With that line of reasoning you could claim that the American Indian Movement is a foreign occupying power within the USA, as they receive support from and serve the strategic interests of other indigenous liberation movements around the Americas (including Nicaragua and Bolivia); Or you could flip the script and claim that the Nicaraguan Contras were a US backed foreign occupying power in Nicaragua.
That is simply not what a foreign occupying power means. Let’s take the contras for example. They weren’t just mindless drones of the US empire, they had their own strategic interest which happened to align with US interest in the region. Would they have been active without US backing, for sure, they just wouldn’t have been so successful (and therefore not as brutal).
The Contras main interest were to reinstate the pre-revolution powerstructure, and to make sure no wealth and land redistribution occurred, they adopted whichever strategy they saw fit, including a heavy anti-communism in order to secure US backing.
This feels like an argument about definitions. Substitute whatever term you prefer. Though: I don't find it plausible that the American aboriginal rights movement is directed by foreign powers.
That is simply not what a foreign occupying power means. Let’s take the contras for example. They weren’t just mindless drones of the US empire, they had their own strategic interest which happened to align with US interest in the region. Would they have been active without US backing, for sure, they just wouldn’t have been so successful (and therefore not as brutal).
The Contras main interest were to reinstate the pre-revolution powerstructure, and to make sure no wealth and land redistribution occurred, they adopted whichever strategy they saw fit, including a heavy anti-communism in order to secure US backing.