How the political map in South America can look like in mid-2023

[buritobr]

On September 2021, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Colombia and Equator are ruled by the right. Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia and Peru are ruled by the left.
The left can win the elections in Chile in 2021, Colombia and Brazil in 2022 and Paraguay in early 2023.
The right can win in Argentina in 2023, but this election will take place only in the end of the year.

So, we could see a map in mid 2023 in which only Equator and Uruguay are blue, and the other countries are red (using blue for the right and red for the left).

This is amazing because Equator and Uruguay used to be the most progressive countries in the continent. The left stayed in the government for many years in these countries. Correa and Mujica were celebrities for the international left. But recently, Lacale Pou and Guillermo Lasso won very close elections.

[Red Velvet]

The left winning in both Chile and Colombia is far from being a given, although it could happen. I think both elections will be close, can see going either way.

Does Paraguay even have a strong left? lol I think the right will probably stay in power but I don’t really know much about their current scenario.

Brazil is the only one I see the left easily winning (for now, one year to go is a looooong period, maybe Bolsonaro hires new guy for 2nd stabbing to gain some sympathy?). Unpopular president + scenario of economic deterioration for the next year with blackouts/energy crisis, rise of inflation, maybe even post-covid recession in 2022.

But winning in Brazil + Chile + Colombia is dream scenario (not even during pink tide freaking Colombia shifted left), the map would be basically all red with only the three smallest countries in area being blue dots. Besides, the right in Uruguay and Ecuador doesn’t look crazy like in other places. In Paraguay it’s kinda the status quo.

Don’t forget Mexico is currently left-wing as well. It’s great opportunity for LatAm.

It definitely won’t last because of Argentina in late 2023 definitely shifting hard to the right but at least we can hope to have this great red period for at least most of 2023. Too short of a time to create URSAL, unfortunately. Or we could do it anyway and just not include Argentina initially.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I don’t think the left in Paraguay is really relevant in a serious way. They had Fernando Lugo, he flamed out, and now they play second fiddle to the liberals.

[Agonized-Statism]

It's hard to follow Latin American politics with enthusiasm knowing that a government will always come along in a few years and reverse course from the previous one, and just when you think a right or left-wing government is strong enough to become an anchor, a crisis comes along to destabilize it.

It definitely won’t last because of Argentina in late 2023 definitely shifting hard to the right but at least we can hope to have this great red period for at least most of 2023. Too short of a time to create URSAL, unfortunately. Or we could do it anyway and just not include Argentina initially.

I know you're joking here, but an integrated socialist South America could be a decent counterbalance to US power in the Americas. It's a shame it's implausible IMO.

[CumbrianLefty]

As long as Bolsonaro is turfed out, that's arguably all that matters really.

[BigSerg]

Delusional fantasies. i'm pretty sure the right wing wins all those elections except brazil.

[buritobr]

In 2009, there was the highest level of the left-wing wave

Argentina: Cristina Kirschner
Bolivia: Evo Morales
Brazil: Luís Inácio Lula da Silva
Chile: Michele Bachelet
Equator: Rafael Correa
Paraguay: Fernando Lugo
Peru: Alan Garcia
Uruguay: Tabaré Vasquez
Venezuela: Hugo Chávez

Only Colombia had a right-wing president: Alvaro Uribe
South America was so left-wing that one of the most favorite president of the center-right leaders in Europe was... Lula.


Yes, it is hard for the left to win Paraguay in 2023.

Chile and Colombia were the biggest homes of the neoliberalism in South America. In Colombia, many left-wing leaders used to be shot. In Chile, even the socialist administrations of Lagos e Bachelet were constrained by the Pinochet constitution. But there were massive protests in both countries, and we can see changes.

This wave started to become smaller in 2010, when Piñera became the president of Chile.

[kaoras]

Delusional fantasies. i'm pretty sure the right wing wins all those elections except brazil.

Just as you were sure that the left wasn't going to get a majority in the constituent elections in Chile? lol

I honestly don't know how anyone can look at the results of the May elections, the popularity (and awfulness) of Piñera's government, and not conclude that the left is a huge favorite for winning in Chile.

