Part 3: Songs of Sovereignty:

Geopolitics & International Declarations

Julia Lisco, Researcher at American University’s Center for Latin American & Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab, International Affairs Policy Analysis in Global Migration MA candidate

Image by Julia Lisco of her and her family in Scotland kits with a Scotland flag at the June 6th, 2026, Scotland v Bolivia FIFA World Cup 2026 warm-up game.

Singing and soccer are so deeply intertwined; they exist at the core of sports fandom. Throughout a game, crowds will sing songs, often with altered lyrics, in support of a player or to express their discontent with the actions on the field.

Occasionally, chants are politically informed, particularly at the national-team level, even at the World Cup despite FIFA’s attempts to prohibit political statements. These policies did not stop politically charged chants from ringing out among the fans after kick-off across several matches.

Australian Fans and Current Politics

Australian fans drew international ire with their chant, crafted specifically for this World Cup. Cries of “Aussie boys are on a bender, Donald Trump is a sex offender” echoed in stadiums, pubs, and across America and Canada. The chant is believed to be in reference to the President’s alleged relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and his inclusion in the Epstein Files.

Argentina and Historical Memory

Argentina is infamous for its political and anti-English chants, even when they are not playing England. In The Five-Minute Ritual, I discuss their 2026 semi-final clash, the hostility that permeated the match, and the Falklands context, but the hostility was not contained to these events.

The 1982 Falklands War is frequently referenced in Argentinian songs. One of the most famous Argentinian football chants, regardless of tournament or opponent, is “Y ya lo ve, y ya lo ve, El que no salta, Es un ingles!” (“And now you see, and now you see, whoever doesn’t jump is English!”), which is sung while fans across the stadium jump in unison.

After Argentina beat Switzerland on July 11, 2026, in the quarter-finals, videos were posted online of players singing: “Por Malvinas, por el Diego, por la ultima de Leo” (“For the Malvinas [The Falklands], for Diego [Maradona], for Leo [Messi]’s last one”) from the locker room; and in 2022, while on the hunt for the World Cup trophy, several long chants included call-outs to the war and berating the English.

This animosity is healthily returned by English fans. Enzo Fernandez, a high-profile Argentinian player, has played in England since 2023. Just after the World Cup concluded, the player completed a high-profile, €100 million transfer from FIFA Club World Cup Champions Chelsea to Manchester City, who have won the Premier League six times since the 2017-2018 season. During his debut for the club on September 5, 2026, at home against Coventry City, the crowd rang out with a new custom chant for the player. This is not unusual for new players, but generally songs are focused on the player, and not political commentary. “The Falklands are ours, the Falklands are ours. Enzo Fernandez, the Falklands are ours” was sung so loudly that it was clearly heard over the television broadcast, despite match commentators speaking over the feed.

Scotland and National Identity

Smaller and lower-ranked nations throughout the tournament repeatedly dominated the hearts and minds of fans, regardless of the proportion of fans in the stands. One of these nations, despite not progressing out of the group stage, was Scotland.

Interestingly, Scotland’s participation as an independent nation in international sports is not fully representative of its nuanced legal status. Scotland’s status is legally complex; it is an independent nation with “devolved and reserved powers,” and significant essential infrastructure is controlled by Westminster, including defense, military, border enforcement, and currency (they use British Pounds, but they do have their own Scotland-specific notes which can be used across the UK interchangeably).

Only in the Olympic Games does the United Kingdom compete as the joint entity “Team Great Britain.” Otherwise, the UK member states, including Scotland, compete as independent entities. This is due to specific regulations that grandfather them, and a few other territories, like Puerto Rico, into international competition qualification. When Scotland qualified for the World Cup for the first time since 1998, they did so as an equal to England, to whose political authority they’ve been subject for centuries.

Scotland fans were extremely excited to return to the World Cup and support their entire team against Brazil, Haiti, and Morocco. Nowhere was this passion as evident as during the playing of the national anthem. As part of the UK, Scotland does not have its own legal national anthem separate from “God Save the King”; instead, “Flower of Scotland” is the unofficial national anthem, which is sung before every Scotland game, regardless of sport. When Flower of Scotland rings out before a match, a nation with a complex international designation gets two minutes where Scottish national pride is central without the shadow of England.

Scotland never expected to win the tournament, but for those three matches, every Scotland fan around the world reveled in those few minutes. In unison, millions would profess their love for their country and their team, manifesting the love these teams carry for their fans and countrymen around the world in a display that is more than just meaningless ceremony. I did not get to experience Scotland’s World Cup campaign in person, but I did attend their final pre-tournament match against Bolivia on June 6, 2026, and I dare say few nations sing their national anthem as passionately as the “Tartan Army,” particularly one of the song’s final concluding phrases, “But we can still rise now, And be a nation again…”

With the referendum of understanding between Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales signed on September 14, 2026, in which each government’s First Minister confirms they will call votes for independence from Westminster’s authority, this statement may ring true sooner than most Scotland fans may have believed during the tournament.

Part 2: The Five-Minute Ritual

Anthems as Political Battlegrounds

Julia Lisco, Researcher at American University’s Center for Latin American & Latino Studies and the Immigration Lab, International Affairs Policy Analysis in Global Migration MA candidate

Image by Julia Lisco of her and her fellow FIFA World Cup 2026 Pre-Match Ceremonies on the pitch during the playing of the national anthem proceeding the Panama v England game on June 27th, 2026.

