Don’t Cry for Milei, Argentina

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram  and Iggy Rodriguez

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jul 23 2026 (IPS) - Sunday’s World Cup final focused world attention on the stench of corruption, past and current, surrounding some of its main protagonists, including Argentina, and the presidents of FIFA, Argentina and the main host nation.

Messi football

Nick Corbishley has exposed the corruption of World Cup football and Argentina’s Milei government, enthusiastically supported by US President Trump’s ‘Donroe Doctrine’.

In the run-up, Argentina committed the most fouls — largely in midfield to disrupt their opponents’ play — but only received a controversial red card in the final. It had the most opponents’ goals disallowed but never conceded a penalty.

Of course, there are always subjective elements in applying football rules, and it is difficult to prove foul play. But it is suspicious when referees refuse to use a video-assisted referee (VAR) to check for fouls.

In Argentina’s first game, Messi stepped on an Algerian opponent’s Achilles tendon with his studs up. Such an offence would typically get a red card, but in this case, there was no card or VAR check.

As many presume, FIFA would not allow the biggest star of world football, now playing in the US league, to get a match ban at the start of the tournament; it would have been a business disaster.

Many believe the ‘inconsistent’ use of rules and VAR checks helped Argentina reach yet another World Cup final. With VAR, the inconsistent application of rules and procedures, such as awarding cards, can tip games with narrow margins in a team’s favour.

Considering the history of FIFA corruption and its willingness to bend rules at President Trump’s behest, such suspicions are rife. Worse, the Argentine Football Association is reportedly under Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation for fraud and money laundering.

While controversial refereeing and VAR decisions were common in this tournament, Argentina has been accused more than any other team. Many believe the level football field was tilted to favour Argentina and its superstar, Messi.

Such advantages only work at the World Cup level if the team is highly competent and competitive, which Argentina certainly is. The latest World Cup has seriously tarnished the reputation of FIFA and football itself.

Billionaire haven

Meanwhile, Argentine President Javier Milei is trying to remove most remaining restrictions on foreign ownership of Argentine land.

A day after the England semi-final, the Argentine Senate began debating Milei’s bill on the “inviolability of private property”. If passed, it would repeal a 2011 law limiting the acquisition and ownership of rural land by foreigners.

As foreign purchases of Argentine land surged after its late 20th century crisis, its Congress limited sales to foreigners.

Already, 13.2 million hectares, or 5% of Argentina, are foreign owned. The Milei government now wants to eliminate remaining restrictions on land sales to foreigners.

Foreign ownership of Argentine land is concentrated in specific areas such as Patagonia, rich in energy and mineral resources. Once approved, the bill will allow foreigners to own such strategic areas with water, minerals and foreign borders.

Peter Thiel, famous for arguing ‘competition is for losers’, is promoting the privatisation of public land by creating charter cities such as Prospera Inc in Honduras.

Thiel recently moved to Buenos Aires, where he is believed to be advising the Milei government. Apparently, he envisions Argentina as an economic haven cum ‘laboratory’ for his investments.

Forbes reports Milei is trying to attract billionaires like Thiel to his “new land of freedom” with a full-citizenship-by-investment scheme and by eliminating property ownership restrictions.

Milei scolded Argentina’s footballers and fans for protesting Britain’s ongoing rule of the Falkland Islands at the England semi-final as his government tries to sell off the most valuable rural Argentine land.

As the dispute between Honduras and Prospera Inc. has shown, once sovereign land is transferred into foreign hands protected by international investment treaties, getting that land back is nearly impossible.

From Nazi to Zionist refuge

Milei enjoys Netanyahu’s and Trump’s support, both of whom want him to stay in power.

Asked why he supported Argentina in the World Cup, Netanyahu made clear it had more to do with Milei than Messi.

“Milei is a huge friend of Israel”, recently calling himself the “most Zionist president on the planet”.

Patagonia was identified as a possible site for the establishment of a Jewish State by Theodor Herzl, the father of political Zionism, in the late 19th century. After World War Two, the southern cone of South America became a haven for fascist war criminals fleeing Europe.

Milei’s government has cut public spending and welfare benefits for Argentine citizens. During the last Argentine summer from December to February, vast Patagonian forests went up in flames after Milei cut Argentina’s fire-fighting budget by 80%!

Many believe the government has agreed to allow Israeli settlement on the scorched earth after an Israeli was caught setting fire to 17,000 acres in Chilean Patagonia over a decade ago.

Milei has already signed agreements with the Netanyahu government to grant Israeli citizens living in Argentina access to all government benefits, including pensions, maternity leave and disability allowance.

In the final, Argentina went down to Spain, one of a few European countries to oppose Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the US-Israeli war against Iran, despite repeated threats by Trump.

Despite Spain’s conquistador and fascist past, much of the world supported Spain today against the land of Maradona and Messi, two of the most popular icons of the beautiful game.

Iggy Rodriguez is a Filipino artist and football enthusiast. His solo exhibition in Kuala Lumpur, ‘Under a Borrowed Sun’, runs till mid-August.

