As I wrote in the last article here, it’s possible to see right-wing alliances form internationally between right-wing groups or individuals in Latin America and those in other countries like Spain or the US.
Though that article largely focuses on just the right-wing party Vox from Spain.
There are many other examples one could bring up of right-wing alliances.
Similarly, you also have left-wing alliances that form internationally between groups in Latin America and those elsewhere in the world.
Personally, I’m actually more aware of left-wing alliances than right-wing ones because I’ve spent a lot of time looking into a few specific ones over the years of living in Latin America.
You have plenty of alliances among grassroots organizations and social movements.
Equally so, you have examples of political parties or government leaders aligning themselves with others also.
Let’s get into some examples of both before considering any broader implications of what it could all mean.
Anyone Want Some Zapatista Coffee?
This is by far one of the better examples that I’m aware of given that I’ve written a few hundred pages on this topic a few years ago.
It’s been a little while since I’ve looked into this topic though but let’s dive right in.
So, for those who aren’t aware, the Zapatista movement is basically a left wing social movement of indigenous people in rural areas of Chiapas, Mexico.
I visited the movement in my first trip to Latin America ever as you can read here.
This movement has its origins dating back to an armed group called the FLN in the 1960s that wanted to overthrow the Mexican government as you can read here.
However, the FLN faced setbacks after assaults from the Mexican government and fled to rural areas of Chiapas as you can read from that last source cited.
"Los orígenes político-militares del EZNL se encuentran en las Fuerzas de Liberación Nacional (FLN), siendo esta última una organización clandestina formada a finales de los años 60 en el norte de México, inspirada en la revolución cubana, las FLN organizaron una lucha guerrillera con el fin de lograr la construcción del socialismo en México. Pero tiempo mas tarde a principios de los setenta, terminaron con sus actividades de manera abrupta cuando su estructura en la ciudad de México fue descubierta por las fuerzas de seguridad del Estado y muchos de sus militantes, tanto en Chiapas como en la ciudad de México, fueron brutalmente asesinados. Sin embargo, sus sobrevivientes no se dieron por vencidos y lograron reorganizarse e instalarse en 1983 en Chiapas, persiguiendo los mismos objetivos. Pero, para poder alcanzar sus objetivos, formaron el EZLN y una base social que lo sostuviera."
While the initial founders were not at all indigenous, they resided here while trying to compete with other social actors in the area for support from the indigenous communities.
Overtime, the FLN eventually changed its name to the EZLN in 1983 as you can can see in the quote above.
It initially served as a defensive organization to defend the territory that it claimed to represent but, as we’ll see, that eventually changed.
The EZLN basically being the Zapatista wing of the Zapatista movement.
And, in the context of the next decade, keep in mind that worldwide changes were happening that weakened the international socialist movement.
Such as the fall of Berlin and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union.
Consequently, the spokesperson for the EZLN, Subcomandante Marcos, was hesitant to take any offensive action against the Mexican government.
However, his movement grew considerably in size during this decade and eventually the people of the movement wanted to vote for an armed uprising.
In 1993, they voted to turn the EZLN from what was a defensive armed organization into an offensive one.
One year later, the EZLN released the “First Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle” as you can read here.
The Lacandon Jungle being where they are located exactly and they’ve had 6 of these up to the point of this writing.
Anyway, as you can see here, the First Declaration was basically a declaration of war against the Mexican government.
“Therefore, according to this declaration of war, we give our military forces, the EZLN, the following orders:
First: Advance to the capital of the country, overcoming the Mexican federal army, protecting in our advance the civilian population and permitting the people in the liberated area the right to freely and democratically elect their own administrative authorities.
Second: Respect the lives of our prisoners and turn over all wounded to the International Red Cross.
Third: Initiate summary judgments against all soldiers of the Mexican federal army and the political police that have received training or have been paid by foreigners, accused of being traitors to our country, and against all those that have repressed and treated badly the civil population and robbed or stolen from or attempted crimes against the good of the people.
Fourth: Form new troops with all those Mexicans that show their interest in joining our struggle, including those that, being enemy soldiers, turn themselves in without having fought against us, and promise to take orders from the General Command of the Zapatista National Liberation Army.
Fifth: We ask for the unconditional surrender of the enemy’s headquarters before we begin any combat to avoid any loss of lives.
Sixth: Suspend the robbery of our natural resources in the areas controlled by the EZLN.”
