This paper studies the relationship between public opinion and one specific Argentine foreign policy, namely, the one concerning the Malvinas during the last two democratic governments. In particular, since the instauration of the democratic regime, there have been two different policies followed by the two elected presidents, Raúl Alfonsín, and Carlos Menem. What was the impact of these policies on Argentine public opinion? By using survey data the paper suggests that in the Malvinas case, public support will probably depend on the general evaluation on government performance in other areas considered more critical by most of the population. The relationship between public opinion and foreign policy in the United States has been the focus of large research programs and long debates. By contrast, there are very few works on this topic in Argentina.1 The most important is, perhaps, the work published by Mora y Araujo, Di Rado and Montoya in which they characterize foreign policy in Argentina as a dimension of public affairs in which most of the public is not actively engaged.2 This paper aims to study the relationship between public opinion and one specific foreign policy, namely, the one concerning the Malvinas during the last two democratic governments. What was the impact of the policies regarding Malvinas on Argentine public opinion? In particular, since the instauration of the democratic regime, there have been two different policies followed by the two elected presidents, Raúl Alfonsín, and Carlos Menem. Has public opinion in Argentina reflected or followed the changes in the policies? Conversely, has public opinion affected the policies? This paper is a first attempt to look at the interaction between foreign policy and public opinion on one issue in particular, the Malvinas dispute. This research is based on survey data done by SOCMERC, a leading Argentine consulting company, and consists of four surveys done in the years 1986, 1990, 1996, and 1997.3 Consequently, this research does not present a time series analysis. Another problem that hampers generalizations across time is changes in wording and response categories in the questionnaires.4 Some specialists contend that it is impossible to infer changes in public opinion across time based on questions phrased differently even if the questions are about the same topic.5 It is evident that with the number of surveys available it is possible only to look at snapshots the public opinion at different points in time and comment on what each survey meant for that moment. Even if questions are phrased differently, there is still the room to describe the state of the opinion at that particular time and, in this way, to suggest broad comparisons. In the next section, the paper will present the discussion on public opinion and foreign policy in the United States. This paper will explore three dimensions of specific attitudes: First, attitudes toward improving relations with England, attitudes with respect to government policy toward the Malvinas, and attitudes regarding joint administration and exploitation of natural resources in the waters surrounding the Malvinas. This paper will also analyze how Argentines have assessed the consequences of the war fifteen years later and how they think about the future resolution of the dispute.