About the rest, yes, Brazil is pretty likely a win for Lula. Colombia I could see it but that's a place where the inevitable terror campaign would be fairly effective.

[BigSerg]

Delusional fantasies. i'm pretty sure the right wing wins all those elections except brazil.

Just as you were sure that the left wasn't going to get a majority in the constituent elections in Chile? lol

I honestly don't know how anyone can look at the results of the May elections, the popularity (and awfulness) of Piñera's government, and not conclude that the left is a huge favorite for winning in Chile.

About the rest, yes, Brazil is pretty likely a win for Lula. Colombia I could see it but that's a place where the inevitable terror campaign would be fairly effective.

The constituent assembly has lost a lot of popularity. Weren't they underwater 30/60?

[kaoras]

Delusional fantasies. i'm pretty sure the right wing wins all those elections except brazil.

Just as you were sure that the left wasn't going to get a majority in the constituent elections in Chile? lol

I honestly don't know how anyone can look at the results of the May elections, the popularity (and awfulness) of Piñera's government, and not conclude that the left is a huge favorite for winning in Chile.

About the rest, yes, Brazil is pretty likely a win for Lula. Colombia I could see it but that's a place where the inevitable terror campaign would be fairly effective.

The constituent assembly has lost a lot of popularity. Weren't they underwater 30/60?

More like 30-45 or 25-35 depending on who you ask. The constitutional convention is having a surprising little impact on the campaign given that they are still discussing the reglamento (that's why they have low popularity). Besides, common people associate the convention with "the independents" moreso than with the left.

In any case, I'm curious about the reasons why you, or anyone else here, think that the right is favored in Chile or has a decent chance.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

On September 2021, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Colombia and Equator are ruled by the right. Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia and Peru are ruled by the left.
The left can win the elections in Chile in 2021, Colombia and Brazil in 2022 and Paraguay in early 2023.
The right can win in Argentina in 2023, but this election will take place only in the end of the year.

So, we could see a map in mid 2023 in which only Equator and Uruguay are blue, and the other countries are red (using blue for the right and red for the left).

This is amazing because Equator and Uruguay used to be the most progressive countries in the continent. The left stayed in the government for many years in these countries. Correa and Mujica were celebrities for the international left. But recently, Lacale Pou and Guillermo Lasso won very close elections.

I highly doubt the left wins Colombia (is there even a real left wing party in Colombia right now, or is just the old inter-Uribe minister split?), or Paraguay. All others are plausible, probably favored in some cases (ie Chile and Brazil).

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The left winning in both Chile and Colombia is far from being a given, although it could happen. I think both elections will be close, can see going either way.

Does Paraguay even have a strong left? lol I think the right will probably stay in power but I don’t really know much about their current scenario.

Brazil is the only one I see the left easily winning (for now, one year to go is a looooong period, maybe Bolsonaro hires new guy for 2nd stabbing to gain some sympathy?). Unpopular president + scenario of economic deterioration for the next year with blackouts/energy crisis, rise of inflation, maybe even post-covid recession in 2022.

But winning in Brazil + Chile + Colombia is dream scenario (not even during pink tide freaking Colombia shifted left), the map would be basically all red with only the three smallest countries in area being blue dots. Besides, the right in Uruguay and Ecuador doesn’t look crazy like in other places. In Paraguay it’s kinda the status quo.

Don’t forget Mexico is currently left-wing as well. It’s great opportunity for LatAm.

It definitely won’t last because of Argentina in late 2023 definitely shifting hard to the right but at least we can hope to have this great red period for at least most of 2023. Too short of a time to create URSAL, unfortunately. Or we could do it anyway and just not include Argentina initially.

Yeah, hopefully more countries can imitate the great economic successes of Venezuela, Argentina, and Bolivia.

[Hash]

I highly doubt the left wins Colombia (is there even a real left wing party in Colombia right now, or is just the old inter-Uribe minister split?), or Paraguay. All others are plausible, probably favored in some cases (ie Chile and Brazil).

