The recent murder of Ecuadorian presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio has shone a light on the looming sense of chaos and instability afflicting Latin American politics. From economic dislocation to rising crime rates to the lingering consequences of pandemic-era policies, citizens throughout the region have responded to the situation by overwhelmingly blaming incumbent politicians. The upcoming elections in Argentina, Ecuador, and Guatemala will illustrate the continued strength of this anti-incumbent moment and test their political systems.
Holding public office during the trying days of the COVID-19 pandemic generally hurt anyone who held office in Latin America, and particularly conservative parties, many of which offered up candidates that failed to respond to the moment. Jeanine Anez in Bolivia, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Pinera in Chile, and Duque in Colombia all opened the door to progressive successors by mismanaging the pandemic and failing to respond to the concerns of their citizens. With the exception of Paraguay, this anti-incumbent moment brought change in 16 of the last 17 free presidential elections.
By all accounts, this anti-incumbent moment persists. Continued fallout from the pandemic and the global effects of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are fueling continued dissatisfaction with incumbent political leaders—even those that have only been elected recently. Inflation remains high in much of Latin America and high food and fuel prices are straining patience with democratic systems. Rampant crime is creating a deep sense of insecurity and eroding confidence in the rule of law.
Argentine president Alberto Fernandez, elected just months before the pandemic, struggles with over 100 percent inflation and an unfavourability rating of 87 percent, presaging a difficult election for his Peronists later this year (he has announced he will not run). In Colombia, after only one year Gustavo Petro’s congressional coalition has fractured under the weight of an ambitious reform agenda and scandals have beset his innermost circle. And despite taking office post-pandemic and with a mandate to heal democracy in Brazil, Luis Ignacio “Lula” da Silva has struggled to advance his agenda, facing increased polarization stemming from the January 8 attack on Brasilia and an entrenched conservative forces in Congress.
On the right, Ecuadorian President Guillermo Lasso has been unable to curb a stunning rise in violence driven by expanding regional cartels and mafias and called for a “muerte cruzada” in May to avoid certain impeachment. Despite the assassination of presidential candidate Villavicencio, Ecuadorians will go to the polls to elect Lasso’s replacement on August 20.
Given the continued free-floating anti-incumbent sentiment, it’s very possible that the pendulum will not just swing to the opposite side of the political spectrum but could benefit outsider—and even radical—candidates. Argentina’s primary election this week was an important test case for this hypothesis. Congressman and libertarian economist Javier Milei has seized upon frustration with chronic high inflation in a surprise primary win,positioning himself and his Libertad Avanza (Liberty Advances) movement as a contender for the presidency.
In the upcoming general elections in Ecuador and Guatemala, outsider candidates seek to push out two of the last right-leaning presidencies in the region. In Ecuador, several radical anti-establishment candidates have garnered massive support in recent years: Indigenous outsider Yaku Pérez narrowly missed the second round in 2021 and more recently, Jan Topic—with his Top-Gun inspired, mano dura swagger—seeks to position himself as best-equipped to counter the countries rising insecurity. And in Guatemala, Bernardo Arévalo surprised many observers with his second-place finish in the first round of the presidential elections, raising hopes galvanizing support for his anti-corruption campaign and capitalizing on dissatisfaction with the country’s center-right elite.
What about the counterfactuals? In Colombia, Gustavo Petro benefitted from anti-incumbent sentiment but found himself as the more establishment candidate in the second round, only narrowly beating former Bucaramanga mayor and construction magnate Rodolfo Hernandez, who rose to prominence on his TikTok-driven anti-corruption message. The roughly three-point margin of victory was a notable result for a politician who lacked any significant party structure or national political experience; a more polished candidate with a semblance of party machinery may have delivered a different result.
Paraguay represents another apparent exception to the trend. The Colorado party’s Santiago Peña romped to victory with a nearly 16 percent difference over the nearest challenges. But Paraguayo “Payo” Cubas, a right-wing candidate for Cruzada Nacional, took a surprising 23 percent of the vote, leveraging widespread frustration with corruption and nearly uninterrupted one-party rule since the late 1940s.
