Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoană met Argentine Defence Minister Luis Petri at NATO Headquarters on Thursday for talks on working toward a partnership between the Alliance and Argentina.

“It is a great pleasure to welcome Defence Minister Petri to NATO Headquarters,” said Mr Geoană.

“Argentina plays an important role in Latin America, and I welcome today’s request to explore becoming a NATO partner. NATO works with a range of countries around the world to promote peace and stability. Closer political and practical cooperation could benefit us both.”

The two leaders exchanged views on European and Latin American security challenges. The Deputy Secretary General welcomed Argentina’s role in supporting Ukraine with lifesaving humanitarian assistance, including food, medicine, and support for refugees.

NATO’s political dialogue with Argentina began in the early 1990s. Buenos Aires later contributed to NATO’s peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Kosovo. Colombia is currently NATO’s only partner country in Latin America.

Any decision on a formal partnership would require consensus by all 32 Allies.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

79 COMMENTS

      • Joking aside, they are steering in the right democratic direction again and anything that helps keep them on the right course can only be a good thing.

        They wish to keep the Falklands discussion open, obviously they do, I’m not sure how many times you can say ” it’s up to the Falkland Islanders” and they say no thank you…

        Providing it’s a civilised conversation regarding a normalised relationship and increased trade is fostered, then it’s all good 👍

        • Let’s put it this way on balance I think it’s better to have both Greece and Turkey in NATO than only the former. Whatever the sabre rattling it tends to keep matters short of outright conflict far more often than not and a new forum for dialogue to deconflict matters. Argentina is seeing South American countries cosying up to China and by association Russia and other suspect regimes, even Iran is trying to gain influence so from its own point of view becoming closer to NATO makes a lot of sense for its own security. So on balance more good than bad I hope.

          • That’s a very good point if you can two nations that have almost go to war as much as turkey and Greece you can make anything work….

            Although it’s worth noting Argentina can never be a NATO member without a complete rewrite of the treaty….as article six covers only North America, Europe, turkey and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer….

            So unless there is a complete rewrite ( which would end up covering the Falklands and UK south Atlantic territories ) it can only ever be an associate.

          • Excellent point. Perhaps it is time to re-write the whole thing making it worldwide and including Austrailia et al. It would save a lot of time. Democracy vs The Borg. Had to happen.

          • Quite possibly it may need a rewrite..but that would need a unanimous vote and there is no way a lot of the nations would support it ( Hungary, Turkey and likely Germany for differing reasons)…the U.S. and NATO are already in a bit of quandary as Hawaiian territory is excluded from NATO article 6 and so article 5 ( article 6 provides the geographical context to article 5 ) but it’s covered by article 4 ( as is Guam). Considering that Hawaii is the fundamentally strategically important third chain island and Guam the same for the second chain there is good reason to have them in NATO..as it may just act as a deterrent to china…knocking out the USN second and third chain bases would be a key opener in ant pacific war.

          • As happened with Sweden joining initial objections evaporated probably because there is a little fear that a Global Treaty Organisation (GTO) might be set up to replace NATO and any problem child might not get an invite.😀

          • I would say Hawaii is already covered, its a US state and its American, no different to Alaska which also has pacific coast. Hawaii is politically part of North America not an overseas territory. Its a technicality used by us Europeans, NATO was formed before Hawaii became a US state, thats the reason not because it not American or not part of America. US would absolutely invoke article 5 if Hawaii was attacked.

            We’ve just added Sweden and Finland to NATO to enhance protection of Europe so it seems rather convinient and one sided for European politicians not to include Hawaii on a ‘technicallity’. Its also boardline moronic, China would not want to square off against all of NATO, if China knew it would be facing all of NATO should it attack Hawaii to limit US military logistics. So European politicians trying to use a dubious techncialitly is just emboldening China.

            Guam is a US base so its different.

          • Interestingly Hawaii is not covered. As article 6 is very much bound by geography and its specific around the North American continent…there are around three occasions where NATO nations have been involved in some form or armed conflict outside of the geographical area defined in article five…and indeed not even the U.S. may want it changed as for example it would bind them into mutually supporting the defence of a number of French islands…and it’s all a bit controversial to be honest..

            The official Uk government line from a parliamentary question on the subject ( not NATO line) is:

            Article 6 of the Washington Treaty defines the geographical scope of Article 5 primarily as ‘the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America’ or ‘islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic Area north of the Tropic of Cancer.’ However, any attack against the United States, whether directed against Hawaii, Guam, or another US state or territory, is likely to be part of a major conflict. In such a case, either the consultation provisions of Article 4 or the collective defence provisions of Article 5 would plainly apply, and the decision of the North Atlantic Council would determine the response of the Alliance.

