As our President's administration has made international fools of all US citizens, who can find himself surprised that other nations - ones that have historically found legitimate reasons to ditrust us - choose not to put their trust in the US and the Bush Presidency?

I believe that the Latin American left as represented in Cuba, Venezuala, and Bolivia is not going to improve the lot of its ordinary citizens. However this Administration cannot expect to offer North and South Americans a palatable alternative based upon interpretation of its international activities to date.

It seems to me that this kind of very public, very vitriolic anti-Americanism has less to do with the US's policies than it does with merely diverting attention away from domestic problems. And I think it also has the inadvertent effect of hardening anti-immigration (both legal and illegal) attitudes in the US.

I believe this is only the beginning of a trend: foreign governments working around the US as much as possible.

Viva Evo Morales y viva Hugo Chavez. Finally, after 500 years of European colonialization, and 200 years of US hegemony, the peoples of the southern hemisphere have legitimate leadership. Democracy is rising in the south; in the US democracy is an atrophied joke. Good fortune and long life to the Bolivarian Revolution. And may the imperialist pigs of the US, for once, leave their bloody and meddling hands off the people's revolution.

For all the usual populist and nationalist rhetoric from Morales, I think he's headed towards the pragmatism of Lula than to the demagoguery of Chavez.

First of all, Bolivia still needs the US economic, military, and technological expertise. Plus, the US is key for Bolivia to receive international aid, from which it is desperately dependent on.

Second, Morales can't afford to match its words with actions. Unlike Chavez, Bolivia doesn't have billions of dollars to waste in order to promote an insane "Bolivarian" economic and political model.

Finally, Bolivia depends heavily in foreign investment. Countries like Spain and Brazil are rightfully not going to allow Morales to nationalize their assets.

Expect the usual "antiimperialist" mantra for "social justice" from Morales, but privately he'll adapt to the "real" world, which is playing by the rules in this globalized world.

Make no mistake, his was a smashing victory because the voters were tired of the same corrupt recycled politicians in power the past 25 years. They wanted something "new".

The voters thought that capitalism/"neoliberalism" failed in Bolivia. Unfortunately, is was hardly ever implemented.

Hey, garyandabby, thanks for the blast from the past. How's that people's revolution working out in Venezuela, where with all those oil revenues, over 50% live in abject poverty. With no end in sight. I suppose coca boy will be pretty much the same, but maybe the pragmatism of Lula will sway him. The Brazilians are even welcoming American farmers, the imperialist pigs!

Dear Matedecoca,
You put some interesting points for discussion on the table:

-Expect the usual "antiimperialist" mantra for "social justice" from Morales, but privately he'll adapt to the "real" world, which is playing by the rules in this globalized world.

What are these rules? Paying the usual visit of recently elected presidents to Tio Sam and getting his blessing? Please explain.
I agree that Morales' visits to Castro and Chavez are symbolic. But political statements such as "I won't be Washington's lap dog" do not bar anyone from being part of the globalized world. Looking for other sources of FDI such as China, India and the EU is thinking in globalized terms rather than following our "traditional provincial mantra" of looking North for everything. The US has big problems as well (twin deficits, erosing of the welfare capitalism/New Deal institutions, loss of credibility, protectionist mood), so concentrating on getting Washington's favor is like trying to get a ticket in the Titanic. Latin America, and not only Morales, needs to look elsewhere.

- Finally, Bolivia depends heavily in foreign investment. Countries like Spain and Brazil are rightfully not going to allow Morales to nationalize their assets.

The platform of the MAS, Morales party, DOES NOT nationalize the assets of petrobras or Repsol. Where do you get that? "High quality" analysts like Anastasia O-Grady or Oppenheimer? Some companies,such as Chaco & Andina, will have to respond to allegations of smuggling oil and gas out of Bolivia and not paying taxes, though.

- Make no mistake, his was a smashing victory because the voters were tired of the same corrupt recycled politicians in power the past 25 years. They wanted something "new".

Capitalist and "coffee shop" democrats always see the emergence of alternative views as a sign of individual failures (country/politicians) but never as a failure of the systems themselves. Liberalization failed to spur economic development in the region, while the political system was atrophied and granted access/participation only to the elites. Look at what happened in Venezuela. It had "democracy" for decades as a result of a "AD-COPEI pacto de caballeros" (gentlemen agreement) and then the system imploded.

-The voters thought that capitalism/"neoliberalism" failed in Bolivia. Unfortunately, is was hardly ever implemented.