In his book, Imagined Communities (1983), Benedict Anderson discusses the power and practice of “unisonance” (p. 145) that emerges when communities sing their national anthems. He elaborates that nations are built on words, and that regardless of the “banality” of national anthems’ lyrics and melodies (p. 145), it is the history and community that these songs create among groups of individuals.

In sports, national pride is not just a consequence of international play but an integral part of the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Before every match, there is a moment where this national identity is explicitly highlighted: the Pre-Match Ceremony in which the national flags of both teams are presented. Players walk onto the pitch behind their flag, and tens of thousands of people sing their national anthem in unison. This ceremony happened 104 times over the course of the tournament, and despite any outside or historical tensions between teams, and the vitriol that politics has embraced in recent decades, only two matches saw any form of disrespect during this process. For a few minutes, all outside noise was put aside 102 times, and instead stadiums full of people from all over the world gathered and basked in their love and pride for their team. Meanwhile, their opponents respectfully stood by and shared in their excitement for the match to begin.

The two games where this ceremony played out abnormally were Iran’s opening match against New Zealand on June 15, 2026, and England vs Argentina’s semifinal clash on July 15, 2026. These were two very different instances of “unsportsmanlike behavior”

Islamic Republic of Iran v New Zealand

Tensions around the Iranian national team were already high prior to a single ball being kicked due to the conflict between the USA, one of the three host nations, and Iran, preceding the opening ceremonies. Donald Trump threatened to prevent the team’s entry to the U.S. altogether, and ultimately forced the team to move their headquarters from the U.S. to Tijuana, Mexico, and made them leave the country directly after the conclusion of their games; a requirement no other team faced, and which significantly interrupted player recovery processes.

By match day, sentiments surrounding the Iranian team resembled a powder keg. Diaspora groups who, due to immigration bans, made up most of the in-person supporters were divided in their support for the team. This was largely informed by their families’ experience with the Iranian Revolution and the regime that followed. CNN interviewed an Iranian community soccer team in California, where the Iranian team’s World Cup campaign would begin, and they said they did not feel “represented” by the team.

Inside the stadium, strict rules were in place to prevent the presentation of political materials, including the use of pre-revolutionary flags and imagery. It’s extremely common for fans to bring national flags to national team football games, blanketing themselves and the stadium in their country’s colors. Despite guidance suggesting otherwise, several pre-revolutionary flags made their way into the stadium, with some fans reporting it was easy to get them in.

When the national anthem was played and the current regime’s flag was unfurled, it was largely Iranian fans brandishing pre-revolutionary flags who expressed discontent, not the opposing New Zealand fans. Rather than an action of intercultural conflict and disrespect, this was instead a political protest by a disenfranchised section of the diaspora taking the opportunity to make their voice heard globally, and by their homeland’s government.

England v Argentina

Fittingly, two of the most hated teams in international football met in the semi-final. Tensions were high, and not only do they share a soccer rivalry, but they also share a tense geopolitical history. When the national anthems were projected into the stadium prior to kick-off, boos and other acts of disrespect were littered amongst the prideful singing of both national anthems, and echoes of the Falklands War (a brief conflict in 1982 between the two nations over the long-contested sovereignty of the archipelago 300 miles off the eastern coast of Argentina, that took the lives of about 650 Argentinians and 255 British military personnel) and a decades-long sporting rivalry hung over the match.

Despite FIFA’s prohibition of political flags or signs from entering the stadiums, some Argentinian fans managed to sneak in a sheet with the words “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” (The Falklands are Argentine) painted on it. After Argentina beat England 2-1, several players paraded around the pitch with the flag, celebrating while pridefully dancing with it on international TV. These actions, combined with the physical altercations following the final a few days later, resulted in a $321,000 fine.

I had the honor of participating in the tournament as an on-field Pre-Match Ceremony volunteer for six matches, playing a critical role in the execution of the flag presentation for the national anthems. The events of these matches are not representative of the whole tournament and the love that filled the pre-match ceremonies of every other game. Soccer is already an emotional sport, so it is only natural that emotions like these seep into these moments of passion. I got to feel this firsthand from the field of play, and there is nothing like it. Sport does not happen in a vacuum, but for 98% of the tournament, national anthems remained a sacred space of love and national pride.

Latin America: Violence Against Young Women Worsened During COVID-19

By Carina Cione*

Young women gathering together in Cali, Colombia / Universidad del Valle / Creative Commons license

A research and practice-oriented initiative coordinated by la Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) of Costa Rica has confirmed that the harmful impact of systemic violence and marginalization on the lives of vulnerable women in Latin American cities has worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Vidas Sitiadas (Besieged Lives) project corroborated widespread anecdotes about the depth of the vulnerability of young women and mothers to gender-based violence, intimidation, and discrimination – in both public and private spaces – in the region. Women are targeted by gangs in their communities, and by masculine family members or partners behind closed doors in their homes. Often merely because of the neighborhoods in which they live, they suffer from systemic exclusion – shunned by society and excluded from much of their countries’ economic, social, and political lives.

  • The Vidas Sitiadas project found that the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these problems. State-imposed quarantine measures confined families to close living quarters, and the burdens on mothers and sisters to keep the home running and to care for the ill multiplied. Loss of family income brought stress and conflict more deeply into homes, worsening already-unstable family dynamics.
  • The pandemic also reduced women’s economic independence. In 2020 and 2021, opportunities to earn money on the formal and informal market evaporated. Neighborhoods are less safe, and traveling through gang-controlled areas in Latin America poses increasing dangers for young women. Of 21 young mothers interviewed by FLACSO-Argentina, only 10 had remained employed during the first years of the pandemic. Most had low incomes and were unable to work remotely, which led them to financially depend upon others to make ends meet. That dependence on male family members, partners, and exes led to greater manipulation and exploitation than before 2020.