Even when electorally unsuccessful, outsider political figures and movements are still exercising significant influence. Figures like Paraguay’s Paraguayo “Payo” Cubas and Argentina’s Milei have an effect by mainstreaming their policy ideas—ideas that in some cases were inconceivable prior to their or their movements’ political rise. In proportional electoral systems like Argentina or Paraguay’s, even losing campaigns generally win enough congressional representatives to influence the policy agenda. Consider the case of Antonio Kast, who lost Chile’s 2021 presidential election to Gabriel Boric: Just two years later, Kast’s unapologetically right-wing coalition led by Partido Republicano (Republican Party) dominated recent elections for the same council that will write the next constitution.
Anti-establishment populism can have a healthy effect on politics. Populist movements can be regenerative, bringing in new policy ideas and scrambling rigid ideological positions. They can lift up previously marginalized populations and break political monopolies. Yet as history has repeatedly shown, populism can easily morph into demagoguery when it is unmoored from strong democratic institutions. For example, populists and demagogues are also more likely to militarize politics and the economy, as happened in Brazil, El Salvador, and Mexico. They are also more likely to undermine democratic institutions that serve as a check on their power.
Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) and El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele were early beneficiaries of this dangerous trend. Both built their movements around frustration with established parties and both disrupted politics in their respective countries. AMLO’s new party, the Movement for National Renovation, broke the duopoly rule of the National Action Party and the Institutional Revolution Party. Bukele is the first president in decades not representing the traditional Nationalist Republican Alliance or the Farabundo Marti Liberation Movement, having left the latter and formed his own party, New Ideas. AMLO came to power as a leftist but espouses socially conservative views towards women and minorities and has militarized parts of Mexico’s economy, confounding the traditional left-right analysis. Similarly, Bukele introduced Bitcoin as legal currency in El Salvador and has made himself the darling of Latin America’s right for his ultra-hardline approach to crime and insecurity.
AMLO and Bukele are easily the most popular leaders in the hemisphere, while at the same time systematically weakening democratic institutions in their countries. Both leaders have been criticized for actions—such as weakening Mexico’s electoral organ or jailing more than one percent of El Salvador’s population and running for a constitutionally prohibited second presidential term—perceived to have undermined democracy in their countries, adopting the same autocratic habits as their mainstream predecessors. Polling shows that as crime and violence increasingly worry voters, their tolerance for authoritarianism increases. As a result, the shocking murder of Ecuador’s Villavicencio may further upend the political landscape as the country approaches next week’s election.
This is by no means the first populist wave Latin America has experienced. And, as in previous waves such as the 1990s and early 2000s that yielded leaders such as Hugo Chávez, Alberto Fujimori, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa, the wave is striking countries that lack the democratic safeguards that could make it more difficult to curb authoritarian impulses. The secret ingredient to prevent populism from morphing into illiberalism in Latin America turns out to be the same thing that, very lacking these days, is enabling their rise in the first place: strong democratic institutions, including political parties. If parties in the region were more inclusive, adaptable, and responsive, they would not find themselves losing elections to popular outsiders. Judging from the primary drubbing of Argentina’s mainstream parties, the upcoming elections in Argentina, Ecuador, and Guatemala will test the anti-incumbency trend, and indicate where the region may be headed.
The opinions expressed in this piece reflect only the author’s views.
Quad foreign ministers meet in New York for the third time
Quad foreign ministers met in New York for the second time this year and the seventh time since 2019. The four-nation grouping’s ambit of cooperation has clearly expanded and diversified over the years. What were the key talking points this time? I analyse.
The foreign ministers of India, Japan, Australia and the United States – four key maritime democracies in the Indo-Pacific – met on the sidelines of the 78th annual session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York on September 22. This was their seventh meeting since 2019 and the second of 2023. Notably, exactly four years ago, this four-nation Quad was raised to the foreign ministers’ level amid a UNGA session. Earlier in 2023, the ministers met in March on the sidelines of the G20 ministerial in New Delhi and in May, this year, the Quad leaders’ summit was hosted by Japan on the sidelines of the G7 summit. Having met twice in 2022 as well, the ministers congregated six times in person and virtually once so far.
The previous ministerial in New Delhi saw the four-nation grouping making a reference to an extra-regional geopolitical issue for the first time – Ukraine – and also the initiation of a new Working Group mechanism on counter-terrorism, a key agenda item for India and the United States, among other themes of discussion. Following the seventh meeting, India’s foreign minister Dr S. Jaishankar tweeted, “Always value our collective contribution to doing global good”, while U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken remarked that the grouping is “vital to our shared vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific, and together we reaffirmed our commitment to uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter”.