Western Imperialist Unity Split by Rival Priorities

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram  and Nurina Malek

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jul 14 2026 (IPS) - Trump insists the West must unite on his terms against the Rest, particularly China and Iran. Europe, however, wants greater Trump support for Ukraine’s Zelensky regime to replace Putin’s leadership of Russia.

Europe v China?

In June 2026, European officials accused China of training Russian military personnel to fight in Ukraine.

After Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s Munich appeal for Western unity based on shared race, culture and imperial history, this appears to have been a European effort to strengthen its alliance with the US.

The unsubstantiated charge of Chinese military support to Russia against Ukraine, a claim never corroborated by Kyiv, is expected to worsen relations between Europe and China.

Portraying China as a strategic threat to Europe justifies greater belligerence against Beijing. It no longer seems to matter that China has never endorsed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

However, China retains strong ties with Kyiv, calling for a ceasefire and political settlement, while repeatedly offering to mediate between the warring neighbours.

The G7summit of the seven largest rich economies in late June followed the EU in trying to consolidate Western strategic solidarity against Russia, China and Iran.

With financial crises from 1997 threatening G7 legitimacy, then US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers initiated the G20. But the recently expanded G7 role marginalises the more inclusive but less amenable G20.

Neoliberalism over

Since the 2008 global – actually Western – financial crisis, Europe has become even more protectionist.

More Chinese goods have entered European markets, with prices and quality that most others cannot match. For years, Western leaders happily enabled this by liberalising trade, appreciating cheap Chinese imports, for keeping inflation low.

After decades of state-encouraged investment, China’s still growing industrial capacity now supplies the world, enabled by Western-drafted WTO rules.

Before Trump 2.0, Washington had imposed investment restrictions, Section 301 measures, sanctions, tariffs and more following Obama’s ‘pivot to Asia’. Facing less US market access, more Chinese exports have gone elsewhere.

European industry can no longer compete, even where it once led. Instead of neoliberal WTO trade liberalisation, EU protectionism supposedly ‘levels the playing field’.

US advisers increasingly warn European officials that China’s industrial ‘overcapacity’ will soon scale up the ‘China shock’ in most industrially significant supply chains.

China now refines and processes most of the world’s ‘rare earth’ minerals, exercising near-monopsonistic leverage over suppliers by processing at scale at much lower cost.

With China successfully countering Trump’s trade policies, Western leaders worry Beijing will abuse its near-monopolistic control of rare earth elements, which downstream industries need.

Jeffrey Sachs argues that New York and London rare earth market reactions indicate major institutional investors view recent developments as significant.

G7 vs China

Protecting European industry, labour and  economic sovereignty is now constrained by the rules Western leaders put in place over decades, often coordinated by the OECD.

Splits inside the EU soon extended beyond commercial faultlines to ostensible strategic interests defined by the fluid geopolitics after the first Cold War.

German car exports to China have been superseded by Chancellor Metz’s military Keynesianism, in line with Trump’s demand for NATO allies to spend much more on the military to greatly strengthen Western military power and global dominance.

French President Emmanuel Macron’s earlier push for unaligned European ‘strategic autonomy’ has given way to a NATO+ strategic view embracing Western imperialism.

Meanwhile, smaller EU member states remain cautious, fearing the collateral effects of new Western ambitions, such as Chinese restrictions on imports that Europe depends on.

Great power rivalry

With the Iran war refusing to fade from daily headlines despite Trump’s on-off-on ceasefire, other myths are also evaporating. Few still believe Israel will accept a ‘two-state solution’ or that peace will prevail between trading partners.

NATO, OECD, G7, EU and other such arrangements have become variable links in the hegemonic US-led bloc. Such coalitions – including Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan – were never seamless together or fully fit-for-purpose.

Trump expects unilateral US aggression against Washington’s chosen enemies must be fully supported and subsidised by NATO allies, with reluctance deemed disloyal, even antagonistic.

Countries not aligned with the major poles may be alternatively courted and coerced by rival poles, especially by the affluent West. Cooperation among others may be seen and portrayed as proof of the existence of an antagonistic bloc.

Multiple poles are likely to coalesce into the West versus the Rest, competing for support and influence, as those courted try to gain from their suitors.

With reduced  government engagement and less sustained inter-state cooperation and order, disruptions in an increasingly anarchic world economy have required governments to prioritise resilience as businesses, consumers and labour face rising costs.

As the US and its allies weaponise economic rules and arrangements to discipline both friends and foes, the world economy is slowing unevenly as prices rise sporadically.

The US-Israel war on Iran underscores how current conflicts can develop in unpredictable ways as states and other significant non-state ‘actors’ innovate strategically in unexpected conditions.

Related IPS Articles

• Trump Rips off Velvet Glove from Mailed Fist

• Rubio Seduces Europe with Imperial Nostalgia

• Massive US War Spending Hike Raises Debt, Taxes, Doubts

• Trump Reboots US National Security Strategy, Foreign Policy

• World Must Pay to Make America Great Again

• Trump Accord Sows Discord in US Empire

• Trump Wants World to Subsidise US Empire

• Will Europe Wage Peace?

