Wasn't Peru's Alejandro Toldeo an elected indigenous head of state before Evo Morales?

Hey, Jeff-o! Youse forget Beneito Juárez, elected México's president in the late 1850's?

that "Evo fue millones" headline from Pagina 12 is a play on Eva [Perón's] famous "Volveré y seré millones" [I'll return and be millions] remark before she died...

Actually, the phrase "Volveré y seré millones" comes from Tupak Katari, an indigenous leader who led an indigenous uprising during the Spanish colony (1781). He proclaimed that phrase before being executed by the Spaniards.

It is not surprising that we see a resurgence from the left in reaction to economic imperialism under the banner of "free trade". However, the U.S., as a country, is also becoming a victim of "Free Trade". Under the Bush Administration, jobs and factories are being shipped overseas seeking cheaper labor. Further, the Administration is seeking to import cheap labor, either legally, or through using undocumented workers that come into the country illegally through poorly controlled borders.
We see now, worldwide, government for and by the mutinational corporations, and poverty for everyone who works for them. It would not be surprising to see even more radical movements arise in many countries.
The irony of the situation is that the multinationals no longer have strong governments to protect them. They are too cheap to pay for them. If you don't have inclusive societies, revolution and disorder are a certainty. Who will be the first targets?

Hopefully he starts thinking of serving the people that elected him and doesn't embark in a wasteful campaign against the US. Maybe instead of increasing coca leaf production that has a risky future for his own people, he could fight CORRUPTION, and take advantage of the cooperation plan with the US to improve education, health, and roads among others.

Nadie se refiere a las muchas realizaciones del Presidente Evo Morales.

It is almost amusing to see the responses Morley quotes in this 'article'.

He should of course have prefaced the whole thing with a disclaimer in large print that he is quoting from right wing, American sponsored, anti-democratic forces in Venezuela that are still smarting over their failure to unseat Chavez both by force and then through American financed/sponsored shenanigans in the recent fully transparent elections.
Morales is one of a lengthening list of left wing political leaders in South and Central America that are finally being allowed to assume their proper positions of power, by right wing facist organizations, businesses and politicos wholly sponsored and financed by the American right in pursuit of nothing but the unholy bottom line dollar-profit margin.

It is only because of the recognition of aboriginal rights, anti-poverty movements, and the exposure of the true costs of right wing facist policies (Vietnam, Nixon, Pinochet, Marcos', and now bushie et al with so called 'free trade') that these leaders, Chavez, Lula, Kirchner, now Morales (apparently the first Bolivian political leader to gain in excess of 50% of the vote legally in decades) and soon Bachelet in Chile are not being gunned down in the streets as in the past with American financed weapons and murderers.

The biggest complainers are of course the oil and gas companies many of which are of course American - all they want is cheap fuel for their gas guzzling constituents, oooops sorry consumers. Bolivia along with Venezuela have very large oil and in Bolivia's specific case natural gas reserves. These leaders are more compassionate (pun intended) and realistic about the use of the resources to benefit the greatest number of their people - not a small posse of 'robber barons' that have sought to protect their limited interests.

!No lo vamos a olvidar!

And amazingly enough he has not been forgotten and returns across the continent in many guises.

(for those that cannot quite pinpoint that particular saying, it refers to Che Guevara).

It must be nice Cait. You can blame all your problems on a horrible right wing imperiallistic America.

Expect the following from Morales: 1) alignment with Chavez, Castro; 2) elevation of the U.S. as the great Boogeyman, bent on invading Bolivia at any moment; 3) a corresponding increase in militarization; 4) elimination of all dissent (namely business interests and the free press); and 5) eventual marginalization of Bolivia while Morales entrenches himself as dictator for life. It's the leftist playbook, as written by Lenin and Trotsky, and as perfected by Castro and Chavez. At some point (in our distant future), the proverbial "Wall" will fall, Bolivia will once again be free....and so the World turns. Peace out.

Whoops..., I forgot Step #6: Meanwhile, the usual assortment of American university professors, their gullible students, and NY Times staff will serve as Morales' chief advocates, either oblivious or unwilling to face up to the atrocities committed under his watch.