Diversifying ambit of cooperation
The ministers have clearly doubled down on the commitments taken during their previous deliberations, particularly to improve capacity-building for regional players. The joint statement that followed the meeting read, “The Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness is supporting regional partners combat illicit maritime activities and respond to climate-related and humanitarian events.” Similarly, the Working Group on maritime security promised “practical and positive outcomes” for the region. Prior to the recent ministerial, the Working Group on counter-terrorism conducted a Consequence Management Exercise that “explored the capabilities and support Quad countries could offer regional partners in response to a terrorist attack”, the joint readout mentions.
Later this year, the U.S. island state of Hawaii will host the Counter-terrorism Working Group’s meeting and tabletop exercise, which will focus on countering the use of emerging technologies for terrorist activities, while the Working Group on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR) will be convened in Australia’s Brisbane for its second tabletop exercise. Earlier in August, this year, all four Quad navies participated in Exercise Malabar for the fourth consecutive year, off Sydney, the first hosted by Australia. However, as in previous meetings, the ministers didn’t specifically mention Russia or China with regard to the situations in Ukraine and maritime east Asia respectively.
On the Ukraine question, the ministers expressed their “deep concern”, taking note of its “terrible and tragic humanitarian consequences” and called for “comprehensive, just, and lasting peace”. In a veiled reference to Russia, the ministers rebuffed the “use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons”, underscoring the respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, and called for the resumption of the UN-brokered Black Sea Grain Initiative, which allows for the export of food grains and fertilizers from Ukraine to world markets via a maritime humanitarian corridor, amid the ongoing conflict with Russia.
Similarly, in another veiled reference to continuing Chinese belligerence and lawfare in maritime east Asia, the ministers stressed upon the need to adhere to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and to maintain “freedom of navigation and overflight consistent with UNCLOS”, reiterating their “strong opposition to any unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo by force or coercion”, including with respect to maritime claims in the South and East China Seas. Going further ahead, the ministers expressed their concern on “the militarisation of disputed features, the dangerous use of coast guard and maritime militia vessels, and efforts to disrupt other countries’ offshore exploitation activities”. The joint readout also had mentions of North Korea and Myanmar.
The evident and the inferred
Today, almost all the areas of cooperation of Quad countries happen to be the areas of strategic competition with China, the rapid rise of which necessitated the coming together of the four nations, even though this is not openly acknowledged. In this new great game unfolding in the Indo-Pacific, the U.S.-led Quad is trying to balance China’s overwhelming initiatives to capture the support of smaller and middle powers in the region and around the world. Placid initiatives such as the Open Radio Access Network, the private sector-led Investors Network, Cybersecurity Partnership, Cable Connectivity Partnership and the Pandemic Preparedness Exercises should be read in this context.
With the rise of Quad in parallel with the rise of China and other minilateral groupings in the Indo-Pacific such as the AUKUS (a grouping of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States), the existing regional framework based on the slow-moving, consensus-based Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was put to test. However, allaying all doubts, Quad deliberations at both the ministerial and summit levels continued to extend their support to ASEAN’s centrality in the region and also for the ASEAN-led regional architecture that also includes the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Regional Forum. Despite somewhat differing regional outlooks, the Quad likes to see itself as “complementary” to the ASEAN, rather than an “alternative” to its pan-regional influence.
India, the only non-ally of the U.S. in the Quad, will host the fourth in-person Quad leaders’ summit in 2024. The Asian giant is often dubbed as the weakest link in the grouping, owing to its friendly ties with Russia, but other members intent to keep India’s bilateral equations with other countries away from the interior dynamics of the grouping, signalling an acknowledgement of India’s growing geopolitical heft in the region and beyond. This seems to be subtly reflected in the stance taken by individual Quad members in the recent India-Canada diplomatic row, in which they made sure not to provoke New Delhi or to touch upon sensitive areas, even though a fellow Western partner is involved on the other side.
|Quad Foreign Ministers Meeting||Month & Year||Venue|
|First||September 2019||New York|
|Fifth||September 2022||New York|
|Sixth||March 2023||New Delhi|
|Seventh||September 2023||New York|
NB:- All three Quad ministerials in New York were held on the sidelines of the respective annual sessions of the UN General Assembly i.e., the first, the fifth, and the seventh meetings.