Through hundreds of interviews and survey responses, project researchers documented that violence, more than any other underlying factor, is what causes the sensation of living a vida sitiada – a life under siege. Across all five country reports, the majority of young women reported being witnesses or victims of abuse in the home as children, which they said had a “very radical impact” on their daily lives. Many were cared for by mothers or grandmothers who were abused and then, in turn, engaged in physical or psychological abuse of them. A large portion of participants’ fathers were absent. Sexual abuse was common, and some women had even witnessed gang-related homicides of family members.

  • Robbery and sexual violence, including harassment, aggressive touching, and rape, in public spaces are frequent phenomena for women. These crimes often force them to avoid certain parts of their own neighborhoods, to forgo essential travel outside the home, and to severely curtail social contact, thus hindering their ability to develop support networks. The Vidas Sitiadas studies reveal even tougher circumstances during COVID-19. In a survey by Universidad del Valle, half of low-income young women said that their communities in Cali, Colombia, have become more violent since 2020. They avoid spending time outside of their homes, especially in the early morning hours, but 15-20 percent still feel “very unsafe” on the street in the afternoons and early evenings. This limits their ability to cultivate personal connections and impedes their financial independence.
  • Traveling to work is also a risk. Espacio Público, a think tank, and Arbusta, an information technology company in Santiago, Chile, found that 30 percent of young women who commuted in the first years of the pandemic had experienced intimidation or abuse on their way to work. A third of these women face travel times of 60-90 minutes each way – a long time, especially in a vehicle in which passengers do not feel safe. Women who cannot reach their jobs safely either decide to quit or learn a trade they can master in the safety of their homes.

In addition to death, disease, and economic challenges, the COVID-19 pandemic has slowed and even reversed progress some Latin American societies had been making, if haltingly, toward updating gender roles and reducing stigmas pertaining to women’s place in society. In some sectors, it has contributed to the re-normalization of violence in the daily lives of women and girls by making many neighborhoods less safe and putting extraordinary stress on families. Women’s exclusion has deepened as COVID-19 has erased their access to jobs and the stigma of being from dangerous neighborhoods further reduces their prospects.

  • The Vidas Sitiadas project, coordinated by La Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO) in Costa Rica with funding from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of Canada, examines several efforts launched in recent years to begin addressing the underlying systemic causes of the challenges facing young women in these societies. They focus on giving them a chance to get a job, to learn work and personal skills, and to build the personal confidence to improve their lot. Advocates face the usual obstacles to calls for resources to address the big problems, including systemic economic inequity, the epidemic of social violence, and the residual culture of gender discrimination. But the Vidas Sitiadas initiatives have demonstrated that at least modest steps can be made to help women overcome the violent and manipulative environments in which they live.

August 4, 2022

*Carina Cione is Program Coordinator at the Center for Latin American & Latino Studies. For additional information about the project undertaken by FLACSO-Costa Rica and its partners, please consult the Vidas Sitiadas website.

Argentina: From Bad to Worse?

By Arturo C. Porzecanski*

Argentina’s new Economy Minister, Silvina Batakis / Government of Argentina / Creative Commons license

Argentina’s mismanagement of fiscal, monetary, and exchange-rate policies – and its business-unfriendly, interventionist policies destructive of investor confidence – have delivered an increasingly unpopular mix of economic stagnation and accelerating inflation. While the government most likely will muddle through until the next national elections in October 2023, there is a non-negligible risk that remaining public confidence could collapse and lead to uncontrolled inflation, deepening recession, social unrest, and even the resignation of President Alberto Fernández.

  • By early 2021, the Argentine economy had already recovered from the 15 percent drop in real GDP caused by the pandemic in the second quarter of 2020. That was a relatively easy feat because the economy was already in a recession; real GDP in the first quarter of 2020 stood 11 percent below that in the fourth quarter of 2017. So far this year, the pace of economic activity has remained below that 2017 peak, and it has started to drop some more, with the latest consensus forecast projecting GDP declines in the second and third quarters, followed by stagnation in the fourth trimester.
  • Inflation has accelerated from a yearly average pace of under 50 percent in 2020 and 2021 to an annualized rate of 85 percent in the first half of this year. This month’s inflation rate may well have three digits once annualized. To slow down inflation, the government has resorted to price controls on staples sold by supermarkets; import and capital controls to prevent the currency from devaluing faster; export quotas on beef, corn, and wheat to keep domestic supplies higher and prices lower; and hefty subsidies to state-owned and private companies that supply electricity, gasoline, natural gas, mass transit, and water and sewer services to consumers. As a result, the headline inflation rate is underestimated by at least 10 percentage points, while the subsidies are keeping the fiscal deficit about 4 percent of GDP wider than otherwise.

By now Argentina wasn’t supposed to be in such lamentable economic shape. Barely four months ago, the government and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) completed negotiations on a $44 billion loan under an Extended Fund Facility (EFF). The country was granted an up-front disbursement of almost $10 billion, plus $4 billion more in late June.

