Chinese investment reshapes Latin America's economic integration
The growth of Chinese investment in Latin America has not only transformed infrastructure, trade and technological presence in the region. but It is also quietly reshaping the foundations of Latin American economic integration, experts and former leaders warned at the "Latin America in the New Global Geopolitics" forum, organized by the Latin American Presidential Mission in Costa Rica.
Evan Ellis, a U.S. research professor of Latin American studies at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, said China's presence has created a form of functional but highly fragmented integration.
"China connects the dots that matter to its interests, not the ones our countries need to develop or integrate with one another," he said.
Projects like transoceanic corridors, logistics routes and large-scale port construction are often framed as efforts to boost regional connectivity. In practice, however, many are designed to move raw materials to Asia rather than build a cohesive Latin American market.
"It's integration with a Chinese purpose, not a Latin American one," Ellis said.
While China has retrenched from mega-infrastructure projects of the last decade, it has surged in backing diversified, tech-related investments, such as electric vehicles, lithium mining and cloud infrastructure.
Beijing's strategy has been clear: engage through low-institutional forums such as CELAC, where countries do not act as a unified bloc. That weakens efforts to negotiate common standards and gives China a stronger hand in bilateral agreements.
"It's not just about infrastructure. It's about how Latin America's ability to think strategically as a region is being undermined," Ellis said.
Former Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla echoed that concern. She said China's expanding footprint, rather than fostering cohesion, has exacerbated historic divisions between the region's subgroups.
"The north tends to align with the United States, the south with China. And in the middle, we've failed to build a shared vision for development," Chinchilla said.
One of the most sensitive issues in this realignment is the geopolitical pressure China exerts to isolate Taiwan. Only 12 countries in the world currently maintain diplomatic ties with the island -- seven of them in Latin America and the Caribbean, including Paraguay.
Former Paraguayan Vice President Luis Alberto Castiglioni firmly defended his country's decision to maintain relations with Taipei.
"Our alliance with Taiwan is not based on conditions, but on transparent cooperation and shared democratic values. China demands that we break that relationship as a condition to access its market, and that is unacceptable."
Ellis reinforced that view, noting that Beijing's diplomatic and commercial pressure also has consequences for national sovereignty.
"The region should ask whether opening up to Chinese investment justifies giving up decision-making authority, regulatory standards or strategic alliances that have historically been beneficial," he said.
Costa Rica, which cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 2007, has been cited as an example of institutional resistance to conditions imposed by Chinese companies. Several infrastructure projects were halted due to local legal and technical oversight.
Still, the trade balance is revealing: Costa Rica's exports to China are now nearly 10 times smaller than those to the United States.
In light of that, former presidents at the forum agreed on the urgent need for Latin America to regain control over its own integration agenda. "This isn't about saying no to China," Chinchilla said, "but about setting our own rules of the game, as a region, with vision and leadership."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Colleges must speak up for their Chinese students
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said all the right things last week after Hong Kong issued arrest warrants for 19 pro-democracy activists in other countries, including in the U.S. 'The extraterritorial targeting of Hong Kongers who are exercising their fundamental freedoms is a form of transnational oppression,' Rubio declared in a statement. 'We will not tolerate the Hong Kong government's attempts to apply its national security laws to silence or intimidate Americans or anyone on U.S. soil.' But we already tolerate the transnational oppression of one large group on our soil: Chinese students. And for the most part, our universities have kept silent about that. That's because of the billions of dollars that Chinese students bring to American colleges, of course. We're already facing an expected decline in Chinese enrollment because of the Trump administration's threats against international students, which higher-education leaders have rightly condemned. But if we really cared about those students — and not just their tuition fees — we would also speak out against the Chinese government's extraterritorial targeting of their fundamental freedoms. Anything less makes us look petty, scared and small. In a report issued last year — titled 'On my campus, I am afraid' — Amnesty International showed how Chinese and Hong Kong students in the U.S. and Europe faced surveillance and intimidation from Chinese authorities. Students reported being photographed and followed at protests, and that their families back home had been harassed. At Georgetown, for example, a Chinese law student who handed out pamphlets denouncing China's 'zero-COVID' policies was videotaped