Gustavo Petro, the former left-wing mayor of Bogotá (2012-2016), finished second in the presidential election in 2018 with 44%, already the strongest performance for the Colombian left ever, and is currently ahead in all the first round polls, although his victory is far from guaranteed in the runoff given his divisive nature. He is, however, certainly the man to beat for the time being, and the context is even more favourable to him than it was in 2018 (extremely unpopular and woefully incompetent/out of his depth right-wing president, a major social and economic crisis caused by the pandemic, continued dissatisfaction with the corrupt traditional political establishment etc.).

Petro's party, Colombia Humana, was just given legal recognition by the Constitutional Court following some complicated legal travails. It is currently the dominant part of a broader left-wing coalition around Petro and others - both traditional left-wingers and newcomers to the left (like Armando Benedetti and Roy Barreras) - called the Pacto Histórico. The coalition has other presidential precandidates but there's little doubt that Petro will be its candidate.

Eventually I'll get around to creating a thread for the Colombian elections and will have much more to write, but right now it is too early to get a clear read of the field: there are about 70 (!) declared, prospective or possible candidates between parties, multi-party coalitions and independent personalities, and talks of multiparty primaries or some other kinds of mechanisms to clear out the field.

[Red Velvet]

Most recent polls:

Brazil
Lula (left) 56% vs Bolsonaro (right) 31% -> left leads by +25

Chile
Boric (left) 44% vs Sichel (right) 39% —> left leads by +5

Colombia
Petro (left) 48% vs Fajardo (right) 45% —> left leads by +3

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Most recent polls:

Brazil
Lula (left) 56% vs Bolsonaro (right) 31% -> left leads by +25

Chile
Boric (left) 44% vs Sichel (right) 39% —> left leads by +5

Colombia
Petro (left) 48% vs Fajardo (right) 45% —> left leads by +3

Petro beating Fajardo in a runoff. Tell that to someone in 2018 and they’d think…well, they’d think Duque is a terrible president and uribismo was severely damaged.

[Skye]

Yeah, I can only hope Maduro is gone by then, but that's just a pipe dream.

[kaoras]

I think there's a better case for Fajardo being center-left than being rightist tbh

[Samof94]

Yeah, I can only hope Maduro is gone by then, but that's just a pipe dream.

He has Russian and Chinese aid.

[buritobr]

The left winning in both Chile and Colombia is far from being a given, although it could happen. I think both elections will be close, can see going either way.

Does Paraguay even have a strong left? lol I think the right will probably stay in power but I don’t really know much about their current scenario.

Brazil is the only one I see the left easily winning (for now, one year to go is a looooong period, maybe Bolsonaro hires new guy for 2nd stabbing to gain some sympathy?). Unpopular president + scenario of economic deterioration for the next year with blackouts/energy crisis, rise of inflation, maybe even post-covid recession in 2022.

But winning in Brazil + Chile + Colombia is dream scenario (not even during pink tide freaking Colombia shifted left), the map would be basically all red with only the three smallest countries in area being blue dots. Besides, the right in Uruguay and Ecuador doesn’t look crazy like in other places. In Paraguay it’s kinda the status quo.

Don’t forget Mexico is currently left-wing as well. It’s great opportunity for LatAm.

It definitely won’t last because of Argentina in late 2023 definitely shifting hard to the right but at least we can hope to have this great red period for at least most of 2023. Too short of a time to create URSAL, unfortunately. Or we could do it anyway and just not include Argentina initially.

While most of the South America is still ruled by the right, the 3 countries in North America (if you exclude Central America from North America) are ruled by leaders who are on the left in the political spectrum in their countries: Justin Trudeau, Joe Biden and Lopez Obrador.
There is the Foro de São Paulo, which is the association of the left-wing parties in Latin America. If the American Democrats and the Canadian Liberals join the Foro de São Paulo, it could be the association of left-wing parties of all Americas.

[Red Velvet]

It definitely won’t last because of Argentina in late 2023 definitely shifting hard to the right but at least we can hope to have this great red period for at least most of 2023. Too short of a time to create URSAL, unfortunately. Or we could do it anyway and just not include Argentina initially.

