In a major shake-up within Argentina’s foreign ministry, President Javier Milei has dismissed Foreign Minister Diana Mondino following Argentina’s vote at the United Nations in favor of lifting the long-standing US economic embargo on Cuba. The UN vote, held on Wednesday, saw 187 nations—including Argentina—support the non-binding resolution against the embargo. The United States and Israel were the only countries to oppose the resolution.
Mondino’s removal and the appointment of Argentina’s ambassador to Washington, Gerardo Werthein, to the foreign minister role signals a dramatic pivot in Argentina’s foreign policy under Milei, emphasizing a shift toward a more conservative alignment, particularly with the US and other Western powers. The decision has stirred controversy within Argentina and highlighted tensions over the direction of the nation’s diplomatic future.
The UN resolution advocating for an end to the US embargo on Cuba is a traditional annual event, with the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations consistently voting in favor. Argentina’s decision to support this resolution, however, marked a departure from President Milei’s earlier positions favoring alignment with the US and Israel, both staunch opponents of Cuba’s communist regime. This move appears to have intensified a growing rift within Argentina’s foreign ministry, culminating in Mondino’s dismissal.
In a statement released by Milei’s office, the government clarified its stance, stating that Argentina remains “categorically opposed to the Cuban dictatorship” and aims to uphold “the values of freedom, sovereignty, and individual rights that characterize Western democracies.” The statement underscores Milei’s commitment to a conservative foreign policy agenda, particularly regarding regimes perceived as authoritarian.
Observers in Buenos Aires note that while the Milei administration has often championed a close relationship with the United States, Mondino’s support for the UN resolution may have been influenced by Argentina’s historical stance on the embargo, particularly under past left-wing Peronist governments, which frequently condemned the embargo as a punitive relic of the Cold War. The decision to fire Mondino reflects Milei’s determination to chart a more independent path that firmly opposes governments he views as undemocratic or repressive.
Tensions between Milei and Mondino have reportedly been escalating over recent months. As foreign minister, Mondino was a key figure representing Argentina’s image abroad, often serving as a mediator when Milei’s confrontational rhetoric caused diplomatic frictions. Known for her pragmatic approach, Mondino was often seen as a steadying force within Milei’s administration, advocating for diplomacy even amid polarizing regional and international issues.
Analysts have speculated that the rift was not limited to the issue of Cuba but reflected broader differences in foreign policy priorities. While Mondino pushed for a balanced approach, Milei has consistently indicated his desire for a foreign policy unafraid to confront regimes he considers authoritarian, including Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.
Political analyst José Carillo explained, “Mondino’s stance on Cuba was likely a continuation of Argentina’s historical policies, which often sympathize with Cuba due to shared Latin American bonds and anti-colonial sentiment. But Milei wants Argentina to be a leader in pushing back against dictatorships, making her stance on Cuba an unsustainable contradiction in his administration.”
Argentina’s relationship with Cuba has often been shaped by political and ideological dynamics in the region. During the previous administration, led by the left-wing Peronist government, Argentina enjoyed relatively warm relations with Cuba, advocating for an end to the embargo in alignment with most other Latin American nations. In exchange, Cuba has consistently supported Argentina’s sovereignty claims over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), a British overseas territory over which Argentina and the United Kingdom waged a brief but intense war in 1982.
The Falkland Islands issue remains a point of national pride and geopolitical interest for Argentina. By supporting Argentina’s sovereignty claims, Cuba has earned enduring goodwill from various Argentine administrations, reinforcing the Latin American bloc’s stance on regional autonomy and resistance to perceived imperialistic pressures. However, Milei’s administration seems prepared to decouple these historical sympathies in favor of a hardline stance on human rights and democratic values, even if it risks straining relations with long-standing allies in the region.
Political scientist María Fernanda Rodríguez noted, “Milei’s decision signals a break from Argentina’s traditional approach in the region. His administration appears willing to sacrifice support on the Falklands to establish a strong anti-authoritarian foreign policy.”