I'm amused by all these boilerplate wire stories that claim Morales will have to strike a "balance" between actually delivering for his people and "reassuring" multinationals, which he supposedly needs for "economic development."
For decades, Bolivia has been governed by presidents eager to reassure multinationals and the "economic development" that has resulted has not benefited that country's oppressed, impoverished aboriginal majority one bit.
Morales is right to seize his nation's natural gas resources and ensure that wealth from them goes not to multinationals but to the long-suffering people of Bolivia. The puny white elite and its U.S. patrons have been plundering Bolivia's resources for generations. But it took the election of George W. Bush and his jingoistic, bullying foreign policy to prod them into finally electing a radical anti-U.S. president.
One more example of just how misguided U.S. foreign policy is, not only in the Middle East, but worldwide.
George W. Bush has given a huge boost to the radical left worldwide.

Hi Tony:

The left's certainly gained in LatAm, but how about the rest of the World? Last I heard, right-leaning governments have recently been elected in Germany, Poland, Australia and both Blair and Bush have been reelected in their respective countries. Meanwhile, the liberal government of Paul Martin in Canada is in jeopardy. Also, with respect to balancing with business interests, isn't that essentially what's occurred in Brazil (Lula) and Argentina (Kirchner), who have essentially backed down from their populist/left bully pulpits and have been open to market influences? In reality, Chavez and Castro are the exceptions to that, as they have chosen wholly undemocratic paths to their version of "socialism". I fear that Morales will follow thier lead.

Best,

"WorkersoftheWorldUnite!"

The left is taking over across South America, no doubt about it. And that is how it should be.

South America is the world's most unequal continent in terms of the disparity in income between rich and poor.

But worse, South America, especially the Andean part, has been operating a de facto apartheid system for centuries.

Anyone who's been in countries like Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, Colombia, even Chile, has only to go out on the street to be surrounded by a sea of jet-black hair and dark brown faces. Yet go back inside and turn on the TV and you'd be forgiven for thinking you were in Sweden. You can literally watch TV for an hour without seeing anyone who doesn't have blond hair, much less anyone who looks indigenous.

These people have been rendered invisible in their own societies. It wasn't the US that did it, but the Spanish conquistadors themselves.

That imbalance is now finally being redressed. The US government would be well advised to see this for what it is, a racial revival by a downtrodden people, not a renaissance of communism. Washington would be wise to stay out of their way.

I can't fathom Wahington's hostility to people like Lula, Kirchner and even Chavez. The irony is that the US's own economic system is practically socialist compared to what most of these countries have been labouring under. Americans themselves would never put up with the racism, the denial of opportunity, the lack of social provision, that the indigenous people of the Andean region have had to suffer.

To oppose people like Morales would be as shortsighted as Reagan's backing of the National Party in South Africa. America didn't create the gross inequality that burdens South America, but Washington always seems to be on the side of those who wish to preserve it.

Already Washington has an ugly legacy to live down in the continent. Why compound it by fomenting military coups against elected leaders, as they did against Chavez in 2002? Chavez has won 11 straight elections and referenda in the past seven years, yet Washington labels him a dictator, even while it tries to overthrow him through force of arms. US talk of spreading democracy is met with richly-deserved contempt in Latin America.

What does America have to offer in place of these new lefties? Pinochet, Batista, Somosa, Fujimori, Galtieri. No thanks.

This is a cultural revolution. It's the return of the Inca peoples to a place in human history after 500 years. It won't be stopped, and those who try to stop it won't be forgiven. Time to get on the right side of history.

As stated above, Alejandro Toledo WAS an indigenous president of Peru, and therefore the first. May God save Bolivia. I never thought that Morales could ever be president of Bolivia, and the news totally shocked me. As a Bolivian, I do not feel that he is the best person to lead the country. He has brain-washed all the poor, ignorant campesinos, and now who knows what will come. I am hoping for the best as I worry for the rest of my family still living in Bolivia.

Hey OD: You make several excellent points concerning what really motivates the rise of the left in LatAm, but I do feel that your support of Chavez undermines your post. Chavez is a dictator, in the same vein as Lenin, Mao and Castro, who has used populism and socialism and anti-America/ant-"Imperialism" to firm up his power. The most recent elections in Venez. could not be considered "free" or "democratic" by any legit definition of that term. Also, the assertion that the U.S. was responsible for the 2002 coup attempt is highly dubious. If anything, the U.S. Admin. is guilty of turning a blind eye to his steady elimination of political opponents, nationalization and alignment with Castro.

Best,

"WorkersoftheWorldUnite!"

I agree that Chavez is not as squeaky clean as Lula or Kirchner. I don't like his methods either.