• European Duplicity Undermines Anti-Pandemic Efforts

• Globalization, Inequality, Convergence, Divergence

• Trump’s Trade War in Perspective

• Opinion: Global Justice Necessary For Lasting Peace

Should BRICS+ Lead the Global South?

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram  and Nurina Malek

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jun 26 2026 (IPS) - Leadership of the Global South has gradually declined since the 1980s. Many hope BRICS+ will fill the vacuum, but its purpose and membership suggest such hopes may be misplaced. A repurposed Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) offers the best way forward.

Golden Age

The post-World War Two (WW2) Keynesian ‘Golden Age’ saw significant postwar reconstruction and post-colonial development, especially in South Asia.

In 1964, developing countries formed the G77 caucus and created the UN Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) within the UN system.

In 1974, the UN General Assembly called for a New International  Economic Order (NIEO) after President Nixon ended the 1944 Bretton Woods international monetary system in 1971.

In 1979, the US Fed responded to Western stagflation by sharply raising interest rates. This triggered fiscal and sovereign debt crises in Latin America and Africa, forcing many to seek IMF emergency funds to cope.

Meanwhile, the Thatcher-Reagan-inspired counter-revolution against Keynesian and development economics led to ‘neoliberal’ Washington Consensus policy reforms, deepening economic contraction.

At New York’s Plaza Hotel, the US got its G7 caucus of the world’s 7 largest allied economies to address its overvalued dollar by requiring the currencies of Japan and Germany to appreciate sharply.

G7-encouraged financial liberalisation, especially the IMF-promoted opening of national capital accounts in the 1990s, increased the frequency and impact of crises.

With its legitimacy at stake following the East Asian, Russian, and other financial crises of 1997-99, G7 finance ministers agreed in 1999 to create a more inclusive G20 grouping of finance ministers of the world’s 20 largest economies.

Soon after the 2008 global (actually Western) financial crisis began, the first G20 leaders’ summit convened in the White House in November 2008.

Making BRICS

‘BRICs’ was coined in late 2001 by then-Goldman Sachs Global Economic Research head Jim O’Neill, referring to Brazil, Russia, India, and China.

Ostensibly to include Africa, the BRICs invited South Africa to join, creating BRICS as a coalition of the five more independent large ‘emerging market’ economies.

Also serving as a caucus within the G20, BRICS has tried to improve international monetary and financial relations. It has since admitted more nations into an expanded BRICS+ with two tiers of affiliation.

To be sure, neither BRICS nor BRICS+ was ever intended to represent the even more diverse interests of the entire Global South. Understandably, it serves its ‘financially significant’ developing economy members.

BRICS and the South

The BRICS promise a world less dominated by the rich and powerful nations of the Global North, mainly in the West.

The world has been dominated by the US since the end of WW2, and especially after the first Cold War. Despite occasional dissent, the US’s European NATO allies seem happy playing second fiddle.

Many developing countries have long felt that existing arrangements do not serve their best interests. The BRICS seem to offer some ‘voice’ and alternative bases for international economic cooperation.

BRICS has undoubtedly strengthened the Global South’s voice and developed new arrangements to support developing country interests, especially to finance development.

The BRICS have also advocated on specific international issues for the Global South. All five BRICS countries have also led developing-country groupings on specific issues with varying degrees of success.

Unsurprisingly, many developing countries appreciate the BRICS role in such matters, with some choosing to publicly align with and even affiliate with it.

However, the BRICS expansion into BRICS+ is unlikely to resolve many problems faced by developing nations due to international power asymmetries and imbalances.

Potential and problems

The diversity of the Global South complicates any grouping’s claim to represent it.

BRICS+ brings together countries with very different political and economic systems, priorities and aspirations, including development goals and interests.

This diversity enhances BRICS’ broad appeal but also makes it difficult to ensure it becomes an effective platform consistently advocating all developing nations’ interests.

This challenge becomes more apparent when the interests and ambitions of weaker developing countries are compared with those of the major BRICS+ powers.

Many vulnerable nations are preoccupied with food security, structural change, deindustrialisation, environmental sustainability, planetary heating, and financialization.

Meanwhile, BRICS members seek to pursue their own strategic interests, garner finance and investments, boost their exports and increase their influence internationally.

Such objectives are not inherently contradictory, but rarely fully aligned. This makes it more difficult to pursue shared interests, advocate collectively, and sustain cooperation.

BRICS+ membership by invitation also limits its effective accountability to the Global South. It is unrealistic to expect BRICS+ to consistently advocate for the full range of concerns of all developing countries, especially the poorest and least influential.

The Global South should undoubtedly try to benefit from the economic weight and voice of BRICS+. But it can best advance its shared interests with its own voice and organised strength via a revived NAM, repurposed for peace, development and justice.

Related IPS Articles

• A New Non-Alignment for the Global South

• Can East Asia Show the Way?

• Will Europe Wage Peace?

• New Geopolitics Worse for Global South

• The Global South in the New Cold War

• IMF Urges Non-alignment in Second Cold War

• Deepening Stagflation: Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire

• War or Peace, Barbarism or Hope