On January 28, 2026, Latin American heads of state and senior officials convened in Panama City for a development-centred meeting hosted by CAF, the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean. The purpose was to promote increased regional cohesion in response to growing political polarization across the hemisphere.
The gathering brought together leaders from multiple ideological camps, reflecting an effort to keep lines of dialogue open even as disputes over security, governance, and foreign policy have strained cooperation among governments. Attendees included Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Colombian President Gustavo Petro, alongside leaders from Ecuador, Bolivia, and Guatemala, as well as Chile’s president-elect José Antonio Kast, according to reporting from the event.
The forum unfolded amid a sharp rise in regional friction linked to the recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela, an episode that leaders referenced as a symbol of widening division anda stress test for Latin America’s ability to respond collectively to external pressure.
Lula Warns Of Regional Fragmentation
In his remarks, Lula framed the moment as one of weakening integration and diminished capacity for joint decision-making. He pointed to paralysis within the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC)—a grouping that includes the region’s governments—as evidence that political splits have made it difficult to produce unified statements on major issues.
Without naming the United States directly, Lula criticized what he described as the region’s inability to respond even rhetorically to what he called illegal military interventions affecting Latin America. He described the situation as among the most serious declines in the integration project in recent years, warning that institutional stagnation leaves countries more exposed when crises erupt.
By directing attention to CELAC, Lula underscored a broader concern voiced by several leaders at the forum: that existing regional bodies have struggled to deliver consensus outcomes quickly, especially when governments interpret events through sharply different political lenses. The argument, repeated in various forms during the meeting, was that fragmentation can translate into reduced bargaining power—whether in trade, migration, climate policy, or security coordination.
Petro Targets Venezuela Operation And U.S. Role
Petro adopted a more explicit tone, condemning the bombing over Caracas and arguing that the Venezuela episode should be handled through regional legal mechanisms rather than unilateral force. He said former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro should face proceedings either in Venezuela itself or before a regional judicial structure that he described as a “Three Americas Tribunal.”
His comments landed as Bogotá and Washington prepare for high-level talks. Petro is scheduled to meet U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on Feb. 3, 2026, following a period of heightened bilateral tensions that have included public disputes and punitive measures. Petro has described the planned meeting as an opportunity to stabilize relations and address major cross-border issues, including security and counternarcotics cooperation.
The overlap between Petro’s condemnation of the Venezuela operation and his upcoming meeting with Trump illustrates a broader pattern visible at the Panama forum: leaders seeking room to criticize U.S. actions while also keeping diplomatic channels active. For several governments, the calculation is that regional unity has practical value only if it can coexist with bilateral engagement, particularly with the hemisphere’s largest economy.
Wider Context For Regional Diplomacy
Organizers positioned the CAF forum as a venue to discuss development priorities and coordination, with programming spanning Jan. 28–29, 2026, and featuring participation from government and business figures. While not designed as a crisis summit, the event became a platform for leaders to connect economic goals—growth, inclusion, competitiveness—with the political reality that polarization can obstruct cross-border initiatives.
The Venezuela intervention, meanwhile, has amplified debates about sovereignty, regional security, and the limits of multilateral governance. Analysts have argued that the episode could have lasting consequences for international norms and cooperation frameworks in the Americas, even as governments weigh immediate security concerns against long-term institutional credibility.
Against that backdrop, the messages from Lula and Petro converged on a common warning: that Latin America’s political divisions risk reducing the region’s ability to act as a bloc at a time when external shocks—geopolitical disputes, migration pressures, and security crises—are becoming more frequent. The Panama forum did not produce a single unified declaration, but it showcased an emerging push to keep regional dialogue alive amid an intensifying strain.