Though, for those who don’t know, some international supporters of the Zapatistas will claim that “the Zapatistas didn’t really want war.”
Sure looks like a declaration of war to me!
And their subsequent actions showed it in which, as you can see here, they began their uprising by taking over various pieces of territory in Chiapas.
"En el levantamiento de 1994 en Chiapas, el EZLN exigía la reivindicación de la propiedad sobre las tierras arrebatadas a las comunidades indígenas, un mejor reparto de la riqueza y la participación de las diferentes etnias tanto en la organización del estado como del país, la reacción del gobierno federal fue el envío de tropas a Chiapas para sofocar la rebelión, se llegó a manejar la cifra de 70 mil efectivos del Ejército Mexicano.
Las movilizaciones de la sociedad civil detuvieron los ataques y a los 12 días de conflicto armado el gobierno federal declaró de manera unilateral alto al fuego. Para finales de 1994, como resultado de la campaña denominada “Paz con Justicia y Dignidad para los Pueblos Indígenas”, y con apoyo de la población local, el EZLN tomó el control de 38 municipios en el estado de Chiapas sin enfrentamiento alguno; la población civil cambio los nombres de los mismos y decidieron su autogobierno. El Ejercito zapatista solo daría protección ante ataques militares o paramilitares."
And, as you can see in the quote above, fighting with the Mexican government soon happened and the Zapatistas lost various parts of the territory that they took (though not all of it).
In the days to follow, there were human rights abuses reported during the conflict.
And, more importantly, the Zapatistas received A LOT of international support from groups around the world.
So much support that it basically contributed to forcing the Mexican government to calm down a bit given all of the media attention.
And the Zapatistas, with Marcos, was able to exploit the media attention quite well as you can see in this example here of media produced at the time about the conflict to gain international attention.
Since then, you’ve had numerous moments illustrating the international alliance between the Zapatistas and their supporters.
For example, you had this huge meeting of people from around the world on Zapatista territory not too long afterwards as you can see here.
Then you have organizations like Schools for Chiapas that sells their products and helps bring together funds for the Zapatistas to build schools in their communities as you can see here.
With other organizations like the Mexico Solidarity Network that does work for them like organize trips for students to visit the movement here.
And, quite importantly, the Zapatistas take in a lot of money from selling “organic” and “fair trade” coffee.
Where they basically have always had certain groups from around the world buy their coffee and distribute it elsewhere.
For example, in the US, you had one coffee purchaser called Café Para la Vida Digna that was quite influential in distributing coffee around the US.
You also had an individual known as Appel who was very early in bringing coffee from the Zapatistas to the US as you can read here.
Among many others who were involved early on in bringing coffee from the Zapatistas to outside of Mexico.
Some of the more important groups that bring coffee from the Zapatistas to elsewhere include Café Libertad and Aroma Zapatista in Germany, Ya Basta in Italy, Coop Coffees in the US and many others.
With some groups also selling the coffee in places like Turkey and Japan.
And also there being an network of groups in Europe called Café RebelDia that works together to support the Zapatistas and their coffee.
As of recently, the Zapatistas even visited Europe and other continents recently as you can read here.
At any rate, there is MUCH more that could be said.
Including some of the problems that the Zapatistas and their coffee are experiencing (such as a disease that has been killing some of their plants).
To also a discussion of how these organizations that support them work internally.
Or also even the nature of the relationship between the Zapatistas and their supporters beyond just the financial support that buying the coffee brings.
And the ideology of the Zapatistas themselves.
Among many other topics!
But if I keep writing, this will turn into another 200 page thesis.
At any rate, it simply serves as one of the best examples, in my opinion, of international solidarity and alliance between a left wing grassroots group in Latin America and ideologically relevant groups in the rest of the world.
But let’s move on.
Speaking of rural movements…
Have you ever heard of Via Campesina?
Technically meaning “the Peasants Way,” Via Campesina is a farmers organization of 182 organizations in 81 countries that started in Mons, Belgium.
It largely serves to benefit the interests of rural and agricultural organizations and indigenous people in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Europe.
The organization sees the activities of transnational corporations as a threat to the interests of the people it claims to serve.
Similar to the Zapatistas, it’s often characterized as an organization against neoliberalism.
Much of its focus is also on the concept of “food sovereignty.” Which is “a food system in which the people who produce, distribute, and consume food also control the mechanisms and policies of food production and distribution.”
