Greece (Brussels Morning) Latin America has long drawn the world’s attention, sometimes for the bold experiments of its revolutionary governments, other times for the substantial environmental degradation linked to rapid development, extractive industries, and unchecked urbanization.
The region’s future is frequently framed through the lens of its vast mineral reserves, its ambitions in heavy industry, and the enduring power of its tourism sector. Yet underpinning these narratives is a larger structural question: what if Latin America were not merely a loosely connected cultural sphere, but a politically coordinated entity?
It is important to begin with a fundamental clarification: Latin America is not a continent in its own right. Rather, it is a broad cultural and geographic zone stretching across portions of both North and South America. The unifying characteristic is not physical geography but linguistic and cultural heritage—specifically the predominance of Romance languages such as Spanish, Portuguese, and, to a lesser degree, French. These shared cultural roots have shaped regional identities, but they have never crystallized into a comprehensive political structure akin to those found elsewhere.
A Nordic Alternative Scenario
Now imagine, for a moment, an alternative scenario. Consider the Scandinavian model: while Denmark, Sweden, and Norway remain distinct sovereign states, policy innovations in Copenhagen or Oslo are closely monitored in Stockholm, often inspiring rapid evaluation or adoption. Nordic governance operates within an atmosphere of mutual trust, administrative compatibility, and shared strategic interests. What would a comparable system look like if applied across Lima, Buenos Aires, Santiago, and Bogotá?
This is, of course, a theoretical exercise. But if such political harmonization were ever realized, it would amount to the emergence of a new bloc situated firmly within the Western Hemisphere—an entity positioned beneath the geopolitical umbrella of the United States. One could imagine a union, or at least an institutionalized organization, functioning in the manner of the European Union: coordinating economic regulations, standardizing aspects of foreign policy, facilitating freedom of movement, and negotiating trade as a collective rather than a collection of fragmented markets.
The implications would be far-reaching
Economically, a unified Latin American governance structure could leverage the region’s extraordinary resource endowments—from lithium and copper to biodiversity and agricultural capacity—more strategically and with higher bargaining power on the global stage. The region is already experiencing shifts: near-shoring trends are bringing manufacturing closer to the Americas; service exports are growing; yet much of the integration remains unfinished. In such a union, the constituent states might pool regulatory frameworks, align investment policies, and adopt shared infrastructure programmes to reduce fragmentation and increase scale.
Politically, coordinated institutions could reduce intra-regional tensions, stabilize investment climates, and weaken the cyclical populism that often disrupts long-term growth trajectories. Rather than each capital acting largely alone, the bloc might present a unified diplomatic voice. For example, a collective Latin American entity might negotiate as a bloc with China, the United States, and Europe, rather than as disparate nations. That shift could change the region’s posture in global affairs.
Culturally, such an alliance would bolster the region’s visibility and cohesion within the Western world, offering a counterweight to the centrifugal tendencies that have historically limited collective action. Shared identity and coordination might spur regional programmes in education, infrastructure, environmental protection, and social policy—opening up possibilities for deeper cooperation beyond trade.
For the United States and other Western powers, the emergence of a harmonized Latin American political entity would present both opportunities and challenges. On one side, Washington could find a more predictable and cooperative neighbourhood to its south—one characterised by integrated markets, standardized regulatory regimes, and collective action on migration, climate, and trade.
On the other side, such a bloc could form a negotiating partner with enough internal coherence to rethink the terms of engagement with the U.S., Europe and Asia. In other words, what appears superficially as deeper cooperation might in fact shift the balance of influence.
Moreover, the geopolitical context of 2025 adds urgency to the question. Latin American countries are increasingly courted by multiple global powers: for instance, fresh credit lines and infrastructure deals from China, new regional migration-aid initiatives led by Mexico, and Indigenous-driven energy transitions from the Amazon to Central America.
These developments signal that national governments are looking beyond traditional frameworks, and that regional coordination—or at least opportunities for it—are growing. If Latin America were more politically aligned, the impact of such global engagements could be magnified or redirected through a common institutional channel.
A politically synchronized Latin America
Yet the vision of a politically synchronized Latin America remains hypothetical. A number of formidable obstacles stand in the way: differing national priorities, variable institutional capacities, deep political divergences, corruption concerns, uneven infrastructure, and environmental vulnerabilities. Much of the existing regional collaboration remains limited in scope and ambition, often focused on trade rather than fully integrated governance.
The question of sovereignty looms large: would individual states be willing to cede portions of their autonomy to a regional body? In Scandinavia, the trust and institutional compatibility developed over decades—Latin America lacks comparable legacy institutions.
Nevertheless, as global alliances shift and institutional cooperation becomes increasingly essential, the question is worth asking: if Latin America were to follow the Scandinavian model of policy coordination, how much more influential could it become—and how might the Western geopolitical landscape change as a result?
In such a scenario, Lima or Buenos Aires would not just be national capitals acting alone, but part of a larger network of policy-making that reverberates across the hemisphere. That network might not only speed up the adoption of best practices, but also amplify the region’s voice in global governance, trade, environment and security. And for the U.S., it would mean engaging with a stronger, more unified partner—rather than trying to manage a patchwork of separate national interests.
In short, the data, the diplomacy and the economics are nudging Latin America toward greater interconnectedness. The future may well present a choice: remain a culturally connected region of many states, or evolve into a politically integrated bloc with real strategic muscle. If the latter, the implications are profound—for Latin America itself and for the entire architecture of Western-hemisphere relations.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
