The indigenous population is a fundamental pillar of Latin America and will continue to be so in the coming decades. However, various analysts and authorities have warned that, in recent years, there has been increasing interference by Anglo-American powers in some indigenous communities, through movements that appear to defend their rights but actually seek to generate conflicts with national states.

This article seeks to answer the main objectives of this power agenda, which promotes fragmentation both among Indigenous peoples themselves and against the principle of state sovereignty. It also poses a provocative question: Is it possible for Indigenous peoples themselves to dismantle this perverse plan?

It is no secret that these methodologies are deeply tied to geopolitical politics and the control of natural resources. Support for certain indigenous movements is not solely a response to humanitarian concerns; it also aims to weaken the unity and sovereignty of Latin American states, thereby ensuring geopolitical and geoeconomic benefits for foreign powers.

This agenda has gained momentum thanks to important milestones such as the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) and the constitutional reforms in Bolivia (2009) and Ecuador (2008), which established the notion of plurinational states. These transformations provided international legitimacy to Indigenous demands, while also facilitating external penetration through the global human rights discourse.

In this context, a new type of interference took hold: covert intervention via NGOs and international advisory services.

 The powers adjusted their methods, replacing direct intervention with soft power strategies. Reports indicate that agencies like USAID increased their presence in indigenous areas under the pretext of sustainable development, human rights, or environmental protection projects. In Bolivia, following the expulsion of the US ambassador in 2008, it was reported that multiple NGOs were operating in regions like Pando and Beni with programs that, under an environmentalist facade, actually contained lines of subversion against the government.

In Chile, the conflict in the so-called “Wallmapu” (a toponym chosen by globalism in its information war to refer to the Araucanía region) has escalated in recent years, with acts of violence claimed by radicalized groups, while the country was undergoing an unprecedented constitutional process.

 The proposal for a plurinational state and territorial autonomy for indigenous peoples deeply strained national unity.

In Argentina, the figure of the Mapuche Ancestral Resistance (RAM, in Spanish) emerged, which was attributed to violent acts in Patagonia. In both countries, the idea of ​​a possible “internationalization” of the Mapuche conflict took hold, fueled by external support networks.

These cases show how external interference primarily seeks to fragment social cohesion through separatist discourses and extreme autonomy.

This weakens states’ ability to make sovereign and unified decisions, especially when territorial demands are concentrated in strategic areas with abundant natural resources (minerals, oil, forests, water).

 The ultimate goal is to access these resources on terms favorable to foreign powers, either through direct negotiations with divided communities or by justifying their international intervention.

The other side of this agenda is the imposition of globalist legal frameworks, promoting international standards that ultimately undermine national sovereignty. This approach introduces a permanent tension between each country’s constitutional framework and the new “rights” promoted by international organizations, often instrumentalized for geopolitical purposes.

In conclusion, the Anglo-American agenda, by promoting ethnic divisions under the banner of Indigenous rights, actually pursues a “balkanization” of Latin America: fragmenting it into cultural or ethnic identities serving foreign interests.

 Through funding, NGOs, and seductive discourse, these powers present themselves as defenders of Indigenous peoples while advancing the strategic interests of our states.

The result is a scenario of internal conflicts, political instability, and institutional weakening, which favors the loss of sovereignty over our territories and resources.