How have European far‑right parties coordinated with Latin American counterparts since 2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020, coordination between European far‑right parties and Latin American counterparts has accelerated along three overlapping axes: formal summitry and party networks (notably Spain’s Vox and its Madrid Forum), cross‑regional think‑tank and conference linkages that fund and train activists, and the diffusion of shared narratives (anti‑left, anti‑globalism, “traditional values”) transmitted via public events and media ecosystems [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and scholarship show concrete meetings and institutional vehicles for cooperation, but also sizeable variation in intensity, local agendas, and the degree to which coordination translates into joint campaigns or policy harmonization [1] [4] [5].
1. Formal party networks and summits: Madrid as a hub
European parties, particularly Spain’s Vox, have invested in explicit transnational platforms aimed at Latin America; the Madrid Forum—publicly associated with Vox—frames Latin American leftist groupings as existential foes and has produced documents warning of “communism” infiltrating institutions, signaling ideological coordination with regional right allies [1]. European far‑right leaders similarly used Madrid as a staging ground: a high‑profile leaders’ summit in Madrid drew major European figures and promoted a playbook adapted from US and Latin American examples, indicating a deliberate policy‑exchange orientation rather than purely symbolic solidarity [2].
2. Think tanks, conferences and funding: building infrastructure
Coordination has depended on intermediary institutions: conservative think tanks and conferences provide money, training and policy blueprints that link European and Latin American actors, with documented flows such as the Danube Institute’s funding of far‑right researchers and collaborative programs that bring together youth wings from Europe and elsewhere, creating institutionalized channels for cooperation [3]. Scholarship and reporting note similar partnerships—e.g., Polish Ordo Iuris working with foreign conservative bodies on EU policy recommendations—showing how institutional collaboration supplements party diplomacy [3].
3. Shared narratives and media ecosystems: exporting the “red enemy”
Across the Atlantic, the far right’s primary shared script has been anti‑left and anti‑“communism,” repurposed as a transnational foil; Latin American groups often frame themselves as defenders of “Western” traditional values and enter into continuous dialogue with European and US counterparts under that rubric, reinforcing a common narrative ecosystem [1] [6]. Regional analysts document how these narratives are deliberately aligned through forums and publications to delegitimize leftist coalitions such as the São Paulo Forum and the Puebla Group, turning ideological affinity into a platform for cross‑border mobilization [1].
4. Tactical exchange: campaign styles, youth mobilization and policy borrowing
Reports indicate concrete tactical exchange rather than mere rhetoric: parties study each other’s messaging to attract disaffected youth and to capitalize on dissatisfaction with democratic institutions, and they adapt tactics from successful peers—including rhetoric favoring strong executive leadership and skepticism toward multiculturalism—though the evidence for direct, centralized coordination of electoral campaigns is limited in the available reporting [6] [7]. The transnational transfer is therefore often pragmatic and decentralized, mediated by conferences, youth programs and social media rather than formal joint campaign committees [3] [6].
5. Limits, disagreements and scholarly caution
While multiple sources document meetings, think‑tank ties and shared rhetoric, they also caution against overgeneralizing: the intensity of coordination varies widely between actors, and European far‑right groups pursue different strategic aims at the EU level than Latin American counterparts facing distinct institutional and historical constraints, so coordination is asymmetric and sometimes transactional rather than unified [5] [4]. Existing reporting documents networks and ideological alignment but does not establish a single command structure or uniformly coordinated strategy across all parties; where sources do not report direct operational coordination, this analysis refrains from asserting it [1] [3].