You can see a full list of their member organizations here.
At any rate, this organization has gained a pretty solid reputation and legitimacy as it has been involved in international negotiations and fora.
Including involvement with the following at least:
- Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
- World Intellectual Property Organization (WPO)
- UN Human Rights Council (HRC)
- International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV).
In many ways, it’s one of the other strongest examples of more left wing organizations in Latin America working well with left wing organizations in other countries to promote their common cause.
For those curious, here’s a video on Via Campesina and here’s a link to their website.
Landless Workers Movement of Brazil
Considered one of the largest social movement’s in Latin America with over 1.5 million members, the Landless Workers Movement is a strong example of a grassroots left-wing movement in the region.
It’s a movement that I actually visited once just like the Zapatistas as you can read here.
How does the movement work?
Well, it’s been a few odd years since I was there and I didn’t write a 200 page thesis on them.
So my knowledge of them is a little more rusty.
However, from what I understand, they basically work like this.
They work largely to ensure land ownership for poor folks in Brazil.
Where they will find some land that they will claim is either not being used sustainably or isn’t being occupied at all.
Then they will squat on it.
Eventually, the Brazilian government comes along and tries to work with the landowner to buy the land from him to give to the movement.
If they can’t reach an agreement, the government offers what it can and takes it.
Gives it to the movement.
From there, the movement works on getting the money together to build a settlement on it.
In some cases, the settlement is rather basic with poor quality housing and you’ll see examples in this article here of housing that looks fairly alright in bigger buildings.
Though, it was from my understanding, that this movement has more luck in getting the land that they want when there is a leftist president in office.
Someone in the Workers party perhaps.
Someone like Dilma Rousseff.
At any rate, you can read more about the movement here.
Since it began working on these efforts over 30 years ago, you can see here that they have claimed “7.5 million hectares of farmland, benefiting 370,000 families.”
And does this movement have any similar support internationally?
Well, similar to the Zapatistas, they do have international supporters.
In Latin America, as you can read here, they even had a visit from the Venezuelan Minister for Communities and Social Movements Elias Jaua.
In which their was an agreement made between both parties of this movement and the Venezuelan government in regards to agro-ecology.
But what about in the rest of the world?
Well, as you can see here, the MST is technically part of Via Campesina.
And, for those curious, here’s an article mentioning a meeting even between the MST and the Zapatista movement.
“The Western Hemisphere Policy Watch blog cites a meeting between the Brazilian NGO, Landless Workers Movement (MST) and the Zapatistas in Southern Mexico as proof “that the international left's designs on the Americas are quite real and very much alive.”
But what about outside of Latin America?
Well, as we said, the MST is part of Via Campesina and that is an organization that connects like-minded groups across numerous continents.
As you can see here, the MST has worked with an international brigade to support people in Zambia.
“During a heavily militarized quarantine, MST activists work mostly on the distribution of seeds and healthcare equipment, which has been neglected by the local government, as well as on political mobilizations to protect peasants' rights. Last week, the brigade donated 400 liters of hand sanitizer and 400 masks to the Socialist Party of Zambia - the most important progressive force in the country's opposition. The donations will be distributed in the outskirts of the country.
In the rural areas, the brigade defends that the State guarantees public policies to buy products from the peasants, given that necessary measures have been taken to protect workers' lives.”
Next, when I was visiting the MST and MTST as you can read here, I did notice quite a few other foreigners in the area.
To what extent do these foreigners support the movement?
Well, for the ones I saw, it looked like they were just chilling there wanting to learn more about the movement.
Not a whole lot of substantive support.
You also have organizations online like this one here expressing “solidarity” for the movement.
Though what extent their “solidarity” goes beyond kind words is another question.
I tried to see if the MST sells anything that their supporters distribute for financial support internationally like the Zapatistas but couldn’t find anything suggesting that.
On the website of the MST, you can see how they suggest people support them.
As you can see here, they appreciate translators to help spread their messages internationally in other languages.
And they also seem to have “MST chapters” in other parts of the world like Boston, Chicago, Bay Area, Washington and New York.
With some of these chapters also occupying lands in their own countries as you can see here.
And, as you can see here, there’s some organization in the UK that expresses how people can support the MST.
Their advice is to basically “spread the word,” pressure the Brazilian Embassy for change and give donations to help the MST keep open some school called “Florestan Fernandes School” as you can see here.
