On November 11th 2024, Argentina was the only country among 168 to vote against a UN resolution on indigenous rights. President Milei addressed the General Assembly, declaring “We are at the end of a cycle. The UN ideological 2030 Agenda, the climate change lie, achieving zero hunger and advocating for indigenous rights are all part of a socialist, supranational program that Argentina will no longer support” adding that “collectivism and moral high ground from the woke agenda have crashed with reality, offering no credible solutions for the world’s problems”.

Argentina’s deep-rooted affinity for populism often drives extreme political stances, overshadowing the nuanced approaches complex issues require. A prominent example is the persistent conflict involving the Mapuche communities in Patagonia.

For Javier Milei’s self-described ultraliberal, anarcho-capitalist, far right-wing populist government, these communities are merely impostors—social outcasts masquerading as indigenous to exploit ancestral land claims and illegally occupy some of Argentina’s most prized territories. Frequently labeled as “insurgent terrorists” by high-ranking government officials, these Mapuche groups, primarily based in the provinces of Neuquén and Río Negro, are routinely targeted and prosecuted. In public perception, they stand in the center of heated debates, serving as lightning rods for aggressive racist rhetoric that Milei’s administration openly supports.

Despite its radically different ideological stance, the situation was no better under the preceding left-wing populist government led by the disgraced Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, whose six-year conviction for corruption in a $1 billion fraud case was upheld by the Appeals Court. Cloaking their position in a discourse of human rights, that administration portrayed these communities as legitimate indigenous groups deserving recognition, support, and restitution of their ancestral lands. However, time has revealed this approach to be merely instrumental — a political gambit to manipulate public opinion, using de facto these communities as pawns, leveraging their plight to secure lands strategically relevant for the opposition, and to generate social unrest whenever convenient.

This pendulum swing between polarized narratives underscores Argentina’s political identity but leaves one tragic constant: the native communities at the center of the conflict remain marginalized. Perpetually on the fringes of society, their lives are shaped by systemic neglect and recurring struggles. Meanwhile, representatives from both political parties conveniently find common ground—building consensus among their electorate while quietly securing new real estate deals in the process.