Latin America objectively needs to focus on its regionalization, integration, and regional autonomy, both because of the need for its countries to face similar social, cultural, economic, and political challenges, and because of the strong geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges and problems posed by the general and profound crisis of the liberal international order in these first decades of the 21st century.

The international order that emerged from the Yalta Conference and the San Francisco Conference around 1945 entered a serious crisis when global bipolarity ended and the hegemonic superpower, now free from the constraints of bipolarity and the Cold War, attempted to implement a "unipolar experiment." However, this unipolar experiment began to show cracks during the first decade of the 21st century in various dimensions. These included, for example, the military, with the outcome of the invasion of Afghanistan and then the second war and invasion of Iraq, as well as the consequences of these events; the geopolitical, with the defeat of the Pan-American Free Trade Area of ​​the Americas (FTAA) project; the economic, with the 2008 financial crisis in the United States; and the multilateral, with the emergence of the Group of 20 (G-20) as a new multilateral forum that facilitated dialogue between emerging countries and the major powers, countries that were challenging different aspects of the international economic and political order.

The G20 built a parallel regulatory framework through the Financial Stability Board. Then, the international order began to be questioned during Donald Trump's first term and is being completely dismantled during his second term, beginning in 2025, despite the efforts of Joe Biden's administration (2021-2024) and its attempts to relaunch neoliberal policies domestically and the neoliberal establishment internationally. Thus, on the one hand, in the US (and other parts of the world), neoliberalism persists economically as privatized neoliberalism and politically as a weakening of democracy in the face of manipulation; on the other hand, the international neoliberal establishment appears aging and riddled with problems. And in this context, the hegemony of the US superpower declines and weakens. These were the conditions for the emergence and strengthening of the conservative and far-right movement in the US and in the so-called Collective West. The general context is one of crisis in the international order and an open process oriented towards the configuration of a new world order.

Between the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, in the absence of a boost from the Western centers of global capitalist development, the emergence of Asia Pacific and China in particular began to be glimpsed, competing in several areas with the US.

This process advanced on several fronts, such as through the consolidation of the BRICS, which includes China, Russia, India, Brazil, and South Africa as leading countries and regional and global powers, later becoming BRICS Plus. This bloc and other initiatives have given impetus to the formation of what is now called the Global South, a group of emerging countries from the semi-periphery and periphery of capitalism that were previously considered part of the Third World.

Properly understood, in this phase of historical transition, the formation of a Global South also entailed the configuration of a Global North (also called the Collective West), revealing a phenomenon of global geopolitical polarization. Undoubtedly, these two "poles" are highly heterogeneous and quite problematic, although they share common problems and have differentiated responsibilities. But in general, it is possible to visualize that on one side we find the US and the UK, the G7, the EU, and NATO, and on the other side, we find China, Russia, and the BRICS PLUS. This represents the conservative-neoliberal pole and what some authors might consider the progressive-neodevelopmentalist pole. This general panorama of global polarization is the historical reality in which the process of the terminal crisis of the old world order and the possible configuration of a new planetary order unfolds. The process of competition and confrontation among the great world powers is in full swing.

This global context of crisis and widespread geopolitical polarization affects all regions of the world, and especially Latin America and the Caribbean. In our region, since the beginning of the 21st century, we have witnessed the start of a cycle of progressive governments that have driven positive changes in political, economic, and social priorities in most countries and have fostered regional integration. It is important to note that during the years from 2000 to 2015, these regional integration processes also advanced and strengthened, with a multidimensional agenda that no longer had a strictly economic or commercial focus and with a significant emphasis on reinforcing sovereignty and autonomy.

We are referring to the reconfiguration of MERCOSUR, the emergence of UNASUR, ALBA, and later CELAC, among the most prominent initiatives. However, in recent years, this process lost momentum and declined, giving way to the Pacific Alliance. This ushered in a period of regression and paralysis for the processes undertaken at the national and regional levels, promoted by conservative-neoliberal governments (2016-2019). After this brief period of conservative-neoliberal dominance, a second progressive cycle began, extending from 2000 to the present, though it has not yet fully taken hold or functioned effectively, despite the efforts of governments in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and others. It is worth noting that during this second progressive cycle, a current of conservative-neoliberal governments began to organize and consolidate, gaining significant political and geopolitical influence. This has led to the positioning of the progressive-neo-developmentalist current of governments and the conservative-neoliberal current of governments and, without a doubt, to their dispute in the region and for the geopolitical control of the region.

Thus, we note that global geopolitical polarization has repercussions in the region and is related to the competition and dispute between the two regional (geo)political currents. This is even more pronounced given that the most prominent leaders of this global polarization, the US and China, are present and competing in the region, and are also seeking to align themselves with one of the two currents of government: progressive-neo-developmentalist or conservative-neoliberal.