“In response, solidarity groups have emerged in Europe and the US. These have been crucial in spreading the story of the MST to activists in other countries. This year members of the UK’s Land Workers’ Alliance and WDM delivered a copy of the MST’s programme for a popular agrarian reform to the Brazilian embassy on 17 April. Similar actions took place in Spain, Italy and the US
Spread the story of the MST and inspire others in your area. You could organise a film screening or talk.
Denounce the impunity of those responsible for murdering members of the movement and counter the aggressive media campaign against the MST.
Follow ‘Friends of MST’ Facebook page for updates
Help keep the Florestan Fernandes school running – you can donate at www.mstbrazil.org”
Based on everything I have seen, that seems to be the extent of a good deal of their international support.
Spread the word, donate, start your own local chapter and maybe visit us.
How much money they did in donations is another question.
The most interesting details anyway about their “international alliances” seems to be in regards to the extent that they work with other organizations part of Via Campesina and also their influence on others to occupy lands in other countries like what we have seen in small pockets of the US.
All around, it’s an interesting example of another grassroots alliance among left-wing organizations.
For those curious, here’s another video on the MST.
But let’s move forward now away from the grassroots and more into governmental examples.
We already touched on how the MST has had relations with the Workers Party of Brazil and the Venezuelan government.
But who else do these left-leaning governments align with to support their common cause?
The ALBA Alliance
Known as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, ALBA is an intergovernmental organization that focuses on social, political and economic integration of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.
As you can guess by the name, it often has a left-wing association with it.
Some of the more prominent countries in the group are Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia.
All of their countries mentioned are known for having a more anti-US stance in Latin America and some being sometimes quite hostile towards Spain also.
In direct contrast to some right-wing leaders of Latin America having more positive relations with both the US and Spain as I mentioned in this article here.
While you have right-wing leaders signing agreements against communism with political leaders in Spain as I wrote in that mentioned article, you have leftist leaders in Latin America having tough words for Spain or vice versa.
As you can see here between Chavez and the King of Spain.
Por que no te callas rey a chavez
Or, despite Mexico not being part of ALBA, you have a video here of him demanding that the King of Spain apologize for its colonial history against indigenous people.
At any rate, among the ALBA countries, we can clearly see an alliance between them.
For example, when Venezuela has had issues, Cuba would send doctors over as you can see here.
"Under this bilateral effort, also known as the "oil for doctors" program, Cuba provided Venezuela with 31,000 Cuban doctors and dentists and provided training for 40,000 Venezuelan medical personnel. In exchange, Venezuela provided Cuba with 100,000 barrels of oil per day."
To Venezuelan President Maduro showing his political support to Evo Morales of Bolivia not too long ago.
Or understanding the nature of the relationship between the government of Nicaragua and those of Cuba and Venezuela.
But what about the relationship of these countries with the rest of the world?
Any international solidarity or support shown from countries politically aligned with them?
Well, we have the most obvious example of Cuba and their previous relationship with the Soviet Union that almost started World War 3 with the US & NATO.
But it’s not like Cuba has seen its support with Russia dwindle completely since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
As you can see here, Russia has offered financial support to Cuba before for more military equipment.
And Mexico has helped out Cuba under leftist President AMLO during one of Cuba’s most recent protests that was one of the largest seen in a long time.
With Venezuela, you have the obvious relationship that they have with both China and Russia.
Given Venezuela’s role in ALBA, they were able to help secure Covid support for Russian vaccines as you can see here.
“In compliance with the mandate of the XIX Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America-Peoples’ Trade Treaty (ALBA-TCP), the National Coordinators of the member countries held a telematic meeting this Thursday with the director of the Latin American Department of the Russian Federation, Alexander Shchetinin.
The meeting seeks to boost the social and economic agenda of the regional bloc by strengthening the relationship and cooperation with allied powers, in this case Russia, as agreed at the last summit and in previous working meetings.
In this sense, on February 13, 2021, the Executive Secretary Sacha Llorenti and the president of the ALBA Bank, Raúl Li Causi, held a telematic meeting with representatives of the Russian Fund for Direct Investment for the acquisition of the vaccine against COVID- 19, Sputnik V, and thus consolidate the creation of the Vaccine Bank for the countries of the Alliance.”
