Indian Council of World Affairs

Arnab Chakrabarty: A very good evening to the esteemed panelists, distinguished members of the diplomatic core, respected academicians, members of the audience, and dear friends of the Indian Council of World Affairs for the panel discussion on Latin America and the newly emerging world order and it is my privilege to extend a hearty welcome to all of you. We are honoured to have with us a distinguished panel and are grateful to all our esteemed panelists for graciously accepting our invitation, looking forward towards an academically engaging evening. 

Before we proceed further I request you to kindly switch off your mobile phones or keep them on silent mode. The program will be conducted as follows. The opening remarks will be delivered by Ambassador Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, Additional Secretary and Acting Director General ICWA. The panel discussion will be chaired by Professor Abdul Nafey, former Professor and Chairperson Center for the Studies of the Americas Jawaharlal Nehru University. The first speaker will be Professor Sonya Surabhi Gupta, Professor Jamia Millia Islamia, followed by Dr. Aprajita Kashyap, Associate Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

The third speaker will be Dr. Carlos da Silva Gama, Assistant Professor Shiv Nadar University. Dr. Jacobo Silva Parada, Professor, National Autonomous University of Mexico, along with Dr. Alfonso Dingemans Calderon, Professor, University of Santiago, Chile, will be joining us online as the fourth and fifth speakers respectively. Following the panel discussion, there will be a brief Q&A session moderated by the Chair. I now invite Ambassador Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, Additional Secretary and Acting Director General ICWA to deliver her opening remarks and to commence with the panel discussion. Thank you.

Nutan Kapoor Mahawar: Thank you, Arnab. A very good evening to all of you, all our distinguished experts here and our friends from Latin America, Professor Gama, Ambassador of Uruguay, our friend from Colombia. A very warm welcome to all of you and all the scholars who have joined us. A warm welcome to today's panel discussion on Latin America in the newly emerging world order.

Friends, we decided to curate this panel discussion because we believe that Latin America today stands at a defining moment. In an era when the international system is shifting towards a multipolar order, the Latin American region aspires to be recognized as a credible pole of power, prosperity and partnership. Yet despite its vast potential, Latin America's global rise remains constrained by deep-rooted domestic challenges, fragmented markets, polarized politics, fragile institutions, persistent corruption and organized crime continue to undermine its potential.

Ideology, which has historically shaped the region's political and economic landscape, remains a double-edged sword, offering a glimmer of hope but too often diverting attention from pressing developmental needs. The overemphasis on left-right divides has eroded policy continuity, discouraged pragmatic cooperation, and weakened regional integration. If Latin America seeks to become a meaningful actor in the emerging world order, it must move beyond ideological rigidity. The path forward lies in moderation, institutional stability, and long-term policy coherence.

Transcending ideological polarization is also crucial for unlocking the region's economic potential. Latin America needs a pragmatic middle ground where economic policies are shaped not by ideology but by pragmatism, inclusiveness, and continuity. Moreover, economic diversification away from over-reliance on commodities and extractive industries is essential, as has been long commented upon.

The region must invest in innovation, value-added production, and human capital. A balanced approach between state intervention and market freedom, supported by deeper regional integration rather than extra-regional dependencies, will be vital for fostering inclusive and enduring prosperity. Politically, rebuilding public trust is critical. The rise of non-traditional parties and populist leaders reflects ideological fatigue.

Yet, real transformation will depend not on populist impulses but on pragmatic leadership of leaders who can balance national interest with regional cooperation and act beyond ideology. Moreover, transparent governance, strong institutions, and genuine participatory politics can help bridge the widening gap between state and society. In the absence of robust institutional checks and balances, populism often evolves into a new form of authoritarianism. Such trends ultimately stall inclusive development and prevent the region from realizing its full potential.

Socially, the region must focus on reducing inequality, strengthening education and health care, and ensuring gender justice. Populist redistributive rhetoric has often failed to deliver genuine equity. True progress lies in fostering social cohesion, dignity, and equal opportunity for all citizens, without allowing politics to exploit social divides for short-term gain.

Finally, addressing corruption, organized crime, and governance deficits remains essential for any meaningful renewal. Lasting reform requires robust legal frameworks, accountable institutions and public transparency. Unless these domestic challenges are addressed through a shared region-wide vision, Latin America risks missing another historic opportunity, like the lost decade of 1980s, to translate its potential into tangible global influence.

Some of the things that I have just mentioned are mentioned in ICWA's special publication that we took out a couple of months ago on ‘Latin America: Escaping the Trap of Ideology’, and I urge you to go through that publication. It is available on our website.

Another issue of importance is the US-China contestation in Latin America. The region today stands at a pivot, either moving towards diversifying its external relations and strengthening its regional integration mechanisms or as a passive bystander.

It is pertinent that a region that has witnessed its fair share of external intervention should be poised to leverage its strategic autonomy. It must augment its collective bargaining power in such a scenario by strengthening regional coordination and avoiding asymmetric dependencies. Skilled leadership, supported by informed public opinion, is necessary to navigate geopolitical shifts and exercise strategic autonomy.

Further, Latin America has historical and traditional relations with Europe. It is not mere coincidence that it was in Latin America that the core periphery theories of economic development and international relations were conceptualized. As Europe itself goes through geopolitical turbulence with impact on intra-European relations, as well as Europe's relations with the rest of the world, it will be incumbent on the two sides to find new meaning in their ties and steer them in a direction that promotes Latin America's own identity, own ethos, own interests, set of values and which looks into the region's unique civilizational heritage.

As I mentioned earlier, extra-regional dependencies have to give way to self-reliance and regional interdependence. As is true for other regions of the Global South, Latin America has to be the true decider of its destiny and the future of its people.

A word on India-Latin America relations. Well, they have gained renewed momentum, reflected in recent high-level exchanges, including the visit of the prime minister of India to Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina and Brazil, and the president's visit to Suriname.

Both regions are united by a shared aspiration to build a more equitable international order, and to strengthen the collective voice of the global south. India's growing engagement in renewable energy, biofuels and lithium supply chains aligns closely with regional goals of energy diversification and green transition. The collaboration can not only strengthen long-term energy security, but also advance both regions' climate commitments and sustainable development objectives.

Equally transformative is cooperation in digitalization. India's DPI, digital public infrastructure model, exemplified by the UPI and Aadhaar-based systems, is already adopted in countries like Trinidad and Tobago and being implemented in Guyana, Peru, Uruguay and Jamaica. India's development partnership also extends to capacity building, education and healthcare, importantly.