The decision to replace Mondino with Gerardo Werthein, a figure known for his connections within US diplomatic circles, indicates Milei’s intention to foster stronger ties with the United States and position Argentina as a key regional partner for Washington. Werthein, previously Argentina’s ambassador to Washington, has experience navigating the intricacies of US-Argentina relations and is expected to prioritize Milei’s conservative vision on the international stage.
In his new role, Werthein will likely focus on enhancing Argentina’s alignment with Western democracies, particularly in condemning governments associated with human rights abuses. Milei’s administration has reiterated its commitment to “condemn all regimes that perpetrate human rights violations,” a position that suggests an increasing alignment with US-led policies on Latin America’s authoritarian governments, including Cuba.
Additionally, Milei’s administration has hinted at further diplomatic reforms to ensure that Argentina’s foreign policy remains consistent with Milei’s conservative ideology. In a statement, the administration indicated that the country is entering a “period of profound changes” and that the diplomatic corps must reflect “the values of freedom, sovereignty, and individual rights” central to Milei’s vision.
Argentina’s shift in foreign policy could have broader ramifications within Latin America. The region has historically favored a unified front in opposition to the embargo, as many countries see it as a vestige of Cold War-era US interventionism. With Argentina’s alignment shifting, other Latin American nations may find themselves grappling with pressures to either follow Milei’s lead or reaffirm their opposition to the embargo, risking diplomatic rifts.
This development has also led to speculation regarding Argentina’s role within the Organization of American States (OAS) and other regional bodies that promote dialogue and cooperation across Latin America. A more US-aligned Argentina could complicate diplomatic efforts within these organizations, particularly in negotiations regarding human rights and governance issues.
Regional experts have observed that Argentina’s departure from a unified stance on the embargo could embolden other Latin American leaders to adopt similar positions, potentially isolating Cuba further. At the same time, some analysts warn that Milei’s approach may risk alienating Argentina from regional allies who prioritize Latin American solidarity over ideological divides.
The US embargo on Cuba, first imposed in 1962 following Fidel Castro’s revolution, was initially intended to pressure the island nation to abandon its socialist policies and align with the democratic West. However, over the decades, the embargo has become a contentious issue, with numerous US allies and neighboring nations calling for its end, arguing that it has only exacerbated economic hardship for ordinary Cubans without achieving its intended political objectives.
Each year, the UN resolution against the embargo garners overwhelming support, reflecting a global consensus that the policy has outlived its original purpose. Critics argue that the embargo has become a diplomatic thorn between the United States and Latin America, where many see it as an unjustified punitive measure.
By joining the majority in supporting the UN resolution, Mondino’s stance aligned with this widely-held view, underscoring the challenges Milei faces in navigating Argentina’s historical relationships and Milei’s ideological principles. Despite international pressure to condemn the embargo, the Milei administration’s actions indicate a strong desire to break from Argentina’s past foreign policy and align more closely with US interests, even when doing so might create regional friction.
President Milei’s choice to sack Mondino sends a clear signal about the future of Argentina’s foreign relations. As Gerardo Werthein takes on the role of foreign minister, Argentina’s diplomatic strategy will likely embrace a firmer stance against authoritarian regimes, prioritizing ideological alignment with the United States over Latin American solidarity.
Within Argentina, reactions to Milei’s decision have been mixed. Supporters praise his commitment to a values-based foreign policy, while critics argue that severing historical alliances risks alienating Argentina from its Latin American neighbors. Milei’s challenge will be to balance his administration’s principles with Argentina’s practical interests, particularly regarding the Falkland Islands and economic ties within the region.
As Argentina navigates this new phase, Werthein’s tenure as foreign minister will serve as a litmus test for how far Milei is willing to push his conservative agenda on the global stage. Argentina’s shifting alliances and Milei’s unyielding stance on authoritarianism suggest that the country is poised for a transformative period in its foreign policy, one that could redefine its role in Latin America and beyond.