Bolivia liberalized its economy to a greater extent than the US in terms of trade, FDI, pensions. Voters did not think but experienced the innability of liberalization to provide for better living conditions. The private sector does not and should not take care of improving the living standards of the majority of the population. Hence, the government may have to play a greater role.

I humbly suggest that we should also try to avoid branding every new leader in Latin America "Chavez" or "Lula"; left or right, just because it is simple. We should leave simplicity to certain administration officials who have only a Cuban-American two-dimensional view of the region.

Actually, the democratically elected Chavez (unlike your "president" Bush, who was appointed the first time around by the Supreme Court and "won" the second time thanks to dubious voting machines with no paper trail operated by partisan Republican owners) has redistributed wealth from the rich to the poor. Longstanding poverty in Venezuela is a consequence of the corruption and favor-the-rich policies of the corrupt oligarchy that, backed by the U.S., ran the country into the ground, despite its enormous oil wealth. Following the U.S. lead has similarly done nothing for the vast majority of impoverished Bolivians. Now that Bush holds power and thumbs his nose at international law and the rest of the world, the ugliness of the U.S.-supremacist ideology has become evident for all to see, and countries the world over are turning against Washington as never before. After centuries of failed policies under U.S. tutelage, perhaps Morales can do better for his people. I wish him well.
Fernando de la Pergola
Buenos Aires

Butchie b,
You could read a past posting in this section of the Post about Povety in Venezuela. Mr. Morley linked to a study done by CEPR that talks about the reasons for the prevalence of poverty (coup and strike)and non-income benefits people in Venezuela get.

Would someone please explain to Dr. Rice that the definition of democracy is not: the complete and total subjugation of one's policies to US business interests.

As long as Morales allows for the people to vote him out of office he can nationalize every industry in Bolivia and it will still be a Democracy.

Bolivia and Venezuela simply reflect what democracy looks like when the poor are the largest voting block.
To those on the right who want to get all high and mighty over Latin American poverty: Don't forget that Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the US.

Thank the Neo-cons for this one.

America's reputation as a nation to emnulate has been detroyed for a generation thanks to norquist,Rove, Cheney, Bush, Frist, DeLay, Rumsfeld, et al.

Why would ANYONE of sound mind want to participate with these guys?

We'll have peace and stability when Rumsfeld, Cheney, Frist, rove, and DeLay are in Jail along with their cronies who worked so well with Jack Abramoff.

NEOCONS ARE THE PROBLEM

If people want to get a better understanding of why South America has failed to develop in parallel with North America, read Joseph Konrad's "Nostromo". It is shortsighted and plain stupid to think for a minute that South America's endemic development problems are a result of "Neo-liberalism"(I don't even know what this is supposed to mean!) or Imperialism. The per-capita GNP of Argentina at the turn of the 20th century was $2800/year, almost parity to the United States at the time. However, endemic corruption and very poor planning by state agencies trying to control too much of everything has constantly been the bane of South American economies. As a result, any time progress has been made it has subsequently been destroyed, not by the United States, but by SA's own people.

When it comes to characters like Mr. Chavez, I really don't care what he says, it's all empty rhetoric meant to create a sense of unity among the majority. I don't even care if Mr. Chavez has nationalized the energy sector. In fact, I think generally speaking it's a good idea as long as energy funds are redirected into programs to aid the public. The more important aspect of such nationalization programs is that they remain profit making entities. This is simply for the benefit of the industry being able to pay for its own existence. Upkeep and upgrades are essential to all businesses to keep them functioning and efficient. If Mr. Chavez fails to reinvest into maintaining the energy sector then whatever the results of his "social revolution" will be for naught when the next el presidente replaces him. People are also forgetting that it is also essential that Mr. Chavez provide funds to the populace for the creation of businesses in order to create a healthy economy.

People forget too easily that the function of any economic system should be the creation of wealth. Socialism's fundamental philosophy was the idea of bringing justice to economic systems that took advantage of those without the means of production (to borrow Marx's term). What failed with socialism is that it never considered wealth CREATION. For a nation's economy to be successful, there must be generation of new wealth in order to sustain and to progress.

If you want to see what happens when this process does not occurr, visit Russia and Eastern Europe. My wife is from Bulgaria, where currently the average income for an individual is $100-200/month. Industry was wiped out after the collapse of the warsaw pact because of the fact that all businesses were run with the idea of simply creating jobs without generating profits. The result was massive debt when it was revealed that these factories were being run at record losses year after year. Only now is the country very slowly recuperating from a collapsed economy and rebuilding is going to take a long time.

In terms of Mr. Morales, I really don't care what his social policies are as long as he remembers that the basis of an economy is growth, not social justice. Programs to support the less fortunate are certainly necessary in any nation, but it cannot be the base by which an economy is constructed.

Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney have shown the world the ugly face of America and the world is rejecting America as never before. Evo Morales' landslide election victory is just one more example of this. It's hardly surprising, given that Bush and company claim that the U.S., alone, is not subject to the laws that govern all other nations. This kind of U.S. supremacism is a recipe for permanent war, of course.
What amazes me is that anyone is surprised by the explosion of anti-Americanism worldwide under Bush. It was clear from the moment he took office that you would lose its allies. And one by one, that is happening and will continue to happen.
Any nation that claims superiority over all others is a warmongering nation and an enemy of peace. That is what the U.S., under Bush, has become.
Ignore Chavez's rhetoric and look at the content of what he is saying. Essentially, he is right: the U.S. has become the axis of evil in the world today.
Until America agrees to be governed by the laws that govern all other nations, it will only grow more hated as the days and years go by.
Nobody likes a bully. Now, the world is fighting back.
I feel sorry for Americans. Their delusions about America having some kind of "special status" that allows them to ignore international law will be their undoing.
War on Terror? Again, Chavez got it right. The greatest source of terror in the world today is Bush's America.
Sven Gjerstad

Why is it that whenever Rice or some other Bushie flaps their yap do I feel like I'm listening to a book-report by some third-grader? All these pathetic losers can do is recite some simplistic and tired ideological rant that they've been programmed with.
The US is a Nation of Morons.

Why is it that people come onto this site to throw around anti-American rants with delusions that America is being marginalized? Are people really that deluded and stupid?

Bush and company are a bunch of nimrods, there's absolutely no doubt about that. But what I don't understand is how people take the election of a socialist leaning president as some type of symbol of anti-Americanism. Remember folks, when it comes down to reality, people vote for the person who they believe is going to have their best interests at heart. International politics ranks at the absolute BOTTOM of any election.

Yes, and people believe that rejecting America and its failed prescriptions is what is in their best interests. People the world over are rejecting the U.S. under Bush because they realize that allying their country with a superpower that does not respect international law is NOT in their best interests.
If ever there were a persuasive advertisement about why allying their nations with the U.S. is not in their best interests, it is George W. Bush and his warmongering policies.

Again, Mr. Sanchez, you miss the point. Mr. Morales' election is about domestic politics, not international relations. His allying with Venezuela is only natural. If Venezuela is willing to offer ocean access, energy needs and development of resources, then why not ally with Chavez? Mr. Chavez himself knows that he cannot turn completely away from the United States and makes sure he does not do so. Not because of any type of threat the US government would levy against him, but because of the need for cash. The US buys most of Venezuela's oil supplies, and as such, he knows he cannot just shut off the tap. If you think he could just go to China, think again. It would be very expensive to move that much oil over the pacific ocean and would certainly cut into money available for his various programs.

Now, I don't agree with a lot of the very poor unilateral decisions the US administration has made; they're a bunch of idiots, I've already made that clear. But, again I reiterate that you shouldn't fool yourself into thinking that some type of alternative bloc is developing to challenge "US hegemony". First, there are no nations strong enough to offer an anchor to such a bloc. China is not as strong as it looks, nor as weak as it looks, but it is run by a bunch of autocratic gangsters. Second, such a bloc would not form in a democratic country because of the fact that it is a democracy. Unless South American presidents are willing to destroy their democratic institutions and sieze power, then such a long term bloc will never form simply because you never know what the next president will be willing to change.

If you turn to Europe, anti-Americanism is a fad among the intellectuals, but the damage done by the Iraq war invasion is already healing.

In an ideal scenario, the upcoming US mid-term elections will see an overturning of the senate over to the Democrats (or hopefully a greater balance). After such, real investigation into the Administration's shenanigans will begin and enough evidence of criminal activity will be revealed, resulting in Mr. Bush's removal. In such an event, I believe the US ship will right itself somewhat and relations with the rest of the world will ease a bit. I believe Mr. Chavez would be much more receptive to an alternate administration and such rhetoric will be discarded in favor of good old fashioned economic realities.

Brian, you've really got to get off this post! Where's your unhinged anti-Bush rhetoric? Where's the outrage? Actually, you make many good points, but I do see the vague outlines of an anti-US coalition, which may be effective on an issue-by-issue basis. This grouping would be Russia, China, France, Germany, and the assorted hangers on like Venezuela, etc. SOME group will emerge to challenge, or at least ameliorate, US hegemony. It really is a unipolar world, like it or not.