I know you're joking here, but an integrated socialist South America could be a decent counterbalance to US power in the Americas. It's a shame it's implausible IMO.

Which is why US stimulates the creation of strong united alliances in Asia-Oceania and also puts tons of money there, while actively ignoring or being condescending towards LatAm.

It’s good to have stronger competition next to your rival, so that their influence is diminished. But you want your neighbors to be weak, or at least not a threat to your power.

By the same logic it’s why China gets all happy and supportive towards attempts of LatAm unity while wanting segregation in Asia so that they can easily dominate there.

That’s why I get so tired with this false US vs China conflict. Unity shouldn’t be seen thorough THEIR eyes and interests, it should be seen to what is better for LatAm. And if the region as a whole is strong, that boosts individual countries. Attempts of integration should be stimulated regardless of who supports it and who doesn’t. Priority of what happens in the region isn’t China or USA, but Latin America itself and Latin American interests only.

But I’m not joking about what should be attempted. Of course it’s unlikely though.

[Agonized-Statism]

But I’m not joking about what should be attempted. Of course it’s unlikely though.

Ah, okay, I'd assumed so because the URSAL term was tongue-in-cheek. Thanks for your perspective, always interested to hear what you have to say! Spot-on about the ugly philosophy we're seeing return now that other economies are catching up with the US: dog-eat-dog, entire populations dehumanized as part of a great game between competing nations. A world where the people of Latin America, Asia, and everywhere else are free to pursue their interests without exploitation, with fraternity for each other toward a better future for all humanity, is something we should want. But like you said, that's unfortunately not something we'll see in our lifetime, especially not now that great powers are all in full Great Game mode.

On Mexico, if you're following North America as well, how long do you see AMLO lasting and do you see him having a lasting impact on politics there?

[Red Velvet]

But I’m not joking about what should be attempted. Of course it’s unlikely though.

Ah, okay, I'd assumed so because the URSAL term was tongue-in-cheek. Thanks for your perspective, always interested to hear what you have to say! Spot-on about the ugly philosophy we're seeing return now that other economies are catching up with the US: dog-eat-dog, entire populations dehumanized as part of a great game between competing nations. A world where the people of Latin America, Asia, and everywhere else are free to pursue their interests without exploitation, with fraternity for each other toward a better future for all humanity, is something we should want. But like you said, that's unfortunately not something we'll see in our lifetime, especially not now that great powers are all in full Great Game mode.

On Mexico, if you're following North America as well, how long do you see AMLO lasting and do you see him having a lasting impact on politics there?

Hmmm not so sure about that. It’s extremely different context compared to XX century.

US is way more decadent power than it was back then and they still face likely danger of Trump returning and destroying their reputation even more. China is already more powerful than USSR ever was in terms of global influence (USSR and XX century dynamics were more military, nowadays it’s the economy which matters more). There’s also the internet democratizing speech and facilitating decentralized connections, which makes more difficult one uncontested narrative logic.

If anything, I think people in western countries are still seeing this century through the eyes of the past century because that’s closest reference they have and one that is friendly to their narrative, kinda like “End of History” theories were in the 90s. That’s why they’re struggling to adapt to a good strategy. China is definitely not USSR and many of what they see as “Third World Countries” (= Neutral in Cold War context) have also changed way too much in comparison to what they were say, 50 years ago. Things point out to more chaotic multilateral relationships if you look closer, without very well defined Alliances.

That’s how Biden can easily sh**t on an ally’s head like he did over France. The 4 Anglo countries might be the only TRUE allies of the US, Europe was always more of a convenience thing. UK and Canada closer than Australia and New Zealand. But even those could get kicked in a specific context because “America First”.

In a similar way, other countries will tend to think of their own self-interest first without wanting to promise loyalty to either China or US or anyone else. You see Europe going this path, Latin America as well in what is usually considered “West”. Alliances can be temporary and vary from issue to issue, that’s a trend we could see.

In Latin America you already had this movement started in the 00s with the pink tide, mostly led by Brazil. Which is why US, even governments from “Democratic Party”, never liked Lula or Dilma as they focused on south-south relations, pushing more independence on global relations than the US was comfortable with.