But if I undermine my argument by turning a blind eye to his excesses, how much more does the US undermine its anti-Chavez argument by trying to overthrow him with an armed coup? The State Dept welcomed the coup, and so did the US media, except the WaPo which was neutral. Therefore we can at least conclude that the US govt has no principled objection to undemocratic methods in Latin America.

You have to admit that Chavez came to power through elections. Even if he's tilting the playing field now, he didn't when he came to power. He won fair and square. Obviously it's difficult to maintain credibility while calling an elected leader a dictator and backing (morally or otherwise) military coups against him.

And in a broader sense, the US has no credibility moaning about police state methods when their own allies have been the worst practitioners of these.

Like I said, what alternative has the US offered? Pinochet, Somosa, Fujimori.
Let me put it this way. Can you give one example of a democratic pro-US leader being overthrown by a dictatorial anti-US leader? Because we both know I can give examples of the US helping to overthrow Latin American democracies.

Like I said, the US didn't create these problems in the first place. But ultimately the US will be the loser if it stands in the way of their resolution.

I'm no economist, and I'm quite prepared to believe that Morales and Co will see their overall GDP suffer as a result of their redistributive policies.

But I have been all over South America, and I believe that's a price worth paying to fix the terrible legacy of Cortes, Pizarro, Pedro de Valdavia and other genocidal 16th Century land thieves. And I believe most people in the region would agree. And recent elections seem to be bearing that theory out.

Thanks for the reply, OD. "Pro-U.S." is somewhat of a relative characterization, but there were several moderate Eastern European leaders after WWII that were overthrown by "socialist" (Communist/Stalinist) forces. Soviet tanks rolling into Prague and Budapest evoke some memories.

I also recall Soviet paratroopers dropping into Kabul in the late 70s to depose what may have been the most stable government Afghanistan has known in recent decades.

In addition, prior to WWII, there were numerous "pro-U.S." governments in Europe and Asia that were steamrolled by Nazi Germany and Japan respectively.

Finally, while "democratic" is certainly also a relative term, Marxist insurgencies deposed a number of Southeast Asian countries in the 60s and 70s. Several of those "people's revolutions" resulted in horrors of the worst kind, namely Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Regards.

"There are four races, black, white, yellow
and copper. We are the copper people and I want us to be recognised as a
race."
Antauro Humala, leader of the Etnocaceristas in Peru.

It just isn't about communism or lefties. It's about closing one of the ugliest chapters in human history.

Sure, we should watch out for megalomaniacs who use this groundswell as a vehicle for personal ambition. But remember, most Latin American 'presidents for life' were men of the right, not the left.

We should criticise people who use coercive methods to dismantle the colonial system. But let's not forget the methods that were used to set up that system. The ancestors of Latin America's wealthy didn't get their property by dint of hard work.

They got it, originally, using methods that would shock an Auschwitz guard. And they maintained it with wired thumbs and a bullet to the back of the head.

I understand that America's attachment to capitalism is based on the belief that it improves personal freedom and gives opportunity for all.

But the capitalism that America has tried to sustain in Latin America is a different variety. It's the capitalism of the Confederate south. It seeks to crush opportunity and freeze everyone into race-based castes.

The only freedom it has promoted is the freedom of a tiny Spanish elite to parade around in armoured limousines while hundreds of millions of these countries' original inhabitants died young in grinding poverty.

The Workers of the world unite should be Fascists of the world unite.