On the multilateral front, the four ministers reaffirmed their support for the UN, the need to uphold “mutually determined rules, norms, and standards, and to deepen Quad’s cooperation in the international system, and also batted for a comprehensive reform of the UN, including the expansion of permanent and non-permanent seats in the Security Council. While China and Russia, two powerful permanent members of the Security Council, continue to denounce the Quad as an “exclusionary bloc”, the Quad ministers and leaders tend to tone down any security role for the grouping.
However, a recent comment made by Vice Admiral Karl Thomas of the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet during this year’s Exercise Malabar is noteworthy. He said the war games were “not pointed toward any one country”, rather it would improve the ability of the four forces to work with each other and “the deterrence that our four nations provide as we operate together as a Quad is a foundation for all the other nations operating in this region”. Even in the absence of a security treaty, in a way he hinted at the grouping’s desire to cherish its collective strength across all fronts and to check on hegemonic tendencies that may manifest in the region from time to time.
Dynamics of the Sikh Vote Cloud Canada’s Diplomatic Relations with India
Operating across British Columbia (BC), Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, gangs made up of Indo-Canadian Punjabis – Brothers Keepers, Dhak-Duhre, Dhaliwal, Sanghera, Malli-Buttar, and several such, are involved in arms trafficking, racketeering, extortion, narco trafficking, money laundering, and not the least, assassinations. Formed in 2004 and mandated to disrupt and suppress organised crime in B.C. the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit (CFSEU-BC), has warned the public of the nexus of Punjabi-Canadians to violence.
In the murders of Punjabi singer Sidhu Moose Wala and Ripudaman Singh Malik, acquitted in the tragic 1985 Air India Kanishka terror-bombing case, the conspicuous involvement of these Indo-Canadian gangs with notorious criminals Goldy Brar and Lawrence Bishnoi at the helm, manifested itself.
On June 18 Sikh Hardeep Singh Nijjar, was gunned down as he left his gurdwara in Surrey, B.C., which has the highest proportions of Punjabi Canadians. Nijjar had entered Canada in 1995 on a fake passport and claimed asylum on arrest at Toronto. In B.C. he married a local who sponsored his immigration and he was subsequently awarded Canadian citizenship. Brazenly propounding anti-India separatist sentiments, Nijjar was even placed on Canada’s no-fly list and Interpol’s red corner notice. Alongwith gangsters Arshdeep Singh Dala, Maninder Singh Bual, and Mandeep Singh Dhaliwal his outfit Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF) was involved in contract killings in Punjab. Gang-related killings account for a third of all homicides in Canada’s British Columbia.
Despite this disconcerting background of Nijjar’s ties to organised crime gangs in Canada, on September 18, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alleged the involvement of “agents of the Indian government” in the killing of Nijjar. A claim outrightly rejected by New Delhi as “absurd” and “motivated.” If Trudeau was looking to further impair an increasingly forbidding bilateral relationship, he succeeded. Canada and India have expelled a senior diplomat each and negotiations for a free trade agreement stand suspended.
There is a palpable perversity to Canada’s position on the Khalistan issue. In 1982, Trudeau’s father and then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau
had rejected Late PM Indira Gandhi’s demands for extradition of Khalistani terrorist Talwinder Singh Parmar, who went on to execute the bombing of Air India Flight Kanishka, killing 329 people in 1985.
Alarmed by the presence of Sikh secessionists among the diaspora, former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh during his 2010 trip to attend the G20 summit in Toronto, asked Canada “to stop people from using religious places to promote extremism.” Canadian MP Sukh Dhaliwal, had introduced a motion in the Canadian parliament to declare the 1984 riots a “genocide”. Fast forward to 2023, G20 under PM Modi there was no attempt at all to put even a vaguely positive spin on the India-Canada equation.
The timing of Trudeau’s accusation just days after the G20 summit in New Delhi where he says he brought Khalistani extremism and “foreign interference” “directly to PM Modi in no uncertain terms” smacks of umbrage at being at the receiving end of a very hard-hitting message that the ‘extremist elements in Canada are “promoting secessionism and inciting violence against Indian.’