            But the US itself does not agree and the state department made it clear it did not think an attack on Hawaii would trigger article 5…but it would use article 4 to discus and get a coalition of the willing.

            Nice read is “the western flank, the geosecurity periphery that NATO forget” by A Erskine, journal of indo pacific affairs.

          • Yes, I’ve read articles on this before, and as the state department points out, it’s, as per the legal wording not covered. The main reason is because Hawaii became a state after the agreement was created had Hawaii been a state at its inception it would be included. But as I said its a technicality and of no logic, if part of North Mexico decided to separate for Mexico and then become US state it would be covered.

            I doubt Europe will come to it’s aid but we have political class in this country who have openly said they see the threat is in Europe and not beyond. I don’t think many European countries will want it rewriting because it will mean they have to massively change posture.. Pretty much UK and France are the only countries who could offer anything tangible to the defence of USs Western flank. France is massively reliant on China and we refocusing on Europe. Remember the response has to be by agreement and China will be using all.its’ direct and indirect influence to ensure there’s no consensus formed.

          • Yes it’s a worry, anything that shows cracks in western resolve is not great, because if china thinks it can win it will go for it…Taiwan is just that totemic to the Chinese communist party.

            The problem for Europe is that any China U.S. war is probably going to be a long one..both nations are so large, have such resources and are so far apart that once they start they will probably be tearing at each other for years…the reality of that is they are going to go for each others access to markets and resources as well as political warfare…I could not see any route where both sides did not do their very best to involve all the allies they can…and even those nations that are not directly dragged in will see huge economic shocks like nothing we have seen.. as world markets and commerce essentially shut down….I would also expect a lot of anti western nations to be either sponsored to cause trouble our just decide it’s good time to kick off ( North Korea would have no better time to go for broke as an example)….as a final point to win ( as in get a favourable peace and Taiwan) china will need to somehow hit the U.S. mainland..even if that is just offensive cyber and terrorist attacks….and we all know that would trigger article 5.

            in reality the west needs to go all in with the western pacific massive expansion of deterrence …or if it’s not willing, cut Taiwan lose and redraw the map of red lines..one of the other…the middle ground will only lead to a world war.

          • hmmm unsure about NATO going to south america. understood we don’t like china moving in. we should support democracies where we can but not prop up anything too failing or corrupt.

          • NATO is very picky about who it allows in. It is plausable that this might just provide the incentive required for certain countries to get their act together. Democracy spreading across central & south America would probably go down well in the US as it might just undermine the reasons for migration.

          • Well we all know why they are doing this….they have been playing the long game. Any support from NATO in their eyes gives them legitimacy, and support from US doesn’t help but our so called cousins would rather chase the dollar and considers south America as part of its political and economic empire than stop this.
            I am all for having a better relationship with Argentina but they need to grow up and accept the reality on the ground with the islanders, and end there years long campaign of economic blockade and childish rhetoric.
            This sets a dangerous precedent and must be vetoed by rishi what with starmer and labour all but in, who knows what betrayal is around the corner for the Falkland islanders, and Gibraltar.
            On a side note Argentina sold out to china years ago.

    • True. I suspect most people are surprised by this. Personally I thought they would go for an EU of South America as a first move. A NATO of South America might well follow that. Perhaps they are more worried about their security than we thought.

      • It’s fair to say Argentinian has become profoundly concerned with the rise of china..it’s the reason for the sudden political shift and loss of power of the Peronists ( who are now seen as chinas stooges )…Argentina is looking at its neighbours and seeing them all coming under the sway of china.

  3. Is this away to get into the Falklands 🤔 because were all in the same club ? I know we all move on but sorry guys it’s a NO from me .

    • There’s a bigger game in play guys, it’s about countering Chinese influence, the Falklands are irrelevant here. That question is resolved and the door firmly shut for good.

      I do think that bringing Argentina into the partnership programme helps to stabilise that country and steer it away from it’s past extreme views….

      • Agreed. South America is for the most part overlooked by the west. Brazil is an example of a big South American state cozy with BRICs

          • And the UK has sold Brazil quite a few ex-RN vessels, like the OPVs and ex-HMS Ocean so you’d hope the UK still has some ongoing relationship with Brazil.

