Our Latin American civilization has its own particularities, where telluric and thalassic elements seem to intertwine. This is why, in geopolitical terms, Brazil e.g. is often described as an amphibious regional power—one that must fully leverage all its capabilities.
Some of these ideas are reflected in Travassos’s Continental Projection (1978). A similar scenario is unfolding in Peru, especially following the recent opening of the Chancay megaport, which will facilitate trade between China and Peru. The notion of the Andean nation as an amphibious power is clearly presented in Castro Contreras’s New Geostrategic Vision (1993). All of this points towards the possibilities of a unified geopolitical vision of Latin-America.
However, in times of conflict, this unified geopolitical vision fractures and gives way to divisions among the fraternal nations of Latin America. What once appeared amphibious suddenly becomes distinctly land-based or maritime—with no nuance. These are remnants of the regional impact of the geopolitical strategies of continental great powers upon peripheral nation-states.
In Latin America, the hemispheric influence of the United States on foreign policy remains evident to this day. The concept of “backyard,” a lingering relic of the Monroe Doctrine, along with the practices of the Security Doctrine during the Cold War, still resonate in the minds of Latin American politicians who remain confined within outdated bipolar frameworks.
This is, and continues to be, one of the main reasons why Latin America—barring exceptions—lacks an independent geopolitical doctrine outside the framework of Western powers. Instead, it replicates and remains functional to that system. This accounts for the divided opinions on global-impact conflicts, both past and ongoing.
To this must be added another major factor that only fully came to light with Donald Trump’s arrival at the White House: the largely unseen role of USAID in using humanitarian aid as a tool for regional political control, thereby generating a manifest economic dependency through support funds. In 2023 alone, USAID disbursed US$1.7 billion in Latin America.
Thus, (i) the lingering influence of U.S. hemispheric dominance and (ii) economic dependency disguised as humanitarian aid have been the two main causes behind the failure of every attempt at forging a unified geopolitical vision for Latin America.
The final question remains: What can be done to break the recurring cycle of fragmentation that undermines a unified geopolitical vision in Latin America—one that would enable a regional consensus in firmly rejecting globalist militarism? A readily apparent answer is that the transition from the nation-state to the civilization-state requires structures that go beyond merely economic or administrative arrangements such as the Andean Community (CAN), MERCOSUR, or UNASUR.
Without diminishing the importance of these entities, what is truly needed are ontopolitical structures—that is, cultural frameworks grounded in a broad civilizational vision. Hence, the idea of a Confederation of Latin American Nations emerges as the most appropriate path toward achieving unified geopolitical criteria, genuine political sovereignty, and full economic independence.