  • The IMF program has three main targets for this year. The first is a modestly narrower fiscal deficit – 2.5 percent of GDP rather than last year’s 3 percent (measured excluding interest payments on the public debt). The second calls for a nearly $6 billion accumulation of central bank net international reserves, which would take the year-end total to over $8 billion. And the third requires a reduction in central bank financing of the government’s budget deficit, to the equivalent of 1 percent of GDP from 3.7 percent in 2021.
  • The program’s rather modest fiscal and monetary objectives are based on optimistic assumptions, however, and its structural reforms fall way short of what is required to spark confidence and a sustainable economic recovery. Populist economic measures – advocated mainly by the Peronist faction led by Vice President Cristina Kirchner – have greatly harmed the country’s business and investment climate.
  • It is an open secret in Argentina that the main purpose of the IMF loan is really to help the government avoid defaulting on the $44 billion the Fund previously loaned (in 2018-19) to President Mauricio Macri’s administration. That loan is scheduled for repayment in full between September 2021 and mid-2024, and the present government had made it plain to the IMF that it had no means to do so absent a reprofiling or a quid pro quo. Therefore, in Argentina, the new IMF loan is widely understood to be a fig leaf over what is an indirect debt rescheduling on an installment plan – and it is characterized as a debt refinancing by the government itself.

Even the mild conditionality attached to the new IMF loan has already proven difficult to meet and has claimed its first significant victim –Economy Minister and Fernández ally Martín Guzmán resigned on July 2. His replacement is Silvina Batakis, a heterodox Peronist economist handpicked by Cristina Kirchner.

  • All indications are that the government missed the IMF targets for end-June, especially once discounting any window dressing, and that, failing to take restrictive fiscal and monetary measures soon, it will miss the goals for the full year. Argentina’s financial markets have been reacting badly. The stock market index has been trailing far behind inflation; the government’s dollar-denominated bonds have plunged to distressed levels, mostly below 25 cents on the dollar; and the Argentine peso, whose value is set artificially by the central bank under a rationing system, trades in parallel (but legal) and black markets at less than half its official value.
  • Social and political tensions are on the rise, largely because wages and pensions are incapable of keeping up with inflation. On July 9, Independence Day celebrations were marred by nationwide protests against the government, though at least they were peaceful. On July 13, farmers staged a one-day strike to complain against punishing taxes, damaging currency controls, and a scarcity of diesel fuel that has hit them during the harvest season. New Economy Minister Batakis will need to walk a fine line between introducing unpopular corrective measures to break the inflation spiral – restrictive fiscal and monetary policies, in particular – and pleasing political masters who seem to be persuaded that a muddling-through scenario of tightening controls and ignoring market realities is still viable. A miscalculation could lead to triple-digit inflation, widespread social unrest, and the early exit of President Alberto Fernández.

July 14, 2022

*Dr. Arturo C. Porzecanski is Research Fellow at American University’s Center for Latin American and Latino Studies, and Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Latin America: Lessons Learned from Abortion Rights Struggle

by Brenda Werth and Katherine Zien*

A protestor tying green scarves to a fence at a pro-abortion demonstration in Argentina / Fotomovimiento / Flickr / Creative Commons license

With the U.S. Supreme Court apparently poised to strike down Roe v. Wade, U.S. supporters of women’s reproductive rights could learn from the strategies of their Latin American counterparts, who have made important advances even if they still feel they must struggle for implementation. The decision will put the United States out of step with global progress being made in sexual and reproductive rights, according to the Secretary General of Amnesty International. In the last 25 years, around 50 countries have increased legal access to abortion. Latin America, a traditionally Catholic region, has been at the forefront of decriminalizing and legalizing abortion rights.

  • In 2012, Uruguay legalized abortion of fetuses up to 12 weeks. In January 2020, Argentina became the largest Latin American nation to legalize abortion, allowing pregnancies to be terminated up to 14 weeks. Mexico followed suit and decriminalized abortion in September 2021, and in February 2022, Colombia decriminalized abortion up to 24 weeks. Chile, if its new Constitution is approved, will be the first country in the world to make abortion a constitutional right. While abortion rights are more limited in 10 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, these represent major strides forward.

The progress in Latin America comes on the heels of a revolution in gender and sexuality rights across the region catalyzed by feminist mobilization against gender violence and femicide in movements and street protests such as NiUnaMenos (Argentina), Un Violador en tu camino (Chile), and NiUnaMás (México). Abortion rights – framed as crucial to protecting reproductive health – were integrated into a preexisting human rights framework. Feminist groups have argued that the prohibition of access to legal and safe abortion is an act of gender violence.

  • The path toward legalization is clearest in Argentina, where a human rights culture created initially by groups like Madres de Plaza de Mayo during the last dictatorship (1976-83) led to feminist movements such as NiUnaMenos and the Marea verde (Green Tide), symbolized by the green handkerchiefs donned by supporters of the Campaign for Legal, Safe and Free Abortion. The Campaign also used inclusive language to expand the definition of those entitled to abortion rights to include anyone capable of gestation, including gender non-conforming individuals. The struggle has also been intergenerational (Barbara Sutton, “Intergenerational Encounters”). Sometimes referred to as the “revolución de las hijas” or “las pibitas,” a young generation including high schoolers took to the streets and transformed public spaces and social perceptions of abortion rights in Argentina.
  • Abortion rights in Argentina thus intersected with progressive legislation on gender and sexuality rights. In 2020, President Alberto Fernández, who described abortion as “a matter of public health” during his campaign, introduced the bill in Congress legalizing abortion. His predecessor, conservative President Mauricio Macri (2015‑2019), had allowed the bill to be debated in Congress, and before him, left-wing President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2007‑2015) supported progressive legislation on sexual and gender rights even though she refused to support abortion reform because of personal views.