Senhor Brian

The issue is not cutting ties with the US, but being "gringo-centric". For too long elected officials in the continent had to pay the usual "respect" visit and literally get the government plan approved by Wall Street and Washington. Morales was not invited, he may not even have a US visa and he chose to make a symbolic gesture by visiting Cuba and Venezuela.

Morales, and countries such as Brazil and Argentina, want to have relations with the US. It would be a geopolitical ignorance to think Latin America can avoid dealing with the US. However,the relationship has to be more balanced than it has been in the past; in terms of trade concessions for a possible FTA or respect for national sovereignty, especially in terms of pressures to get countries to guarantee immunity to US troops from the IC.

The election of Morales certainly has dominant domestic component, but US policy (drugs war) put him in the Bolivian political map in the first place.

And careful to think that Venezuela "needs" the US for oil cash. The Venezuelan mix can be refined so far only in plants that are located in Texas. However, the Chinese may be building capacity to process the Venezuelan mix. In an environment of high prices and oil demand increasing rapidly in China due to improvement in the urban standard of living, the 14% that Venezuela contributes to the US may decline. The Chinese want to secure the supply natural resources from Latin America. If oil can be imported from the Middle East to the US, why can't oil be shipped from Venezuela to China?

Brian: "If you turn to Europe, anti-Americanism is a fad among the intellectuals, but the damage done by the Iraq war invasion is already healing."

On the contrary, the damage was compounded by the 2004 election, when the European public stopped blaming Bush and started blaming the real culprits, the US public.

Governments themselves are now beginning to act in concert against America, whether it's Russia and China launching their first joint exercises, the cold shoulder given to the arsehole Bolton at the UN, or the world uniting to tell America to f**K off at the Montreal Climate Conference.

Calling it a 'fad' is as pathetic as your shot at 'intellectuals'. Are you claiming it's just a cyclical thing, unrelated to America's behaviour? Anti-Americanism is the logical response to a great power-turned-rogue state.

FromMocondo:

You make some very good points here. I agree that the relationship between nations must be on a more equal basis. Farm subsidies are a huge blockage to South American and African development. They are a thing of the past and should be eliminated or greatly curbed to assist developing nations. In terms of oil, if Venezuela really wanted to set up long term contracts with China they could do so, but it would be unproductive in the long term based on geographical factors. You also have to consider internal stability issues with the Chinese government, plus long term prospects for the current Chinese regime to be around 5, 10 or 20 years from now. China is not as stable as it looks and has some major endemic economic and political instability that could develop into serious problems in the future.

AA:

Yes, I'm calling anti-Americanism a fad based on the current US administration. Everything else about not liking the American public is simply related to the administration. That's why it's a fad. As far as Russia and China are concerned, they're just afraid of the US rocking the boat in an area where they've traditionally been the dominant forces. Don't forget that these two nations share a border over 3,000 miles long and they've traditionally been big rivals (yes, even during the Cold War). Any relationship will be tempered in the long run. As far as Germany and France, we've already seen a "warming trend" between the two nations and the US in the handling of the Iran imbroglio. All sides have been working very well together and even Russia is starting to get annoyed at Iran's stubborn behavior. As far as your "Great Power turned Rogue State" comment, you either don't know anything about current events vis-a-vis past history or you're just acting angry. The fact is America has been involved in a number of interventions/wars in the past 50 years (Panama, Grenada, Chile, Vietnam, Korea, etc.). Some of these were justified, some of them were just plain ugly. It just so happens that the US decided to intervene once again against a country with a crazy dictator. I'm not by any means justifying the Iraq war or any other behavior this administration has engaged in, but I think the term "Rogue State" should really be reserved for countries that imprison, butcher, murder, sell drugs to fund their government, build nuclear warheads, sell counterfeit currency and generally engage in bad behavior while not giving their people the right to choose their own leaders. If you retort about Abu-Ghraib or some other cr*p, just remember that horrible, horrible things have taken place in other parts of the world by other nations as well. As for the rest of your comments: yes, John Bolton is a big arsehole and the US does need to come up with a better environmental policy. Now, again, in terms of blaming the American public for choosing stupid leaders (especially in International affairs), you again have to remember that domestic affairs were the dominant factor that lead to Bush's reelection (the terrorism factor and the belief that Bush is a strong, honest leader).

Ah yes, "the belief that Bush is a strong, honest leader."
The man wages a "pre-emptive war" on grounds that later prove to be bogus - a war which destabilizes an entire region of the world, strengthens al-Qaeda, drives your economy into the ground and leads to tens of thousands of pointless deaths - and Americans conclude he is a "strong, honest leader."
Here's the rest of the world's conclusion: you Americans a bunch of dim-witted, semi-literate dunces.