Sino-Argentine War of 2021?

Matthew Yglesias had a post on Friday asking Why Is China Buying Latin American Land? According to a story by Alexei Barrionuevo in the New York Times, Brazil, Argentina and several other Latin American countries are passing laws so as to restrict land purchases by foreigners. China is buying up huge tracts of land so as to ensure access to agricultural products needed to feed a one billion and growing population. Yglesias then speculates as to what might happen if some future Latin American government nationalizes the land that China owns.

Indeed, if the Chinese government wants my advice it seems to me that large-scale purchases of foreign land are a uniquely unsound investment since it would be so easy for some future Brazilian or Argentine government to expropriate the land. Indeed, maybe the Sino-American War of 2021 will be specifically sparked by Argentina nationalizing Chinese land-holdings on a large scale, prompting the dispatch of the People’s Liberation Army Navy on its first real blue water mission which, in turn, prompts President Jeb Bush to invoke the Monroe Doctrine and come to Argentina’s defense.

Let's see. Do you think that there's any historical event that might provide us with any insights as to what might happen in 2021? Maybe even a war involving Argentina and a non-hemispheric power. 

Twenty-nine years ago, Argentina of course, launched an invasion to recover the Falkland Malvinas Islands. These islands are located off Argentina's eastern coast but had been in British possession for over 150 years.After a failed mediation attempt, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sent a British naval task force to recover the islands. Nearly two and one-half months later, the war was over and the Falklands were once again in British hands.

What happened to that 150-year old Monroe Doctrine?

The United States initially tried to mediate an end to the conflict. However, when Argentina refused the U.S. peace overtures, U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the U.S. Congress passed resolutions supporting the U.S. action siding with the United Kingdom. 

The US also supported Britain in the UN in voting for UN resolution 502, a resolution that called for Argentina's retreat from the islands. The US also assisted the the UK with military equipment including submarine detectors and missiles (Wikipedia). So much for that Monroe Doctrine. It's definitely not how Argentina expected us to thank them for helping to train Honduran death squads.

So what would happen one decade from now if Argentina nationalized property owned by the Chinese and the Chinese then sent a military force to recapture that territory? Again the US would probably try to negotiate. We get along with both China and Argentina and would prefer that they settle their differences nonviolently.

Let's say that mediation failed similar to 1982. While some would cry out for the US to invoke the Monroe Doctrine, as long as a Chinese military force was tasked solely with retaking the land that it previously owned, I don't foresee see the US invoking the doctrine. If the US invoked the doctrine, it would have to do something about it or lose credibility. However, getting into a war with the Chinese over Argentina is probably worse than losing credibility.

Argentina? I think that in 1982 Argentina learned that the Monroe Doctrine is not about the United States' absolute commitment to defend the Western Hemisphere against aggression by non-hemispheric powers. It is a doctrine that the US applies selectively to further its own interests. The alliance between the US and UK in 1982 was much stronger than today's US relationship with China. On the other hand, the US and Argentina were probably stronger allies in 1982 than today. The US and Argentina haven't really gotten along for the first two hundred years of Argentina's independence and that probably won't change in the next ten years. If the US wasn't willing to defend our dirty war committing Argentine allies in 1982, we probably wouldn't do it today.

How did other foreign powers react?

France provided political support, voting for UN resolution 502. The French also provided dissimilar aircraft training allowing Harrier pilots to train against French aircraft used by Argentina. French and British intelligence also worked to prevent Argentina from obtaining more Exocets on the international market.

New Zealand sent a frigate to relieve a British ship in the Indian Ocean, thus assisting the Royal Navy to meet its commitments in the South Atlantic.

Chile gave support to Britain in the form of Intelligence about Argentine military and radar early warning.

On the Argentine side, Peru and Venezuela sent aircraft spare parts, Brazil leased two P-95 maritime patrol aircraft and Israeli IAI advisors already in the country continued their work during the conflict. The Soviet Union provided intelligence on British military movements, and facilitated the supply by Libya of strela 2 missiles.

Chile's support for Britain wasn't much of a surprise. Argentina and Chile have had several confrontations over the years and had almost gone to war as recently as 1978 in the Beagle Conflict. However, I would venture to guess that today's Latin America would more rally more strongly behind Argentina than thirty years ago.

In 1982, some Latin American nations sent spare parts and diplomatic support. In ten years, one could envision Latin American naval, air, and land support for Argentina against a more formidable Chinese military. Latin American solidarity and the capabilities to act together against a common external enemy would be one of the most significant in the last thirty-years.

I was surprised to read about Soviet and Libyan support for Argentina given that the US support to that same government was based upon their strict anti-communism and pro-Western and Christian ideology. A recent book by Russian Sergey Brilev makes some interesting claims about Soviet support to Argentina.

Brilev writes that in spite of the risks of a world conflict because of Soviet support in the war involving a NATO member, Moscow handed to the Argentines and their most ‘anti-communist’ leader General Leopolodo Galtieri crucial satellite information which helped with some of the greatest coups of the Argentine forces in sinking Royal navy vessels...

Brilev concludes that in the early eighties the Soviet Union power structure was already under strain. The strategic aid was a decision of the Generals at military command level as a logical support for “the enemy of my enemy”. He then recalls that only two countries did not join the 1979 US sponsored international embargo on the Soviet Union, Argentina and Uruguay and “the military were very thankful for that”. 

The Soviet military acted on its own to support Argentina. They must have kept supporting Argentina because thirteen years later some guys that I was playing ball with in Buenos Aires were all wearing CCCP baseball uniforms. The Israelis? Another US ally during the Cold War who, like Argentina, had no problem selling arms and helping to train murderous regimes (i.e., Guatemala) when the US congress got squeamish some backbone and suspended US assistance.

Here's hoping that a Sino-Argentine war is not on the horizon. If it does come about, however, there's no reason for Argentina to expect the US enforce the Monroe Doctrine. 

 "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."