Lula went to Iran in 2009 or 2010 and talked with them about a Nuclear deal for peace, with knowledge from Obama and after he got it, it was looked down by US-Europe because they couldn’t accept a country like Brazil getting something they weren’t able to. They expected Iran to be unreasonable because that’s the narrative they impose on poorer countries that don’t suck up on everything to them, but Iran did dialogue with Brazil (and Turkey) and was cooperative. Probably felt better opening precisely because Brazil isn’t typical western country that usually gets involved in global conflicts.

US-Europe were envy of this and did campaign against Brazil after this because they thought Brazil was extrapolating its importance and what they see as our position. Also, not really convenient to make relations better with Iran under this context. In the end, the reason why the whitest and richest countries are against multilateralism is because they are deeply scared of other countries talking between themselves without the central figure of the rich white savior. Kinda like what also happens in real everyday life.

So in my opinion, the more organizations focused on expanding south-south relations, the better. This type of connection is deeply important regardless of ideology, regardless if the governments are right or left or center. Thankfully some right-wingers (the non crazy or fascist ones that are driven by white supremacy values) are starting to see this too.

Brazil is isolated now because US plotted to sabotage Dilma and Lula with their hidden support for Car-Wash Operation (disguised as corruption “concerns” in LatAm), which led to the rise of Bolsonaro as the “anti-corruption savior”. But I think Brazil will eventually come back to its natural position simply because you can’t turn back time. Someone like Bolsonaro just isn’t sustainable in the long term for what the country has already become. He feels like a sad caricature from Cold War days, obsessed with military and anti-communism.

Current important topics widely discussed by society like Environmentalism, Gender Ideology, Racial relations are seen as a joke and don’t exist for him. No modern place can sustain this kind of outdated mentality for too long. He also does nothing for the poor in what is one of the most unequal countries in the world, where the differences between the lives of the rich and the poor are extremely shocking. It’s like Norway levels of quality of life for some, Somalia levels of quality of life for others. There’s no way a person who enacts policies that have so much contempt for the poor sustain themselves in a place with so extremely high income inequality. That’s why Lula, or Ciro, or literally ANYONE is projected to defeat him next year. Bolsonaro is desperate though and will try to enact a bunch of economic populist stuff in 2022 in order to sell himself as a man of the people. It will fail.

So with Brazil out and isolated until 2023, I think it’s really good that there’s another country with enough regional leadership to keep the project going on. Mexico is 2nd biggest economy in Latin America but in cultural terms, they definitely have more impact than Brazil onto the Hispanic countries. They also are much closer to US on every sense than we ever were, so attempts of sabotage could have long term effects of backlash that would damage US relationships with a close strategic partner (also neighbor).

I mean, even if they come up with strategy against AMLO, how would that set the US relations with Mexican left in the long term, in a future day they eventually return? Does the US even want to create that kind of anti-American sentiment inside a segment of Mexican society? Especially after seeing that having their president call them all rapists and evil criminals is precisely what helped generate enough resentment that helped validate AMLO?

That would only be more damaging for US and they know it. Mexico is different than Brazil or Argentina in terms of what they mean to US. Argentina is extremely Anti-American? Fine, who cares. Brazil is being talky to Iran and not sucking up 100% to us? Let’s just punish them and not think about consequences.

Now do you see them having same approach to Mexico? For the Democrats, I don’t, at least not in the same exact way. Don’t forget there’s lots of Mexican immigrants living in US. Would the US really want to start a feud with Mexico? Mexico has way more soft power over the United States than they may even realize. They can’t ignore Mexico and they also can’t afford to be in bad terms with them. Mexico is key player and extremely important for the Latino integration movement.

So I think AMLO is doing a good job on this specifically and is positioning Mexico as regional and global leader, doing what Brazil was doing in the 00s. It’s important to have someone moving things on and Mexico is the only single place capable of achieving this right now, with Brazil frozen for at least one and a half years more, Argentina kinda unstable domestically, Colombia still overly-dependent on US, etc. Other places are too small on population or economy to take the same leadership position.

