The president expressed herself as in favor of multilateralism, which is great for us. Argentina, being a somewhat small country, possesses the greatest capacity and potential when it is acting in a multilateral setting versus a bilateral one. The problem resides in the ways in which the president and her government understand multilateralism and how they have come to practice it.

If you understand what it is to participate every year in the General Assembly of the United Nations and eventually in some Security Council meeting, and from there face the United States and whomever they may be allied with – Iran, Russia or Venezuela — this multilateralism would not work for the country. The same applies if you understand that multilateralism is participation in the G-20 summits, which Argentina does not benefit from at all.

It is known that the United States is the greatest power in the world, that often their leaders refused to work with countries in the region, and that during the Cold War there were coups d’états supported by Washington, which left difficult-to-heal marks on Latin American towns. It is also important to point out that in the dark night of Argentina’s dictatorship, Carter’s government was the main dam against the spread of the military junta so that it would not carry out violations of human rights in our country. It was not the Soviets, nor the Communist Party of Argentina.

We believe that in this period, presidential diplomacy should reinforce the great variety of offers and ideas that form a just world, not utilize international forums for confused personal recognition while criticizing the United States and the rest of the Western powers for domestic consumption — and in order to escape from the harsh Argentinian reality.

Recently, the government told Argentinian towns that multilateralism would help us get out of the external jam of Argentinian debt. This is false and has been proven to be naïve.

Argentina’s will of obtaining international support in order to pressure North American justice does not have the prospect of realism. This justice is known by its autonomy and nothing will ever change it, even if the predicament comes from the outside.

This has to be known by the president, who spent more than 30 years in politics. What she looked for while talking to Pope Francis, and afterward with her speech condemning the United States in the United Nations, was only to gain political space in the country in the presence of its strong nucleus, in a maneuver that it is an attempt to retain power.

Their collaborators follow their exact footsteps, without their own ideas; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is nonexistent and only carries out press releases, not elaborating on politics and laying blame on “the empire and its vultures” for their own ineffectiveness.

The finance minister got worked up by the fact that the G-77 presented a resolution before the United Nations General Assembly, which establishes a possible convention regarding restructured debts within the following year that will go into effect in five or six years if there is consensus. But this was dealt with in the wrong forum, since the theme is within the scope of a different multilateral debate; that is to say, it doesn’t help at all in solving Argentina’s debt problem, which is now in the hands of Judge Griesa and United States courts.

The theme, on an international level, is discussed elsewhere. The next G-20 will prompt the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to take up this question in its November meeting in Australia, and an offer will be discussed that had originally been submitted by Anne Krueger (yes, Argentina’s “enemy”).

The General Assembly of the United Nation does not have a say, nor is it the adequate body that could change reality. Precisely; this boasts of having been modified by the government. But in this economic and financial context, nothing can be obtained. Seventy percent of the gross world product (GWP) is located in the states that voted against or that abstained from the Sept. 9 resolution, which was proclaimed by Argentinian authorities as “historic.”

If the objective of seeing Pope Francis was to be given impetus to speak in the Assembly against the vultures pretending to have papal support, and if the idea was to take a ride with 33 civil servants with nothing to do or say in the Vatican or the United Nations besides taking photos and displaying partisan gifts, the project was a poor and opportunistic one.

Now is the time to change a foreign policy that does not have a precise ending and that is cut off from Argentina’s necessities. Personal recognition, in addition to responding to a narcissistic necessity for power, does not benefit the country. Argentina is compromising its immediate future, since the government dedicated itself to provoking many world leaders, inventing danger and diabolical scenarios.

We must change these errors now, and not wait until the next government to become overwhelmed by the debt and problems created as we speak by a foreign policy that is used at the service of Mrs. President, neglecting Parliament and the opinions of her countrymen.