The “doble militancia” (Debora Lopreite, “The Long Road”) – the popular mobilizations and political coalition-building pushing for reproductive rights as issues of human rights, public health, and social justice – contributed to Argentina’s landmark law. Activists continue to be vigilant, however, as abortion access has been hindered by opponents and the high percentage of doctors, particularly in the northwest provinces, who declare themselves “conscientious objectors.”

  • Argentina’s path has been very different from that of the United States. The right to abortion in the United States was nested within the umbrella of privacy rights and became a federal policy via the judiciary rather than the legislature. U.S. activists have not strategically framed it as a human right firmly in the context of public health and social justice. To achieve lasting change, they could shift discourse away from abortion as a single issue, an anti-religious position, or an abstract philosophical debate, and situate it firmly in the context of public health and social justice. Grassroots social mobilization across generations, strategic coalition-building, and transversal relationships between activists and policymakers don’t guarantee irreversible change, but they are more reliable drivers of change than the shifting political winds affecting Supreme Court justices.

June 9, 2022

* Brenda Werth is an Associate Professor of Latin American Studies and Spanish at American University. Katherine Zien is an Associate Professor of Drama and Theater at McGill University

South America: Future Global Green Hydrogen Hub?

by Thomas Andrew O’Keefe*

An oil rig off the coast of Brazil / Redacción EFEverde / Creative Commons license

A handful of South American countries have long produced hydrogen using fossil fuels for their domestic hydrocarbon, steel, and petrochemical industries, but early efforts by Brazil, Chile and Uruguay to shift to renewable and carbon-free energy sources, along with the emergence of new lower-cost technologies, could position the continent as a leading global green hydrogen supplier.

  • Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and can be produced from water utilizing the electrolysis process whereby a direct current is applied to separate hydrogen and oxygen molecules. The hydrogen gas that is produced can be either burned – for heat or to generate electricity – or stored in fuel cells that produce electricity to power transportation.
  • South America has been producing hydrogen for several decades. Many countries on the continent are already important hydrogen producers for the steel and petrochemical industries, including the manufacture of fertilizers, as well as for refining heavy-crude petroleum products. The electricity to facilitate electrolysis in South America currently relies exclusively on fossil fuels. This explains why hydrogen production is today a major source of greenhouse emissions in some South American countries.
  • Countries with substantial hydrocarbon reserves such as Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, and Peru also have the potential to utilize natural gas to produce so-called “blue” hydrogen, which incorporates carbon-capture and storage technology. The technologies to ensure the elimination of all greenhouse house emissions associated with the extraction, transport, and use of natural gas have yet to be developed.

Three South American countries have a jump on producing “green” hydrogen, made exclusively with renewable and carbon-free energy resources such as geothermal, hydro, solar, wind, and even nuclear power for electrolysis.

  • In 2020 the outgoing administration of Sebastián Piñera of Chile launched an ambitious plan to convert the country into a major global exporter of green hydrogen by 2030. An Australian company at the end of 2021 announced plans to invest $8.2 billion to build a major export-oriented green hydrogen complex in the southern Argentine province of Rio Negro. A pilot project in Argentina has been producing small amounts of electrolytic hydrogen from wind power since 2008.
  • Chile and Uruguay are best positioned to attract green hydrogen investment projects, given their long-term national energy plans forged through extensive stakeholder consensus-building efforts as well as stable economic policies and predictable regulatory frameworks. These factors contributed to putting both countries at the forefront of the continent’s transition to a greener energy matrix. The Santiago metro system, for example, is now powered exclusively by renewable energy, while Uruguay is often ranked behind Denmark as a global leader in terms of wind-generated electricity.

Converting South America into a major global green hydrogen exporter will require new and less costly technologies to produce, transport, and consume it. Ideally, South American governments should encourage regional research and development of new technologies to reduce the current high costs to produce green hydrogen, perhaps with funding from the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF), which is now based in Montevideo, or the Fund for the Structural Convergence of the MERCOSUR (FOCIM). Regional economic integration schemes such as the Andean Community and MERCOSUR can also facilitate the creation of new supply chains for manufacturing competitively priced inputs such as fuel cells and electrolysers to produce hydrogen from water. Another missing piece is a low-cost way to overcome hydrogen’s comparatively low energy density. At present you need about three times more space to store hydrogen to make the equivalent level of energy sourced from natural gas. Retrofitting existing pipeline networks and devising innovative ways to more cheaply transport hydrogen over long distances, is also necessary.

  • South American countries would be wise to decarbonize domestic transport and industry through wide-spread use of green hydrogen before making the leap to global exports. Serving global markets sustainably will also require the deployment of low-carbon transport options to replace the current fleet of long-distance ships that rely on highly polluting diesel. Utilizing liquid hydrogen or ammonia and even methanol produced with green hydrogen to power ocean-going vessels may provide the solution.

June 3, 2022

* Thomas Andrew O’Keefe is President of Mercosur Consulting Group, Ltd. and a lecturer with the International Relations Program at Stanford University.

Argentina: Is China Nostalgic for the Macri Era?

by Patricio Giusto*

Argentine President Alberto Fernández and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China / Casa Rosada / Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons license

Argentina’s return to Peronism with the victory of President Alberto Fernández and Cristina Kirchner in 2019 has not led to a rapprochement between Argentina and China as widely predicted. After the first half of the Fernández’s presidency, relations with China are riddled with unfulfilled promises, political and bureaucratic obstacles, detrimental economic measures, and other challenges. To some extent, paradoxically, Beijing might be missing center-right President Mauricio Macri’s times (2015-2019).

