After a fifteen-year cycle of progressive, left-wing, or center-left governments, Latin America saw significant progress in several key social, economic, and political areas, including: the expansion of public spending on social policies, leading to increased consumption among large segments of the population; a new dynamic of regional integration through the creation of new regional spaces such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) (2008), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) (2012), the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), and the deepening of existing processes such as Mercosur; and the region's participation, through Brazil, in the BRICS, which became one of the main forums for interstate coordination among five emerging powers: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. This increasingly dynamic coordination space, with a Development Bank whose capital exceeds 600 billion dollars (if we add the available capital of the BRICS Bank and the Asian Development Bank), is redefining the dynamics of the world economy from which new geopolitical alignments are emerging where China and its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) play a central role.

However, in the second decade of the 21st century, we are experiencing a period of rising right-wing and far-right movements, as is the case in Brazil, which present new challenges to regional integration and new tensions at the local, national, and regional levels. This global conservative strategy, however, faces some problems: the election of a progressive government in Mexico with AMLO, the growing Chinese presence in key economic and strategic infrastructure sectors in the region, challenging US hegemonic interests, and the significant decline in support for conservative governments on the continent, which have led to major economic disruptions in Latin America, as seen in Macri's Argentina. 

At a historical juncture like this, it is essential to engage in a broad and systematic reflection on the new geopolitical reconfigurations of the world system, the dynamics of the global and regional economy, and the challenges facing regional integration projects. Understanding the major issues of global political economy and the strategic interests at stake is a fundamental objective for academia, civil society, popular movements, and public administrators in the region.

It is becoming increasingly urgent that public policy and planning, academic training, and the social sciences keep pace with global and regional phenomena. For this reason, we consider the continuation of a Working Group on this issue within CLACSO to be extremely timely, as it will allow for the creation of a space for collective reflection and an ever-expanding network of researchers working on this topic in the region, with growing international collaboration.

This Working Group aims to promote an interdisciplinary debate on the geopolitical dimension of regional integration processes, particularly in Latin America, within the context of the main conflicting and converging economic and political interests in the global system and the strategies articulated to these interests. Special attention will be paid to analyzing the struggle for territories and natural resources and the impact of these processes on local populations, social movements, governments, national sovereignties, and public policies; the reconfiguration of the global economy and the international financial system; the new dynamics of South-South and North-South relations in the context of a multipolar system; the spirit of the Bandung Conference (1955) and the emergence of a new world order; hegemonic strategies and militarization processes; and the threats, opportunities, and challenges of regional integration processes.

The aim is to deepen the analysis of Latin American issues from a global perspective of the contemporary world system. In this sense, the project will seek to promote discussion and study of the main elements that shape the dynamics of the global economy and their impact on the contemporary Latin American situation, analyzing the complexity of the interests at stake on the continent, from hegemonic centers and emerging powers in the global system to governments and the diverse social and political actors in the region.

Geopolitical analysis emerged between the 18th and 19th centuries, driven by the need to develop strategies for the most powerful nation-states. This analysis drew upon the creation of myths based on demographic and geological factors, as well as the geographical position of global power centers. These elements underpinned national assertion and the control of colonized territories. During the second half of the 20th century, following two world wars that resulted in colossal material and human losses, it became increasingly difficult to formulate geopolitical proposals based solely on global power centers. Thus, the victorious forces of World War II coalesced to define a world order expressed in a set of institutions that encompassed conflicting forces but also sought spaces for negotiation. These forces demanded a global ideological framework as a reference point for geopolitical formulations. Consequently, Europe submitted to the geopolitical vision and global strategic plan commanded by the United States. The same occurred in Asia, particularly in Japan.

From another center of ideological radiation commanded by the Soviet Union, a world strategy is proposed that will also become political, institutional and military proposals with a clear aspiration of community of interests with various social forces of the world.

Geopolitical formulations originating in the US are beginning to reflect the limits of its global expansion. First, the recovery of Europe and Japan reveals a divergence of interests between the US and its spheres of influence. These differences also encompass significant contradictions, both in general terms and within the context of class struggle at the center of global power. Forging a consensus on geopolitical interests among such divergent forces is proving difficult. Second, the US faces an unprecedented situation in its former colonial territories, fragmented by the defeat of European imperial power centers. The emergence of the so-called Third World reflects a set of interests from new centers of power that had been historically weakened by colonial expansion associated with the primitive accumulation of capital. 

The efforts of colonial powers to regain or maintain their dominance through military means ultimately failed, while the new nation-states sought to define themselves, in relation to their own interests, as regions undergoing liberation and in opposition to ideological proposals (though these were duly reinterpreted as geopolitical objectives). The Bandung Conference paved the way for a common Third World strategy, expressed in regional and national geopolitical interests. However, the Bandung project could not be limited to the world in the process of decolonization, as it demanded an end to war. The end of war was an absolute requirement for the decolonization process at a global level. In this sense, the geopolitical conception of the Non-Aligned Movement became part of a global debate. The emergence of powerful economic forces in Asian nations, representing more than a third of the world's population and unified in powerful state centers, transformed geopolitics into a major debate about the fate of humanity.

Latin America, which had almost entirely eliminated colonial rule, witnessed the depth of its subordinate incorporation into the global market and the international division of labor. Therefore, its reflections on the need to create a new world order became a key element for analysis and struggles within the context of the new geopolitical reconfigurations worldwide. Latin America's rapprochement with Africa and Asia in the process of decolonization was expressed in the Tricontinental meetings, which generated significant solidarity among these forces within the United Nations, UNESCO, UNCTAD, and other more militant organizations such as the South-Center. Latin America also fought to advance regional integration processes, which, at the beginning of the 21st century, guaranteed a new force that simultaneously fostered a moment of reflection capable of nurturing a new geopolitical thinking based on shared interests. Several regional realignments reflect this vision. However, the so-called BRICS stand out, bringing together emerging forces on a global scale.

The complexity of this situation demands an increasingly necessary theoretical, conceptual, and analytical effort. We hope that the Working Group we propose will help develop a suitable theoretical framework for this new historical moment, in which a new planetary civilization is emerging, requiring theoretical and methodological tools and a clear strategic vision within a dialectical worldview.