Many Latin American countries have joined India-led platforms such as the International Solar Alliance, the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure and the Global Biofuel Alliance, underscoring shared commitment to sustainability and resilience.

Dear colleagues, together India and Latin America can craft an architecture of south-south cooperation rooted in transparency, solidarity, mutual respect and shared prosperity. By sharing technology, expertise and investment models, both countries provide an inclusive development pathway that lessens their reliance on traditional power centers. We at ICWA do believe that the coming decade offers a historic opportunity to redefine this partnership. Not just as a transactional relationship but as a transformative alliance that strengthens both regions' voices in shaping a fairer, multipolar world and in uplifting the people of the developing countries of the Global South. With this, I offer the floor to the chair to conduct the proceedings and take our discussions forward. Thank you so much.

Abdul Nafey: Thank you very much for this opportunity. Foremost, I must congratulate you, Ambassador Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, for contemplating and designing such a wonderful panel discussion on Latin America in the newly emerging world order. Your brief remarks have summed up the complexity of where Latin America stands in terms of the emerging world order. There are tremendous opportunities, yet Latin America needs to overcome its obstacles also. There are wonderful prospects for India and Latin America to come together.

Both are poles in a multipolar world, attracted towards each other by principles, impurities of development and their support for a rule-based multilateral order. I am the chair of this session and it is a privilege for me. I must congratulate the organizers for one more thing. They have designed this panel discussion for one hour and five minutes, so each one of us have to be crisp, brief and to the point.

And I really love this kind of very meaningful and energetic discussions, because in a few words you say whatever you have to say. I still have, I have been given five minutes, so I think still I have two and a half minutes with me. In this two and a half minutes, I'll just read five sentences by way of my chairman's remarks. I am confining myself to Latin America in the newly emerging world order. Latin America is exercising its strategic autonomy and global order as never before in the last 200 years.

Number two, the reason for this is Latin America's growing economic and strategic engagements with the dynamic economies of Asia, including India, but equally important with China. Number three, access of global geoeconomics has shifted to Asia-Pacific. This opens fresh prospects for Latin America in terms of its economic development and a role in global economy. In particular, in the area of South-South cooperation, something which was very in-depth analyzed and remarked by the chair, by Madam the Ambassador. Latin America is a pole, but one of the strongest poles in the emerging multipolar world. It has a role in ensuring both global sustainable economic development and stability.

Number five, India needs to push its acts together. Look beyond trade, which remains paltry. It is time that India engages Latin America, both at the political and diplomatic level. India has risen in the consciousness of Latin America. And this we must understand in this panel discussion. With these short remarks, now I would invite the speakers with the request that they must can find themselves to six to seven minutes.

At the end of six minutes, I'll do something like this so that you have one more minute to complete your presentation and then give me one minute because it generally requires one minute for transition from one speaker to another. With this, it's my privilege to invite my very dear colleague, I have known her for decades, Professor Sonya Surabhi Gupta. I really look forward to listening to you, please.

Sonya Surabhi Gupta: Good evening, everybody, and thanks to the ICWA for this invitation. I'm here more to listen to my colleagues here and as well as those who are joining us online. I think being the first speaker opening the panel, I would like to first of all go into what exactly is this emerging new world order. I mean, there is a clear sense that we are witnessing a geopolitical transition. I think that the last time the world order changed in such a massive way was in the 1950s when the anti-colonial movements reshaped three-fourths of the world's map and the imaginary of the third world was born.

But with the collapse of the third world project, with the debt crisis of the 1980s, the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, the Global North's agenda of globalization, which as the Indian economist Sunanda Sen analyzes in her very new book titled Subordination and Development, Emerging Market Economies of Asia and Latin America. So this agenda of globalization kind of pushed these countries from dependencia to subordination.

However, the economic crisis of 2007, 2008, when the growth rates of the North Atlantic started plummeting, started faltering, governments in the Global South began to consider other options and of course BRICS in 2009 is born precisely out of those preoccupations. I would say that while it is tempting to kind of read the BRICS plus bloc as full of promise and argue that the world's center of gravity is shifting from North Atlantic to Asia.

One needs to underline that though these are major developments. They do potentiate the imaginary of a multipolar world, but they're certainly not backed by the kind of energies of the anti-colonial movement which had infused Bandung, the Bandung conference held 70 years ago when the third world was born.

So as the global landscape reshapes, the future is far from certain and in this interregnum where the old is dying and that you cannot be born, perhaps these are the Gramsci's lines which are being quoted so very often these days. I read them just yesterday in Ambassador Hein's article on India in the wire, the Latin America's role in this interregnum in the emerging new order appears ambiguous. It's rich in resources but poor in strategy, politically diverse and pluralistic yet economically highly vulnerable.

And so Latin America today in the new emerging world order is grappling with the choice of remaining a mere exporter of raw materials or becoming an actor with a voice in the 21st century. It is clear that the world requires today not just a geoeconomic shift but a civilizational shift, a civilizational alternative to the Anthropocene and the imaginary of a new world order calls for new ways of thinking about our collective existence.

Latin America despite its history of extractivism or perhaps because of it has produced a strong body of intellectual thought that could help the continent chart its own path. In the most recent instance the emancipatory processes that had unfolded at the dawn of the 21st century in Latin America brought the region into the forefront of some really original conceptualizations.

The incorporation of the rights of nature for example in 2008 constitution in Ecuador drawing from the idea of Sumak Kawsay of the Quechua people that laid the basis for a new understanding of development linked to the indigenous social productive models. The Aymara people's notion of summa camania or living well which became kind of the political project of in Bolivia for grounding harmonious relations between humans and mother earth as the basis for creating a communitarian indigenous state.

Also challenges to the minimalist conceptions of democracy through the project of 21st century socialism, new initiatives towards regional solidarity, regional integration. All these were formulations that did not come out from the ruling elites but waves of mass movements that swept across the continent against the depredation of ultra-neoliberalism. In academic spaces these gave rise for example to the decolonial theory.

Today the writings of Anibal Quijano on coloniality of power, of Enrique Dussel on transmodernity and others are avidly incorporated in the syllabi of various disciplines in the Indian academia and the Indian universities. In this multipolar century, Latin America does not have to choose between North Atlantic or Eurasia. It could if it manages to organize itself have its own voice, build its own path which could be, for example, a regulated capitalism, ecological with sustainable social policies. This is not utopian. It is a long-term social and economic policy something that political elites have postponed in the region so far.

