New Bolivian President Claims to Be US "Nightmare"

Yet another example of BushCo getting the inverse response to what they want.

Although I'm kind of freaked by having an ex-coca farmer as a president, I do say kudos to Boliva for electing an Indian, and for thumbing your nose at BushCo just for the hell of it.

And a sidenote to Karl. Looks like the conservative big thinkers were wrong on Latin America taking the side of MNC free-trade and capitalism. Too bad, bro.

 

<Bush>
You forgot Poland!
</Bush>

 

Someone didn't tell them that the leaders of South America stick to left-wing politics but right-wing economics.

 

I'm not so sure how Brazil feels about that. Word up on Western ave right by Fullerton is that most people in Brazil aren't terribly thrilled about the goddamn massive tariffs on soy and orange juice concentrate. I'm also pretty sure they're not thrilled about immigration restrictions that make it virtually impossible for all but the wealthiest Brazilians come to this country.

Also, a coca farmer isn't necessary a bad thing. Tons of folks down in Bolivia chew on coca leaves on to stay awake and stave off hunger. The local consumption really isn't about cocaine. That being said, there's a huge class stratification in Bolivia not that dissimilar to Brazil. The bulk of the people, who happen to be poor have generally grown tired of the way the rulers (who, historically, have been of the upper-class) of this particular country using strongarm tactics and general oppression to keep control.

The US has tried for roughly 35 years to keep dictators and strong-men in power in latin america. The blowback from those policy decisions is beginning to be felt.

 

mmmmm, that's oversimplifying it a bit. They agreed with the whole U of Chicago school of economics model for so long mainly due to lack of choice in the matter. The world is much different now than in the 1970s though. Venezula has oil-production and Brazil has the capability to outproduce the US in soy. Factors like this mean that Latin America is going to have more of a say internationally than in the past.



.... also, successful left-wing politicians in Latin America are a VERY new phenomena.

 

It will be interesting to see how much solidarity S. Americans have. If Bolivia does well at all, it could mean the US losing all influence in the region. I am anxious to hear what a couple friends who are asylees from Bolivia have to say.

 

A Socialist will probably win a run off in Chile 15 Enero 06.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/11/chile.elections.ap/

Although it does appear that she will be a free trader from the article.

Still, it is a little troubling how South American countries seem to be trending away from the US.

 

Why? We don't own them. They're not gonna invade us. There's no anti-US terrorist movements to speak of.

... and really, trending with the US for the last, oh, let's just say 50 years for simplicity's sake, really hasn't treated them all that well.

 

That's what I am referring to. We haven't had the greatest track record in central and south america, but still over the last 10-20 years, the stage has been set for us to really improve relations in the region.

It's a shame that we haven't used that opportunity to establish meaningful relationships that might have led to an increase in the standard of living in the poorest of countries, thereby creating legitimate new trading partners for us. The whole "rising tide lifts all boats" theory.

 

Look at Mexico; If there were ever a brother-in-arms, it was with whazzhizname. What happens? BushCo pisses him off.

Across the globe in Iran, Neocons were going to peacefully destablize the regime to bring about a western-style democracy. We get Azinbygodiama********ingnuthead, instead.

So maybe I got the free-trade paticulars wrong. But wait a while. I predict the whole free trade thing is about to implode (or retract significantly).

 

Well, the CIA's coup against Chavez failed (coups these days just aren't what they used to be)

There's a lot of untapped energy reserves in Bolivia, right?

Cheney or whoever is in charge of this godforsaken administration will order the guy plugged.

Evo Morales had better hire some pretty good security--if there's money to be made, there's no way Big Oil can let him live.

I hope the Chileans do elect a leftist. Not because that will help the people much, but they still owe us for Allende.

One last question: Were there massive anti-American riots in Latin America during the 1990s? Did presidential candidates run on how much they hated the U.S.? Did Brazil charge $100+ for Americans to get fingerprinted when they entered the country? Of course not.