        • Spot on Mickey and John, fact is the only likely way in any foreseeable future that Argentina could take the Falklands is if it has China covering (and thus Russia) its ass, a bit like the only way the US won the revolutionary war was because France, Spain and the Netherlands all declared war on Britain. Argentina within the club is far better than seeing it make advances (as it partly it once was) to a conglomerate of undemocratic Nations that threatens the whole West. That’s where the threat to the US comes but it has to realise only really if matters in Europe and Asia turn against the West and really fire matters up. Even Mexico could become a very tricky neighbour and the southern border could be totally overrun by refugees encouraged on mass by Russia and China. Always the bigger picture needs to be recognised even if it’s painful to do so.

          • I’m not sure that they would think Russia covering anything with its comedy weapons systems would factor in……

            We are about to see what happens when the US taps go from shut to open in Ukraine with air cover and a load more European missiles too. It will be instructive what happens next.

      • What you say John probably right mate , what would bug me if Argentine did get in NATO and previous UK governments been what their are all about saving money could we let the Argentina put troops on Falkland islands to Defend them and pull away our garrison Aircraft and patrol ship ? If so , then Argentina would see themselves has owns ,and no doubt be laughing at us behind our back NATO would just be a face for them .👍

      • 90%, this is a good thing. NATO partnership isn’t the same as NATO membership. But keeping Beijing’s from meddling with the South Atlantic is very important. Lets face it Moscow & Beijing have already made in-rounds in this area on the other side of the ocean.

      • Wouldn’t China just love to assist in developing Argentinian oil fields if it could and other minerals and infrastructure and link it up with other countries it has influence with? Further access to the Antarctic too. And across the Atlantic, there’s the creeping China influence in Africa as well as Russia. The Falklands are a bit of a “Gibraltar” or ‘Cyprus” of the South Atlantic, in a very useful location.

        • “Gibraltar” or ‘Cyprus”

          Spot on, the Falklands and Mount Pleasant are going to be increasingly strategic to the West, with the steady expansion of Chinese interests in South America and Africa.

          I wouldn’t be surprised if facilities of some sort are eventually built in South Georgia too as the Chinese start edging towards Antarctica for resources as this century moves on.

          I can sadly see international agreements on Antarctica breaking down in the years ahead.

          The US really does appear to have had it’s day, it’s influence in the world is steadily deminishing as they have utterly failed to grasp the importance of soft power.

          You have to tip your hat to the Chinese, they absolutely excel at it!

          The UK has by historical accident, some of the most strategically placed assets.

          Gibraltar/Cyprus ( Med 100% covered)

          Ascension / Falklands ( key central , southern Atlantic facilities)

          Future: Potential for a base on South Georgia, and a permanent small post on Southern Thule if needed.

          Diego Garcia: ‘vital’ base for Indo Pacific operations.

          I would really love to see a sovereign facility, docking and long runway in Oman if that could be negotiated, giving us rapid reach into the Gulf and Red Sea.

          • The development of facilities to berth two aircraft carriers in Oman is already underway.

        • Russia is building an African army, I suspect in an attempt to control more of the worlds uranium supply amongst other things

  4. Argentina’s new President is making a determined effort to steer his country away from its ties with China that were fostered by his Peronista predecessors and towards the US and the West. It will stick in the craws of all of the Trump haters on this platform, but he was inspired by Donald Trump to run for the presidency and made it a point very shortly after his inauguration to meet Trump in the US and address a conservative conference. In addition, he is faced with a massive arms build-up by Brazil, led by its far-left President, who has moved his country closer to China. The US is making a concerted effort to assist Javier Milei in his efforts to move Argentina way from China and any concerns the UK may have about the Falklands, much, much over-rated, are of very little importance.
    Milei faces a very daunting task since he inherited one of the worst financial situations of any country on the planet.

    • “any concerns the UK may have about the Falklands, much, much over-rated, are of very little importance.”

      Considering you are not a Brit, that is very very easy for you to say.
      I agree with your overall comment and the need to steer Argentina into the wests camp, but please remember some here might have fought in the S Atlantic in 82 or had family members there, even killed.
      So the subject might sensitive, and is certainly emotive for us, including me. I was 10 at the time and starting my interest in all things British military so followed events closely.
      Clearly, this does not apply to you.
      The Falklands are also prime real estate down there regards the Antarctic, so no the islands are not over-rated.

