benefited greatly since the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine, which envisaged a state for Zionism of about 57% of Palestine, although Jewish land ownership was only about 10% of the proposed state. This legitimization from the UN was opposite to the wishes of the Palestinian people and the principles enshrined in the UN, one of which is the right to self-determination.

If Mondino’s words on the control of digital media were about freedom of speech, Argentina is not a great defender thereof. Because only three days after the speech, Judge Ariel Lijo—who had received the support of the Israeli ambassador in his candidacy to the Argentine court—ordered the Real Academia Española (located in Spain) to delete from its dictionary of the Spanish language the fifth meaning of the word “Jew,� which says “greedy or usurious,� for configuring “a hate speech that incites discrimination on religious grounds.� This Jewish victimhood is shared by Milei himself, who has gone so far as to sue several people for the “crime� of trivializing the Holocaust.

Since Milei complained about the voting against Israel, while Argentina voted in its favor, not for nothing he has declared to be on the “right side of history�—that of the US, Israel and the West—and said that they will use “all resources� to defend themselves against terrorists. And being on the “right� side is no doubt why Milei appointed a Jew as his new foreign minister, after recently dismissing Mondino for not joining the US and Israeli votes in favor of the US embargo against Cuba.

Zionism is a state policy in the Milei administration. He will carry the anti-libertarian stance for as long as he has time and will continue to aid the Holocaust narrative enterprise, aimed largely at the eternal Jewish victimization that has aided the Zionist agenda ever since.

The Russia-Ukraine war

In Milei’s opinion, the Security Council has been “denaturalized,� and the UN is powerless to provide solutions to global conflicts, “such as the aberrant Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has already cost the lives of more than 300,000 people.� But Milei cannot favor the minimization of the victims and a rapid solution if he continues to support Zelenskyy and foreign interventions, because this prolongs and worsens the lethal and destructive effects of the war. In addition, Milei’s double standard is obvious. Since Israel has invaded Lebanon, and is also the invader and occupier of the Arab lands of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, why does Milei not call on the UN and his US ally to join forces to expel Israel from these lands? And while Milei tries to appear rebellious before the global political establishment, the same week Ursula von der Leyen says:

The EU and Argentina share deep bonds and strong values… We have an opportunity to enhance our partnership and conclude EU-Mercosur negotiations, as we navigate global tensions together. We remain aligned in our support to Ukraine.

Milei’s Argentina seeks to join NATO as a global partner. Although this would not imply participation in NATO’s conflicts, it would allow access to technology and training not previously available to Argentina.

Neoconservative doctrine

What Milei really represents, by defending liberal democracy and mentioning Woodrow Wilson, has everything to do with the position of the United States as the main imperial power in the world. Consequently, as a representative of US hegemony, Milei’s freedom agenda implies US dominance over as much of the world as possible, not only as a means to supposedly defend freedom, but also to defend peace. And here comes the doctrine of democratic peace promoted by the neocons. Under this doctrine, for a lasting peace, as democracies refrain from going to war with each other, the whole world should be democratic. Therefore, war to achieve this world would be justified.

Since the foundation of the UN took place right after WWII, behind Milei’s 70 years of global peace, there is the fact that the democratic countries of Western Europe have not gone to war with each other since WWII—and neither was there a war between Japan and South Korea. And there is also the fact that wars have simply come to be essentially based on the interests of US hegemony—along with the influence of Zionism. So, what happened is that after WWII, and with the passage of time, basically all of Western Europe and several other countries around the world have become vassals of the United States, and many of these countries now host US bases. Thus, the relative peace since UN tutelage is thus explained: US imperial power does not allow its vassals to fight each other, nor does the US see the need to fight its vassals, for they obey well and enough. And whereas only the deaths caused in the war between Russia and Ukraine (US vassal) is worth mentioning for Milei, the multiple wars and millions of deaths caused by Israel, the US and NATO from WWII to the present day do not seem to be relevant for him.