The Khalistan issue has got a fresh lease of life after the advent of the Justine Trudeau government. With just 32.2 percent of the popular vote, Liberal leader Trudeau has the least electoral support in Canadian history, and was backed by Jagmeet Singh’s New Democratic Party (NDP) which openly supports the Khalistan Referendum on Canadian soil.
Canada’s Conservative opposition leader, Pierre Poilievre, has urged Trudeau to show the evidence that the government has in hand. Notwithstanding this current posture the Conservative Party (CP) too, has in the past caved in to the Sikh vote bank. In 2018 when its condemnation of ‘glorification of terrorism’ was objected to by the World Sikh Organisation, the CP dropped its ‘anti-Khalistan’ motion in the House of Commons.
There is beyond sufficient evidence, to India’s contention that Canada, and other western nations including US, UK, and Australia have allowed cadres of separatist violent Khalistani groups to thrive. The UK recently set up a £95,000 fund to enhance its understanding of the threat posed by Khalistan extremism. While the amount set aside to tackle pro-Khalistan elements is not substantial, it acknowledges that a Sikh radicalisation problem exists in the west.
Sikh temples and organisations abroad orchestrate Remembrance Days for ‘Operation Blue Star’ on June 6 and ‘Sikh Massacre’ on November 5, that serve as cultural repertoires and focal points of advocating Khalistani extremism. This year at the remembrance day parade, Khalistan supporters in Ontario exhibited a female figure in a blood-stained white saree with turbaned men pointing guns at her, to celebrate the assassination of late PM Indira Gandhi. The poster behind the scene read “Revenge for the attack on Darbar Sahib.”
Reacting to this macabre tableau, External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar said, “Frankly, we are at a loss to understand other than the requirements of vote bank politics why anybody would do this … I think there is a larger underlying issue about the space which is given to separatists, to extremists, to people who advocate violence. I think it is not good for relationships, not good for Canada.”
At multiple diplomatic and security talks, India has raised the issue of wanted terrorists and gangsters only to be defied by the Canadian government with non-committance and brazen support for extremist Sikhs. And yet Canada’s NATO allies and partners in the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence sharing agreement, the United States and Australia, have expressed “deep concerns” over the issue. Adrienne Watson, spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said, “We are deeply concerned about the allegations referenced by Prime Minister Trudeau.” Foreign Secretary of the UK, James Cleverly, posted UK’s reaction on platform X “We are in regular contact with our Canadian partners about serious allegations raised in the Canadian Parliament.” One wonders if this allegation of targeted killing by India is in retaliation to New Delhi’s steady favour of Russia, and has been levelled after reports of a brokered American deal with Pakistan for weapons transfer to Ukraine in lieu of an IMF bailout emerged.
Admonishing Canada on X, former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Menon Rao said, “Canada has an extremely spotty and very, very poor record on the whole issue of Khalistanis in Canada. The support these lawless elements have received under the cover of what is called freedom of expression and democratic rights of citizens…it must control such elements with a firm hand and cannot allow them to run free to foster terrorism and violence in our country.”
Amid the hectic media coverage there was speculation that ‘Trudeau’s allegations have put the White House in an especially tight spot.’ But this were swifty checked by Adrienne Watson in her X post, “reports that we rebuffed Canada in any way on this are flatly false. We are coordinating and consulting with Canada closely on this issue.”
The manner in which copious evidence on Khalistan separatists handed over to the Canadian side have gone unaddressed and yet Trudeau’s allegation invoked strong reactions from other western nations, implies that this has moved beyond our bilaterals with Ottawa. It will have ramifications on how India deals with its strong G7 allies, especially the US.
For India the existence of Khalistani extremists and their alignment with organised crime in Canada poses security exigencies. India must at this juncture refrain from a broad generalisation of Sikh diaspora as secessionist, an incrimination that was implied during the Sikh-dominated farmers’ movement.
Political parties must rise above partisan politics over separatist movements that are a threat to nation security. Voices from Punjab attest that Khalistan supporters remain ‘fringe’ and ‘on the margins.’ Even among expatriate Sikh community leaders have challenged the anti-India narrative laid out by Khalistanis and their supporters, despite the fact that they, and the community there, regularly face harassment and threats of violence from expatriate Khalistanis. Former Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh states that Nijjar’s murder was the result of a factional feud within the management of the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara situated at Surrey and that Trudeau had “walked into a trap owing to vote bank politics.”