      • Yup…. Too many people, Humans, died on both sides, as always, War of any kind is a waste of lives and in this particular case, should have been avoided/prevented. There is nothing nice about being blown up, burnt, shot or drowned for no real reason other than one persons Ego.

      • Well said. And then there’s the oil potential… But better get them in than keep them out. We have the same situation with Spain over Gibraltar… it may be rather longer ago that people died over it but the principle is the same. And it’s key to Antarctica, as any industrialisation there would be catastrophic to the whole world, not just penguins. Though penguins would be bad enough.

      • I think we need to support Milei, he’s a libertarian and they don’t beleive in war. If he turns Argentina around and the Falkland islanders see Argentina as better future than the UK they can have a refendum and vote accordingly, we can’t use self determination only when it suits us. That may not be popular with some people here in the UK but thats freedom and choice. Something that’s rapidly being revoked here in the UK!!

        The reality is Argentina will not be in a position to covince the Falkland Islanders for a long time. Milei has a lot to do and a fair amount of opposition internally. But the last thing he needs is external opposition from those of us who beleive in freedom and choice, that will just put the Peronist back into power.

    • Yep If Milei can face down the Peronists that still exert control over parts of the establishment then it could become a strong example of how to turn an indebited country around. He has a massive uphill battle. Although I don’t agree with everything Milei says he’s a libertarian, so he’s pro freedom, pro choice and anti war.

      I don’t really like using the left and right to describe politics, its being deliberately misused. He’s described as far right, which of course is to deliberately discredit him because it links him to fascism, and this is where there loads of confusion re left and right his economics aren’t socialist (left wing) so he’s ring wing economically. But he’s not authoritarian(fascist), fascists can be left or right wing economically. So it best look at levels of freedom politicians will afford the public which is not entirely the same as an economic ideology. But the further you go economically to the left or right the more authoritarian you become.

  5. If Argentina join NATO they’d be no different to Spain and Gibraltar, have to accept they need to bide their time until a UK government decides diplomatic harmony is more important (how many close shaves have we had with Gibraltar, Tony Blair was close but dare not, it’s been on the agenda with this Tory government as well).

    • They wouldn’t Keith, Argentina is simply joining the NATO partnership for peace, not the alliance itself.

      It’s all good and helps to foster friendly and stable relationships with the West in the longer term.

      Anything that stops Argentina from back peddling is good.

      The UK and Argentina will always disagree regarding the Falklands, that can’t be helped, but we can work together for a better future for all.

  8. Maybe Argentina should look to form SATO. Or NATO should rename itself as ATO. And if Australia wants to join it should be TO. Or even just O. Maybe the Organisation Formerly Known as NATO; OFKNATO.

    • Playground rules apply, basically the defence attachés of all members line up against the wall and the attacked member gets to pick first until there are two teams.

      Then it’s all settled with a NATO attaché football match, with braided officer caps for goal posts….

      The Swiss attaché invited as the referee….

  10. I think it’s a good move since their new president came in they have moved away from BRICS much to the disappointment to China, who reckon they are going to sue Argentina don,t know how that works, but it’s probably why the sale of the F 16 was approved to keep Argentina onside or to show faith..How this will play out with regards to the Falklands will probably be interesting to watch

    • Exactly this.

      And that had to do this to avoid…..unaccountable delays in delivery……whilst the paper clip audit……

  12. Happy to have a peaceful Argentina as our partners but they really need to take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror.
    The Falklands are a British overseas territory. Have been longer than Argentina has existed as a country.
    Once they stop their claims to the land then yes happy to return to friendly relations.

  13. We should veto any discussion of membership unless Argentina pays reparations, issues an official apology and drops its claim on the Falklands. Can you really imagine coming to Argentina’s aid and spilling British blood whilst they still eye up the islands?

  14. The only reason why Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands is because it was being operated by a military dictatorship, that had arrested and killed upwards of 40,000 people during what is called the dirty War. They were just about to be kicked out of power when general gautieri, the head of the dictatorship, invaded the Falklands. This new Argentine leader is a libertarian and a top economist, who sees Margaret Thatcher as one of his Heroes. His view on the Falkland Islands is very practical, as opposed to the previous peronist governments of Argentina. He thinks that the Falklands can only become Argentine through peaceful means and that eventually they will become Argentine, even if it takes hundreds of years. This basically means that he has put the question of the Falklands, on the back burner. Instead he is focusing on the economic crisis in Argentina, by using almost identical tactics to Margaret Thatcher, in the early 1980s.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here