Fernández and other key figures of the Argentinean government frequently refer to the country’s “deep friendship” and “strategic relationship” with China. Under Fernández, Argentina has just joined the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and, according to the official line, bilateral links are very strong. Of China’s top priorities for the relationship, however, almost nothing has been accomplished with Fernández. Fierce political struggles within the Fernández coalition have contributed to an erratic foreign policy that lacks of a comprehensive strategy on China. Mounting U.S. pressure on certain critical issues has also been a factor.

  • When Fernández traveled to Beijing to sign the BRI agreement three months ago, the two governments announced more than $13 billion in infrastructure investments, but they have released no details on projects or their financing.

The energy sector has been particularly messy for China with Fernández in charge.

  • An $8 billion nuclear power project with Hualong One technology has stalled as Argentina tries to renegotiate the financial conditions during a severe economic crisis – and faces tough diplomatic pressure from Washington to abandon the project. The Santa Cruz hydroelectric dams, the largest Chinese investment project in Argentina, have suffered constant economic restraints and union strikes for two years. An Argentinian financial default has provoked the total interruption of Chinese finance. PowerChina filed an official complaint about handling of its bid to build a Chihuidos hydroelectric dam in Neuquén province. The Belgrano II thermal power plant project with China’s CNTIC – financed by the U.S. EXIM Bank – has mysteriously never started. The oil company Sinopec, weary of economic volatility and strikes, sold its assets in Argentina in early 2020, affecting its operations.

The Argentinian government has slowed other forms of cooperation, apparently for security reasons, as well.

  • Buenos Aires announced, for example, that it alone would fund the Antarctic Logistics Pole project in Tierra del Fuego province that it had discussed with China. It has not acted on the long-awaited purchase of Chinese J-17 fighter jets and wheeled armored vehicles because of financial constraints and U.S. pressure, according to Ministry of Defense sources.
  • On another flagship project, management the Paraná-Paraguay waterway, the country’s most strategic fluvial corridor, Fernández decided to nationalize part of the operation and determined that only a Belgian company was a qualified partner.
  • In the agricultural sector, Fernández has also dismissed a Chinese investment project estimated to be worth $3.7 billion to develop the pork industry through the installation of mega-factories in different parts of the country.

Some Fernández policies have hurt Argentina’s interests directly as well. He suspended beef exports to China last year – supposedly to curb domestic inflation – but inflation continued to rise while Argentina lost hundreds of millions of dollars from exports and hurt Chinese buyers’ confidence. The country’s bilateral trade deficit with China reached a record $7.3 billion in 2021, after having decreased to $2 billion a year in Macri’s times.

The repeated friendly rhetoric and gestures between Argentinian and Chinese counterparts do not conceal the fact that the relationship under Fernández has been full of obstacles and frustrations for Beijing. President Macri’s international approach was openly pro-West and he had clear ideological differences with China, but there is no doubt that relations then were much more fluent and fruitful for both Argentina and China.

  • The second half of Alberto Fernández’s term is likely to be similarly plagued, with the critical issues blocking progress unlikely to be resolved. Argentina’s economic situation will almost certainly continue to worsen, depriving it of resources to hold up its side of any deal with China. U.S. pressure will continue being a key factor, aimed at restricting cooperation with China in critical issues for Washington’s agenda, such as telecommunications and defense. On the other hand, the two countries’ desire to find ways to cooperate will remain strong no matter who wins the Argentinian presidency in 2023, and China – if patient enough with the ups and downs of the relationship – will continue to be an irreplaceable partner for Argentina.

June 1, 2022

* Patricio Giusto is executive director of the Sino-Argentinian Observatory, an advisor to the Argentinian National Senate, and a visiting professor at Zhejiang University. He is also a researcher and associate professor at Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina.

Argentina: Legalized Abortion Demonstrates Feminists’ Hard-Won Clout

By Cora Fernández Anderson*

March for Safe Abortion in Argentina/ International Women’s Health Coalition/ Flickr/ Creative Commons License

Argentine approval of legal abortion – signed into law by President Alberto Fernández on January 14 – validates activists’ claim that women’s rights are never simply granted; they must be fought for. Fifteen years after the launch of the Campaign for Safe, Free and Legal Abortion in Argentina, the Senate voted 38-29 to legalize abortion until 14 weeks. The Lower Chamber approved the measure on December 11 by a vote of 131-117. On December 30, after Senate approval, the streets of Buenos Aires filled with green – symbol of the movement – and demonstrators’ tears and joy, hugs and chants overwhelmed the scene. Feminist leaders proclaimed, “It is a day that we imagined and dreamed of many times.”

  • A strong abortion rights movement was essential to placing the issue on the national agenda and raising awareness about it. The influence of the Catholic Church, coupled with the stigma around abortion nestled in the identification of womanhood with motherhood, had created a strong barrier to any policy change. (Argentina is the home country of Pope Francis.)
  • Until very recently, most politicians, whether from the right or the left, perceived abortion reform as politically costly – a risky issue commonly referred in Argentine slang as pianta-votos – something that makes votes “escape.” Through decades of intense work, the movement showed politicians that society has changed, that new generations have different priorities, and that it is possible to win elections advocating for legal abortion. President Fernández promised to support the initiative in his campaign and he delivered.

