Populist Left-Wing Foreign Policy: The Case Of Kirchnerism In Argentina

Resumen Este artículo aborda el tema de la política exterior populista en Argentina y emplea una metodología de investigación de múltiples métodos que combina el análisis del discurso, el análisis de la política exterior y la reconstrucción política histórica del kirchnerismo. Teóricamente, nos referimos al populismo como un “enfoque ideacional” y consideramos las líneas temáticas de Destradi y Plegaman para investigar el populismo en la política mundial. A lo largo del artículo, sostenemos que la política exterior populista de izquierda no discrimina la cooperación internacional y la globalización per se, pero en una visión maniquea del mundo, critica a los países occidentales ricos y propone la creación de nuevas alianzas regionales. Palabras claves Populismo, política exterior, Kirchnerismo, Relaciones Internacionales Abstract This article addresses the issue of populist foreign policy in Argentina and employs a multi-methods research that combines discourse analysis, foreign policy analysis, and historical political reconstruction of Kirchnerism. Theoretically, we refer to populism as an “Ideational Approach” and we consider Destradi and Plegaman’s thematic lines in order to investigate populism in world politics. Throughout the paper, we argue that left-wing populist foreign policy does not discriminate against international cooperation and globalization per se but in a Manichean vision of the world, it criticizes western rich countries, and proposes the creation of new regional alliances. Keywords Populism; Foreign Policy; Kirchnerism; International Relations. POLÍTICA EXTERIOR POPULISTA DE IZQUIERDA: EL CASO DEL KIRCHNERISMO EN ARGENTINA Referencia: Colalongo, R. – Donato, S. (2021). Populist Left-Wing Foreign Policy: The Case Of Kirchnerism In Argentina. Cultura Latinoamericana, 34 (2), pp. 24-47. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14718/CulturaLatinoam.2021.34.2.2 25 POPULIST LEFT-WING FOREIGN POLICY: THE CASE OF KIRCHNERISM IN ARGENTINA Rodolfo Colalongo * Universidad Externado de Colombia Stellamarina Donato * * Università LUMSA DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14718/CulturaLatinoam.2021.34.2.2 Introduction Populism is not a new phenomenon. It has been associated with the malfunctioning of democracy and it has been perceived as the result of institutional weakness with reference to underdeveloped countries. * Ph.D in Sociology, Theory and History from the University of Salerno, Italy. He is currently a research professor of the PhD in Political Studies at the Faculty of Finance, Government and International Relations of the Universidad Externado de Colombia. His research interests are: International Relations, Latin American Foreign Policy and Populism. He is currently working on several research projects related to populism and IR as well as the link between populism and democracy. He has published several articles and book chapters on these topics. E-mail: rodo. [email protected] ** Ph.D candidate in “Development and well-being of both the individual and the organizations” at LUMSA University of Rome, Italy. Her research interests encompass EU-Mediterranean policies with a focus on migration and populism, and gender and policies with a focus on women’s rights and gender -based violence against women. She is MC Member (Italy) and co-gender advisor to COST Action CA19112 Women on the Move (WEMov). She is also a member of the Research Unit: “Protagonismo e coscienza del femminile nel nuovo Millennio. La narrazione della violenza di genere in un tempo senza utopie” (LUMSA University of Rome) and founding member of “Narratives and Social Changes-International Research Group” (University of Salerno). From January 2020 to June 2020 she was a Visiting PhD researcher at the University of Zaragoza (UNIZAR). From January 2018 to June 2018, she was a research intern at the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, where she worked on a Project about Populism and attitudes toward the EU in Central Europe. In 2017, she obtained her master’s degree in International Relations from the University of Bologna. In 2015, she graduated in Political Science from the University of Naples l’Orientale. ORCID ID: 0000-0003-2382-3950. E-mail: [email protected] El presente artículo es resultado de un proyecto de investigación desarrollado en la Universidad Externado de Colombia y la Universidad Lumsa de Italia. Fecha de recepción: 23 de julio de 2021; fecha de aceptación: 30 de agosto de 2021 26 Cultura Latinoam. Volumen 34, número 2, julio-diciembre 2021, pp. 24-47 RODOLFO COLALONGO - STELLAMARINA DONATO Latin America has always been seen as a pioneer in the emergence of populism —understood either as “post-democracy”(Crouch, 2004) or “disfigured democracy” (Urbinati, 2014)—; in a nutshell, as “degeneration or pathology of democracy” (Anselmi, 2018). Despite it has mostly been a Latin American feature, populism became a global issue when it appeared in the consolidated democracies of the West, especially with the arrival of Donald Trump as president of the USA and Boris Johnson as British premier, right after the approval of Brexit. Further, the populist phenomenon has also spread in other European democracies. For instance, in Italy —with its Northern League-Five Star Movement—, in Hungary —with Orban’s political rule— and in Poland —with PiS (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość Law and Justice),— its right-wing populist party. These premises demonstrate that populism has become a global phenomenon and it’s here to stay (Destradi & Plagemann, 2019). As in Anselmi (Anselmi, 2018, p. 1) it is impossible to dissociate reflection on contemporary democracy from consideration on the populist phenomenon: “we are witnessing a social and political dynamic which started some decades ago, that appears periodically and is of a global nature, as it manifests itself in very different geographical contexts”. Thus, as populist movements rise to power, the implications on foreign policy and international relations —IR— became more relevant than ever, especially in Latin American countries “where populists have long held political power and have influenced foreign policy in practice” (Chryssogelos, 2017, p. 1). For instance, although early studies focused on explaining the emergence, little was said about the relationship between populism and foreign policy, or even between populism and IR (Destradi & Plagemann). Stengel (Stengel et al., 2019) asserted that, despite significant attention has been paid to the phenomenon, populism world politics remains underexplored, much to the detriment of both IR and populism itself. Moreover, we make reference to Alan (Burrier, 2019) who did a systematic and in-depth analysis comparing foreign policies in 6 Latin American countries (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Nicaragua and El Salvador) during 3 decades and collated countries with extended histories of populism (the treatment group) with peer nations where populism has been notably absent (the control group), in spite of achieving “a balance between generalizability and depth”, the study had two conceptual limitations. The first refers to the definition of populism only as a political strategy, which makes it very difficult to identify a populist foreign policy. The second was only to work with 27 POPULIST LEFT-WING FOREIGN POLICY: THE CASE OF KIRCHNERISM IN ARGENTINA the classic variables of nationalism and protectionism, thus leaving aside —in our view— other variables that are also important for IR such as cooperation and conflict. Furthermore, we consider the work of Daniel (Wajner, 2019) who studied the foreign policy of Latin American populist governments but compared the formulation of the foreign relations of the three great populist periods in the region: “classic populism” (1930s1950s), “neo-liberal neo-populism” (Mudde), and “progressive neo-populism” (2000s). In this case, he compared periods trying to respond to “how these regimes conducted their foreign policies on the hemispheric, interregional, regional/sub-regional, and global/ trans-national levels”. While expanding the study variables with respect to Burrier, it tells us little or nothing about what it understands by populism and how to identify a foreign policy as populist, although it does so in a systematic and cohesive way. In relation to the criticism concerning unclear and not specific concept of populism, it should be added that most studies do not try to determine whether the foreign policy of a populist government is also a populist one. For instance, there is a lack in studies that focus on how existing characteristics of populism are elucidating the formulation and application of nation-states’ foreign policies. Moreover, in their comparative research on Carlos Menem Argentinian foreign policy (1989-1999) —considered a right-wing populist government— and the one of Hugo Chávez (1999-2013) in Venezuela – classified as left-wing populist leader, Leslie and Cameron (Wehner & Thies, 2020, p. 2) argued that “a comparison of two cases of populisms can shed light on the type of international behaviour they seek to advance and discredit the notion that there is only one type of populist foreign policy”. Although the authors did a similar job to the one proposed here, they approached the study of foreign policy from the perspective of the role-played by populist leaders, mainly, at the international level. For these reasons, the idea of the present work lies in the attempt to further develop the study carried out by Sandra and Johannes (Destradi & Plagemann, 2019) in the specific case of Argentina. Through an analysis of the discourse of the main Argentinian presidential speeches that are about foreign policy and world politics of the populist governments of Néstor and Cristina Kirchner 2003-2015, we aim at contributing to the analysis of the thematic lines present in the literature, but we want to highlight the reasons why we consider that their foreign policy was populist. 28 Cultura Latinoam. Volumen 34, número 2, julio-diciembre 2021, pp. 24-47 RODOLFO COLALONGO - STELLAMARINA DONATO Our research aim and method This paper aims to investigate if the Kirchnerist populist foreign policy follows the thematic lines identified by Sandra and Johannes (Destradi & Plagemann, 2019): a) More Conflict-Prone Bilateral Relations; b) A weakening of global governance and its institutions; c) A more centralized and personalized foreign policymaking; and d) the development of a new international partnership (i.e. UNASUR, ALBA) while weakening links to traditional western partners. In this sense, our main research question is how did the populist foreign policy under Kirchnerism follow the lines of Destradi and Plagemann? How populism comes to determine some of the foreign policy arguments of Kirchnerism? Therefore, to reach our point, we have to determinate first whether and why the Kirchnerism foreign policy was populist. In order to fulfil our research goal, this article combines discourse and foreign policy analysis and historical political reconstruction of Kirchnerism (2003-2015) in Argentina. We consider discourse analysis in order to grasp a corpus of statements which, the presidents used as a form of engaging discontinuity over time and space and in terms of technology of power (Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2008; Foucault, 1981). Whereas, foreign policy analysis and historical political reconstructions serve the aim of adding context and qualitative, making sense of the discourses that ultimately led to specific foreign policies (Hudson & Day, 2019) We decided to consider those thematic lines of Sandra and Johannes (Destradi & Plagemann, 2019) and in this study we argue that this model Fig. 1 explains how foreign policy decisions have worked during Kirchnerism in Argentina. 