Ideally, the project wouldn’t be one single Latin America, but one America. History of continent was built on the same thing, which is the blood of Indigenous people and African slaves. It’s all mostly stolen land. However US has became its own thing with different goals and different mindset, which makes it impossible. They see themselves having more in common with Europe than with Latin America, so it’s imperative that Latin America sees them as colonizers as well. That’s where I also compliment AMLO weakening OAS (a group which includes US + Canada and welcomes their action in a region they have nothing in common with) and calling this CELAC conference that includes all American countries family, except US and Canada. Which gives more freedom to not exclude countries from the family, like Cuba and Venezuela, even if we can disagree with them in regards their government (like Uruguay and Paraguay did in the meeting).

That should be the goal imo. An united cooperative region that survives ideological differences and doesn’t turn against the other when someone from an opposing party takes power somewhere. This cooperation has to be structural and go beyond ideologies. That’s why even right-wing led countries participated and I liked that they could openly express their disagreements. Overall, I am optimistic about the future. Not overly, because of course there will be lots of setbacks and delays, but you just cannot change your fate when future comes. Latin America should be united because we have way too much in common between ourselves, more than Europe or Africa or Asia have between them. More people are getting knowledge of this and treating as a main political motto, so I don’t see this trend reversing in the long term. Delays, sure, because there will be tons of internal and external conflicts on the meantime, but it will happen one day. It won’t be URSAL (lol, that is indeed a joke) but it will be a Latin American bloc.

[Agonized-Statism]

Overall, I am optimistic about the future. Not overly, because of course there will be lots of setbacks and delays, but you just cannot change your fate when future comes. Latin America should be united because we have way too much in common between ourselves, more than Europe or Africa or Asia have between them. More people are getting knowledge of this and treating as a main political motto, so I don’t see this trend reversing in the long term. Delays, sure, because there will be tons of internal and external conflicts on the meantime, but it will happen one day. It won’t be URSAL (lol, that is indeed a joke) but it will be a Latin American bloc.

Wishing LatAm the best. The failure of Union of South American Nations over changing political tides was hugely disappointing, and future institutions will definitely need to be able to withstand ideological differences. More south-south cooperation is the best thing that could happen right now- but understanding the US' capacity for sabotage and making war when all else fails lends itself to pessimism. I think a future president would find an excuse to destroy the leader of Latin American integration if it came down to it. This very nearly happened to Venezuela and probably would have had their dependence on oil not caused their economic crisis to happen on its own. But maybe being hispanic in the US caste system is making me overestimate their power.

[WMS]

Pretty, noble-sounding words about an unified Latin American power. However, when all of the talk is about “resisting the evil Yankees” and not resisting all outside interference from, say, Russia, China, or Iran as well, it sounds like the same type of people - the ones running Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua at the moment, for example - pursing yet another anti-U.S. ploy while snuggling up to the world’s most authoritarian powers. This takes the nobility right out of this plan and makes it a bit hypocritical to go on and on about the horrible abusive U.S. while praising China or Russia in the same breath. And on a realpolitik note: why should any U.S. government just sit by and allow such a virulently anti-U.S. power to take form? It’s one thing to be independent; it’s quite another to align yourselves with another foreign power bloc. The latter is what’s being proposed in truth, while being cloaked in the language of the former.

[Red Velvet]

Pretty, noble-sounding words about an unified Latin American power. However, when all of the talk is about “resisting the evil Yankees” and not resisting all outside interference from, say, Russia, China, or Iran as well, it sounds like the same type of people - the ones running Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua at the moment, for example - pursing yet another anti-U.S. ploy while snuggling up to the world’s most authoritarian powers. This takes the nobility right out of this plan and makes it a bit hypocritical to go on and on about the horrible abusive U.S. while praising China or Russia in the same breath. And on a realpolitik note: why should any U.S. government just sit by and allow such a virulently anti-U.S. power to take form? It’s one thing to be independent; it’s quite another to align yourselves with another foreign power bloc. The latter is what’s being proposed in truth, while being cloaked in the language of the former.