New Delhi must ensure that overseas Sikh communities which have tried to counter pro-Khalistan disinformation shall not be left alone to defend themselves.
China and Venezuela Deepening Cooperation
In a significant development that underscores the changing dynamics of global politics and economics, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Venezuelan counterpart Nicolas Maduro recently signed several bilateral cooperation agreements in Beijing, highlighting the changing dynamics of world politics and economics. China’s determination to participate in partnerships that promote economic stability and prosperity demonstrates its unwavering commitment to global economic recovery.
The agreements signify a strengthening of their partnerships and span a variety of fields, including trade, the economy, and tourism. The cooperation has been upgraded to an “All-weather strategic partnership,” reflecting the continued dedication of both countries to the advancement and development of the other. The decision by China and Venezuela to strengthen their ties comes as the world is witnessing a transformation in international alliances and trade partnerships.
The economic collaboration between the two countries is one of the most significant aspects of this new era of partnership. The recent agreements are expected to further cement Venezuela’s ties with China, which has long been the country’s major trading partner.Investments in infrastructure development and oil and gas exploration and production are part of the cooperation in the energy industry.
During his visit to China, President Maduro expressed his optimism for the relationship’s future, stating it heralds the start of a “new era” for both nations. Venezuela, which has recently experienced economic difficulties, views China as a dependable ally that can aid in reviving its economy. China, on the other hand, sees Venezuela as a crucial friend in the region and a valuable supply of natural resources.
China and Venezuela’s energy cooperation has broad implications. As the globe grapples with concerns about energy security and climate change, this alliance might have a big impact on the global energy landscape. China’s investments in Venezuela’s oil sector can stabilize oil prices and provide a more consistent supply of crude oil to the global market.
Aside from the energy industry, both countries have pledged to deepen their collaboration in a variety of other economic areas. Venezuela can benefit from China’s expertise in agricultural technologies and infrastructural development in one area. Venezuela may enhance food production and reduce its reliance on imports by modernizing its agricultural sector with Chinese assistance, thereby increasing food security for its citizens.
Additionally, both countries have enormous potential in the tourism sector. Venezuela has incredible landscapes such as the famous Angel Falls and virgin Caribbean beaches, which may appeal to Chinese tourists looking for new travel experiences. Similarly, China’s rich history and culture have always captured the interest of visitors from all over the world, including Venezuelans. The tourist accords aim to make travel between the two countries easier, to foster cultural interaction, and to develop tourism-related enterprises.
Furthermore, the strengthened relationship extends beyond economic interests to include political and strategic considerations. Both countries have reaffirmed their commitment to mutual support in international forums and to no interference in the other’s internal affairs. This strategic partnership is consistent with China’s aim of establishing a multipolar world and strengthening cooperation across developing nations.
The collaboration between China and Venezuela should be seen in the larger Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) initiative. The BRI seeks to establish a network of economic and infrastructure partnerships across Asia, Europe, Africa, and Latin America. A deeper integration of Venezuela into China’s global economic vision through its participation in the BRI could create new trade and investment opportunities.
The potential for economic development in Venezuela is one of the most notable benefits of the China-Venezuela cooperation. In recent years, the South American country has suffered severe economic issues, including high inflation, financial sanctions, and political unrest. China’s investments and assistance can help stabilize Venezuela’s economy, generate jobs, and raise inhabitants’ living standards.
The China-Venezuela connection is a key milestone in the shifting global political and economic landscape. In a changing world order, this partnership has the potential to provide Venezuela with economic prosperity, stability, as well as greater autonomy.
World News4 days ago
Seymour Hersh: A year of lying about Nord Stream
World News4 days ago
Gerad Araud: Deluded Europe can’t see that it’s finished
Science & Technology4 days ago
Towards A Better World: Our Senses and How Artificial Intelligence is Replicating Them
Southeast Asia4 days ago
Miles of Hope: The Changing Face of Indonesia-South Korea Relations
South Asia4 days ago
Pakistan’s Role in the United Nations
Middle East3 days ago
The role of Egypt in the Xi Jinping initiative of “democratization of international relations”
Eastern Europe3 days ago
Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Can Multipolar BRICS-11 Ensure Global Peace and Stability?
Middle East3 days ago
Saudi-Israeli deal would be a gamechanger but not for the reasons discussed