At the beginning of this century it would have been difficult to imagine that Argentina would reach the pathetic political and economic situation she is in today. At that time it was believed by many that she would assume political and cultural hegemony over most of South America. In an effort to assess the reasons why Argentina never attained the destiny predicted for her, the Fondo de Cultura Económica has commissioned a four volume work entitled La realidad argentina en el siglo XX. Four distinguished Argentine scholars were chosen to complete the work, which, aside from the book under review, includes volumes on the political, economic, and cultural life.
Argentina en el mundo is divided into three sections. The first is a concise history of world diplomacy. Though this section comprises almost one-fourth the total length of the book, Argentina is only indirectly treated. The second part deals with the diplomatic history of Argentina from the fall of Rosas to the present time. The final section of the book is entitled “Argentina en el Mundo de Mañana,” but, as in the first section of the book, the author digresses considerably from the theme of Argentina, and only the last 21 pages are genuinely pertinent to the purpose of the book.
The author’s major contention seems to be that all underdeveloped nations of the world (and perhaps to the chagrin of some of his countrymen he includes Argentina in this group), ought to have an independent diplomatic posture before the world. He cites ample evidence of foreign interference in the affairs of weaker nations, and discusses the roles Britain and the United States have played in Argentine political affairs. He further states that the ability of a nation to make autonomous decisions is predicated on the strength of that nation. Consequently, the weaker nations must engage in dynamic economic and cultural development.
Unfortunately, though Señor Bagú states the disease which afflicts the weaker nations, he fails to prescribe the cure, which would have been a valuable contribution to the final chapter. A second criticism lies in his tendency to digress from the diplomatic history of Argentina in the 20th century. Considering the complexity of this history, it would have been more apropos to devote less time to world affairs and more to those of Argentina. Despite these criticisms the book is a valuable contribution to Argentine history. Its careful organization, objectivity, and insight do much to illuminate the problems of Argentina in these times.
