Continental Solidarity: Progressive Foreign Policy in Latin America
Art by Kaitlyn Tan.
The prevailing paradigm of US national security discourse leaves the impression that the emergence of leftist leaders in the developing world is fundamentally at odds with America’s global ambitions. The right holds this view for obvious reasons. Conservatives vigorously tout unfettered markets and military dominance—all things contrary to the egalitarian world leftists want to create—as inviolable components of American hegemony. But the same message is effectively endorsed by progressives who have, for the most part, given up on levers of foreign policy making in favor of pursuing an exclusively domestic agenda.
There are many reasons, both practical and philosophical, why progressives have failed or declined to participate in national security politics, but I won’t dwell on them here. Suffice it to say that there is reasonable reluctance to engage with institutions that have long acted as enemies of the left at home and abroad. The result is an insulated foreign policy establishment stacked with conservative and neoliberal elites with everlasting hegemonic aspirations. But institutions are not static. If progressives ever gain meaningful influence over the national security state—which is, admittedly, a far-off prospect—they could reconceive its purpose and align it with an international left that seeks peace, equality, and democracy.
The first step toward accomplishing this is to articulate a coherent political program distinct from other modes of US foreign policy, whether they be liberal internationalist, realist, primacist, isolationist, imperialist, or what have you. Fortunately, insightful work has been done in recent years exploring progressive thought on international relations, and specifically how it might shape grand strategy.
To begin, progressives are concerned primarily with political economy. They see inequality as the root source of insecurity around the world and believe democracy and peace can only be achieved through an equitable distribution of resources. In addition, they are staunchly committed to tearing down unfair hierarchies produced by historical (and current) injustices built around notions of race, gender, and sexuality, among other social categories. Other progressive priorities in foreign affairs include ending endless wars, fighting the climate crisis, empowering (or re-tooling) inter-governmental institutions, and supporting leftist and working-class movements abroad.
So, what’s the praxis? Now that the left has taken root in various parts of Latin America, it’s a good time to think about what a geographically-oriented foreign policy strategy for the Western Hemisphere might look like if it were driven by progressive values. A region-based strategy helps develop concrete policy ideas and would account for the unique patterns of interaction and power configurations within particular regional subsystems, namely North and South America, that mediate relations between the US and local actors. In other words, filtering policy through a sub-systemic lens makes it adaptive to the specific conditions present across different political geographies.
Over the past several years discontent with status quo politics in Latin America has led to a profusion of democratically elected leftist leaders from Mexico and Honduras in North America to Chile and Brazil in South America. What makes this development especially promising for international-minded progressives is that they are linked by a common set of goals that reach beyond the domestic sphere including, but not limited to, environmental protection, racial justice, and social and economic equality. In many countries where the left has not had as much electoral success, such as Ecuador and Peru, social movements sympathetic with American progressives have acquired new momentum demanding structural change in society. A progressive foreign policy would, first and foremost, act in solidarity with these movements along with leftist governments (at least the democratic ones) in Latin America.
Political Economy
Progressives everywhere aspire to achieve economic equality (not necessarily in the absolute sense but at least something approaching it). Within states this means closing the gap between rich and poor through redistributive programs and disrupting systems of capital accumulation that tend toward oligarchy. Progressives link oligarchy with persistent poverty and unaccountable authority, which in turn generate both structural and literal violence.
For a region as notoriously oligarchic as Latin America, this presents an acute security risk. The consolidation of wealth—–and, by extension, of political power—–across the region has enabled the systematic suppression of labor unions and other organizations representing popular interests contra economic elites, often through an alignment between big business and the military. Further complicating matters is the fact that oligarchy is sustained in Latin America, as it is elsewhere, not only by corruption at the local level, but by a global capitalist system that reinforces domestic disparities.
Fixing Gini Coefficients (a measure economists use to measure country-level inequality) is therefore not a tenable solution on its own. The entire Global North-South dichotomy must be erased by correcting the economic imbalance between wealthy and poor countries. Within the parameters of policy discourse in Washington, DC, this idea would appear to be idealistic wish-fulfillment; however, the US occupies a central position within the global economy, making it the closest thing to an economic genie.