by members of the Chinese Students and Scholars Association, an organization sponsored by the Chinese government. They told him that the pictures would be sent to security officials in China. And soon after that, his family was interrogated and warned that they could face penalties if he continued to speak out. None of this is news, unfortunately. In 2021, ProPublica reported that Chinese intelligence agents were using local informants to threaten and harass students in America. Some Chinese students said they avoided taking courses with other students from their country, because they did not know who was working for the government — and who might report on them. And in 2020, when COVID forced universities to move online, the Wall Street Journal revealed that some professors had told Chinese students that they wouldn't be evaluated on class participation. The faculty didn't want their students to feel the need to speak up and risk getting on the wrong side of Chinese security officials, who were likely monitoring them on Zoom. 'There is no way I can say to my students, 'You can say whatever you want on the phone call and you are totally free and safe,'' one Harvard professor admitted. But most of our university leaders are keeping quiet about the matter. They don't want to take any risks, either, with so much money at stake. A welcome exception is Purdue University, which denounced Chinese spying after ProPublica revealed that one of its students was harassed by security agents for posting a letter about the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. That's a taboo topic in China, which has prohibited public discussion and commemoration of the event. 'Any student found to have reported another student to any foreign entity for exercising their freedom of speech or belief will be subject to significant sanction,' declared Mitch Daniels, Purdue's president at the time. 'We regret that we were unaware at the time of these events and had to learn of them from national sources,' Daniels added, referring to the 2021 ProPublica report. The rest of us have no excuse, especially now. Everything we have learned over the last four years confirms the same fact: China is intimidating students at our institutions. And so is the Trump administration, of course. It has arrested and deported international students who made pro-Palestinian comments. And it has been screening the social media accounts of student visa applicants to find 'any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States.' Nobody knows what that means, so applicants have been scrubbing their accounts of material about Barack Obama, Kamala Harris and anything else that might put them in the administration's crosshairs. To me, that sounds more like China than America. Our most important founding principle is freedom of expression. And we are flouting it by harassing our international students, even as we accuse them of being hostile to it. But we can't make a persuasive case against Trump's assault on freedom if we ignore the Chinese attacks on it. Anticipating that many international students won't be allowed to come here, some universities — including my own — are creating online courses and programs to serve them. That's a great gesture, but it also leaves the students even more vulnerable to harassment by internet snoops back home. And that's why we have to speak up for the students and make it clear that we won't tolerate intimidation of them, just as Rubio said. Thomas Jefferson — who knew something about America's founding principles — swore 'eternal hostility against every form of tyranny.' He didn't care where it came from. Neither should we.
UPI
17 minutes ago
- UPI
Musk's X: Britain's Internet safety law 'seriously infringes' free speech
"Many are now concerned that a plan ostensibly intended to keep children safe is at risk of seriously infringing on the public's right to free expression," the Global Government Affairs wing of the Elon Musk-owned X said Friday on Britain's newly-enacted Online Safety Act. Photo by Ismael Mohamad/ UPI | License Photo Aug. 1 (UPI) -- The Elon Musk-owned social media platform X said Friday that Britain's newly-enacted Online Safety Act "seriously" is on the cusp of violating free speech masked as the fight to protect kids from explicit online content. "Many are now concerned that a plan ostensibly intended to keep children safe is at risk of seriously infringing on the public's right to free expression," the Global Government affairs wing of the Bastrop, Texas-headquartered X said Friday. Britain's Online Safety Act created a new set of legal duties that tech companies must abide by. It mandated they evaluate the potential of users encountering illegal Internet content and children being exposed to online harm, which included a required safety assessment. "When lawmakers approved these measures, they made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of 'online safety,'" the letter stated. The British parliament passed it in September 2023 in the quest to improve online safety for young people. X argues the British people may not of been aware of the "trade-off" when London passed the bill. The OSA covers more than 130 offenses ranging from harassment and "assisting or encouraging suicide" to terrorism, fraud and "unlawful immigration." It targets tech entities that spans "social media or video-sharing platforms, messaging, gaming and dating apps, forums and file-sharing sites." According to the former Twitter, the act's "laudable intentions" were at risk of "being overshadowed