Consequently, Milei’s 70 years of global peace are due neither to the good or bad tutelage of the UN nor to democracy, but to hegemony. As a matter of fact, neither did wars break out within Soviet hegemony after WWII until the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just as the Soviet Union intervened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, so did the US on several occasions in Central America.

The global elites

Rightly so, Milei criticized the World Economic Forum for promoting absurd policies with Malthusian blinders, and indicated that the UN has promoted policies that undermine economic growth and hinder the economic process, “to the point of preventing the most underdeveloped countries in the world from freely enjoying their own resources to get ahead�—with regulations and prohibitions promoted “by countries that have developed thanks to doing the same.� Likewise, Milei denounced the promotion of “a toxic relationship between global governance policies and international lending agencies, requiring the most neglected countries to commit resources they do not have to programs they do not need, turning them into perpetual debtors to promote the agenda of global elites.�

Nevertheless, a month after the speech, the Argentine government—which is committed to pay the debt to the IMF—confirmed new credits from multilateral organizations, where a potential investment portfolio from one of the lending agencies is set to destine US$3 billion in the private sector, focusing on various things promoted by the global elites that Milei denounced, such as renewable energies and decarbonization of some sectors. Additionally, Milei’s support to US-Zionist imperialism has much to do with the interests of certain global elites, as those of the military-industrial complex. And since there is no other more relevant political cost of repudiating these debts than to leave the political leaders of these countries and the lending agencies without this way of robbing taxpayers, there is also no coherent way whereby a libertarian may defend Milei in his plan to pay off the IMF.

Free pass for the right

Milei reminded that the collectivism and moral posturing of the woke agenda have collided with reality and never had credible solutions to the real problems of the world. And if the 2030 Agenda failed, “as recognized by its own promoters,� said Milei, “the answer should be to ask ourselves if it was not an ill-conceived program to begin with, accept that reality and change course.� According to him, “the same thing always happens with ideas coming from the left,� stressing that Argentina has already seen “what is at the end of this road of envy and sad passions: poverty, brutalization, anarchy and a fatal absence of freedom.� Nonetheless, for Milei, there is still time to move away from this course.

However, if Milei were a truly anti-statist politician, he would never let the also-statist right get away with its own collectivism and its problems with freedom, nor would he use the word “anarchy� negatively. And indeed, there is little or nothing anarcho-capitalist left in the presidential speeches of the first “anarcho-capitalist� president in world history, who even a month before his speech at the UN had taken it upon himself to deliver a clearly statist speech to his country’s armed forces.

Aside from deregulation and other free market reforms, so statist is the Milei administration in reality that it even promotes the defense industry as fundamental to national development.

The speech and the truth

From the crusade to make the world safe for liberal democracy, a less libertarian world has resulted, and beyond a few good moves, Milei’s speech should be seen as a renewed Cold War trick of opposing socialism to protect and promote the statist order commanded by the United States, teaming up with all the Zionist establishments of the West. But everything about Milei is hardly surprising if you pay attention to the fact that he is just another product of US propaganda and that he came to power with the help of Jewish groups. And whereas Milei admires warmongers such as Ronald Reagan and Churchill, with the audacity to quote Thomas Paine in his speech, Milei’s fans should learn from Rothbard:

What is needed above all is to cast off the post-Wilsonian mythology and a priori history of twentieth century American propaganda, and to realize that the (American) Emperor really has no clothes.

Predictably, the global Zionist propaganda machine celebrates Milei, with famous people such as Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Ben Shapiro and Elon Musk promoting this fraud. And even many libertarians are jumping on the bandwagon. Meanwhile, Milei’s press secretariat received a budget increase of almost five times in 2024.

Be that as it may, libertarians, more than anyone else, should avoid promoting a man who has come to deceive and perpetuate statism and the hegemony of genocidal warmongers, because the ideals of peace and freedom are worth far more than letting a false hero receive the libertarian celebration he does not deserve. So let the world know the truth, let it know that Milei had his goose cooked.