The theory and practice of foreign policy rarely coincide. Those that are proposed regarding its execution vary considering the geographical position of a country, its relative weight in world models, existing vulnerabilities and the resources available for its execution. However, the models are useful insofar as they guide action, their choice depends on the affinity of ideas of the person who wants to implement them.
The discussion about which is the most appropriate foreign policy for Argentina in the coming years takes place between four great ideas: equidistance, acquiescence, resistance and selective commitment. The latest model has two advantages over the rest: it is an active model that bets on anticipation; it gives an account of the limits posed by Sino-American competition; works based on thematic areas and linking issues, linking foreign policy with defense and intelligence in a comprehensive scheme that understands the interdependence between security and trade.
Selective commitment works based on the available capacities and the choice of the appropriate means to achieve a specific objective, avoiding the problems of overacting or inattention that afflict all countries with different intensity. The indicators are: the establishment of basic goals, selective, early action, the primacy of the inter-state relationship and considerations on the use of force.
His is logical business with everyone, but in the field of security the priority is focused on the United States and the West, specifically in the Western Hemisphere. Regarding values, the reference is close to liberal democracies; However, the objective is to strengthen them internally rather than condemn external actors despite what the hemispheric power demands. Selective engagement seeks a balance between not doing, doing “too much” or doing too little.
Examples. Let’s look at two brief examples of selective commitment. The international security environment is degraded by the war between Russia and Ukraine, which is supported by the transatlantic community. This situation has two components: one political and one economic. Institutional sanctions and in the field of weapons and cooperation on sensitive issues must be accompanied by an Argentine administration as the link with Russia in these fields is tenuous and geographically too far away to effectively influence the geopolitical dynamics of the region. You don’t need to be vocal against Russia, just go along with multilateral actions.
However, economic sanctions and those issues that affect trade with Russia must be viewed with a high degree of attention, following the rule on a case-by-case basis, and not automatically added to the sanctions that are imposed at this level, since they still when Russia represents 1.25% of the trade of the Argentine Republic, in net terms they are assets of the order of seven hundred million, necessary even to pay debt that it has with western credit organizations.
China is another good example of the way selective engagement works. Commercially, the Asian giant is the second destination for Argentine exports, too much trade to put it at stake for issues that are sensitive to China. The types of regime are different, but the Argentine leadership does not have to raise public questions or join critical positions towards China in the way in which it conducts itself within its country. The contributions that the country can make must be made outside of public discussion, taking care not to affect the prestige of said nation, since it can act actively against our direct economic interests. In the field of sensitive technologies, segmenting China’s market penetration would be appropriate, articulating which issues would be left out of the technological relationship that we could develop with that country, and avoiding issues that imply direct challenges to the future security of the West, in particularly because of the damage capacity that these nations have on our economic structure.
The selective commitment is choosing selfishly, articulating based on the common logic that prevails in all nations at this stage of international politics: Argentina first.
*Professor at the School of Politics, Government and International Relations of the Austral University.
You may also like