The US sponsors various financial institutions as part of a post-WWII global ordering project mainly underpinned by free trade and the movement of capital across borders. Multilateral development banks (MDBs) such as the World Bank and IMF have played a major role in shaping fiscal and monetary policies in Latin America according to a neoliberal model of economic development—widely known as the Washington Consensus—that demands austerity, privatization, and open trade in return for financial assistance. The harsh formula they employ often places cash strapped governments in a hard position between cutting social spending on the one hand, and fiscal crisis on the other. The US has by and large underwritten this approach through large financial contributions to neoliberal MDBs, which grants it substantial influence over the direction of and terms attached to the money they disperse.
Progressives can leverage outsized US influence within these institutions to toss out neoliberal economic theory and promote equality within and between states. That means making more funds available to finance public investments in health, education, infrastructure and social welfare programs. At the regional level this can be done through the Inter-American Development Bank, which, as the name suggests, provides development loans to countries in the Americas. By strengthening their lending capacity for things that prioritize long term economic precarity (i.e. income inequality, debt, cost of living) over short term indicators of economic growth (GDP, arbitrary poverty lines, unemployment), MDBs can begin to alleviate human immiseration at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder rather than focusing on what conditions are most favorable to private investors.
In addition, the US should pressure international lenders to refinance or completely eliminate debt in the region. The COVID-19 pandemic is the perfect rationale for sweeping debt relief currently, but in the future developing countries will face the brunt of other global crises, such as climate change, that demand generosity and, indeed, solidarity from wealthy countries. As countries in the Global South, including many in Latin America, actively lobby for greater international financial assistance, the US should throw its weight behind them.
Besides financial institutions, the world is dense with various interlocking economic systems that impinge on the global distribution of wealth; however, it is worth highlighting international trade in particular. In Latin America, arrangements such as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and Mercosur, were forged under different regional dynamics with different objectives. The USMCA (formerly NAFTA), for example, was created in order to streamline the movement of goods and capital in North America mainly around the US as the region’s central node. Mercosur, however, is both an economic and political project spearheaded by Brazil, which acts as a major power in South America. In addition to establishing a common trade policy among member states, it also serves as a political forum that mediates how they interact with external powers. Under progressive leadership, Brazil and partner countries have pursued regional integration through Mercosur in part to balance against US intrusion in the South American subsystem.
A progressive US foreign policy would utilize its preeminent position in North America and recognize its limited role in South America as it attempts to advance more equitable patterns of trade. Traditionally, international trade agreements are the domain of political and economic elites who have excluded working class and activist voices from the negotiating process. As a result, they often shrug off the distributional concerns of progressives and fail to enshrine adequate labor rights in their text.
To address these issues in North America the US can renegotiate the USMCA and CAFTA (basically the USMCA for Central America) to recognize standards set by the International Labor Organization, with the participation of labor groups weighed more heavily compared to corporations. In contrast, progressives could support regional integration efforts in South America that remain independent of direct US involvement, creating space for the self-determination Latin American states have long aspired to.
This doesn’t mean the US would play no role in upholding labor rights in South America, of course. There are various things progressives can do outside legal trade frameworks to promote economic equality, such as mandating that US companies comply with domestic labor regulations abroad, pressuring countries in the region to recognize collective bargaining rights, and continuing to support them with economic aid (certainly not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea).
Social Justice
The progressive view of security collapses the distinction between domestic and international issues, seeing them as deeply intertwined. It goes something along the lines of MLK’s famous phrase, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Just as redressing the oppression of black and indigenous people in the US is a political imperative for progressives at home, so it should be abroad.
To demonstrate how this might be done, the Brazilian Racial Equality Minister (yes, they have one of those) recently traveled to Colombia and signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on initiatives in the region that involve financing new academic research and holding bilateral events about historic disparities and steps to address them. A progressive foreign policy would seek to uplift historically oppressed groups in Latin America through actionable policies that come out of initiatives like these. Further, a progressive US administration would create an equivalent of Brazil’s Racial Equality Ministry within the executive branch, whose role, in part, could be to combat racial discrimination internationally.