In my most recent book decolonizing development liberatory epistemologies from India and Latin America we think that the elided reflective traditions of thinkers from India and Latin America, writers, activists, on salient themes of sovereignty, imperialism, development and socioeconomic identities like race and caste these form an alternative set of emancipatory epistemologies grounded in the realities and histories of the southern nation. And it is my belief that despite our divergent trajectories, India and Latin America can contribute through their intellectual thought to the search for civilizational alternatives to the present world conjecture. Thank you.

Abdul Nafey:  Thank you very much, Sonya. On the expected lines, I was aware you will say something like this, very nice. There has always been this intellectual turbulence in Latin America, which we have not seen so much in Asia and Africa. It's a turbulent region. And what Sonya is saying, maybe time has come that at an intellectual and epistemological level, countries like India and Latin America must really exchange ideas, maybe for a better future, for a more egalitarian, equitous order. Thank you very much. Now, I'll pass the baton to Aprajita Kashyap, my dear colleague from JNU.

Aprajita Kashyap: Thank you, ICWA, for this great opportunity and a very exciting panel. Anything on Latin America and we cannot resist on participating. So, the theme that I've chosen falls within it and mostly what I've done is I've just given a bit of a background. The 21st century, there has been a profound transformation in the global balance of power. All of us are aware. The decline of bipolarity, the rise of China and other emerging economies like India, and the crisis of neoliberal globalization have generated a contested multipolar world order.

And then we have countries like India and many of the Latin American countries and countries in Africa and Asia, which are shaping the contested world order. To add to that, the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukraine conflict, Israel-Palestine conflict, all those have further fragmented the world order and accelerated systemic changes. So, with this, what I'll try to do that the core argument of my paper is, and I quote, the region's future agency will depend on its ability to reconcile the tension between dependence and autonomy and to transform its fragmented regionalism into a collective and strategic presence in global governance.

With this hypothesis in mind, what I've done is I've tried to look at Latin America's evolving role through certain interrelated dimensions. I'll be looking at geopolitical realignment, economic diversification, environmental stance and regional integration. And this is just a background of what is the setting that I really spoke about. So the three key questions. Does Latin America have the ability to reconcile the tension between dependence and autonomy? What is Latin America's voice and representation in the global economic system? And can it transform its fragmented regionalism into a collective and strategic presence in the global governance?

So with this, I have tried to conceptualize this using three theoretical frameworks, which explain what the proposition of Latin America in the world order. I have relied on the dependency theory, all of us know, and Ambassador Nutan was talking about it. There are structural constraints on development, and there are flaws in structure, and therefore we have code and satellites.

The second theory that I have taken, and that's very, very important, because Tickner talks about peripheral agency, that is, they are not periphery. They have an agency. They have sizable influence from the periphery. And that is, he calls it possibility of influence from the margins. The third theoretical framework that I have talked about here is strategic autonomy, a term popularized by the European Council in 2013. It is the ability to shape and execute preferred policies despite pressures from dominant powers. And that has been India's mainstay, and so also of many of the Latin American countries.

Now, if you look at the global context, these are some of the things which throw into the arena the Latin American countries and how they behave, how they act. The erosion of US hegemony and rise of new powers, climate politics reshape alliances, the COVID-19 pandemic and the post-pandemic recovery. And all this leads to Latin America seeking to reposition itself in this fluid world order. And then I've added two more ongoing conflicts, the Ukraine war and Palestine-Israel war. Because of paucity of time, I'll not go into details.

Let me look at the first dimension that I've taken, geopolitical realignment. The realignment is that US, after the end of the Cold War, pulled out, there was a vacuum, China stepped in. So China becomes a major trading partner for most of the Latin American countries. But having said this, we cannot say that US influence has decline, the US influence still persists. Brazil and Mexico have been very unique because they've been able to pursue multidirectional diplomacy. And if you look at the foreign policy of all the Latin American and Caribbean countries, the essence is that they have tried to strategically balance their foreign policy.

So the regional foreign policy tries to do a balancing act. The second dimension along the economic reorientation, there has been economic infrastructure realignment from traditional lenders like IMF and World Bank. They have moved to BRICS Bank, AIIB, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. So there are new lenders on the anvil. Their debts have been renegotiated.

That's another economic reorientation. The commodity boom, which was there in the 1930s or maybe the 19th century also, has reemerged. Because even if we look at the present Latin America, what is its comparative advantage? The comparative advantage is still lithium, silver, nitrate, soy. So commodity boom has resurfaced, but in a different form.

And last, of course, I talk about the collective financial statecraft, which BRICS Bank and AIIB have been portraying. The third dimension of their importance or significance in shaping the new world order is the kind of regionalism that we practice. So Mercosur, UNASUR, CELAC, they have shaped regional integration. There are fragmentations due to ideological divide and leadership challenges, sorry, leadership changes. The post-hegemonic regionalism promotes pragmatic cooperation.

The essence is that the regionalism is very important. It's a spaghetti bowl of regional groupings, which is Latin America. Yet some of the regional groupings have really been very successful. Some did not deliver the region for what they were formulated. Yet regionalism is one of the strong points of Latin American countries. With this, what I'll do is I'll take the fourth indicator. Yes, sir, I'll stick to time. The environmental arena.

So let us look at Costa Rica. It's a climate change leader, one of the best practices country in the world, Mia Mottley. She talks a lot about climate justice. So the opportunities then in terms of renewables, most of the countries have almost switched to 30% of renewables in their energy mix, which is exemplary. But then, as Professor Gupta was saying, that they are reinforcing extractivism without diversification. So extractivism is one challenge which remains in Latin America.

So, in terms of global governance, what is Latin America doing? The first option is multi-alignment by the Global South. Active non-alignment, a term which is popularized by Jorge Hein, by the Global South. Third is de-risking or decoupling from China. De-risking means that, essentially we are trying to reduce Western countries' dependence on China. We can afford that, but decoupling, totally breaking away from China is not possible.

So, yes to de-risking, but no to decoupling for Latin America. Advocacy for UN and IMF reform, climate justice, digital rights. Brazil, Mexico, and Chile show regional leadership. Therefore, the essence is pragmatism overrides ideology. There are certain challenges when Latin America comes to decide what is going to be their position in the new world order. Economic dependency continues. Domestic political instability and weak institutions are problems. Limited innovation and technological capacity are their challenges. And the impact is also limited by lack of unanimity or unified voices.