I think you’re confused about the concept of independence. It means doing what it’s best for yourself regardless of the interest of others. If US offers better deals, than alignment should happen with US. If China or anyone else offers better deals, alignment should happen with China.

There’s no US discrimination like you make it sound. If anything, there’s more of US suspicion because well: 1. History 2. US is the only one resistant against an united and really cooperative integrated Latin America.

Meanwhile, China and also the European Union (very western and very Democratic according to your standards) are sympathetic to the idea of an integrated Latin American bloc. So, if you’re Latin American in favor of Union and you see one power being against it and everyone else being supportive, naturally you get more negative feelings and suspicious towards whoever is against it.

What should they do? Trash the people who are in favor of it and praise the ones who are against it just because they painted themselves as the pinnacle of democracy (while still kissing up to authoritarian powers like Saudi Arabia whenever it’s more convenient to them)?

That’s realpolitik, but in Latin American context! We should favor whoever is in favor of us, not who wants to divide us. If US was thinking on long term, it would support these attempts in order to be seen as a friendly power and more potential ally, since cultural aspects naturally push us closer than to China or Russia. But the truth is, US simply doesn’t want competition in a region they think they’re entitled to influence without giving much in return. They would rather have a segregated and weaker Latin America in order to have somewhere submissive to keep pushing their influence and products

For example, if US wants to be preferable ally than China, I don’t get why they are not investing way more in development projects and infrastructure in places like Central America that really need it. One of China’s appeals is the huge amounts of money they put inside countries, while US nowadays thinks they are entitled to being the biggest world power without having to work their ass for it. They aren’t.

US needs to stop using this “But democracy! Other places authoritarian and bad!” as if they were biggest example when they have no moral authority to use this, especially now after the maniac that was Trump. Real people don’t give a damn about what is the system of foreign countries you’re allied to (even in US with the Saudis), what they care about is material stuff that is real. Railway networks, Medical healthcare, More good schools, Better pavements, Increased high-technology and quality of life. That’s what really matters to people.

One thing China has over US in this competition is that they were poorer country not that long ago, which makes them understand what people actually want. US has been too rich for too long and they apparently think the world has the same mentality of freaking Europe, a place that is even more developed than them in terms of infrastructure. What do you think it makes more of a difference into people’s actual lives, whether their politicians are friends with foreign bad people or whether there is new infrastructure bringing them more job opportunities and new railways creating access to forgotten places that suffered food and water shortages because of how hard it is to access them? If you think it’s the first, you’re probably too privileged to have absolutely zero idea of the level of misery some people are unjustly forced to live with. There’s people who are scared of dying from hunger.

It sounds pretty pragmatic to me and not ideological at all. Give preference to whoever is investing more in order to bump development. If you see this as “anti-US” is admission that US isn’t interested in helping develop the region, be it because of fear of increased near competition or because it doesn’t want the extra spending. If so, why should any LatAm unified coalition be friendlier to US?? China sees it as a strategy and an investment instead, they don’t do it because they’re “good hearted”, it’s strategy for them like they are doing in many other places as well. Because they know this type of material stuff is more effective in pushing places to your side than cute little propaganda stories about being guardian of democracy or whatever. Your democracy is something that you and yourself is responsible to, not places from outside.

Latin America should think on goals that benefit the region, not outside places, regardless of who they are. US already has their realpolitik versions from Republicans and Democrats of “Me first”, so there’s no reason for LatAm to not do the exact same. If China eventually gets too entitled of their “power” like US did (And China already sometimes shows signs of this, with their weird vaccine diplomacy), they should be kicked out as preferred strategic partner as well. The concept of being independent is being free to shift deals and alliances according to what is more beneficial to your internal interests.

Isn’t capitalism about freedom of choice where different people compete to offer best product to the clients and they get to pick whoever produces better product? It’s the exact same thing, with LatAm as potential client. Why would someone go to a store where the owners see them as rapists and uneducated savages and try to bully them to buy their products otherwise you’re a danger to their business?

It’s the seller who has to convince clients to buy their products, not client who has to convince the seller that they want to buy their products lmao. Capitalism and more competition are not just good when they only benefit you, everyone can take advantage of it.