The claim here is that veganism promotes globalism (or some sort of modern colonialism) because vegans eat food from diverse biomes not grown in America, hurting local economies.
Your Burger King burger, for instance, could contain meat from 1000 cows across 5 countries. But it's easy to point to a mango and say "Hey, that doesn't grow here!". It's harder when it's just blended into a paste that looks the same whether it's from New Zealand or Brazil. This whole project, namely stealing food from countries that need it that pays for itself by stealing money from Western countries through corporate subsidies, is as globalist as it gets.
If you object to a product that would otherwise be vegan, I, as you vegan godfather, hereby grant you permission to exclude it from your diet. Do you morally object to mangoes? Great! Don't eat mangoes. That doesn't mean that you get to torture and murder animals because mangoes are grown in parts of the world that are underdeveloped.
Hydroponics exist. Gardens exist. LED lights exist. If you want to grow mangoes or some specific food item in your basement, you now can!
In the undeveloped these jobs don't replace some kind of "better job that was there before", they replace a condition of "no development at all". There is no trade in that sector of the economy, and starvation induced by Western carnism does little more than exacerbate the issue. So, no, it's not that you are so nobly sacrificing an animal's life so that you can save a human's. Besides most of this stuff is eaten by carnists too; they also eat mangoes or cinnamon or whatever. So it's not like carnism is some magic wand that makes you eat only fair-trade food.
You can support local and fair trade businesses while also being vegan. The idea that one somehow impinges on the other is just trying to deflect responsibility by throwing your hands up and going "Welp... I dunno, being vegan also hurts people I guess". That's not an argument.