So, for the future prospects, there are three prescriptions that I would like to say. Build strategic autonomy through diversified partnerships, which is called multi-alignment, a term popularized by Amitav Acharya. Multi-alignment. Strengthen regional institutions and coordinations. Link sustainability with industrial policy for green growth.

And that is how I'd like to conclude. My hypothesis that I began with, that Latin America's role is transitional, not marginal. We cannot overlook, overcome fragmentation, and they can reinvent regionalism. They can turn diversity and resources into strategic leverage. So, Latin America has a position, a complex position, within the new world order. Thank you.

Abdul Nafey: The advantage of such panel discussion is they enable you to rethink your own readings and positions. Sometime I get confused when I listen to other scholars, whether my readings and thoughts all these years have been correct or not. It is in this spirit I really listen very seriously to the previous two speakers. Much has been done. Today, Latin America is more independent than dependent. It's more democratic than authoritarian. It's more assertive in its foreign policy than being a follower of the United States. Look at Latin America's position on conflict in Gaza, Ukraine and deportation of immigrants from United States.

Today, Latin America has a higher strategic space for itself, for whatever be the reasons. I said relations with Asia, particularly China, have given Latin America a larger space. Today, Latin America is not extremist alone. This region is incorporating artificial intelligence and fourth industrial revolution technologies through partnerships with some of the dynamic economies of Asia, its own productive and governance system. With this confusion, let me move now to the third speaker and I'm privileged to invite Dr. Carlos da Silva Gama from Shivnathar University. Sir, I'm really looking forward to listening to you and let's see how.

Carlos Da Silva Gama: Thank you. It is an honor for me being here. You mean, in ICAA, you mean on behalf of Shivnathar and on behalf of our School of Humanities and Social Sciences and our Department of International Relations and Governance Studies, okay? I had the opportunity to speak about the same subject in the beginning of this beautiful month of October in the UK. And my fellow colleagues during this pandemic in the UK, they were quite surprised by what I brought to discussion.

So maybe it will happen again. So I hope I can engage your attention, I mean, as well as my, let's say, fellow panelists. Maybe I will help you locate, let's say, the stakes in Latin America right now within the broader horizon of the global South. So I'll take a cue from the very fine talk from Sonya. I'll begin speaking about the end of the Cold War. Then I move on to the beginning of this century and I will end the talk speaking about the last 10 year and giving a couple hints about the future.

As the Berlin Wall fell down, the US roughly represented one quarter of the world's GDP. At that time, roughly 40% to 50% of Latin American exports were driven to the US. And the US was, of course, our major investor. So as you know, Latin America and the US, they have a very complex relationship. It's been that way since they became independent in 1776. And then afterwards, we in Latin America, so as former colonies, let's say, took different directions and we ended up with different qualities, so to speak, different kinds of societies.

So and maybe to our misfortune, the United States was about to become a superpower at the turn of the previous century, not only during the 20th century, actually at the end of the 19th century. So, Latin America kind of faced, ever since, a dire dilemma. Should we be good neighbors with the US or should we just bow down to US demands, fine. Maybe this is the situation we are, again, faced with.

But after the Cold War, there was no choice for Latin America. We got the, let's say, clear perception that the US was a superpower, and the only one, after the end of the Soviet Union. So, of course, the end of Soviet Union changed international relations in a number of ways, but in Latin America, there were only two states directly associated with the Soviets. Cuba, you mean, and Nicaragua.

So, most of us, actually, were not that worried about the Soviet Union. What about the US from now on? And how was our relation with the US on that period. We have just became democracies again, even though we have long-standing democracies in Latin America, such as Mexico and Uruguay. We have a very impressive portfolio. But most of us, actually, became young democracies across the 1980s, including Brazil.

So, we had this commonality with the US at the time. We were liberal democracies, liberal states, looking, let's say, for opportunities in a global market. So, we joined, of course, the WTO as soon as it was created. And we also collaborated at the UN and in other multilateral organizations. So, in the US government at the moment was very, let's say, welcoming those initiatives and even asking for more, and trying to co-opt, let's say, Latin America to a new world order. The notion of a new world order actually was promoted by President George Bush, I mean, after the invasion of Iraq in 1991.

So, in 1994, for instance, President Bill Clinton proposes a free trade area of the Americas or as we call in Latin America, the ALCA. And that was a very polemic proposition, because even though we were actually, let's say, integrating in an economic sense, I mean, once Brazil was the second biggest receiver of the FDI in the world, I mean, between 1995 and 2005, it's not the case anymore.

So, even though we were, let's say, open to trade agreements, we were fearful that, let's say, a free trade area of the Americas would be the end of Latin American industries. We had to impose a lot of limitations on foreign investment for us to have a chance us the Cold War to become industrialized ourselves. So most of us actually rejected this free trade area, something very different from what we have right now with the tariffs, so to our surprise. So at the turn of the century actually the free trade area was rejected and maybe our relationship with the US ceases to be one of good neighborhoods for a couple of reasons, that I'm exploring from now on.

Moving on closer to the present, I mean, at the turn of the century, let's not underestimate, let's say, the gravitational power of the US. In 2001, just before the terrorist attacks in New York, the US represented roughly 30% of the world's GDP, so even more than it was the case before. However, we had a couple of new things going on at that moment. 2001 is also the year in which the Argentina economy crashes, I mean, and unfortunately Latin American cooperation was not enough to rescue Argentina after that, not even in Mercosur, I mean, to our misfortune.

And now, since 2001, China, as you know, joined the WTO. Once China becomes a market economy, quickly China becomes the biggest investor in Latin America and across the world in a number of places as well. So, and therefore, Latin America has an option, we don't have to rely so much on the US. We have at least another option. However, that was not nearly the most important thing that happened during this period between 2001 and roughly 2015, the period that we used to call the pink tide in Latin America. The pink tide, on the one hand, was about a commodity boom going on in a global sense.

So, as a proletariat has already mentioned, so Latin America benefited from this commodity boom in the early 21st century. So, and we also had a number of very nationalistic governments in office in most Latin American countries actually looking for a way out of any relation with the US. So, therefore, China, let's say, looked as a very interesting, at least, perspective for the near future.