Hey, workersoftheworldunite, sorry to upset your cumfy world view, but you are quite wrong in claiming that the right is on the ascendancy in Germany, or indeed in a number of your other erroneous "examples." In fact, the right was supposed to win in a landslide in the last German election but ended up losing votes and suppport. By reminding public opinion of its ties to Bush, Schroder and the Social Democrats were able stem their own losses, inflict great damage on Merkel's rightists and muscle back into the coalition, where they now control the foreign ministry, Neophyte chancellor Merkel is now under surveillance by the SPD who can make the coalition fall apart if she gets too close to Washington. Merkel must now take pains to distance herself from Washington (as she did during Rice's visit). The drop in the SPD vote in Germany was more than compensated for by a rise in popularity of a further-left party. Merkel's rightists actually dropped in popularity.
In Canada, a Martin victory is hardly in jeopardy. Polls consistently show his Liberals in the lead while the pro-U.S. Conservatives, which historically competed in the 35-45-per-cent range, are now unable to crack 30-per-cent support. Why? Because Canadians believe Conservative leader Harper is too close to Washington and would have taken Canada to war in Iraq had he been in office. Bush-admin-approved criticism of Martin by the U.S. ambassador in Canada played right into Martin's hands and public opinion is solidly behind his criticisms of Washington (especially as concerns the Bush administration's contempt for international law).
Again, Harper has had to take pains to distance himself from Bush, even writing into the Washington Times to take issue with an opinion piece that portrayed him as Bush's favorite candidate.
The other two major parties, which are actually growing somewhat at the expense of the Liberals, are even harsher than Martin in their criticism of Bush.
In South Korea, leftwing President Roh, who rode a wave of anti-Americanism and anti-oligarchy sentiment to power, enjoys solid backing. In fact, polls show more South Koreans blame Washington than blame North Korea for rising regional tensions. (Don't be fooled by the tiny South Korean contingent in Iraq, an unpopular policy that is at odds with Roh's general stance toward the U.S.)
And how about Turkey, another one of those regional powers, like Brazil, whose population has become ferociously anti-American since Bush took office.
As for Kirchner and Lula, didn't you notice that they have allied themselves with Chavez and Castro, and worked together to scuttle Bush's grand FTAA plan for the Americas.
Yes, a smattering of rightists have still narrowly won office while Bush was in power (Australia, Poland), but the far more significant worldwide trend is the rise of ever more vocally anti-American governments among regional powers including Brazil, South Korea, Turkey, Iran, Argentina, Venezuela, Canada, Spain, France and, yes, Germany.
None of this is all that surprising, since polling by the Pew Center, among others, has confirmed the rise in global anti-American sentiment since Bush took office.
The United States of America has never been as isolated and detested in the world as it is today.

OD and Tony,

You are 100% right.

I am a Uruguayan, and I still remember from my teenage years even during the military regime in Uruguay (which run the country between 1974-1984) the respect that common Uruguayans had for President Jimmy Carter. My sister and I used to listen to the Voice of America radio station in our father's old radio and we enjoyed listening to President Carter. We admired the country that elected Pres. Carter, he truly did have a stand for human rights and Latin America.

Nowadays, it is a shame what is going on. I am sad to continuously hearing from my friends and relatives in Uruguay how much they dislike the government of the United States and their attitudes towards Latin America and other countries. Their attitudes make Americans be regarded as enemies and racists.

I hope the American government would change their ways or a new government, fresh, clean, and respected is elected in America in the near future.

It is in the best interest of all Americans to be respectful of other countries and cultures in order to be respected too, instead of being hated and despised like they are right now in all Latin America.

Tony...Very well stated, but don't forget New Zealand who again elected a left leaning, anti-American, pro-environmental government.

Lucia...as the civilized world knows President Carter is undoubtedly the finest and most respected ex-President of the USA in the last 4 decades.

Of course living here in the USA it is truly frightening to see the home grown, born again, dictator bushie jnr. attack the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the false name of 'The War on Terror'. The idea that America and Americans are in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is a farce nowadays...the military juntas of the old South (America) are now a reality of the North (America).

The last comment is not in anyway to be construed as to be applicable to either Mexico or Canada.

The current developments in Latin America cannot be understood with simple minded dichotomies such as "left-right." People are turning away from Washington-consensus type reforms because they have undermined democracy and failed miserably to deliver economic development. If governments now seem "leftist:, it is because during the eighties and nineties the region veered too much to the "right". In fact, most governments are now "centrist" and pragmatic.

To different degrees, Tabare Vasquez, Lula DaSilva, Nestor Kirchner, Hugo Chavez and now Evo Morales, are leaders who are looking for alternatives that are more appropriate to the region's needs in terms of trade, economic policy, the role of state-owned enterprises, sovereingty over natural resources, etc.

Of course, a lot of mistakes are made in the process, but after 20 years of saying "yes" to everything that was proposed by American and American-educated technocrats and not much to show for it apart from macroeconomic stability, WE have to look for other alternatives.

The case of Bolivia is an encouraging sign that true democracy has taken root despite the US, market fundamentalism and corruption. It would be stupid to think that the US is the cause of all its troubles, but I hope that now the US let's Bolivia pursue its own path towards development and consolidation of democracy. The signs are not encouraging, though, based on the statements of "we are going to be watching if you behave" by the State Department.

Workers of the World dude, you really should stop listening to the "Cuban cabal" that dominates US policy towards Latin America.

