To the authorities of the United Nations, to the representatives of its member states, and to all citizens of the world who may be watching—good afternoon.
For those who may not know, I am not a politician. I am an economist—a classical liberal and libertarian economist—who never aspired to enter politics, but who was honoured with the presidency of the Argentine Republic in the wake of the catastrophic failure of over a century of collectivist policies that devastated our country.
This is my first address to the United Nations General Assembly, and I wish to use this occasion—humbly—to alert the nations of the world to the path they have been following for decades, and to the danger posed by the failure of this organisation to fulfil its original mission.
I do not come here to tell the world what it must do. I come to say two things: first, what will happen if the United Nations continues promoting collectivist policies under the banner of the 2030 Agenda; and second, to clarify the values the new Argentina stands for.
Let me begin by giving credit where credit is due.
The United Nations was born out of the horror of the most brutal war in human history, with the principal aim of preventing such tragedy from ever occurring again. To that end, the organisation enshrined its foundational principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document set forth a basic consensus, centred on the idea that *all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights*.
Under the guardianship of this organisation and the adoption of those ideas, humanity has experienced over the last 70 years the longest period of global peace in history—one which coincided, moreover, with the greatest economic growth ever recorded. An international forum was created where nations could resolve their conflicts through cooperation rather than by resorting to arms. And the seemingly unthinkable was achieved: the five most powerful nations on Earth were brought together at one table, each with equal veto power despite their often-opposing interests.
This did not eradicate war entirely, but it did prevent any conflict from escalating into a global conflagration. As a result, we went from suffering two world wars in under forty years—with more than 120 million lives lost—to experiencing seventy consecutive years of relative peace and global stability. This was made possible by an order that enabled the entire world to integrate economically, to compete, and to prosper.
As the economist Frédéric Bastiat once said: *Where goods cross borders, armies do not.* Commerce guarantees peace. Freedom guarantees commerce. And equality before the law guarantees freedom.
In this, the prophecy of Isaiah—inscribed in stone in the park across the street—was fulfilled:
> *“And He shall judge among the nations and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”*
This, largely, is what happened under the guidance of the United Nations in its early decades. From that perspective, we can say it was a remarkable success—one that cannot be overlooked in the history of nations.
However, as so often occurs with bureaucratic structures created by men, this organisation at some point strayed from the principles laid out in its founding declaration and began to mutate.
What had once been envisioned as a shield to protect the realm of humanity became a multi-tentacled Leviathan—one that seeks not only to dictate what each nation-state should do, but also how all people of the world should live.
Thus, we have witnessed the transformation of an institution once dedicated to peace into one that imposes an ideological agenda upon its members—one that extends to countless aspects of human social life.
The model that once succeeded—a model traceable to the ideas of President Woodrow Wilson, who envisioned a “peace without victory” grounded in cooperation among sovereign states—has been abandoned. It has been replaced by a supranational regime of international bureaucrats who seek to impose upon the citizens of the world a uniform way of life.
What is being debated here in New York this very week, at the *Summit of the Future*, is nothing less than the deepening of that tragic course this institution has adopted. It is the entrenchment of a model which, in the words of the UN Secretary-General himself, requires a new global social contract and the intensification of commitments under the 2030 Agenda.
Let me be clear about Argentina’s position: the 2030 Agenda—however well-intentioned its goals may appear—is nothing more than a supranational governance programme of socialist inspiration. It seeks to solve modern problems by means that undermine national sovereignty and violate the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.
It is an agenda that claims to fight poverty, inequality, and discrimination with legislation that only serves to entrench those very problems.
History shows that the only way to ensure prosperity is to limit the power of rulers, uphold equality before the law, and defend the individual’s rights to life, liberty, and property.
It is precisely the adoption of this agenda—one that caters to elite interests—and the abandonment of the principles laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that have distorted the role of this organisation and set it on the wrong path.
We have seen how an institution created to defend human rights has become a primary enabler of their systematic violation. Take, for example, the global lockdowns of 2020—which, in my view, should be considered crimes against humanity.
This very institution, which claims to defend human rights, has welcomed into its Human Rights Council blood-soaked dictatorships like Cuba and Venezuela—without the slightest rebuke. The same organisation that claims to uphold women’s rights has allowed countries that punish women for showing skin to join the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
Here, too, we have witnessed systematic votes against the State of Israel—the only liberal democracy in the Middle East—while demonstrating a total inability to respond to the scourge of terrorism.