And as Latin America was branching out, looking for opportunities, we started speaking about the global south. That's a very fortunate move because actually during most of Latin American history, we look to Europe. I mean, I don't know why, but Europe, let's say, was our role model. So, during the pink tide, we shift gear to the global south. And ever since, I think, we've been speaking about the global south. So, apart from having nationalistic governments, apart from benefiting from the commodity boom, you mean, we also created a number of new institutions in Latin America during this period, such as ALBA, such as CELAC, such as UNASUR, and of course BRICS, that you already know a lot about.

So, moving on to the last decade, I mean, roughly since the election of Donald Trump, I mean, 2016, but not just because of the election of Donald Trump, we could see a couple outlines of the near future emerging. First of all, the world looks much bigger right now, especially after 2008 than it was the case before. So, the global economy thrives and prospers, but the US plays a smaller role.

So, nowadays, the United States represents less than one quarter of the world's GDP. So, the US looks smaller, even though it's not the case that they are, let's say, going backwards. They are actually growing every year, but let's say they are lagging behind the rest of the world. So, that's why this political movement to make America great again gains so much sway, because it has some correspondence to what is going on, I mean, in structural terms across international relations.

Unfortunately, after the pandemic, we could see international cooperation in decline, and international institutions facing a deep crisis. Think about the UN, eight years on. So, what can you say about the UN in 2025? So, I would propose that Latin America should take very seriously a couple elements from the present that may be strategic for the near future. First of all, ever since 2016, we could see the US decoupling from a rules-based international order.

So, I call this rolling back the rules. Rolling back the rules may be a way to deal with, let's say, a decline in hegemony. So, the US is no longer that big, so maybe making the system stop on the tracks, I mean, it is a way to keep the US relevant. Of course, that the European Union is trying to keep the system as it is. However, we see this ambivalence in the European posture. The EU speaks about promoting liberal values abroad, but it is also actually shutting doors, I mean, within Europe, I mean, during, across all those policies of, let's say, integration.

And then we spoke about migration just before my talk. So, we also see that the rise of China was not exactly overlapping with the current rules-based international order, but mostly going through loopholes. So, we cannot say that China's rise actually, let's say, keeps this order as it is. Maybe this is a challenge, maybe this is revisionism. I don't believe the Chinese would say it's revisionism, but surely this is not a liberal world anymore.

So that's why, again, in case Latin America has this number of options, that's why India is important. And I provided this argument earlier on this year, in a couple of publications. India's rise, actually, in international relations this century, was not against the rules of the system, but actually benefiting from the rules. So in a very status quo mode, even though India is not just a follower, India is actually also an innovator.

So, but closer, let's say, to the mode that Latin America takes in its own foreign profile. Across our history, for a number of reasons, Latin American countries, they became very careful and very dedicated to the rule of law. I mean, avoiding warfare, investing in public diplomacy, investing in multilateral organizations, and trying to integrate in a rational and in a global sense. So India looks like a much more interesting kind of partner for Latin America than either China or the US.

Even though I have to concede that the gravitational pull of both the US and China for Latin America remains massive. So as we're speaking about the future, I hope that we are opening the door for different kinds of conversations. Of course, with India, with the US, with China, and with the EU, but maybe India would be our partners of preference. Because we, not only because we have a lot of commonalities, but because we actually share some normative commitments. I'd like to highlight this point, normative commitments.

The US is rolling back the rules. The EU is very selective in the application of those rules. China doesn't care much about the rules. But India, I mean, is very respectful, and even this said, very critical, looking for a better kind of system. Maybe this is what Latin America is also looking for, as now, as we are unaware of our current status regarding the United States, the EU, and China. I'd like to end here, thanking you again for the opportunity to think about a multipolar world, a shifting world, in which the US looks smaller, in which the global South looks bigger, and let's say, with a lot more promise for the future. Thank you.

Abdul Nafey: Thank you, Dr. Carlos Da Silva. You are speaking with such passion. I felt like listening to you, and I apologize that I was biased towards him. I gave him two more minutes, perhaps three more minutes. The global south has real potential. This is one of the gist which is emerging here. Today, countries of the south, they trade more with each other than in the past. They invest more with each other than they were ever doing. Today, there is surplus investable capital in countries of the global south.

Countries of global south like India, they have their own technological advantages they can share with. For example, in India, in the world of pharmaceutical, distant education, digital governance. So these are the advantages which we can share with mutual benefits between India and Latin America. And I really agree with you. There are unlimited opportunities for India and Latin America to really rediscover each other in varieties of ways. The only thing is that we must show seriousness of intent and a spirit of enterprise on the part of Indian business to really go out to that region.

And then you will find you are coming to a region which is really welcoming you with open arms. Thank you very much. Now, with this, we move to the two online presentations. I wish they had been here. And I won't take time. Fortunately, I have been to both the universities from which these speakers are coming. I would welcome Dr. Jacobo Silva Prada from UNAM, National Autonomous University of Mexico. I used to go to UNAM to learn Spanish 30 years ago. So, thank you very much. I welcome you, Dr. Jacobo Silva Prada. And then I had ended up writing my doctoral thesis on party system in Mexico. Please, floor is yours.

Jacobo Silva Parada: Thank you very much. And it's a very interesting fact that and I would like, first of all, thank the ICWA for the invitation. And, of course, I would like just to warn you a little bit. This is my opinion from Mexico. And I would like to share my thoughts from Mexico. And, of course, the National Autonomous University of Mexico. I try to say this because I'm from Mexico. We are a very special country because of the position we are. We are next to the USA and we are next to Central America. And we have this closeness to Cuba, for example, the Caribbean Sea.

So, because of that, I have to tell you that from Mexico things look a little bit not different, but I can say that quite difficult and quite interesting and tricky. Why? First of all, Latin America to Mexico is a very important partner, it's a priority. Not now, in the past, and in the future it will be. So the problem is, and as I always say, we are so close to the USA, so you have to understand that living next to the biggest economy in the world is kind of a responsibility and sometimes it's a nightmare, to be honest.

Because sometimes the most of our attention is Drawn to the US. Just one example, the 8% of the Mexican foreign trade is with the USA, the next 20% is with the rest of the world. And when I say the rest of the world, it's China, of course, the European Union and sometimes India and sometimes other countries. But honestly, there is a really big issue, a centralisation of the Mexican economic interest into the USA.

So because of it, and maybe despite it, we try to look at the Latin American and Caribbean Sea region, because of course we have a lot of similarities. And I have to be honest, also because we see Latin America not a whole region, it's with a unique voice. The problem is we see Latin America quite divided from here, from Mexico. And sometimes we try to understand, we try to get along with most of the countries, of course, we try to have good relations.