This is all cause and effect--the cause is the Bush Administration, the effect is a global chilling in attitudes toward the United States. Once he's out of power, and the U.S. shows it can elect responsible public servants again, perhaps these relationships can be repaired. Until then, we'll get more Evo Moraleses.

 

Quite the opposite. They still had to do so on account of the reciprocal immigration laws they have but at least Brazil was nice about it. They had musicians and dancers for people to watch while in line and passed out t-shirts and refreshmens.

Everything else you said is right on.

 

I wouldn't worry about Boliva exporting there politics, I bet the don't work to well at sea level.

 

That's nice that you want to ******** up the most prosperous and stable country in Latin America to prove a political point.

 

b

Its funny Chavez has been funneling money to destabalize South America, but you don't say jack about his involvment. Do you know that poor Bolivians are are going to be screwed? Oh yeah, as long as Bush looks bad, you are happy. I'm sorry your pathetic life revolves around your feelings about Bush. The tragedy in all of this is many South Americans are going to have to go through another generation of hell.

 

Bachelet (candidate) and Lagos (outgoing president) are both members of the Socialist party, and in turn members of the left-center coalition Concertacion, but they are not socialists of the Eugene V. Debs variety. The Concertacion has held the presidency since the return to democracy in 1990 (the first two presidents, Aylwin and Frei, were Christian Dems) but none of the Concertacion presidents turned back Pinochet's basic economic reforms (although they did increased social spending) and all have have favored free trade.

For rough comparison pursposes, when looking at Lagos (and likely Bachelet, although she may be a little bit to the left of Lagos), think Brazil's Lula, just dealing with a less unwieldy country and less fractious political class. Although if the price of copper bottoms out, all bets are off, but that's another thread for another day.

 

Brazil wants US tourists to come & bring some dollars with them. OTOH, the USA has tried to limit Brazilian migration without success. there are sh!tloads of Brazilians here in NJ, legal & illegal. None seem to have been stopped by the $100 price of admission.

 

I don't think anybody here knows that poor Bolivians are going to be screwed. I sure hope they aren't--and they my concern is primarily with them. I give the situation about 50/50 right now, whereas I would have given Bolivia a 25% chance of positive change pandering to Bush. Probably more like 10-15% with the free trade agreements that represent the interests of the Global North almost exclusively. Certainly, cooperation with the U.S. has done little for South and Central America for the last several decades, so I see little that S. America has to gain from cooperation. If the U.S. wanted to help S. America, it would ratify the Interamerican Convention on Human Rights, the appropriate conventions on the rights of indigenous peoples, and the Kyoto protocol. Until an active and positive role is taken for change throughout the Americas, there is no room to bitch. I am not happy about Bush looking bad. Bush and his mindless followers will take care of that regardless of what happens. The only reason people take some pleasure at the misfortunes of Bush derives from the hope that some of the mindless will finally get a clue. Sisyphus never had it so bad.

 

Bolivia is the whipping boy of South America. They actually hold a place in the Guiness Book of Records for the most Coups.

 

Care to elaborate?

I don't want to pump up chavez, because I think the guy is a jerk and his righteous paranoia (thanks, BushCo) will likely turn him into a thug. However, Chavez is probably doing a lot more for the poorest Venezualans than the right wingers would. So what is the generation of hell you refer to?

 

I don't think it makes much sense to consider Morales' win as blowback from past US support of dictators - in fact, Bolivia actually elected one of those ex-dictators president not all that long ago. Cold War era conflicts are no longer very politically relevant in most of Latin America, and the current leftist (or quasi-leftist) resurgence in the region owes little to them.

On the other hand, it would definitely be reasonable to describe Morales' win as blowback from the US war on drugs in Bolivia, and maybe also from some dumb comments by the US ambassador. But, those things happened after the Cold War, and after the transition to democracy.

 

So, what exactly was the significant "involvement" by Chavez in the Bolivian election (or any other recent Latin American election) that we should be mentioning? Please be as specific as possible.