29 POPULIST LEFT-WING FOREIGN POLICY: THE CASE OF KIRCHNERISM IN ARGENTINA Figure. 1: Populist Foreign Policy (PFF) in Argentina (20032015): how foreign policy works in a left-wing populist regime Source: Authors’ elaboration. Conceptualizing Populism and Foreign Policy Populism has been studied and defined in various ways, responding to different contexts, case studies and the affiliation of the authors addressing the phenomenon. However, it is possible to establish a systematization of the state of art of the contemporary debate used by the academic community. Authors such as Paul (Taggart, 2000); Kurt (Weyland, 2001); Raúl (Madrid, 2008); Carlos and Enrique (de la Torre & Peruzzotti, 2008); Kenneth (Roberts, 2008); Robert (Barr, 2009); Robert (Jansen, 2011); Steven and James (Levitsky & Loxton, 2013), among others, consider populism as a political mobilization, political style or political strategy —their conceptual similarities allow to cluster them in the same group— that consists of applying redistributive and nationalist economic policies (Weyland), of organizing the state structure in a personalistic way that derives from the direct exercise of public power (political style). And, finally, they constantly appeal to the people, seeking their political mobilization through the use of patronage networks and plebiscites. 30 Cultura Latinoam. Volumen 34, número 2, julio-diciembre 2021, pp. 24-47 RODOLFO COLALONGO - STELLAMARINA DONATO On the other hand, Ernesto (Laclau, 2005); Hawkins (2010); and Casullo (Casullo), among others, understand populism as a political discourse, that is, a way of saying and presenting things. They use a rhetoric that constructs politics in terms of an antagonistic struggle between the people and the elite. In this way, society is polarized in two large antagonistic fields —although they also support the idea of a thin-centered ideology of Mudde and Kaltwasser, they highlight the role of that ideology in the discursive construction of a political reality—. Laclau (Laclau), instead, proposes that this phenomenon is manifested as a political logic, as a way of constructing the political, of forming the collective identities, that is, the formation of the people as a political-historical actor although it emphasizes the transcendental role that fulfills the political speech in the construction of the collective identities. On the other side, authors such as Mudde (Mudde); Stanley (Stanley); Zanatta (2014); Rovira Kaltwasser and Hawkins (Hawkins & Rovira Kaltwasser); see populism as an ideological phenomenon focused on a set of ideas characterized by an antagonism between people and elite, where the former holds sovereignty and the latter corruption. In their perspective, populism needs thick ideologies such as liberalism or socialism to make sense of their government programs. This is the reason why right-wing or left-wing populism can exist. Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2017) argue that it is feasible to create a “definition that is able to accurately capture the core of all major past and present manifestations of populism, while still precise enough to exclude clearly non-populist phenomena”. In recent decades, a number of social scientists have chosen to define populism as an “ideational approach” by conceiving it as a discourse, an ideology or a way of conceiving the world. Far from reaching a consensus on the precise definition of the populist phenomenon (especially in language and peripheral elements), the “ideational approach” managed to share a number of key elements within the different definitions such as the reference to a “people” denouncing the existence of an “elite”. (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2017). Defining populism as a “thin-centered ideology” is useful in order to understand “the oft-alleged malleability of the concept in question” (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2017). The authors understand ideology as a set of normative ideas about the nature of man and society as well as organizations and their objectives. In simple words, “it is a view of how the world is and should be” (Mudde & Rovira 31 POPULIST LEFT-WING FOREIGN POLICY: THE CASE OF KIRCHNERISM IN ARGENTINA Kaltwasser, 2017). Unlike “full ideologies” (socialism, liberalism and fascism among others), the authors said, “thincentered ideology” like populism has a restricted morphology that, in most cases, must be accompanied by a “full ideology” that completes it and allows to promote concrete political projects. Therefore, “by itself populism can offer neither complex nor comprehensive answers to the political questions that modern societies generate”(Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2017). According to the authors, this way of defining populism allows it to take different forms that are consistent in the way the key elements of populism appear to relate to other concepts, “forming interpretative frames that might be more or less appealing to different societies” (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser, 