But the divisions are quite deep. Of course, we have this special relation, for example, with Brazil, we are like friends and enemies and rivals. But at the end of the day, we are from Latin America. So we understand each other the most of the time. But for example, during the last years, we have had some problems with Ecuador, with Peru, and with Argentina. So sometimes it's really difficult to have a united voice in front of the world and sometimes or I think the most of the time, in front of the USA.

So, sometimes these divisions are political, ideological, but I think the most of the time is because Mexico sometimes is perceived too close to the USA. Well, I think in the last decade it was the case. Right now we are dealing with the same and let me use this very scientific word, with the same devil, because it's very difficult to deal with this administration, with this current administration.

So, I think nowadays we have the opportunity to try to unite, to have a united voice, a unique voice against, well not against, but in front of the USA. Unfortunately, the divisions are there, are still there. You can see, sometimes in Latin America you have like two sides. If you are close to the USA or if you are trying to be more assertive facing the USA, we have Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, now Colombia, which is a big surprise, and sometimes Chile and Mexico and Brazil.

And the rest of the countries in the region try to get closer to the USA for ideological reasons or just for convenience. That's the case of Ecuador, that's the case of Peru, that's the case of Argentina. I think you can see that even, as you have previously heard, we have this regime's changes, which actually impose different dynamics in our region. For example, a few years ago Mexico was perceived as really too close to the USA, but now Mexico is perceived as more assertive, which is good. But Argentina, for example, was perceived as a very assertive country.

Now it's so close to the USA, and the current Argentine administration is begging for help, we have to be honest, because of the Argentinean economic crisis. Another Argentinean economic crisis. So, from my point of view, and I want just to end this with this thought, the institutions, the regional institutions are divided. The CELAC, you have mentioned it before, it's quite divided.

But I think even the American institutions or regional institutions in Latin America and the whole continent, the organization of American states is inoperative, completely inoperative. So even now we are experiencing a very aggressive American administration in terms of trade and we can say in military terms more assertive, but we can see a more divided, unfortunately more divided Latin American and Caribbean region. Because of that, I think it's going to take time. It's a good opportunity. It's a good chance.

I think it's a good time to try to unite. But you have said it before, the ideology, but I think that most of the time, the weakness of the Latin American regimes is part of this dynamic. And I think the foreseeable future is not that good for the region. I have hope, but I'm from Mexico and we live next to the USA. So we have a different, a quite different opinion, but I hope we can do something. Thank you very much.

Abdul Nafey: Thank you very much, Dr. Jacobo Silva Parada. I wish you had been here. We could have engaged you more fruitfully. He said something very profound. Mexico and Central America have changed so much in the last 30 years. Since the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. I've been a student of Mexican history. This Mexico looks so different now. This young man is saying something. There is a closer understanding among young Mexicans vis-a-vis United States. Latin America to them looks a little bit distant cousins. Economic fortune, geo-economics, shaping new national and cultural identities.

And then, yes, all said and done, Mexico has also taken advantage of the free trade agreements with the United States to the extent it could. And this is one country which we must study in order to know, how to tackle United States, how to handle relations with the United States. If you really want to know, study Mexican diplomacy. And with these few words now, I would invite the last of the speaker, Dr. Alfonso Dingemans Calderon from the University of Santiago, Chile. Please start your presentation, but seven minutes.

Alfonso Dingemans Calderon: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much for your invitation and the opportunity to share with you my thoughts on four questions that have been posed to me. So that's more or less one minute per question. First of all, the newly emerging world order and the rise of the multipolar world has already been discussed by various speakers already. The thing is, the role of Latin America in this newly emerging world order is a very difficult question to answer because Latin America is so diverse.

Many Latin American countries have different policies, have different histories, have different viewpoints. So it's always very difficult to try to summarize how the Latin American region would react. Nonetheless, it is possible to visualize some kind of patterns. And in this case, the pattern of the rise of new powers within the Latin American region has already been discussed.

The role of Russia, by the way, has not been analyzed as much. The role of China has been discussed. And probably the role of China is now what the role of the United States, in terms of trade at least, has been in the early or the final decades of the 20th century. China is more attractive as a world power than the United States has been throughout the 20th century because it has presented itself as a friendly power. It also has presented itself as a partner. It has used its soft power very intelligently as opposed to the United States.

Nonetheless, it has been very welcoming for Latin America, probably, that they have been recognized as a partner by the world powers. Remember, there's a book by Michael Reed with the title The Forgotten Continent and that is more or less the role that Latin America has played within the world power dynamics. So, given that context of multipolarity, how will the Latin American countries react individually? Well, it's very difficult to answer because Latin America is very diverse. It's a very diverse region. And although, historically speaking, Latin America has always tried to pursue its more autonomous policy.

Currently, there is a new concept by Jorge Heise, active non-alignment. The problem is that all these efforts, like the non-alignment in the 1970s, this pursuit of trying to pursue this autonomy is hampered by a lack of regional consensus. This was already touched upon by Professor Silva. The integration projects that have been mentioned have notoriously struggled to succeed.

Historically speaking, integration projects in Latin America have been very difficult to be successful. Mercosur, not so much of a success story. They lasted for 20 years in order to put up some institutions that could channel conflicts. The other institutions that have been mentioned, CELAC and UNASUR, they lack consensus. They don't have associated agendas. BRICS is perhaps seen as too overtly rival to the US.

So that could have some geopolitical consequences. And also that raises the question, if we want to pursue some integration projects, under whose leadership? Of course, the big countries would be very eager to say, well, under my leadership. Brazil, probably. Mexico, probably. Argentina will say they would like to do that as well. But they don't have legitimacy as regional leaders.

So the efforts to pursue a strategic autonomy is hampered by this lack of regional consensus. Which, to a large extent, is also a consequence of a lack of internal consensus regarding the market economy, regarding the foreign policy. We have too many regime changes. There's not a core set of values. For instance, the need for exports. Argentina is still learning to accept the need for exports. They still see them as a country that can thrive without the need for exports.

So without this consensus, it's very difficult to construct these integration projects. So the challenges that Latin America faces in order to pursue this strategic autonomy lie within their own countries, within the challenges that their own economic development poses. The diversification of the Latin American economies is still very limited. Of course, there are new opportunities within the context of neo-shoring or friend or ally shoring.