Abortion in Argentina used to be ruled by the 1921 Criminal Code, which said it was legal only when the life or health of the woman was at risk and in cases of rape. For most of the 20th century, this regulation was not challenged, and – because the wealthy could afford the necessary certifications and medically safe abortions – class divides had deadly implications: Those with limited resources risked their lives and health in attempts to interrupt their pregnancies.

  • Only after the transition to democracy in 1983 were feminists able to promote debate on the need to legalize abortion. Led by mostly middle-class professional women, early initiatives were very small and did not have much political impact at the time. In 2001, however, protests over political and economic crises toppled the government and sparked a wave of activism that included creation of the Assembly for the Right to Abortion. This built a cross-class alliance that gave the movement a strong foothold – leading, on May 28, 2005, to launch of the Campaign credited with driving last month’s historic bill. The movement’s iconic green pañuelo – emblazoned with the main slogan, “Sexual education to decide; contraception so as not to have an abortion; legal abortion so as not to die” – became ubiquitous.

The campaign’s success can be attributed to the growth of a broader feminist movement, which shifted some public focus onto women’s realities. For example, the increase in the number of femicides inspired the movement ‘Ni una menos’ (Not one less), a grassroots collective fighting to put an end to violence against women. Recent efforts framed criminalization of abortion as another example of violence against women, making the state responsible for their inaction in the face of preventable deaths.

  • In addition to proving that it was possible to win a presidential election on a platform to legalize abortion, the Argentine campaign has inspired and given renewed hope to activists across Latin America – like those in Colombia awaiting the decision of the Constitutional Court on a case that might lead to the decriminalization. Women in Chile, who in 2017 won a few exceptions to the total ban on abortion, are now pushing harder to remove that legacy of the Pinochet years. This past week, the Chilean Parliament began to discuss a bill that would legalize abortion until 14 weeks in line with the law recently passed in Argentina.
  • The fight is not over even in Argentina, however, because opponents want the law declared unconstitutional and many doctors want to be conscientious objectors. But the movement is aware of the challenges and is ready for the fight. Indeed, feminists are not resting on their laurels. The movement will play an important role in monitoring the implementation of the law and disseminating accurate information about it so as to make abortion access a reality across the country.

January 28, 2021

* Cora Fernández Anderson is Assistant Professor of Comparative Politics at Mount Holyoke College. She is the author of Fighting for Abortion Rights in Latin America. Social Movements, State Allies and Institutions. Portions of this analysis appeared here in Ms. Magazine.

The Perils of Quédate en Casa: COVID-19 and Gender Violence in Latin America

By Brenda Werth*

Women performing "A Rapist in Your Path" holding up signs

A Rapist in Your Path – Brasília/ Mídia NINJA/ Flickr/ Creative Commons License (not modified)

Stay-at-home orders during the COVID‑19 pandemic have had a devastating impact on women in Latin America and brought mass protests against gender violence to a screeching, and troubling, halt. Since the foundational march of NiUnaMenos in June 2015 in Buenos Aires, Latin American activists have revolutionized protest against gender violence in a spectacularly public way, bringing together hundreds of thousands of women and allies on the streets of major cities to denounce gender violence and demand protection of gender, sexuality, and reproductive rights. Since its debut last November, the flashmob Un violador en tu camino (A Rapist in Your Path), created by the Chilean feminist collective Las Tesis, has been performed in more than 200 cities around the world, decrying the role of the state and police in perpetuating gender violence.

  • Even as the coronavirus began to spread, movements against gender violence continued to expand. In March, millions of women marched to commemorate International Women’s Day to demand an end to femicide and gender inequality. In Madrid, among the posters condemning gender violence were some declaring “The patriarchy kills more than the coronavirus.” By March 15, however, Spain was on lockdown, and by the end of the month most Latin American countries had instituted either partial or total lockdowns. Suddenly, slogans condemning gender violence and demanding gender equality were replaced by the urgent message for people to stay home: “Quédate en casa.”

The stay-at-home orders have had severe consequences for women across the globe. In Latin America, where seven out of 10 femicides take place in the home, the weeks following the institution of quarantines saw surges in the reporting of domestic violence, primarily against women, children, and LGBTQ individuals. Calls to domestic violence hotlines increased 40 percent in Argentina, 60 percent in Mexico, and over 90 percent in Colombia. Financial precarity, unemployment, and lack of access to child and eldercare all exacerbated preexisting gender inequalities, creating a “perfect storm” for domestic violence.

  • Quarantines have proven crucial and effective in countering the health threat posed by coronavirus, but they have left victims of gender violence trapped under the same roof with their abusers. One unintended effect of quarantine is the reinforcement of the perception of domestic abuse as a private, family affair, separate from the public sphere, and excluded from the jurisdiction of the state.

Government responses to the increased domestic violence in Latin America have varied tremendously, ranging from acknowledgment to denial of the crisis.