2017). The plurality of definitions on populism gives an idea of the extension and density of a phenomenon that affects all the activities of a State. Within these activities that of foreign policy is crucial to pinpoint. For instance, Verbeek and Zaslove (Verbeek & Zaslove) refer to foreign policy as a fairly common, though much-debated, concept. They understand foreign policy generally as “the intentions and actions of an actor directed at the actor’s external world” (Verbeek & Zaslove, 2017). In most cases, the actor refers to sovereign states (Neack, 2008). They are also aware that nowadays the concept of traditional foreign policy (focused only on the external actions of the state) generates a series of theoretical difficulties. In particular, because a succession of new non-state, sub-national and supranational actors have emerged who would be able to exercise or apply a foreign policy, that is, a set of actions aimed at pursuing their interests at the global level. In this case, and to make it clear from the beginning, it is understood that foreign policy is exclusive to sovereign states and only they can conduct it through diplomacy. Colacrai and Lechini (Colacrai & Lechini, 1994) define foreign policy as “a public policy that encompasses the set of decisions and actions taken by the rulers of a nationstate to operate in the international system, in response to internal and external demands and determinants”. It is implemented through a programme that has a dual function: on the one hand, to fulfil the aims or goals proposed and, on the other, to solve the problems that arise in the international sphere, whether they are new or have been caused by previous administrations. The advance towards the theory of foreign policy was given by the approach of neoclassical realism. This “emerging school of foreign 32 Cultura Latinoam. Volumen 34, número 2, julio-diciembre 2021, pp. 24-47 RODOLFO COLALONGO - STELLAMARINA DONATO policy theory” (Lobell et al., 2009) as some authors call it “interlink the structural-systemic qualities of realism with a specialized approach to the elite decision-makers, the FPE - Foreign Policy Executive” (Monroy Hernández, 2014). As we mentioned earlier, foreign policy is composed of internal and external variables. With the study of domestic factors, i.e. “ideological differences, internal political pressures or the psychology of the leader” (Rose, 1998), researchers, in the fields of foreign policy studies, are trying to establish the extent to which they can influence or impact foreign policy. External factors are determined by the international system, which is made up of a set of state and non-state actors competing with each other in the pursuit of their own interests. This competition can be a condition or an opportunity for a state depending on its foreign policy objective, its material and resource mobilization capacities. Returning to the domestic variables, it is important to highlight the role of the human factor which is the one that makes the decisions in matters of foreign policy. In this respect, it is pertinent to point out that this idea of the human factor emanates from “an anthropology of International Relations, which places man at the centre of the study of this discipline and of foreign policy, whether acting alone or in a group” (Monroy Hernández, 2014). According to Alexander George (George, 1991), the political behaviour of the executive power holder will depend on his cognitive beliefs, that is, his ideology, vision of the world and beliefs about political strategies and tactics, which he has acquired throughout his personal and political life. Colacrai and Lechini express a similar idea, arguing that, in the Argentine case, especially during the government of Carlos Menem (1989-1999), “the decision-making process was concentrated in the figure of the President of the Nation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who were the ultimate decision-making unit” (Colacrai & Lechini, 1994). Therefore, we believe there is a link between populism understood as ideology (thin-centered) and foreign policy. What’s Kirchnerism and why they were populists? We discuss its development in the analysis of the three administrations of the Kirchners, first Nestor and then Cristina (2003-2015). Kirchnerism’s followers argue that it successfully boosted the country from its worst crisis (Weyland) to set into motion a virtuous model of growth and social inclusion. Its adversaries, instead, consider the period as a populist backslide characterized by economic mishandling, 39 POPULIST LEFT-WING FOREIGN POLICY: THE CASE OF KIRCHNERISM IN ARGENTINA social and economic construction, we did it with all the Argentines (Fernández, December 10, 2007). This inaugurated a period characterized by a high level of political confrontation that led Cristina’s government to defy directly the national media and the countryside (agro-industrial sector) where both would go on to constitute the local ELITE which was identified with the concentration of political and economic power in the country. At an external level, the confrontation took place against a group of international creditors, called “Vulture Funds”, who refused to be included in the renegotiation of the foreign debt and decided to threaten the national government in court for the payment of the bonds owed. She continues to highlight the issue of debt relief with the IMF and the need to continue with an economic development model with reasonable autonomy “in a globalized world”. Two key aspects during the previous presidency, and which also seem to be so for President Cristina. She