Hi Guys:

Don't mind me. I'm just the lone moderate, on a raft, in a sea of leftists on this board. I simply like to stoke the coals and to draw out your true fanatacism. That enables like-minded moderates to see who exactly supports the more radical left. I do the same in more right-leaning fora.

BTW, just a bit more advice, your posts would be far more effective if they were less rambling, shrill and steeped in rhetoric. If you're looking to sway more poular support to your generally unpopular (in the U.S.) causes, you'd best address those flaws.

Best,

Workers/Unite

Workers/Unite, every point you made in your earlier posting has been exposed as wrong in subsequent postings, and the best you can come up with is to say that we're all a bunch of "fanatics" and "leftists?" Come on! So far, the only rhetoric and ideological labels in this discussion have been your own.
How about a substantive reply to the numerous factual points made by the many posters who responded point by point to your erroneous assertions? Alas, that would be too much to expect of a Republican true-believer such as yourself. For you guys, the facts don't count. Which is why our country is in the horrid mess it finds itself in in Iraq and throughout the world.
Ideologues such as yourself may take comfort in the notion that our nation is beloved around the world and a beacon for those who love freedom, but the facts on the ground show otherwise.
Stay in your fantasy world as long as you like, but do not be surprised when more radical governments like Morales', whose leaders openly state their contempt for the U.S., take power in more landslide elections around the world.

So Morales is a "radical" even for Democrats/Liberals in this country?
What is "radical" about his platform?
Morales wants cooperation with the US in matters of trade and fighting drug trafficking. Cooperation where there is a relation among equally sovereign nations based on compromise and dialogue. Is that too radical even for liberals in the US?

I guess that's why John Kerry was presidential candidate in 2004 and Joe Liebermann vice-presidential candidate in 2000.

Tony:

Please step away from the keyboard, take a deep breath and try to check your hatred for the U.S. and those that disagree with you. It's clearly eating you up inside.

Happy Holidays,

Workers/Unite

FromMacando and Tony, some people are turning away from Washington-consensus type reforms because they are simply unable or, from a a socio-economic standpoint, immature to fully implement market-based policies with limited government intrusion. Certain socities and cultures- particularly those in Latin America and Afric- have botched capitalism because their practioners, not the United States, have been corrupt. Also many expect that they can implement market based policies but still achieve the socialist ideal of "economic equality", but where and when has that ever occurred in recent human history? Even in the most ardent socialist or communist countries, there still existed the priveleged few (the regime) and comparatively disadvantaged masses. Bolivia will apparently need to find this out for itself.

This is an interesting point Vic, though, it has certain connotations that make me uncomfortable:

"...because they are simply unable or, from a a socio-economic standpoint, immature to fully implement market-based policies with limited government intrusion."

What economic policies do you have in mind?
What do you mean by "mature society"?
Does welfare capitalism ring a bell? Was the US or Europe (bastions of capitalism) built with "limited government intrusion?

By the waw, "Economic equality" does not mean everybody has the same, but that everybody has the opportunity to improve their standard of living. Not necessarily a socialist thought, but democratic and fair.

Also, as I mentioned above, we should not blame all our troubles to the US. Corruption is a domestic staple, but certainly the US and foreign companies, during the privatization for instance, have helped fuel it.

U. D. Sender's right, Jeffy. Benito Juárez, the mid-19th Century Mexican president, was the first indegenous president, way ahead of Evo Morales and Alejandro Toledo. Better hit the books, bud.

Right now, Morales is making the right noises to forestall a US invasion.

Why the US would want to do that and get stuck there, I don't know. Aren't we bogged down enough in the Middle East?

Best mobilize the Condi Charm Offensive and Karen Hughes.

"May God save Bolivia...He has brain-washed all the poor, ignorant campesinos, and now who knows what will come."
If you'd stopped an English noblewoman fleeing down a Kent road from the Peasant's revolt in 1381, what would she have said?

"May God save England...that evil Wat Tyler has bewitched all our poor, ignorant peasants, and now who knows what will come?"

This is the authentic voice of the South American noblewoman. Jeans by Versace, handbag from Gucci, and ideas straight out of 15th Century Castile.

The thing is, reading Wat Tyler's words today, we know he was right and eminently reasonable.

Bolivia has been run as a feudal society. The kind of people who Washington associates with in South America are essentially barons.