The energy transitions, Latin America is a very important continent in terms of natural resources, the possession of critical minerals, but on the other hand, Latin America is still dependent on foreign technologies. And they have had mixed results with attracting foreign direct investment that will allow their economies to change. The productive diversification is still meager. They have been struggling to balance their economic development with sustainability and infrastructure education, innovation systems are still lagging behind.

So to tackle the final question that has been posed to me, what are the opportunities for cooperation between India and Latin America? Well, there have been a continuous strengthening of economic ties and also of technology transfers. Latin America has the critical minerals, have the agriculture, food security is a huge issue for India. On the other hand, India can bring technology to the table, Tata Consultancy for instance is a very important company in Chile. They have the pharmaceutical industry, opportunities for a digital cooperation.

So they are a promising match, Latin America and India. What about collaborative research, artificial intelligence, biotech space technology? There are many issues in which both can cooperate. However, and this is going to be my final phrase, how neutral is going to be engaging with India? And this is from more world power dynamic standpoint.

For instance, how will the BRICS countries manage internal power asymmetries within the group? Suppose India is going to be the new partner in Latin America, are we going to suppose that the rest of the countries are going to sit by and do nothing? So the issue is that the reaction of other countries, of China, of United States, Russia is now engaged with other things. But we also have to think about the reaction of the world power dynamics. So those were my thoughts on these questions that were posed to me. Thank you very much.

Abdul Nafey: Thank you very much, Dr. Alfonso Calderon. A very thoughtful presentation. I'll just take half a minute. In Asia, there is a very interesting debate as to the nature and types of Asian capitalisms. The kind of capitalism that exists in certain countries like India, China and Southeast Asian countries. Countries which themselves have had a long experience of European colonial rule, become independent after a long anti-colonial struggle. Freedom movements in countries like India had the idea of social equity and justice embedded into our freedom movement as a value. Nobody could have really gone out of it.

When these countries are coming closer to Latin America for trade, for investment, what kind of opportunities or new challenges Latin American countries are going to face vis-a-vis while dealing with China, India or countries of Southeast Asia? My own take on the subject is, this is a golden opportunity for Latin America to bargain very hard with Asian investors and businesses.

Go for cutting-edge technology when you are talking to India or China. Go for value addition if you are seeking investments into mining and forestry. Do value addition to yourself. Go for science and technology collaboration with countries like India, China or ASEAN countries. This kind of a partnership would be a win-win, something which is beneficial to both sides. When my Chilean colleague was talking, this idea of the debate which is right now on what kind of capitalisms do exist in Asia, free market, non-free market, each state will always have a role as far as Asian economies are concerned.

There is no Asian economy without a public sector, without state regulation. So this debate between KTRs and pink-tied socialists, I mean, they look so superfluous. At the end of the day, how are you going to meet the livelihood needs? Safety and security of your own population. I'm not worried whether my Brazilian colleague is a billionaire. At the end of the day, there should be enough food on the table for me and for my family. A roof. My child should be going to the school. My family should be safe when I'm traveling for work.

Maybe I mean, these are new ways India, Asia and Latin American countries can explore and India is very much, we can really learn best practices from each other. Now with this, we are already overshooting. If you allow me, madam, I'm reducing the question and answers from 15 minutes to eight minutes. Because everybody ate eight minutes. So eight minutes we deserve for comments, questions, and then we can carry on the discussion over a cup of tea. Because we have been promised high tea. So please.

Nutan Kapoor Mahawar: Chair, when you started the discussion, you said that Latin America is a pole. Now the view that we seem to have taken in the ICWA with our scholars is that no, it is not a pole at present. That it has to emerge as a pole in the newly emerging world order. And with all the interventions that we have heard about divisions, about not being able to come together in regional foras or not having comfortable relations with neighbors, it is true for other regions of the world also, but it is there, very much there in Latin America.

So if it has to emerge as a pole, then, I mean, to ensure that it becomes a meaningful actor, you will need a number of things. And the first thing is that you need to go beyond ideological divisions. Second is you need skilled leadership. You need an informed public opinion. Then you need to navigate US. US is going to be a neighbor, always. So I don't see an either/or between US and China at all. There is no either/or, I mean, you maintain a relationship with China, too, and you maintain a relationship with US too. And you maintain, of course, I'm from India, so I would say, you maintain a good relationship with India, too.

So where is the either/or? There is no either/or. And you have to have a good relationship with the US. If it is receding or whatever, you have to navigate it. And then you have to promote regionalism. So these are the basic. And Professor Carlos, you mentioned that Europe is the real model for Latin America. It used to be like, it's still there in the mindset somewhere.

Yeah, you are very right, Latin American elites, you have dual citizenship. Many Latin Americans have citizenship with European countries. So India doesn't have dual citizenship. So, conceptually, we don't see ourselves here also and somewhere there also, but you do. So, you have to navigate that relationship with Europe and it is going through tumultuous changes itself. So, the simple point that I'm making is that Latin America is not a pole right now. It has to emerge as a pole. For that, it has to put its act together.

The second point that I want to make is for India and Latin American countries, is we always look at when we have bilateral visits, meetings, we are always looking at how many projects, how many MOUs, how many, we're just counting our numbers. I'm a diplomat, so I know how we do this. Well, do you have six or not? Two less, two less, we need more. A visit is coming by. What you really need is an intellectual partnership. A partnership, somebody mentioned it also here.

I think you mentioned it. So, we need an intellectual partnership, and you mentioned the normative framework. We have to support each other in mutually shared principles, values. We have to identify, like you mentioned, Bolivian living well concept, we need to talk on how we look at our societies, how we want to move forward and then support each other in regional foras like BRICS and in global governance forums. When we have these shared intellectual thoughts on principles, values, normative frameworks, and that's how a rules-based order will ultimately emerge. So, that's a very vital portion of our dialogue with Latin America.

Carlos Da Silva Gama: The last part of your talk, when you mentioned the issue of great power politics, in case India becomes a great power, how would India behave at the global stage? I would like to modify your claim slightly, so just to make sure something that I have been mentioning for a couple months, a couple semesters at least, is India, let's say, take into consideration the different circumstances of the global South, in order to be the leader of the global South, that is, an emerging leadership.