shows her Manichean vision of the international reality by leaning on the External Villain14, the International Monetary Fund, and adding another, already known, globalization. Although the latter is not a global institution, a country or a group of agents that possess economic power, but rather a process that allowed the consolidation of the neoliberal system and its brutal concentration of world wealth and therefore of the increase in inequality, the president will treat it as if it were. Always associating it with the External Villain. In other words, globalization as such is part of the evils to be eradicated in order to give back to the People their condition of sovereignty, understood as the expression of the general will and of common people who lost their economic rights because of this process. Their idea of inserting themselves into the world would be through regional organizations such as MERCOSUR and the recently created UNASUR (Union of South American Nations), which was intended to function as a space for dialogue on the problems and challenges they shared as a region, but also served as a place for populist consolidation. In particular among the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela that took advantage of the ideological closeness to join efforts in the national, regional and international 14. It is that international agent that seeks the domination and conquest of the people understood in sovereign terms, in: Maria E. Casullo, Por qué funciona el populismo? El discurso que sabe construir explicaciones convincentes de un mundo en crisis (Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores Argentina, 2019). 40 Cultura Latinoam. Volumen 34, número 2, julio-diciembre 2021, pp. 24-47 RODOLFO COLALONGO - STELLAMARINA DONATO strengthening of their administrations. In the literature15 were known as the “Left-Wing Populisms; Left Populisms or Inclusionary Populisms”. Cristina had a concept of people as a Nation (homeland)16 rather than as ordinary people. Although both conceptions are present throughout the speeches of both leaders, the truth is that one conception always prevails over the other. For instance, Néstor had a vision of the People more oriented to the Common People and Cristina more similar to the Nation (homeland). This was particularly evident in her foreign policy, which permanently sought to guarantee national autonomy by strengthening links with emerging global actors such as Russia and China, which were hailed as states that respected popular sovereignty and sought to do productive business for the Argentine people. And, at the regional level, the same was done with MERCOSUR and UNASUR along with the relationship of brotherhood with Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela. The themes that marked her 8 years of government, according to theirs more than 23 speeches that speak about foreign relations, were; Regional integration as a barrier to external threats17; Reform of multilateral credit organizations18; Shared responsibility between central and peripheral nations19; UN reform that privileges a few20; Food security 15. Y. Stavrakakis, A. Kioupkiolis, G. Katsambekis, N. Nikisianis, & T. Siomos, ‘Contemporary Left-wing Populism in Latin America: Leadership, Horizontalism, and Postdemocracy in Chávez’s Venezuela’, Latin American Politics and Society, 58(3), 2016, pp. 51-76. Doi:10.1111/ j.1548-2456.2016.00318.x 16. Mensaje de la Presidenta a la Asamblea Legislativa del Congreso de la Nación en su asunción del mando, 10 de diciembre de 2007. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/asuncion-decristina-kirchner-10-de-diciembre-de-2007/ (6 march 2020). 17. Discurso de la presidenta Cristina Fernández de Kirchner en el acto de apertura de la xxxv Cumbre del Mercosur, Tucumán 01 de julio de 2008. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/ discurso-de-cristinaen-la-cumbre-del-mercosur-2008/ (6 march 2020). 18. Mensaje de la presidenta Cristina Fernández de Kirchner a la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, Nueva York 23 de septiembre de 2008. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/ mensaje-de-cristina-ala-asamblea-general-de-la-onu-2008/ (7 march 2020). 19. Mensaje de la Presidenta Cristina Fernández de Kirchner en la Asamblea General de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas. 24 de septiembre de 2010. Nueva York. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/cfk-en-la-onu-mensaje-en-la-asamblea-general-de-2010/ (7 march 2020). 20. Discurso de la presidenta de la nación, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, en la 66a Asamblea General de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, en Nueva York. Miércoles, 21 de Septiembre de 2011. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/discurso-de-cristina-kirchner-66a-asambleageneral-de-la-organizacionde-las-naciones-unidas/ (9 march 2020). 41 POPULIST LEFT-WING FOREIGN POLICY: THE CASE OF KIRCHNERISM IN ARGENTINA of central countries21; Vulture funds22; Popular mandate23; Neoliberal policies and financial globalization as responsible for the deindustrialization of peripheral countries24; Environmental liabilities of developing countries25; The World (Wehner & Thies) vs Investment Funds (Vulture Funds)26; Regional Unity (Mercosur, Unasur, Celac)27; Democracy as an exercise of the popular will28; Risk Rating as Defenders of Investment Funds’ Interests29; The Need to Create a New World Order30; Paying to Vulture Funds would be to condemn the whole people to poverty31; UN General Assembly as the true sovereign of global democracy32; The Suffering History of our Peoples33; Regional Income 21. Foro del sector empresario de la cumbre del G-20. 