Bogotá, Colombia — On Saturday, January 24th, and Sunday, January 25th, over one hundred current and former politicians, ambassadors, trade unionists, activist luminaries, and representatives from grassroots and youth organizations across the Western Hemisphere (and some from the Eastern) attended the Progressive International’s two-day summit, Nuestra América. The urgent gathering was a much-needed response to intensifying U.S. imperial aggression in Latin America.
In keeping with its founding mission to “unite, organize, and mobilize the world’s progressive forces,” the Progressive International (PI) convened the event following the illegal invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Maduro and First Lady Celia Flores. The speed and efficiency with which it was assembled testify to the urgency of the moment, the organizing capacity of the facilitators, and, above all, the felt necessity for regional unity in the face of an ever-more-brazenly expansionist Yankee regime.
The speed and efficiency with which it was assembled testify to the urgency of the moment, the organizing capacity of the facilitators, and, above all, the felt necessity for regional unity in the face of an ever-more-brazenly expansionist Yankee regime.
PI’s stated goals for the summit were to “articulate a shared diagnosis of the present conjuncture and lay the foundations for coordinated action in defence of peace, sovereignty, and democratic self-determination” in a region recently racked by extrajudicial killings of fishermen in the Caribbean and threats of further military action from Donald Trump and his cabinet against Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba—not to mention two centuries of aggression, coercion, coups d’etat, financial strangling and hostage-taking, and outright military incursions from the north.
The summit kicked off on Saturday at 9 AM with speeches by PI’s Co-General Coordinator (and U.S.-born) David Adler and Colombia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rosa Yolanda Villaciencio. The tone of the preliminaries shifted between buoyant camaraderie—Adler, to laughter from the room, referred to himself as a “gringo” or “preferred gringo”—and a gravity befitting the seriousness of the moment. Villaciencio’s remark that “the world is changing, or more precisely, the world has already changed,” referring to the no-holds-barred turn U.S. imperialism has taken, was a stark but necessary reminder of the magnitude of the stakes at hand.
There are many ways to judge the success of such a summit: its perception by the public, the distinction of its attendees, the productivity of the deliberations, the breadth and depth of the resolutions, etc. I return to Adler’s opening speech, his words (delivered in impeccable Spanish) and aspirations, as the metric of choice:
What the delegates did commit to in the San Carlos Declaration—those resolutions enshrined in writing—were less “concrete pathways for action” and more like the wooden planks used as guide rails when pouring the concrete. That is not to discount the agreed-upon resolutions as insignificant. On the contrary, they represent a sound and comprehensive platform from which to launch future action.
“I trust that these days will allow us to move forward with clarity, honesty, frankness, and determination. That we will leave the capital of Bogotá not only with words, but also with commitments, not only with diagnoses, but also with common actions.”
The question, then, becomes: Did the delegates leave Bogotá having made not just statements but also commitments? Not just diagnostics but also plans for common action? Or, better still in PI’s own words, did they engage in “a tactical exploration of concrete pathways for action”?
To answer that solely by examining the final product of the day-and-a-half of deliberations—the San Carlos Declaration, named after the Palacio de San Carlos where the summit was held—would be unfair, even misleading. The vast majority of Saturday was spent in closed-door discussions where delegates brainstormed and debated proposals free from press scrutiny. Having spoken with a number of delegates, it seems a great deal was discussed regarding material plans for regional cooperation that were not reflected in the Declaration in any tangible way.
Uruguayan Senator Bettiana Díaz reads the San Carlos Declaration Photo: Seth Garben
What the delegates did commit to in the San Carlos Declaration—those resolutions enshrined in writing—were less “concrete pathways for action” and more like the wooden planks used as guide rails when pouring the concrete. That is not to discount the agreed-upon resolutions as insignificant. On the contrary, they represent a sound and comprehensive platform from which to launch future action. For instance, the promises to:
- “Pursue coordinated engagement in multilateral forums…”
- “Establish mechanisms for enhanced hemispheric coordination and mutual support…”
- “Defend the rights of Latin American migrants…”
- “Defend workers’ rights…”
- “Support the documentation and analysis of coercion and disinformation…”
- “Strengthen regional dialogue”
- “Examine options for greater financial and trade autonomy…”
- “Promote cooperation on energy and food sovereignty…”
- “Revitalize regional integration efforts by exchanging experiences, identifying areas of convergence, and pursuing cooperative initiatives…”
…among others, are all important and timely. However, to claim these commitments rise to the level of material action or solid planning would be disingenuous.
In truth, the only firm organizational step outlined in the Declaration was to schedule the next Nuestra América summit in Havana, Cuba—no doubt to the delight of Cuban Ambassador to Colombia, Carlos de Cespedes. The ambassador applauded the declaration and the international support that birthed it, but in the same breath insisted on the importance of giving form to those commitments so that “they do not stay confined to the document.”
Cuba’s illustrative history of embodied solidarity—exemplified in the export of medical brigades to epidemic-stricken countries and the forty martyred Cuban soldiers who died defending the Maduros, to name a few—adds irrefutable ballast to the ambassador’s remarks. We can only hope his admonition is realized, and as soon as possible.
^From Left to Right: Cuban Ambassador to Colombia Carlos de Céspedes, Harol González Duque Director de la Academia Diplomática, Colombia Minister of Foreign Affairs Rosa Yolanda Villavicencio Mapy, David Adler Photo: Seth Garben
In retrospect, perhaps it is too much to ask of delegates that they prepare a detailed, ready-to-implement declaration in under 24 hours. However, hearing from some of them about the closed-door deliberations at the very least reveals an appetite for such swift action and uncompromising conviction.