Because we have this debate in Latin  America about leadership, and we have this joke Brazil used to say, Brazil is the leader of South America, but who's following Brazil? The leader without followers. Exactly. The leader without followers, I mean, Andre Malamud's quite insightful contribution. So is India embracing enough in terms of recognizing and, let's say, coping with the different circumstances of the global South, okay? Or India's vision would be, let's say, more inner-oriented, let's say, to promote Indian interests or to make the world, let's say, more sympathetic to those interests.

Because in case India really wants to be a leader and I have been exploring this element for some time, it has to take into account, let's say, the interests of others. Specially, as we have been discussing here, Latin America is a very fragmented region. So we have different claims related to Latin America, and even conflicting claims, proximity to the US. How should we go about the US? Of course, we have to have some meaningful relationship. But what kind of relationship? We should, let's say, negotiate our status. But what kind of status? Is India aware of this, let's say, diversity of circumstances or does India look at the global South or Latin America as a single entity? It's a good question.

Nutan Kapoor Mahawar: First thing I want to say, you know, because we are a think tank, and we are in the business of building narratives. So right now, the juncture that the world is at right now, the last thing that it needs is narratives that promote divisiveness in the Global South. We have to consciously construct and find and identify areas where we can come together, where we can move forward.

Now, I can take an example. I have asked my scholars to put together a conference on the New Global South: Cooperation in Combating Crime. Okay, so there we have identified six, where is Dhrub? He's not there. So we have identified six or seven, like organized, like drug trafficking, sexual trafficking, IUU fishing, and six, seven such segments and where we intend to call scholars from all over the Global South and do it.

So what I'm, the point that I'm making is, it is incumbent upon institutions like us to build these narratives, not of divisiveness because we look at where we are today in the world. It is full of polarization. It is not helpful if I just keep saying that Global South is so diverse, so diverse, look for areas where you can come together and promote that area. And as far as India is concerned what you said about, what is India's approach.

India has said and in a way it is naturally also, it has a tradition also, it is a leader of the Global south. But it has never said that it wants to be the only leader of the Global South. So in a classroom you can have different kind of students with different leadership qualities and with different comparative advantages. So Brazil can be good at something, Uruguay could be good at something, and Colombia could be good at something.

So we all have our own comparative advantage and so it has to be. And I'll just tell you that yesterday we had the Foreign Minister of Cyprus here for a lecture and one of the things he said was that how Cyprus wants to contribute to this change in geopolitics. He said that he wants to contribute to how EU can get closer to Global South and he wants to be a dialogue platform for Asia and Europe. So these are the way people are thinking these days. So this is how we have to look at these things. Building bridges.

Abdul Nafey: If you allow me a little intervention here. I think time has come that we see your institution like this dialogue between India and Latin America at a very serious level. And then many were of the opinion that time has come that maybe the two sides should set up an eminent persons group. Maybe you are the right institution and thanks to this technology, you know, we can really communicate with each other economically and economically.

So I think it's time to we can really communicate with each other across continents and earlier in my times there was always this issue where are the funds. Number two, where is the time?

Somebody coming all the way from Argentina, here, and then going back after one day or two day meeting, people will say, look, I don't have time for this. But today, things this has become really possible. And this dialogue can be at multiple level. Eminent person academics, put in some business researchers and others, maybe then you can really help the two sides come together.

And in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation, I remember 2011, community of Latin American Caribbean country CELAC was set up troika and CELAC had decided to make India a part of the troika. The first meeting of that actually took place here in your auditorium. With folded hands, I remember I was pleading with everyone. That this troika, India should lead troika, this CELAC group. But something was missing somewhere. And then China picked up troika CELAC.

And now China today is heading China CELAC forum, which is a norm-setting and institution-setting mechanism between China and Latin America. And I was telling somebody, I tell you, you just wait a year or two. China will set up a China CELAC development bank as well. They did it in Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Just wait for another CELAC summit between China and Latin America, and they will get around some USD 50 million development bank between China and Latin American Caribbean states. So these are some of the initiatives you must really seize. Thank you very much. Please.

Sonya Surabhi Gupta: You brought this, the reference of the 2011, yeah, the troika. So it is an interesting example of how ideologically diverse countries were there at that time in that particular troika. So it was Chile under Sebastian Pinera, and it was Cuba and Venezuela, because it's like, it's a troika which comes and visits. And so it is possible for Latin America to have a regional consensus, despite ideological diversity and differing positions.

Unfortunately, for example, this time also in the April meeting of the CELAC, all the countries did go, though Argentina and Paraguay voted against the final resolution, but all of them were there. So I think it's a useful forum, CELAC and India should really think in terms of engagement.

Abdul Nafey: So I think with this, it's indeed my privilege and a pleasure to close this very useful focused discussion on Latin America in the newly emerging world order and invite you for a cup of tea. We can continue our discussion for a while there. Thanks a lot. Thank you very much.

Arnab Chakrabarty: Before of thanks, thank you chair, as we draw a close to very stimulating discussion, I have the privilege to propose the vote of thanks on behalf of ICWA. Thank you all for the patience for holding on and listening to such stimulating discussions. I'd first wish to convey my deepest gratitude to the Chair, Professor Abdul Nafey, and to esteemed panelists for their valuable insights and for a very stimulating discussion.

We have had much to learn and this will surely broaden our horizon. I extend my sincere thanks to the invited guests for their presence and insightful engagement in the discussion. Hearty appreciation for the able leadership of Ambassador Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, Additional Secretary and Acting Director General, and to Dr. Nivedita Ray, Director of Research for their constant support, mentoring, and guidance.

I thank my colleague and co-coordinator, Dr. Girisanker Nair, for his contribution and to the administration of ICWA for the assistance. With this, we do come to the end of today's panel discussion and I now invite you all for a high tea at the foyer. Thank you. Gracias.

Abdul Nafey: I forgot you had a role in the ceremony. To those who are online, thank you very much and bye.

***** 

List of Participants

1. Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, Acting Director General & Additional Secretary, ICWA
2. Abdul Nafey, Former Professor and Chairperson, Centre for the Study of the Americas, Jawaharlal Nehru University (Chair)
3. Sonya Surabhi Gupta, Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Jamia Millia Islamia
4. Aprajita Kashyap, Associate Professor, Centre for the Study of the Americas, Jawaharlal Nehru University
5. Carlos Da Silva Gama, Assistant Professor, School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Shiv Nadar University
6. Jacobo Silva Parada, Professor, School of Political and Social Sciences, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) (Online)
7. Alfonso Dingemans Calderón, Professor, Department of Political Studies, University of Santiago (USACH), Chile (Online)