State-led initiatives are not the only avenue progressives can take, though. There are many civil society organizations across Latin America that serve marginalized groups that the US can help by directing greater international attention to their activities. With material assistance, organizations that work on human rights, education, legal assistance and other areas can help underrepresented communities in parallel to or entirely delinked from government programs. This is one way to advance a progressive agenda even in countries governed by regimes hostile to social justice. Although it’s surely helpful, the presence of ideologically aligned foreign leaders is no prerequisite to a progressive US foreign policy.
Latin American progressives are also concerned with gender inequality. Mexico and Chile both express a commitment to feminist foreign policies that explicitly recognize the gendered dimensions of international relations. In particular, they aim to promote gender-inclusive language in international agreements, address gender-based violence, and spotlight the unique hardships women face in civil conflicts. (I should note, however, that Mexico’s external feminism clashes with the President’s conduct domestically). Relatedly, the Colombian President, Gustavo Petro, recently signed a decree establishing a Ministry of Equality and Equity with the primary function of promoting gender inclusivity in the country, replicating similar ministries that already exist in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, and Peru.
In Latin America’s patriarchal society this is a controversial, but important measure. Very few countries worldwide interweave gender into political discourse as a matter of policy. Even fewer declare themselves feminist. Any progressive US administration worth its salt would follow suit and declare a feminist foreign policy as a gesture of solidarity, while also constructing corresponding agencies with a mandate to advance gender equality. Institutionalizing feminism at the executive level would make it easier to engage diplomatically on these efforts and to direct resources toward issues affecting women that often go overlooked.
Since progressives view security holistically, this would advance multiple goals at once. Progressives cannot conceive of real democracy without gender equality, nor can they build a stable peace when security remains predominantly the purview of men. Making peace in the region inclusive and more enduring requires promoting women’s participation in conflict resolution in parts of Latin America experiencing high levels of violence.
Conflict and Diplomacy
Thus far I have discussed the ways that the US can involve itself more deeply in world affairs to promote a progressive agenda, but there are also areas that progressives would like the US to retract from. US involvement in military conflicts abroad receive special scrutiny by the left for their imperialist character. Progressives rightly point out that the way the US has deployed force abroad has contributed to insecurity by fomenting instability and deprivation among local populations subject to the terrible conditions generated by war. Accordingly, progressives have long advocated for cuts in military spending and downsizing, if not completely eliminating, the US military footprint abroad.
While the US is not participating directly in any Latin American conflicts today, it continues to promote hardline security policies in its prosecution of the war on drugs. In Latin America the war on drugs is, in fact, an actual war against cartels, criminal gangs, and insurgent groups that has been waged for decades with tragic consequences for human life and little to show for it. As part of its anti-narcotics efforts the US has sponsored militaries with awful human rights records and little to no democratic accountability. It is easily one of the greatest policy failures in the region, making it a moral and strategic imperative for the US to change course.
The US can instead promote peace in the region by supporting dialogue between governments and local armed groups. The most urgent implementation of this approach is in Colombia. In 2016 the Colombian government signed a peace agreement with the largest armed group in the country, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), that promised to reintegrate former fighters back into civilian society and enact agrarian reforms incentivizing a shift away from coca cultivation.
Since then the government has failed to follow through on many of the agreement’s provisions; however, President Petro has injected new life into peace initiatives. In fulfillment of his “Total Peace” plan, Petro has committed to refocusing on implementing the 2016 peace accord and started new negotiations with other armed groups. Progressives in the US should be willing to help realize the full extent of previous agreements as well as yield diplomatic space for future talks, including those mediated by unfriendly states such as Cuba. Even if it only takes an observer status, buy-in from the preeminent global superpower would no doubt boost the credibility of mutually agreed upon commitments.
Finally, interstate tensions must be defused to establish sustainable peace. Relations between Venezuela and other regional states have been especially troubling over the last decade. As the conveniently succinct narrative goes, Venezuela’s descent into authoritarianism and its mismanagement of the economy caused an economic collapse in 2014, producing one of the largest refugee outflows in the world. At the same time, the government’s socialist orientation caused it to ally with geopolitical competitors to the US, chief among them Russia and China.