Two other delegates confirmed the proposal was indeed brought up, noting though that specifics remain in development. Should it set sail, it could, like the Sumud Flotilla before it, elevate the cause of international solidarity for Latin America and put on full display the terrorist lengths the U.S. is willing to go to in order to retain regional dominance (as if that were needed).
“One of the proposals at the conference today,” a delegate who preferred to remain anonymous told me, “was to extend the Gaza flotilla strategy into the Caribbean. They’re planning a flotilla to Cuba because Trump is talking about a full naval blockade….” Two other delegates confirmed the proposal was indeed brought up, noting though that specifics remain in development. Should it set sail, it could, like the Sumud Flotilla before it, elevate the cause of international solidarity for Latin America and put on full display the terrorist lengths the U.S. is willing to go to in order to retain regional dominance (as if that were needed).
Another remarkable proposal came from Colombian Education Minister Daniel Rojas, who closed out the third panel of speakers (in the unenviable position following the crowd favorite María José Pizarro’s rousing speech) at Saturday night’s public forum at the Teatro Colón. Harking back to Hugo Chávez and his plan, Rojas floated the idea of a shared Latin American currency as what he views as one of the potential “concrete and real mechanisms of integration.”
“It is important that our generation advances [these] mechanisms. And this is related to what is happening in the rest of the world. We are talking now, for example, about how the African Union is considering making the African currency backed by the African continent’s own assets and resources to counter the hegemony of the dollar.”
Such a plan (extensive and idealistic as it may be) would surely satisfy the declaration’s commitment to “examine options for greater financial and trade autonomy,” but similarly was absent from that resultant text. Not surprisingly, for, as Rojas concedes, neither the political will nor the might to confront and circumvent corporate power structures is present at the present time. That said, it was one of the few tangible remedies I heard over the course of the summit, and should not go without commendation.
Nor need we project too far into the future to see how some of the declaration’s objectives are already being given shape by some of the delegates’ own countries, namely Mexico, which has taken up the mantle as Cuba’s largest exporter of oil after the U.S. hog-tying Venezuela and in defiance of mounting Yankee pressure to desist. Though recent reporting from (hegemonic mouthpiece) Reuters would appear to cast doubt on the relationship, Morena party member and delegate Veka García reiterated President Claudia Sheinbaum’s commitment to continued energy support for Cuba, saying that “The president has said no one will interfere with the decisions [to export oil] that have been made.”
This is all to say: though the declaration may have opted for more thematic, high-level calls for regional solidarity rather than outlining specific courses of action (that likely would have enjoined delegates and their respective countries and organizations to efforts they’re not necessarily prepared for) the proposals considered over the course of the weekend demonstrate the existence of a willingness to entertain such plans, a requisite ingenuity to craft them plans, and an eagerness to implement them.
Senator María José Pizarro Rodríguez and Education Minister José Daniel Rojas Medellin Photo: Seth Garben
And, as one of the younger—if, at 24 years old, not the youngest—delegates to Nuestra América, Juan Álvarez of Juventudes Revolucionarias de Panamá (JR) summarized, if with some detectable disappointment, the declaration is only “a first step.”
“At the institutional level, you can never expect a radical solution. That’s how liberal democracy works: it will never give you a direct confrontation or direct preparation for conflict—which I feel is what we should be doing.”
Yes, but que bajón!
Further action, Álvarez stressed, reflecting his and his organization’s Marxist-Leninist spirit, would depend on organizing the masses, on raising their class consciousness and their appetite and readiness for militancy, to confront the growing but not inexorable threat of rapacious U.S. colonial acquisition. The masses must, as Álvarez says, be made aware that the US has their sights on their sovereignty and very explicitly intends to convert their territories into future colonies, and that they must act accordingly. This point is foregrounded in the declaration, when it recognizes that “intergovernmental coordination, while indispensable, will remain insufficient without the popular power of social movements, peoples organisations, trade unions, and youth.”
That does not, however, as Adler mentioned to me before departing the Palacio de San Carlos on Sunday afternoon, absolve the PI coordinators from their own organizing work. “What we accomplished today,” says Adler, “firmly was to establish a plan of action for Nuestra America as an initiative.”
And it’s not light work either, as Adler assures me:
“The task for the next week, basically, is to take all the proposals that were tabled here and agreed by the delegates in the closed door sessions, and put them on paper as a calendar of actions that are going to continue to convene these forces, whether it’s from the trade union perspective, heavy emphasis here on trade unions as the front line in the fight against fascism, whether it’s these more diplomatic, coordinated diplomatic interventions.”
So indeed, there are still many proposals to be aired that will (hopefully) give teeth to the valiant if, as of yet, mere aspirational resolutions put forth in the San Carlos Declaration. This reporter, along with the region and entire world, will be waiting attentively to see that calendar and how the proposals develop, if only to confirm the Hegelian formula that the seed of this significant document contains the whole power of the tree—nay, the forest—of Latin American resistance to Yankee barbarism.
Seth Garben is a writer, poet, musician, filmmaker, playwright, and activist/organizer based in the US and Mexico City. He is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and a core team lead with immigrant rights group Danbury Unites for Immigrants. He composes and performs music in Mexico City and internationally as Goldy Head.
-
News Briefs
January 26, 2026January 26, 2026
The Progressive International’s Nuestra América Summit, the San Carlos Declaration, and What Comes Next
-
News Briefs
January 26, 2026January 26, 2026
Full text of the declaration arising from the Progressive International’s Nuestra América summit held on January 24th and 25th, 2026 in Bogotá, Colombia.
-
Mañanera
January 26, 2026January 26, 2026
President Sheinbaum’s daily press conference, with comments on approval ratings, Grupo Salinas tax debt, PROFECO vs Ticketmaster, and FIFA World Cup 2026.
The post Solidarity Après la Lettre Dispatch #1 appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.
From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.
