Milei struck out at the UN and intensified the claim for the Malvinas

If the American hemispheric architecture extends from Greenland to Tierra del Fuego, British presence in the South Atlantic would be considered an extracontinental anomaly, strengthening Argentina's sovereign claim over the Malvinas Islands.

In the same vein, Israeli National Security Minister Ben-Gvir demanded that Netanyahu order the closure of the British consulate in East Jerusalem, a measure that was formalized by Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar hours later. The minister had already expressed support for Israel recognizing Argentina's sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, a position that directly confronts the United Kingdom.

As seen throughout Argentine history, the United Kingdom has always worked to prevent Buenos Aires and Washington from coinciding in the South Atlantic. As early as 1823, John Quincy Adams warned that the joint declaration offered by British Foreign Minister George Canning against the Holy Alliance sought to limit U.S. projection over America.

Signing of the Andes-Atlantic Corridor

That same Wednesday, hours after the speech, Argentina and the United States signed the Andes-Atlantic Corridor in New York, an agreement that includes U.S. financing of up to 7 billion dollars by 2027 to connect critical minerals from the northwest and Vaca Muerta production with Atlantic ports.

According to the State Department, it is the first corridor of the G7 Partnership for Infrastructure and Global Investment in the Western Hemisphere.

It is evident that both movements respond to the same logic: in the morning, Milei warned oil companies that operating in the Malvinas closes the door to Vaca Muerta; in the afternoon, Washington committed funds to bring that production to the sea. The warning ceases to be rhetorical when the resource offered in exchange has U.S. backing.

Conclusion

The Assembly confirmed what half a century of resolutions had already made evident: the Argentine claim has legal backing but lacks an organization willing to enforce it.

What changed this time was not the claim but the tool. Sanctions and the conditioning of access to Vaca Muerta shifted the discussion from the realm of voting to that of concrete costs.

For Argentina, the scenario opens a concrete opportunity. Energy, food, critical minerals, the South Atlantic, and the natural gateway to Antarctica are not an inventory of resources but of instruments. What has been lacking for decades is what Milei pointed out as a condition: the will to transform those possibilities into national power.

In light of this scenario, one must ask whether a claim with economic consequences will achieve what fifty years of resolutions have not. The answer will not depend, as it always has, on the UN General Assembly, but on whether Argentina has something the world needs enough to choose between that and the Malvinas.

On Wednesday, September 23, President Javier Milei addressed the United Nations General Assembly for the third time.

In his speech, he defined the Malvinas as "a national cause", described the organization as "an useless organization", and, above all, announced something that no Argentine president had proposed in the forum: companies that exploit hydrocarbons in the islands will not have a place in Vaca Muerta.

The announcement by the Argentine leader did not come in isolation. A day earlier, President Donald Trump had reaffirmed before the same Assembly that the United States will not tolerate threats "anywhere in the Western Hemisphere", and announced the construction of two military bases in Greenland.

Furthermore, the next day, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed before the Assembly the campaign against the Iranian nuclear program, in a room that emptied before he began to speak. Milei, for his part, recalled that Argentina declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and continues to demand justice for the attacks of 1992 and 1994.

In this context, it is pertinent to analyze the instrumental shift in Argentina's claim over the Malvinas, the hemispheric framework that makes it viable, and the Western alignment on which Argentina decided to rely.

Malvinas: the claim with consequences

The starting point of the Argentine claim was institutional rather than historical. Resolution 31/49, from 1976, urges the parties to refrain from making unilateral changes while the dispute remains open.

The measure has reached fifty years, and modifications have continued: the Sea Lion project is advancing towards oil extraction in the North Malvinas Basin—on the Argentine continental shelf—with British licenses.

As a result of this situation, Milei stated: "an institution that fails to make its word weigh on facts loses the most important thing: it loses its authority".

It is worth noting that the response has changed in nature. The government sanctioned the companies operating in the islands, extended those sanctions to suppliers and executives, and sent a National Sovereignty Defense Law to Congress.

"For too long, Argentine governments opted for a discursive defense. We chose a peaceful, practical, and effective defense", he asserted.

But the decisive passage was not for the Assembly but for the energy market: "Come. Invest. Develop it. Do it with us. But this invitation has a limit. We will not be indifferent to those who exploit resources under illegal external occupation".

It is evident that Argentina has turned its main energy asset into a deterrent instrument: an oil company is offered the most promising unconventional formation in the hemisphere and is asked to choose: illegal exploitation or Vaca Muerta.

From Greenland to Tierra del Fuego

For his part, one of the most important axes of Trump's speech was the Monroe Doctrine. It is important to understand that the United States government is not invoking the doctrine but exercising it.