03 de noviembre de 2011. Cannes, Francia. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/discurso-de-cristina-en-la-cumbre-del-g-20-2011-encannes/ (9 march 2020). 22. Mensaje de la Presidenta a la Asamblea Legislativa del Congreso de la Nación en su asunción del mando, 10 de diciembre de 2011. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/asuncion-decristinakirchner-10-de-diciembre-de-2011/ (9 march 2020). 23. Ídem. Mensaje de la Presidenta a la Asamblea Legislativa del Congreso de la Nación en su asunción del mando, 10 de diciembre de 2011. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/asuncion-de-cristinakirchner-10-de-diciembre-de-2011/ (9 march 2020). 24. Discurso de la presidenta cristina fernandez de kirchner en la 67°asamblea general de naciones unidas 2012. Available at: https://www.casarosada.gob.ar/informacion/archivo/26102-67a-asamblea-general-de-las-naciones-unidas-discurso-de-la-presidenta-de-la-nacion (10 march 2020). 25. Discurso de CFK en la Cumbre de Energía 2013 en Abu Dhabi. Martes 15 de Enero de 2013. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/cumbre-mundial-de-energia-2013-en-abu-dhabi/ (10 march 2020). 26. Quiero referirme a lo que ha sucedido hace unos días en Nueva York. Available at: https://www. cfkargentina.com/la-audiencia-con-los-fondos-buitres-en-ny-y-el-pago-de-la-deuda/ (13 march 2020). 27. Palabras de CFK en la cena en honor de la Presidenta de la República Federativa del Brasil Dilma Rousseff y su comitiva en el Museo del Bicentenario. Jueves, 25 de Abril de 2013. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/cristina-ofrecio-una-cena-de-honor-a-dilma-rousseff-y-su-comitiva/ (13 march 2020). 28. Palabras de CFK, en la clausura del XXIII Período Ordinario de Sesiones de la Conferencia General para la Proscripción de las Armas Nucleares en América Latina y el Caribe (OPANAL). Jueves, 22 de Agosto de 2013. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/cristina-cerro-la-conferencia-general-del-organismo-parala-proscripcion-de-las-armas-nucleares-en-america-latina-yel-caribe-opanal/ (14 march 2020). 29. Palabras de Cristina Fernández de Kirchner en la 68a Asamblea General de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, Nueva York. 24 de septiembre de 2013. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/cristina-68-asamblea-onu/ (14 march 2020). 30. Cristina en la cumbre G77+China «Hacia un nuevo orden mundial para vivir bien», en Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia. 15 de junio de 2014. Available at: https://www. cfkargentina.com/g77china-hacia-un-nuevo-orden-mundial-para-vivir-bien/ (14 march 2020). 31. Palabras de la Presidenta Cristina Kirchner en la cumbre BRICS con UNASUR en Brasilia, 16 de julio de 2014. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/cristina-kirchner-cumbre-bricsunasur-fondos-buitres/ (15 march 2020). 32. Palabras de Cristina Fernández de Kirchner ante la 69a Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas. Nueva York, 24 de septiembre de 2014. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/ cristina-kirchner-69asamblea-onu/ (15 march 2020). 33. Inauguramos la nueva sede Néstor Kirchner de Unasur, en el Centro del Mundo, en Quito. Viernes, 05 de Diciembre de 2014. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/inauguramos-lanueva-sede-nestorkirchner-de-unasur-en-el-centro-del-mundo-en-quito/ (16 march 2020). 42 Cultura Latinoam. Volumen 34, número 2, julio-diciembre 2021, pp. 24-47 RODOLFO COLALONGO - STELLAMARINA DONATO Distribution and Citizen Equality34; Hegemonic positions35; Global distributive inequality36. At the BRICS-UNASUR Summit held in Brasilia in July 2014, the BRICS summed up its foreign policy in a populist key: “The call to all countries is to join forces in this true crusade for a new global organization in political, economic and financial matters that will have positive social, political and cultural consequences for our peoples”. There was a clear idea of consolidating populism by uniting with other governments of similar political hues in order to continually sustain the defense of the rights of the people. Carlos de la Torre (de la Torre) made a similar argument when he analyzed Venezuela’s role within ALBA. The government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner deepened the foreign policy that began with her predecessor, Néstor Kirchner. It not only continued with its populist conception through a markedly dualistic vision of international reality represented by poor countries vs. rich ones, but also by identifying a global financial elite that operated against the interests of the people as a nation, undermining sovereignty and subjecting them to policies of misery and inequality in order to collect their debts. Figures such as vulture funds, the IMF and the world banks were used to name the global elite with the support of the US government. On the other hand, the figure of poor and rich states (us/them) served to justify their new international alliances in order to obtain greater national autonomy. However, its differentiation from the previous government in foreign affairs was in two matters. The first was that it had a clear vocation to modify the global governance and its institutions rather than weakening. It is evident that it was concerned with global issues such as climate change, terrorism, international trade, and peace and security, but not from the traditional institutional spaces, the UN, the WTO or the Security Council, but by strengthening international forums such as the G-20 and G-77, which served as spaces for more democratic and pluralistic discussion. They were also used to 34. Cristina en la 47 Cumbre de Jefes y Jefas de Estado del Mercosur, en Paraná, Entre Ríos, 17 de diciembre de 2014. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/cristina-en-la-47-cumbre-delmercosur-enparana-entre-rios/ (17 march 2020). 35. Discurso de la Presidenta en el Plenario de la 48o Cumbre de Mercosur en Brasilia. Available at: https://www.cfkargentina.com/plenario-de-la-48o-cumbre-de-mercosur-en-brasilia/ (17 march 2020). 36. Palabras de la Presidenta de la Nación, Dra. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, ante la 70° Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas, 28 de septiembre de 2015. Available at: https://www. cfkargentina.com/discurso-de-cristina-kirchner-en-la-70-asamblea-general-de-naciones-unidasonu/ (18 march 2020). 43 POPULIST LEFT-WING FOREIGN POLICY: THE CASE OF KIRCHNERISM IN ARGENTINA strengthen links with China and Russia. Clear competitors of the US in the international system. The other aspect has to do with the “building up a new international partnership while weakening links to traditional western partners which became a regional foreign priority”. To strengthen the links with the brother countries of the region but through UNASUR and MERCOSUR as the fundamental pillars of South American integration leaving aside others like the OAS or the Summit of the Americas. UNASUR had a short but intense life with large regional projects in the making. Although it continued to cultivate its bilateral relations with countries such as Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela. All, except Uruguay, are considered left-wing populist governments. Conclusions This paper argues that peculiarities in populist foreign policy were present at the times of Nestor and Cristina Kirchner. More specifically, through their declarations during relevant speeches at international stages it noticed that by enduring a sort of Manichean division of the world into good and bad categories, as in the people vs the elite, and poor vs rich countries; dramatic foreign policy consequences were developed. Thanks to this theoretical background and our case study, we have observed that populist foreign policy during Kirchnerism in Argentina has some interesting features to stress. For instance, our case study has shown how populist leaders with the clear intention of strengthening political-populist ties and sharing national experiences implement a process of international cooperation in their mandates and overcome national policies by reinforcing or creating regional alliances in contraposition to former wester ones. Moreover, internal and external variables were taken into account when designing the populist foreign policy, as the author of foreign policy points out (Colacrai & Lechini, 1994). In addition, in the analyzed speeches of the two leaders it is clear a reaction to the dynamics of globalization. Indeed, in the words of both presidents, globalization has undermined popular sovereignty at the expense of Argentine national autonomy, and it has also seriously damaged the national economic development of the country. Therefore, the culprit is the western imprinting or influence. Despite that the criticism of globalization is clear in the words of both 44 Cultura Latinoam. Volumen 34, número 2, julio-diciembre 2021, pp. 24-47 RODOLFO COLALONGO - STELLAMARINA DONATO Nestor and Cristina Kirchner, we argue that their populist governments design foreign policies capable of embracing populist strings even beyond domestic politics. Indeed, they are trying to modify the traditional international system creating another one which is closer to their national interests (popular sovereignty, national autonomy and national economic development) and reinforces the relationship with other similar populist governments, preferably in the same region. Despite the limits of our study, in terms of the time span analyzed and the case study, as we have discussed throughout the paper, our conclusions might suggest an explanatory model which could help to better understand the populist foreign policy during Kirchnerism in Argentina. Finally, our model, as in Fig. 1, could be used in other studies that research foreign policy in other left-wing populists’ power and regimes, especially in the Latin American region suggesting further studies on the topic. References Anselmi, M. (2018). Potipulism. An Introduction. Routledge. Arribas-Ayllon, M., & Walkerdine, V. (2008). Foucauldian Discourse Analysis. In C. Willing & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Phycology (pp. 91-108). SAGE. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607927.n6 Aytaç, S. E., & Öniş, Z. (2014). Varieties of Populism in a Changing Global Context: The Divergent Paths of Erdoğan and Kirchnerismo. Comparative Politics, 47(1), 41-59. https://doi. org/10.5129/001041514813623137 Barr, R. R. (2009). Populists, Outsiders and Anti-Establishment Politics. Party Politics, 15(1), 29-48. https://doi. org/10.1177/1354068808097890 Burrier, G. A. (2019). Populists and Foreign Policy: Evidence from Latin America. In F. Stengel, D. B. MacDonald, & D. Nabers (Eds.), Populism and World Politics: Exploring Interand Transnational Dimensions (pp. 165-193). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-04621-7 Casullo, M. E. (2019). ¿Por qué funciona el populismo? El discurso que sabe construir explicaciones convincentes de un mundo en crisis. Siglo XXI Editores. Chryssogelos, A. (2017). Populism in Foreign Policy. In: Oxford University Press. 