It's always been the leftist governments that insisted on universal primary schooling, that mounted literacy campaigns. The goal of South American conservatives is to keep the underclass down, to maintain the social order they implanted in the 16th century.

Has it occurred to Sandra that the peasants might not have to be brainwashed to resent their permanent status as 'peasants'? Nope.

The funny thing is 'campesino' - peasant - is actually the polite Andean term for the bowler-hat-and-poncho people. When the Spanish elite want to denigrate them, they call them 'Indios'.

That was the nature of the social contract in Bolivia. The colonists generously deigned to stop massacring the local savages, and instead accepted them as the local equivalent of medieval Spanish serfs, allowing them to labour in the tin and silver mines with no share of the profits.

Now that democracy has broken out all over South America, the peasants are complaining about that contract.

They must be brainwashed.

Those who predict failure for Morales are almost certainly right. Bolivia is a total mess. Far from being wildly popular with the poor, he's seen by many as not going far enough. There is serious discontent in the Bolivian countryside, as serious as in Peru if not more. They could easily generate a Shining Path-type movement if Morales fails to deliver.

But that hardly means the conservative opposition is right. They were going nowhere. All of their recent govts fell to popular protest before their term was up.

In 2001, the govt fell to protests after it followed World Bank advice and privatised all water in the country, giving all rights to a company called International Water Ltd. All Bolivians, even peasants wanting to draw water from their own wells or collect rainwater from their roof, had to buy a license from this company, which was owned largely by the notorious Bechtel.

Can Morales do any worse than that?

By the way, WorkersUnite, I don't think defending the social order of the Conquistadors is a moderate position at all.

You claim to worry about extremism, but the people the US has backed in Latin America down the years have been violent extremists by any definition. They're just extreme reactionaries.

When Chavez was temporarily arrested by a cabal of Army officers, oilmen and landowners, two diplomats rushed to pay homage to the baron they put in charge of Venezuela, Pedro Carmona, and to recognise what they called the 'civilian transitional authority'. One was the Ambassador of the United States. The other was the Ambassador of Spain.
The old imperialist and the new one, circling like vultures over what they thought was another dead Latin American democracy.

What they didn't know was that Chavez's loyal paratroopers were literally hiding beneath the floorboards under their feet, having been warned in advance.

Personally my only regret is that Gen Baduel, commanding, let the two ambassadors leave before springing his trap on the hapless Carmona.

OD - your description sounds like something out of a Hollywood movie about any given "Banana Republic". It is also heavy with melodrama and attempts to portray Chavez as the virtuous prince. Unfortunately it leaves out the chapters about his disdain for dissent, the castro-like six-hour speeches (rants), his purchase or 'peaceful' military equipment and his gradual slide into dictatorship.

I've noticed that American conservatives are always telling lefties to 'move to Cuba'. So in that spirit I would urge American conservatives to consider moving to Bolivia or indeed practically any South American country.

These are societies where it's considered perfectly normal for well-to-do people to have a retinue of domestic servants, and in many cases armed retainers.

Why put up with the compromise of modern capitalism, when you can have the older (and thus presumably better) late-medieval economic system known as bastard feudalism?

I should think having a uniformed maid would be every red-blooded conservative's dream.

I've had one myself, in South Africa. She even called me 'masta', but the look in her eye said something different. Having seen the corrosive effect of such extreme inequality up close, I find it difficult to see its backers as moderates.

Maracaibo, if you ever find me describing events that didn't happen, feel free to point it out. I agree that paratroopers under the floorboards is dramatic. Are you saying it didn't happen?

I find it difficult to get worked up about AK74s and patrol boats when other nations are busy stocking up on nuclear missiles.

Last time I looked, the Pentagon did have a new war plan against Venezuela. I doubt Chavez has an invasion plan for the United States.

If you find his speeches too long, may I suggest you stop listening?

And regarding the slide into dictatorship, this dictator keeps holding elections that are supervised by international monitors. You could always try winning one, instead of asking the army and a foreign power to step in. I find that saps your credibility.

Chavez is a rabblerouser, but the reason the rabble is so easily roused is that no-one has addressed their plight for hundreds of years. Perhaps people like yourself should have been more open to change when you still controlled events.

Those who consistently block reform ultimately find themselves facing revolution.

OD, I do not contend that there were no men under floorboards, I only suggest that you paint a very flowerly, heroic description of the events surrounding the coup which, in reality, was far more embarrasing for Venezuela (a true Banana Republic) than it was a triumph over what you are apt to call "imperialism".