The general crisis of the world order, global geopolitical polarization, and internal regional geopolitical struggles place regionalism, integration, and autonomy in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) in a situation of problematization and revision of each of the aspects mentioned. How should LAC regionalism be conceived? How can regional integration be promoted? How can regional autonomy be strengthened? These are key questions to be addressed in the coming period. Regionalism implies a vision of the region's overall dynamics and the articulation of its subregions. Regional integration leads to projecting the impetus of regional integration and the articulation of subregional integration processes. And autonomy raises the issue of sovereignty and the strengthening of internal regional capacities. This perspective opens up the major questions of unity, agreement, and consensus to embark on a historical path in the context of global geopolitical polarization and to build possible alternatives.

The international context, the situation in the region, and the questions raised lead us to place Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), as a region, at the center of the research we plan to undertake. In this way, we believe that regional and subregional integration mechanisms must continue to be the most important points of reference for connection, cooperation, and complementarity in Latin America. It is foreseeable that internal regional disputes and the international crisis will continue to inhibit broader multilateral negotiations and solutions. Hence the need to analyze the conditions and alternatives, both to strengthen intraregional relations and to help address the common challenges posed by a world with many uncertainties and undergoing systemic restructuring.

Latin America and the Caribbean began their process of economic integration in the 1960s, experiencing stages of relative progress and, above all, significant setbacks. A series of questions arose regarding regionalism: closed and developmentalist?; open and commercialist?; alternative and neo-developmentalist?; regarding integration: one region? several subregions? intergovernmental? supranational? a middle ground?; and regarding autonomy: endogenous capacities? exogenous capacities? a mixture? alignment with one of the two geopolitical poles? a distinct historical path?

It is important to note that the research process we have initiated must adopt a global and regional systemic approach; that is, it must address the region within the context of the global capitalist system—the modern global capitalist and colonial system, as Immanuel Wallerstein and Aníbal Quijano would note. All of this calls us to an analysis from a research perspective that considers aspects such as:

- The impact of a new global geopolitical scenario that is leading to structural repositionings, changes in roles, interhegemonic disputes and a redefinition of priorities of States both in the region and in the world.

- The influence of global geopolitical polarization in the region on the open competition between (geo)political currents: conservative-neoliberal vs progressive-neodevelopmentalist; and the consequent problems of a regional geopolitical division with a greater US influence in the region.

- The consequences of the presence and actions of the United States and China on the regionalization, integration and autonomy of the region, as well as on the actions of the governments and social and political forces of the region.

- A new profile of regional foreign trade is emerging due to the relative displacement of traditional markets in crisis and the growing importance of new emerging markets, particularly in China and the Asia-Pacific region. This has driven a significant and favorable shift in the terms of trade for exports of certain raw materials (food, energy, minerals, among others), in which Latin America has specialized. This presents an opportunity for structural changes in response to new environmental, technological, and material challenges in terms of job creation.

-The essential return to the center of academic attention of international debt problems, the behavior of capital markets, and the evolution of balance of payments in peripheral countries. And here, we must also bear in mind the roles played by the United States and China in the dynamics of the regional economy and national economies.

The importance of recognizing that the new global landscape has challenged the prevailing neoliberal economic model in the Global North and raised questions about the need for an alternative model of economic development on the international stage. Undoubtedly, attention is focused on China's economic development model and the burgeoning economies of the Asia-Pacific region.

It is clear that Latin America and the Caribbean face several crossroads. Overlapping and conflicting international visions and structural changes affect the region. The need to analyze and debate alternatives that strategically address development models for its semi-peripheral and peripheral economies is evident. These models should allow the region to modify and expand its productive structures and complement its economies, emphasizing active policies to compensate for intra- and extra-regional asymmetries. Understanding the necessary political and institutional framework and governance in the economy and politics must necessarily lead to a discussion of the general model of development and integration that the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean commonly require. It is possible and expected that governments, with varying degrees of emphasis, can resume the process of realistically evaluating the limitations, challenges, and potential for designing an appropriate development model and a positive course for regional integration.

The priority task of developing an academic platform for studying and analyzing the conditions and alternatives for promoting regionalization, integration, and regional autonomy has once again been set. To achieve this, it will not be enough to simply generate critical analyses of existing regional conditions; rather, it will be necessary to create more opportunities for analyzing and debating diagnoses and, above all, for developing alternative proposals.

The challenge is to realistically find a consistent and effective path forward. This requires a thorough analysis of the path already traveled and an evaluation of the progress and limitations of experiences and initiatives for regionalization, integration, and regional autonomy. It also requires learning from history to avoid repeating the enormous gaps between dreams and concrete achievements. The debate is relevant and challenging. This Working Group can play a positive role in advancing it.