And then you have this source here that really gives a good summary of the relationship between Russia and some of the countries mentioned above:
“Since the latter 2000s, the Kremlin’s growing anti-Americanism and its advocacy for a new multipolar world order found a receptive audience among leaders like Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Daniel Ortega. The Kremlin’s changing attitude toward its Soviet political legacy and the glorification of the Soviet past in modern Russia were also welcomed by the new Latin American elites, many of whom took part in Cold War insurgencies and felt close to the USSR. For them, the Russians that they knew were back.
Last but not least, the ALBA leaders believe that even if closer relations with Russia could not exactly bring back the “good old days” of Soviet subsidies, Russia’s oil wealth might at least turn Moscow into potentially attractive source of financial aid under the right circumstances. The strategy did work, to a degree: in exchange for welcoming Russian strategic bombers and navy ships, diplomatic recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, offering sovereign territory for future military bases, and supporting Russian positions in the United Nations, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Cuba did in fact receive Russian aid and credits (and Havana’s Soviet-era debt was written off).”
As a side point, it also mentioned how Russia and the countries mentioned both have human rights abuses and find their relationship to be convenient as both sides knew that the other would not give any criticism for that behavior.
Of course, outside of common interests against the US and also financial incentives, there’s also a military nature to this relationship too.
As this article put it here, Russia sent two nuclear capable bombers to Venezuela as US-Russian relations soared.
It was close to this time too that Trump even considered an invasion of Venezuela as you can see here.
With Russia also sending other planes and 1,000 troops to Venezuela as you can see here.
And Maduro here saying “hands off Venezuela!”
Outside of Venezuela, one could also see Russia supporting Evo Morales during the time he lost political power here out of fears that they’d lose access to Bolivia’s massive lithium resources.
And also when Russia only a few days ago helped Nicaragua with “security assistance” for its political crisis as you can see here.
Of course, you might think this part of the article is too heavily focused on Russia.
It simply serves as a great and highly relevant example.
We have other countries like Iran and Syria that have showed solidarity with similar governments in Latin America as you can see here.
But for purposes of this article, the other highly relevant actor would be China.
As you can see here, China has offered considerable financial support to Venezuela over the years.
"During the crisis in Venezuela, China supplied riot-control equipment to Venezuelan authorities combatting the protests in Venezuela. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, China has also financially assisted Venezuela through its economic crisis."
You also have the considerable financial investments into Latin America that China has done to establish relationships with Bolivia and Cuba.
And outside of financial investments, you have other examples like China offering security assistance to Cuba to help their regime remain afloat despite massive protests.
“Chinese companies have played a key part in building Cuba’s telecommunications infrastructure, a system the regime uses to control its people, just as the CCP does within its own borders.”
The nature of China’s relationship anyway with Latin America is similar to Russia but with some differences.
First, you have the similarity in that both countries need access to important natural resources.
Second, you have the difference in that China wants to ensure that less countries officially recognize Taiwan as I wrote about here.
Third, you can argue that China, similar to Russia, has an interest in challenging the global dominance of the US by expanding its political and economic weight around the world in the long run.
That means also establishing stronger relationships in “the backyard of the US.”
Having established various examples now of both left-wing grassroots and governmental organizations establishing alliances or solidarity with international actors, let’s move onto the second thing to consider for this article.
Challenging the US, Neoliberalism & Legacy of Colonialism
It can be seen pretty clearly in the examples above of how all of the actors mentioned (including others not mentioned) wish to challenge the US status quo in the world.
However, they have their differences.
Grassroots actors, like Via Campesina or the Zapatistas, are more concerned with rural actors.
They’re not concerned with world dominance.
They dislike neoliberal economic models.
Have a distrust of transnational corporations and even governments at times.
And all of the grassroots organizations mentioned tend to have a focus on “decolonization” as they put it.
Where you, from how I understand it, “reverse the legacy of colonialism” on things like inequality, land access, marginalization of indigenous people, etc.
Of course, there are noticeable differences between these actors like there would be between any different set of actors.
For example, the Zapatistas have a strong distrust of any government entity and won’t work with any government.
In contrast, the Landless Workers Movement does work with the Workers Party of Brazil to help it achieve its goals.
Similarly, you have Via Campesina that even works on an international level with intergovernmental bodies like those in the UN.
Something that the Zapatistas certainly don’t do.
But all of the actors involved do, as I said, challenge the neoliberal economic model that is heavily promoted by the US.
Similarly, you have the governments mentioned that also wish to challenge the US.
All of them actually.
Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia, China, Iran, Syria and others that could’ve been mentioned.
Among those Latin countries mentioned, as I said, you usually have a stronger rhetoric against Spain.
In contrast to right-wing Latin politicians who sign agreements with Spain against “communism” and who often have a distrust of China as I wrote here.
But the more important focus should be on their collective interest in challenging US dominance and interests in the world.
For both China and Russia, the Latin countries mentioned serve as a gateway to establishing a presence in the region.
That presence brings with it military, political and economic benefits.
For the Latin countries in question, it brings all of the above also.
Be it security support for authoritarians to stay in power, the economic benefits of new trade deals that don’t depend on the US and even military support in case of a US invasion like we saw with Venezuela recently or Cuba in the Cold War.
Of course, there’s a major difference that needs to be mentioned between some grassroots movements and the governments.
That being a historical distrust that has existed at times from the grassroots towards the governments.
As I said, the Zapatistas don’t work with any government and would have a distrust naturally of both China and Russia.
Primarily because part of their ideology is against establishing power and they certainly would have distrust of any authoritarian government then.
Historically, you could see the same difference in leftism also between Trotsky and the Stalin.
Where one believed in a more authoritarian government to bring about change and the other didn’t.
The Soviet Union saw people like Trotsky a threat as the Soviet Union wanted to monopolize on the ideology of Socialism and claim to be the primary leader behind the ideology.
Consequently, Trotsky took an ice axe to the face in Mexico City and died from the assassination.
Here’s a photo I took of the museum of Trotsky actually.
Of course, not every grassroots leftist sees it that way.
A few years ago, I remember going to a Zapatista café in Mexico City called Rincon Zapatista as I was writing something on the movement.
They were hosting some movie and quite a few folks got into a discussion about Russia and its benefits in challenging the US.
In that sense, some grassroots leftists do like Russia because they see it as a useful tool to “challenging the US” even if they might not ideologically be aligned with the government.
Of course, it could be asked if those same people even understood the contradictions that they hold.
Those contradictions being supporting a social movement that is ideologically against governments but yet supporting an authoritarian government in Russia?
Or how other countries that “challenge the US” like China also benefited from free market capitalism.
Some people believe what they believe without really understanding it.
Anyway, much of this points to one larger point that should be briefly mentioned.
The Cold War Importance
I already covered this in the previous article on the right-wing alliances against communism in Latin America.
In which you have right-wing alliances that at times show a strong distrust of China and could be more ideologically prone to aligning with the US in the event of a Second Cold War.
Something that is quite a real possibility going forward.
In contrast, we have seen already how both Russia and China have friends in Latin America that could give them an extra bullet in the chamber against the US.
Like how Russia was able to put troops and nuclear capable bombers on Venezuelan territory.
Not that far away from the US!
And it’s really the governments in question that matter here when it comes to this topic.
It’s not like the Zapatistas or the Landless Workers Movement are capable of supporting Russia or China in challenging the US on a larger geopolitical framework.
They can challenge economic models related to the US like neoliberalism or free trade but can’t exactly host a nuclear capable bomber close to the US.
Nor does either social movement actually run the governments of their respective countries.
So, when it comes to moving away from how left-leaning alliances exist in Latin America to the implications of this for a Second Cold War…
Well, as I said, the focus should be on the governments in question and their political, military and economic alliances internationally.
But I’ll leave it at that.
We’ll see what the future holds for us.
As a honorary last minute mention, if you are interested in left-leaning alliances, read this article here on the São Paulo Forum.
Whenever people talk about leftist governments in Latin America, it is ALWAYS brought up.
At least from the conversations I’ve heard with Latinos talking about leftists in Latin America like that one time I got into a discussion about it that you can read about here.
What is it?
Here’s a quote and video.
“The Forum of São Paulo was constituted in 1990 when the Brazilian Workers' Party approached other parties and social movements of Latin America and the Caribbean with the objective of debating the new international scenario after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the consequences of the implementation of what were taken as neoliberal policies adopted at the time by contemporary right-leaning governments in the region, the stated main objective of the conference being to argue for alternatives to neoliberalism.”
I would’ve discussed it in greater detail but the main points I wanted to illustrate have already been done and this article is long enough.
But the São Paulo Forum deserve an honorary mention given its importance to left-leaning politics in Latin America.
Anyway, if you have any comments, drop them below in the comment section.
And follow my Twitter here.
Thanks for reading.