Regarding weapons, I seem to recall that Castro started small in requesting "peaceful" and "defensive" arms from the Soviets, and we all know how that turned out. Let's see what else Chavez comes up with from the Chinese.

I have no choice but to listen to Chavez. That's my point entirely. He dominates the radio, the TV, the newspapers. I would enjoy listening to someone else.

Why do you assume that I somehow controlled events? Obviously, not as much as you imagine or I/we would not be in this predicament, would I?

Also, just an observation, but does anyone notice how much Chavez is starting to resemble Noriega, both literally and figuratively?

"I seem to recall that Castro started small in requesting "peaceful" and "defensive" arms from the Soviets, and we all know how that turned out."

I must have missed the bit where Castro started invading foreign countries. I thought that was the Americans.

I see nothing heroic or glamorous about the coup or Chavez's response to it. But yes, I do savour the image of the Spanish and American ambassadors gloating with Carmona, not knowing that their nemesis was under their very feet. Call it schadenfreude. It's not often those guys find the big battalions ranged on the other side.

Re controlling events, obviously I mean that the bourgeoisie and landowners dominated Venezuelan politics for centuries and failed to improve the status of the rural poor with the result that the situation is now out of their hands.

I have no illusions about Chavez personally. He himself launched a coup before. When the underclass rises up, it's rarely pretty. Such movements have rough edges and plenty of ugly bits. That's why it's better not to have an underclass, especially one that constitutes a majority.
Re your observation, Chavez does resemble Noriega, but fortunately Venezuela doesn't resemble Panama. There will be no US troops on the streets of Caracas or Maracaibo. Never gonna happen.

From the point of view of a Uruguayan:

In my humble opinion, the current United States government has a good part in the blame for a radicalized anti-American discourse around the world.

Having said that, I agree with FromMacondo:

Mr. Evo Morales does not sound at this point at all to me as an ultra-radical communist as it may have been portraid by the American press. Mr. Vazquez (President of Uruguay) was also portraid before as a Leninist some years ago, before winning the elections. But, of course, you have to listen to both, Mr. Morales and Mr. Vazquez in Spanish, that is the only way to really have a sense for what they stand for and where they put the emphasis in their discourses.

I can tell you one thing, the Moscow short wave radio programs in the '70s could also be listened in Uruguay, but neither Mr. Morales nor Mr. Vazquez sound at all like that type of talk.

Something that Americans have to think about: how radicalized Mr. Morales or Mr. Vazquez will become in the near future will in good part depend on the United States government attitudes and actions toward those countries.

Wow, there are sure some reactionary statements on here. How many of you have actually visited Bolivia to see that things aren't what they may seem from the outside? Already some are saying that Morales will automatically become dictator for life. He is closer to Lula than he is to Castro or Chavez.

By the way, Maracaibo, I sympathise with you about Chavez dominating the airwaves - no doubt he's a total bore - but you aren't exactly giving the whole picture of the media situation in Venezuela.

Gustavo Cisneros, the real leader of the 2002 coup, is the owner of Venevision. In fact Venevision and the other three main private TV stations are all owned by far-right barons.

In the days before the 2002 coup, Venevisión, RCTV, Globovisión and Televen replaced regular programming with relentless anti-Chávez speeches, interrupted only for commercials calling on viewers to take to the streets: "Not one step backward. Out! Leave now!" The ads were sponsored by the oil industry, but the stations carried them free, as "public service announcements."

Where did the coup plotters gather when their plan went into action? In the offices of Venevision, with the military attaché from the US embassy.

When Chávez finally returned to the Miraflores Palace, the stations stopped covering the news entirely and went into blackout mode, broadcasting cartoons and movie re-runs.

Chávez himself calls these stations the 'four horsemen of the Apocalypse'. But they also have more credible critics. Andrés Izarra ran the LatAm desk at CNN en Español before taking a job at RCTV. He resigned after the coup, saying his bosses had given orders to suppress news including the fact that Chávez had been arrested rather than resigning, the fact that Mexico, Argentina and France condemned the coup and refused to recognise the new government, and later, the fact that Chávez was back in power.

I hate government control of the media. But all bets are off when the media owners try to seize the government. They don't deserve the protection that real journalists merit.