45 POPULIST LEFT-WING FOREIGN POLICY: THE CASE OF KIRCHNERISM IN ARGENTINA Colacrai, M., & Lechini, G. (1994). La Política Exterior del Gobierno de Menem: seguimientos y reflexiones al medio mandato (1 ed.). Ediciones CERIR. Crouch, C. (2004). Post-Democracy. Polity. de la Torre, C. (2017). A Populist International?: ALBA’s Democratic and Autocratic Promotion. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 37, 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1353/sais.2017.0007 de la Torre, C., & Peruzzotti, E. (2008). El retorno del pueblo Populismo y nuevas democracias en América Latina (C. d. l. Torre & E. Peruzzotti, Eds. 1 ed.). Ministerio de Cultura del Ecuador. Destradi, S., & Plagemann, J. (2019). Populism and International Relations: (Un)predictability, personalisation, and the reinforcement of existing trends in world politics. Review of International Studies, 45(5), 711-730. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210519000184 Foucault, M. (1981). The Order of Discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), UNTYING THE TEXT: A Post-Structuralist Reader (1st ed., pp. 4879). Routledge & Kenan Paul. George, A. L. (1991). La Decisión presidencial en política exterior: el uso eficaz de la información y el asesoramiento. Grupo Editor Latinoamericano. Gervasoni, C., & Peruzzotti, E. (Eds.). (2015). ¿Década Ganada? Evaluando el Legado del Kirchnerismo. Debate. Hawkins, K. A., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2017). The Ideational Approach to Populism. Latin American Research Review, 52(4), 513528. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.25222/larr.85 Hudson, V. M., & Day, B. S. (2019). Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory (3rd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Jansen, R. S. (2011). Populist Mobilization: A New Theoretical Approach to Populism. Sociological Theory, 29(2), 75-96. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2011.01388.x Laclau, E. (2005). La razón populista. Fondo de Cultura Económica. Levitsky, S., & Loxton, J. (2013). Populism and competitive authoritarianism in the Andes. Democratization, 20(1), 107-136. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.738864 Levitsky, S., & Murillo, M. (2008). Argentina: From Kirchner to Kirchner. Journal of Democracy - J DEMOCR, 19, 16-30. https:// doi.org/10.1353/jod.2008.0030 Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N. M., & Taliaferro, J. W. (Eds.). (2009). Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511811869. 46 Cultura Latinoam. Volumen 34, número 2, julio-diciembre 2021, pp. 24-47 RODOLFO COLALONGO - STELLAMARINA DONATO Madrid, R. L. (2008). The Rise of Ethnopopulism in Latin America. World Politics, 60(3), 475-508. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0043887100009060 Miranda, R. A. (2004). Hegemón y Pivot: una combinación de presiones en torno a la agenda externa de la Argentina. Politikós: estudios políticos e internacionales, 3, 77-95. Monroy Hernández, M. C. (2014). Tomadores Humanos de Decisión. Plan Colombia: una estratégica política exterior de EE.UU. Universidad Sergio Arboleda. Mudde, C. (2004). The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541-563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. Neack, L. (2008). The new foreign policy: power seeking in a globalized era. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Neack, L., Hey, J. A. K., & Haney, P. J. (1995). Foreign policy analysis: continuity and change in its second generation. Prentice Hall. Roberts, K. M. (2006). Populism, Political Conflict, and Grass-Roots Organization in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 38(2), 127148. https://doi.org/10.2307/20433986 Rose, G. (1998). Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics, 51(1), 144-172. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0043887100007814 Simonoff, A. C. (Ed.). (2010). La Argentina y el mundo frente al bicentenario de la Revolución de Mayo: las relaciones exteriores argentinas desde la secesión de España hasta la actualidad. Edulp. Editorial de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Stanley, B. (2008). The thin ideology of populism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 13(1), 95-110. https://doi. org/10.1080/13569310701822289 Stavrakakis, Y., Kioupkiolis, A., Katsambekis, G., Nikisianis, N., & Siomos, T. (2016). Contemporary Left-wing Populism in Latin America: Leadership, Horizontalism, and Postdemocracy in Chᶥz’s Venezuela. Latin American Politics and Society, 58(3), 51-76. Stengel, F. A., MacDonald, D. B., & Nabers, D. (2019). Introduction: Analyzing the Nexus Between Populism and International Relations. In F. A. Stengel, D. B. MacDonald, & D. Nabers (Eds.), Populism and World Politics: Exploring Interand Transnational Dimensions (pp. 1-22). Springer International Publishing. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04621-7_1 47 POPULIST LEFT-WING FOREIGN POLICY: THE CASE OF KIRCHNERISM IN ARGENTINA Taggart, P. (2000). Populism. Open University Press. Urbinati, N. (2014). Democracy disfigured. Harvard University Press. Verbeek, B., & Zaslove, A. (2017). Populism and foreign policy. The Oxford handbook of populism, 384-405. Wajner, D. F. (2019). Making (Latin) America Great Again: Lessons from Populist Foreign Policies in the Americas. In Populism and World Politics (pp. 195-225). Springer. Wehner, L. E., & Thies, C. G. The nexus of populism and foreign policy: The case of Latin America. International Relations, 0(0), 0047117820944430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117820944430 Weyland, K. (2001). Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics. Comparative Politics, 34(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/422412