While deteriorating diplomatic relations had much to do with Venezuela’s own conduct and the particular geopolitical dynamics of the region, it also occurred in large part as a result of incompetent and downright cruel US diplomatic strategy. In 2018, the Trump administration placed sanctions on the Venezuelan oil sector, depriving the country of significant revenue and stifling its ability to import necessary goods. It further aggravated the situation by stubbornly committing its support to one faction of the political opposition within the country and politicizing international aid efforts. Meanwhile, it rallied regional countries to sever diplomatic ties and recognize a self-declared alternative government that had no real political power, reinforcing a geopolitical rivalry that ultimately undermined prospects for democracy, peace, and continental solidarity.
US policy has changed very little under the Biden administration, but the geopolitical landscape has. With the rise of new progressive governments, countries in South America have become open to establishing normal relations with Venezuela, thereby opening space to cooperate on combating transnational crime and reducing the risk of inadvertent military escalation at the border. To facilitate this process, alleviate economic suffering, and ultimately promote democracy in Venezuela, progressives should revise major aspects of US policy, beginning with sanctions.
Rather than stick with its unrealistic demands that the Venezuelan government relinquish power unilaterally, the US should essentially delegate sanctions authority to those in the country negotiating for fair elections. Doing so would give genuinely democratic elements in the country the necessary leverage and credibility to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with the government and diminish the haughty hierarchic approach the US often exhibits in its relations with local actors.
Climate Change
Today progressives recognize climate change as one of the greatest threats to global security. This is probably one of the most well-articulated aspects of progressive foreign policy, so I won’t elaborate much here beyond a few aspects pertaining specifically to Latin America.
At a recent summit called by the Brazilian President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, all eight countries that share the Amazon rainforest agreed to promote sustainable development, end deforestation, and fight the organized crime that fuels it. The Colombian President, who took part in the summit, likewise called for debt cancellation in return for climate action. Clearly, there is space for the US to promote these efforts by pushing for debt relief, as already mentioned, as well as providing direct aid to fund environmentally sustainable sources of energy and infrastructure. The US can further contribute by requiring American businesses to abide by environmental standards set by the Paris Climate Accords and cleaning up its supply chains through international trade agreements.
Even more, it would align with grassroots activists against extractivist modes of production, such as oil drilling and copper mining, that harm local - usually indigenous - communities. In Ecuador, environmental activists won a significant victory in a recent referendum when voters rejected oil exploration in the Yasuní territory of the Amazon, which is inhabited by indigenous Waorani people. Where these industries are critical for the domestic economy and a global green energy transition (like lithium mining), the US should help countries develop cleaner methods of extraction and encourage states to share profits more evenly.
This year Chile announced its intention to create public-private partnerships in the lithium sector, allowing them to assert greater control over the distribution of benefits generated by an increasingly green global economy. Mexico and Bolivia, likewise, have already nationalized their lithium deposits in defiance of private interests. Instead of dissuading them, the US should show solidarity with their progressive commitments by helping them develop domestic industry through technical assistance and technology transfers that might have otherwise occurred through the private sector.
After laying all this out, I’m only beginning to scratch the surface of the ways progressives can shape American statecraft in Latin America. Many of the issues covered here take on global as well as regional dimensions. Policymakers of all ideological stripes would benefit from taking a subsystems approach to grand strategy. For progressives in particular, it would help them account for regional power balances between states and the social classes within them.
A collective voice has eluded progressives as a result of the left’s intellectual diversity and difficulty accessing elite policymaking circles. That alone, however, should not deter them from asserting themselves in international affairs. Ceding this crucial area to the right and center will merely further entrench the prevailing international order–—an order hostile to the anti-hegemonic aspirations of progressives. Now that there are allies in important positions appearing across the world, it’s an auspicious moment to reorient US policy. The strength and solidarity of Latin America’s left makes it an ideal starting point for a new, progressive foreign policy paradigm, one with the potential to reshape the entire world.