Hey Workers/Unite, there you go again. Rather than responding to the various facts that have been raised that put the lie to your claim that nations aroudn the world are rallying to Washington's side, you accuse me of "hatred" for the United States.
Sorry, no hatred here. Just a clear-eyed view of how hated the U.S. has become under Bush.
Am I happy about it?
No.
But I am nonetheless convinced Bush has made our nation deeply hated around the world.
Just look at the polls -- and the election results -- yourself.

To all the posters who have described the Bolivian election result as a reaction to US policies, please recognize that although we are certainly the behemoth in the neighborhood, "all politics is local," and Evo's voters believe he will best improve their lives in Bolivia. It is not about hating Bush, even though so many do.

Actually, as someone who has paid a number of visits to Bolivia, I can state with confidence that Evo's election is a consequence of BOTH these causes -- a belief that Morales has the best policies to improve the lot of the poor AND a deep revulsion among Bolivians toward Bush and the ignorant, bullying, warmongering, ugly face of America that he represents.

Tony: Again, please lower the dosage. I don't believe that I ever said that anyone is "rallying" to the side of the U.S; only that the rise of the left is not as evident outside of Latin America. Indeed, many (eg. Eastern Europe) (which is where I am from) still recall the difference betweeen "socialist" theory/rehetoric and actual practice (despotism is a ready corollary). Also, you have to admit that anti-Americanism is in vogue and everyone from Gerhard Schroeder to Paul Martin to Morales seems to be using the phenomenon for their political advantage. I believe that underneath there lies a great deal more support for certain American policies than many are willing to admit.

Excellent discussion everyone. I've particularly enjoyed the discourse between OD and Maracaibo. In particular, I agree with the apparent unanimous sentiment against monopolization of the media.

Happy Holidays,

Workers/Unite

Workers/Unite, now you acknowledge that anti-Americanism is "in vogue," as you put it. And why do you think that might be?
I'm convinced this widespread and growing hatred of the U.S. one witnesses around the world today is directly attributable to the contempt George W. Bush has shown for international law, to the lies he has been exposed as having peddled to start a ghastly, destructive and destabilizing war and to the hideous crimes, including torture, that he has personally approved as head of state.
The world is well aware of what the U.S. stands for under Bush and holds this country in deep contempt as a result.
Bush can try to bamboozle the U.S. public with more of the same chest-thumping, jingoistic rhetoric. But the rest of the world has moved on, and knows full well what Bush represents. The man would be wise not to leave the United States after he leaves office, lest he be arrested by some country that actually takes the rule of law seriously.

That shouldn't be a problem, Tony. He hardly ever left the United States before he became president.

Why travel when you live in God's chosen nation and already know everything?

Congratulations to Bolivians.

Bolivians only want to be in control of their own affairs just like Americans do of their own. It is only fair

Millions of dollars are spent every year by the US government for the purpose of interfering in internal affairs of Latin American countries and other countries in the world.

The brown/yellow people are finally standing up to this new imperialist force (US Foreign policy) that is becoming more forceful and less respectful of other people.

There are a lot of really interesting arguments being laid out here. Especially how fast this became a Bush issue. But everyone has missed the obvious...IT'S CHENEY AND HALIBURTON. Here you go...Cheney has masterminded it all...control the elections and allow far left or right wing leaders to be elected and prattle on about the rights of the peasants/workers/(insert favorite oppressed group here), upset the wrong right wing baron (funded, of course, by HALIBURTON!!!) and...voila...organic regime change. To wit, the lunatic presidente of Iran...not a real credible guy whose statements/rantings have even made the mullahs shake their heads...it is only a matter of time until he loses it and they "lose" him. Ah,that Cheney...he's a slick one. For those in Uruguay pining away, I can't imagine that Cheney will unleash a similar plan against those Uruguayans upset with the imperialists in the U.S. He hands off this work to...that's right...ROVE!!!!!
And you guys thought you had all the answers...please.

To All,

Christmas wish: let's all contribute in 2006 to Peace on Earth, understanding among our countries and Good Will towards our fellow Men/Women.

I hope that, like me, you have put your work aside for a while and are taking some time out to enjoy and appreciate your family and friends.

Please do not forget to pray for those who are poor and sick, and won't have anything tonight on their Christmas table.

Just to correct one post, Cuba has "invaded" other countries in the service of their former masters, the Soviets, or did we conveniently forget their forays into Angola and Mozambique in the 70s and 80s. For their trouble, they brought back lots of dead soldiers and AIDS. A cautionary tale.

pdhtqrn [link http://mcmn.com]test4[/link]