by the breadth of its regulatory reach." "While everyone agrees protecting children is a critical responsibility, it is also clear that an overly rigorous statutory framework layered with a 'voluntary' code and heightened police monitoring, oversteps the intended mission," it continued. On Friday, a British watchdog group indicated that those fears may may be valid. "The BBC is now reporting that information about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, UK rape gangs, and more is being censored online due to the government's new Online 'Safety' Act," Silkie Carlo, director of Britain-based Big Brother Watch, posted on X. "Well done lads," she added in jest. X's government affairs offiec says free speech will suffer without a "more balanced, collaborative approach." Pornhub and other major pornographic websites had a targeted end of July date to implement its age verification mechanisms in order to comply. Musk, 54, has characterized himself as a "free speech absolutist." The former White House DOGE adviser, for his part, has said the act's purpose was "suppression of the people" as he tweeted a petition calling for it's repeal that got more than 450,000 signatures. OSA's deadline required pornographic websites to implement "robust" age verification methods or face fines close to $20 million or equal to 10% of company proceeds. X cited British regulator Ofcom how it "to date" had allegedly taken a "heavy-handed approach" to enforcement, which it said included a boost in resources, additional "layers of bureaucratic oversight and signaling an aggressive approach to ensuring compliance." In a recent Ofcom research study, some 8% of children aged of 8 to 14 accessed a pornography source over a 28-day period. It included 19% boys and 11% of girls from 13 to 14 years old. In addition to the increased government regulations, X officials also cite Britain's new "National Internet Intelligence Investigations" team unit company officials say "sets off alarm bells" and will further "intensify scrutiny." The social media company said the Internet teams "sole" focus is to monitor social media for "signs of unrest, such as anti-immigrant sentiment, to prevent real-world violence." "While positioned as a safety measure, it clearly goes far beyond that intent," the post reads. "This move has set off alarm bells for free speech advocates who characterize it as excessive and potentially restrictive."
UPI
17 minutes ago
- UPI
Federal agency revokes $26M for D.C.-Baltimore maglev train
A maglev (magnetically levitating) train approaches its terminus in Shanghai, China, in 2008. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced Friday he will revoke a $26 million grant to Maryland for a maglev train from D.C. to Baltimore. File Photo by Qilai Shen/EPA Aug. 1 (UPI) -- U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced Friday that the Federal Railroad Administration will cancel two grants totaling more than $26 million for the Baltimore-Washington maglev project. The department's press release about the Superconducting Magnetic Levitation Project said it has seen "nearly a decade of poor planning, significant community opposition, tremendous cost overruns, and nothing to show for it." The release called the project a "boondoggle." As part of its analysis, the FRA also determined the project would result in "significant, unresolvable impacts to federal agencies and federal property, including national security agencies," the release said. "We want big, beautiful projects worthy of taxpayer dollars -- including high-speed rail. This project lacked everything needed to be a success from planning to execution. This project did not have the means to go the distance, and I can't in good conscience keep taxpayers on the hook for it," Duffy said in a statement. "We'll continue to look for exciting opportunities to fund the future of transportation and encourage innovation." The Northeast Maglev would eventually connect Washington, D.C., and New York City. The train would be able travel at speeds of more than 300 mph to make the trip one hour long. Maglev is a system of rail transport whose rolling stock is levitated by electromagnets rather than rolled on wheels, eliminating rolling resistance. Compared with conventional railways, maglev trains have higher top speeds, superior acceleration and deceleration, lower maintenance costs, improved gradient handling, and lower noise. But they are more expensive to build, cannot use existing infrastructure, and use more energy at high speeds. Indirect effects of this project also would impair critical infrastructure and ongoing agency missions, the release said. Government agencies harmed by this project would have included: the National Security Agency, U.S. Department of Defense and Fort George G. Meade, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S Department of Agriculture, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of Interior -- Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, and the U.S. Department of Labor. In 2015, the federal government gave Maryland a grant of $27.8 million to study a high-speed maglev train line that could connect Baltimore and Washington, D.C., in 15 minutes. Duffy is now canceling that grant. The funding for such a grant was authorized in 2005, when Congress set aside $90 million for maglev projects. In 2021, China unveiled a maglev train that it said can travel 373 mph. In July 2020, the government said it planned to build a network with as many as nine maglev lines that include 620 miles of track.