In economic terms, collectivist policies have been promoted that undermine economic growth, violate property rights, and hinder natural economic processes—often preventing the world’s poorest countries from freely using their own resources to develop.
These policies and restrictions have often been pushed by the same countries that once developed precisely by doing what they now condemn.
We have also seen a toxic relationship develop between global governance frameworks and international financial institutions. The world’s most disadvantaged nations have been forced to commit resources they do not have to programmes they do not need, turning them into permanent debtors in service of the global elite’s agenda.
Nor has the influence of the World Economic Forum helped—an institution promoting absurd, Malthusian ideas like “Net Zero” policies, which disproportionately harm the poor. Or reproductive rights initiatives, while Western birth rates plummet and point to a bleak future for all.
The UN has also failed in its mission to uphold the territorial sovereignty of its members—as Argentines know firsthand from our enduring claim over the Malvinas Islands.
And we now find ourselves in a situation where the Security Council—ostensibly the UN’s most vital organ—has been rendered ineffective. Its permanent members’ vetoes are increasingly used to defend narrow, national interests.
Thus, we are left with an organisation powerless to resolve real global conflicts—such as the horrific Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has already cost over 300,000 lives and left more than a million wounded.
Rather than address these challenges, this institution spends time and effort telling poor countries what to produce, how to trade, what to eat, and what to believe—just as it seeks to do through the so-called *Pact for the Future*.
This long list of errors and contradictions has come at a cost: the UN’s credibility has eroded in the eyes of the free peoples of the world, and its functions have been profoundly distorted.
So, I issue a warning: **we are witnessing the end of an era**.
Collectivism and the moral posturing of the “woke” agenda have collided with reality. They offer no credible solutions to the world’s real problems. Indeed, they never have.
If the 2030 Agenda has failed—as even its promoters now acknowledge—then it is time to ask whether it was ill-conceived from the start. We must accept this and change course. It is senseless to double down on a failed agenda.
This is the usual pattern with left-wing ideas: they design a model based on how they think human beings *should* be. And when people act otherwise—when they choose freely—the only solution they offer is to restrict, repress, and curtail liberty.
We in Argentina have already seen what lies at the end of this path of envy and melancholy passions: poverty, ignorance, anarchy, and the fatal absence of freedom. But we are still in time to change course.
Let me be clear to avoid any misunderstanding: Argentina is undergoing a profound transformation, and it has chosen to embrace the ideas of liberty—those ideas that assert that all citizens are born free and equal before the law, and possess inalienable rights granted by their Creator: the rights to life, liberty, and property.
These principles guide the transformation underway in Argentina—and they will guide our international conduct as well.
We believe in the defence of life for all.
We believe in the defence of property for all.
We believe in freedom of expression for all.
We believe in freedom of worship for all.
We believe in free trade for all.
And we believe in limited government—always.
And since today events in one country quickly impact others, we believe all peoples must live free from tyranny and oppression—whether political, economic, or religious.
That fundamental idea must not remain mere rhetoric. It must be backed by action—diplomatically, economically, and materially—through the joint force of all freedom-loving nations.
This doctrine of the new Argentina is nothing less than the true spirit of the United Nations: the cooperation of nations in defence of liberty.
If the United Nations decides to return to the principles that gave it life—and resumes the role for which it was conceived—then it will have Argentina’s unwavering support in the fight for freedom.
Know also that Argentina will not support any policy that entails the restriction of individual freedoms, commerce, or the violation of natural rights—no matter who proposes it or how much consensus surrounds it.
For this reason, we formally express our **dissent from the Pact for the Future**, signed on Sunday, and we invite all nations of the free world to join us—not only in rejecting that pact, but in creating a new agenda for this noble institution: **the agenda of liberty**.
From this day forward, know that the Republic of Argentina will abandon the historical neutrality that once defined it and will stand at the forefront of the struggle in defence of freedom.
As Thomas Paine once said: *“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”*
May God bless the Argentine people and all the peoples of the world.
And may the forces of heaven be with us.
**¡Viva la libertad, carajo!**
Thank you very much.