Regarding the UN, Milei proved me right

Journalism describes reality in a more or less objective way and lets the reader decide what to think. However, in a recent article that refers to me, they published something that, if one reads it carefully, ends up proving me right. Curiously, it does so by quoting Javier Milei.

Allow me, dear reader, a brief account.

On the social network X, which has become a natural forum for political debate, I had the pleasure of exchanging opinions with Esteban Queimada about the role of the UN. My position was, from the beginning, exactly the same as the one Javier Milei expresses today. I held it even before I heard it from him, because it is a logical position.

The UN is a necessary, even indispensable, organization. It has contributed to humanity experiencing, since the end of World War II, a period of peace and prosperity rarely seen in history. Yes, even though some insist on denying it, we live in an unusually peaceful era.

However, it is also true that the UN, in many respects, has been colonized by the woke agenda, especially since that ideological bias became firmly established in American universities. Today, the UN's operational structure is made up of 90% career diplomats who repeat what is dictated from certain centers of global power.

But as the saying goes: the fault doesn't lie with the pig, but with the one who scratches its back.

Countries like Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, or Israel ignore the UN's ideological recommendations. Why? Because they have a solid foreign policy and a robust economy. They ignore what doesn't suit them. It's that simple.

When Esteban—or anyone—lashes out against "the UN," I believe that, in reality, they are absolving local actors of responsibility. It was Uruguayan governments—of all political stripes—that chose to follow those guidelines, often in exchange for funding, other times due to a lack of strategic vision.

That happens, among other reasons, because many international credit organizations—pressured by the woke world—condition their loans on the adoption of certain policies. Countries that do not need that money do not subordinate themselves. That's how it works.

You can't lump "the entire UN" together. That kind of generalization oversimplifies a complex issue. Moreover, it disregards the work of thousands of people—civilians and military—who make a real difference in the lives of millions.

I saw it with my own eyes: tens of thousands of people voting for the first time thanks to UN missions. I saw food programs that fed entire families every day. I was part, along with colleagues, of operations in which the Blue Helmets managed to stop genocides. That happens. It happens every day.

Undermining that effort is a serious mistake. Perhaps some outraged desk critic will applaud it, but it is unlikely that anyone who has seen the harshest realities of the world up close—or any of the hundreds of compatriots who served with pride in those missions—will do so.

Agustín Laje, in The Cultural Battle, argues that the new right must be built on an alliance between libertarians and conservatives. That alliance is only possible if it is based on mutual respect.

Up to that point, the public debate, which so enriches the political agenda. Now, allow me a few words about the article in question.

The headline is nonsense: no one "confronts" anyone on X. No one has ever won a debate on that social network. But the most striking—and tragic, from the standpoint of rigor—is that at the end of the article, they quote Milei saying exactly the same thing I said. Not what Esteban said.

It is true: I suffered an electoral defeat. It is also true that everyone who voted null or blank, in effect, helped seat one more Frente Amplio councilor in the Departmental Board. The "empty chair" doesn't exist in Uruguayan democracy. Voting blank or null was, in effect, voting for Bergara.

Someone told me recently that what happened to us was an electoral defeat, but a political victory. That may be. In my case, I believe that credibility is built with precision, without exaggeration.

There are not 197 disappeared. There are 32. But it is not zero either. The truth, however painful, is there. I am not going to deny it or twist it.

Something similar happens with the UN. 80% of its work is valuable; 20% is harmful. The problem is not so much what it says, but how much we depend on its approval.

Attacking the UN as a whole is a way of absolving Uruguayan politicians who go knocking on its door. With that logic, the UN is the villain and they have no other choice. But that is not the case. The ones responsible are the Uruguayans. It is us. And it is up to us to change.

I have already chosen a path: to defend Uruguay's sovereignty and freedom. To push me aside, they will need more than a flood of pamphlets—especially when they contradict each other.

Because personally, I have no duplicity: I am economically liberal, socially conservative, and deeply Artiguist—in other words, always a sovereigntist.

And Milei, with his words, did nothing but prove me right.