  • Elizabeth Gómez Alcorta, Argentina’s Minister of Women, Genders and Diversity, has issued a resolution explicitly allowing individuals to leave quarantine in order to seek assistance and protection against domestic violence. The Argentine government has also collaborated in building innovative campaigns blending awareness of both pandemics – gender violence and COVID‑19. The Barbijo Rojo (red mask) campaign refers to a code word women may employ when talking to pharmacists to let them know they are at risk of harm and unable to seek out help.
  • In comparison, denial has guided Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s response. His government has failed to implement any major policy changes to address the increase in gender violence during COVID‑19, and he has maintained that 90 percent of calls to domestic violence hotlines are false. According to AMLO, Mexico does not have the same problem as other cultures with domestic violence because “the Mexican family is exceptional.” The government’s campaign to address domestic violence during quarantine, Cuenta hasta 10, asks family members to “count until ten” before expressing anger in the home. According to Lulú Barrera, the campaign lacks “gender perspective” by disregarding the structural causes of gender violence and ultimately puts women at risk by asking them to sacrifice their wellbeing to maintain peace in the home.

While the health pandemic has highlighted the dire need for movements like NiUnaMenos and messages like that of  Un violador en tu camino to continue and expand, stay-at-home orders have halted collective public mobilizations and forced women to return to the private sphere of their homes. The movements have radically transformed awareness and perceptions of gender violence over the last five years, but the current crisis, including the alarming increase in domestic violence, shows the gender-violence pandemic remains strong and could get worse. Protecting public health through stay-at-home orders should not neglect the need to protect women. Solutions must be jointly envisioned and enacted by public health experts, activists, and political leaders.

June 29, 2020

* Brenda Werth is Associate Professor and Department Chair, World Languages and Cultures, at American University.

Argentina: Yet Another Generalized Default?

By Arturo C. Porzecanski*

Argentine Vice President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Argentine President Alberto Fernández during a working meeting with governors last week/ Casa Rosada/ Creative Commons

The Argentine government’s current attempt to force investors to accept a punishing debt-restructuring plan puts the country at risk of yet another sovereign default on foreign-law, foreign-currency debt. The attempt validates the massive loss of confidence that took place last August, when local and foreign investors ran for the exits in the wake of the unexpectedly strong performance of the Alberto Fernández-Cristina Fernández de Kirchner ticket in the country’s presidential primaries.

  • Confidence had already been set back in early 2018, after a series of disappointments with how then-President Mauricio Macri was running overly loose fiscal and monetary policies that encouraged excess government borrowing and facilitated capital flight. Macri’s decision to turn to the IMF for a huge bail-out loan in exchange for a modest fiscal and monetary belt-tightening shored up confidence, but the prospect of Peronism’s return to high office undermined investor confidence anew, causing a steep plunge in Argentina’s stocks, bonds, and the currency from which it has not recovered.

Fernández had a window of opportunity to provide confidence to local and foreign investors – following the example set by Brazil’s Lula da Silva back in mid-2002, when his pulling ahead in presidential polls sparked the beginning of a market rout in that country. However, all that Fernández has done is blame Macri for all that was going wrong, denying that mistrust of Peronism was also a factor in deepening the financial and economic crisis.

  • Absent any reassurance, investors have been reluctant to show up at auctions of new peso- and dollar-denominated treasury bills, preferring to cash out of positions whenever those obligations matured. Therefore, even before Fernández took charge in December, Macri was forced on one occasion to unilaterally postpone repayments of treasury bills falling due.
  • Fernández has institutionalized the practice of deferring by decree the majority of payments coming due each month, thus defaulting time and again on most peso and dollar obligations subject to Argentine law and jurisdiction. Until very recently, however, he and the Governor of the Province of Buenos Aires, Axel Kicillof, were honoring their obligations contracted under New York law and jurisdiction.

The coronavirus disrupted a less investor-unfriendly alternative devised by Fernández to avoid a repeat of the massive default, financial isolation, and bruising legal defeats (in New York courts) that his predecessors had suffered during 2002-2015. The idea was for federal and provincial governments to develop debt-restructuring proposals and present them to bondholders by mid-March, in order to obtain by mid-April creditor approval of a deferral of payments coming due during 2020-23.

  • To cushion the blow of the pandemic, the debt-restructuring plan, delayed to mid-April, included terms and conditions that were substantially worse for bondholders. Investors holding $66 billion of bonds are being asked to write off some principal and most interest payments throughout the decades-long life of new bonds to be issued in exchange for existing ones, in a proposal that would impose (net present-value) losses on bondholders averaging at least 60 percent. The Province of Buenos Aires has presented a similarly aggressive debt-restructuring plan.

A critical mass of investors has spoken out against the government’s proposal, including outright rejections by three groups of bondholders who could block any deals. To ratchet up the pressure, the federal government skipped a $503 million payment due on April 22, setting the clock running on what could easily turn into Argentina’s ninth sovereign default on foreign-law, foreign-currency debt.

  • One constructive way for Argentina to break the impasse with its private creditors would be to ask fewer concessions from them by deciding to seek new financing from, or else a rescheduling of debt service due to, the IMF. This would be achieved by requesting support under a longer-term Extended Fund Facility. Because Argentina’s program with the Fund was a short-term standby facility, under which $44 billion were disbursed, the whole amount plus interest is to be paid back in full between now and 2024. These scheduled payments to the IMF amount to more than 40 percent of total foreign-currency payments the government of Argentina is supposed to make during 2020-24.
  • If the Fernández administration were willing to work with the IMF on an economic program that would impose fiscal and monetary discipline to kick in once the coronavirus pandemic is over, the government would not need such large concessions from its private investors. In fact, such a partnership with the Fund would pave the way for a gradual return of investor confidence and the reopening of its domestic bond market for renewed financing on a voluntary basis.

April 28, 2020

*Dr. Arturo C. Porzecanski is a Distinguished Economist in Residence at American University and a member of the faculty of the International Economic Relations Program at its School of International Service.