Latin America would be better with a 'different' US, says Argentine presid

[Judi Lynn]

Latin America would be better with a 'different' US, says Argentine president

AP
Monday, May 22, 2006

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) - Latin America would be better off if the United States paid more attention to the region and did not push "unacceptable" free-trade agreements, Argentine president Nestor Kirchner said in remarks published Sunday.

In newspaper interviews marking his approaching third anniversary in power, Kirchner praised socialists Evo Morales of Bolivia and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, while taking a jab at the US administration of President George W Bush.

Asked by Pagina/12 about the role the US currently plays in Latin America, Kirchner said he felt the region had been ignored by Washington.

"The United States hasn't even paid attention to the region," Kirchner told Pagina/12. "They propose free-trade agreements, but in the current environment, those are unacceptable. With a different United States, one more integrated into the region, everything would be much easier."
(snip/...)

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20060521T210000-0500_105098_OBS_LATIN_AMERICA_WOULD_BE_BETTER_WITH_A__DIFFERENT__US__SAYS_ARGENTINE_PRESIDENT.asp

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kirchner carves out niche among Latam's leftists
Fri May 19, 2006 3:42 PM ET

By Kevin Gray

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina, May 19 (Reuters) - Only months ago, Argentine President Nestor Kirchner was loathed by investors as he championed his country's drastic debt restructuring and hardened his combative stance toward big business.

Now, with others like Bolivian President Evo Morales rattling the global financial community, Kirchner looks to fall somewhere between the region's strident leftists and other more moderate leaders.
(snip)

"I think he's still a bit of an anomaly. We're not quite sure where to put him," said Riordan Roett, director of Latin American studies at Johns Hopkins University.

The left-leaning Peronist leader in recent months has taken steps that have hinted of radicalism, including nationalizing a foreign-owned utility company, pushing price controls and firing an economy minister widely viewed as business-friendly.
(snip/...)

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-05-19T194236Z_01_N1988953_RTRIDST_0_ARGENTINA-KIRCHNER.XML

[northzax]

1. true, everyone could be better with different neighbors

but then, Latin America could be a lot worse with a different US as well.

[pretzel4gore]

3. they should build a fence, keep busheviks out

all busheviks should be branded across the snout, for easy recognition. they're as vicious as ted bundy, w/out bundy's charm...they've ripped off latin america enough...

[One Honest Guy]

5. I think nearly 200 years of Monroe Doctrine is enough.

Wouldn't you agree?

Slums of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)



Slums of Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, just across the border from El Paso, TX


Children in Sao Paulo (Brazil) playing in sewage.

[northzax]

7. oh, that's just silly

would they have been better off under Soviet influence for the past 50 years? been to Kazakhstan lately? And the one country in Latin America where the US has had the least influence for the past 30 years is Brazil, and yet, it has one of the highest differentials between rich and poor in the world.

but you know, taking the evidence of three pictures as proof of anything is ridiculous. but I can play too. Yes, the US is to blame for the poverty you see above. Of course, we are also to blame for the wealth. it works both ways.

[One Honest Guy]

12. Kazakhstan? No. Eastern Europe? Yes.

I've been all over eastern Europe in fact. The poverty you are seeing in former Soviet republics, and/or satellite states is in fact largely the result of post-Soviet practices. The so called "economic shock therapy" instituted by western powers and corporations, American ones especially, with direct aid of US government institutions was what did most of the damage. I can show you photos of neighborhoods in Bucharest, Sofia, or Belgrade, back as they were in 1960-70-80s, and you can compare them with photos of those same neighborhoods today. Today, some look like slums of Rio, or worse. The so called "economic shock therapy" was nothing more than privatization gone wild. Appropriation of national resources by foreign governments through corporate means.

It sure beats sending forty tank divisions to do the job, but the results were the same. Those nations were shattered.

[northzax]

14. or, of course,

you could look at the same neighborhoods of Warsaw, Krakow, Budapest, Prague, Kiev, St. Petersburg, Ulan Baatar, Berlin, and many other places, all of whom are better than 20 years ago. it's a trade off, isn't it? the states that did the supporting do better without the chains, the ones that were held together with cash and duct tape do worse.

I notice that the three cities you picked were in the most repressive of the Eastern States, the ones held together with violence, intimidation and inflows of cash from outside. of course they failed once the money and guns vanished, it was the only reason they existed in the first place. Dry up the money, and you get nothing left. the system that existed in the past wasn't a system, it was pure charity from the outside in exchange for political power.

so again, those nations weren't shattered, they weren't nations to begin with. Poland, the Czech Republic, the former East Germany, Hungary, they're all doing fine after your 'shock therapy'

[Psephos]

15. Why was the "shock therapy" needed in the first place?

And in asking that question, I am for the moment going along with your presumption, which I do not grant.

But I'll stay with it a moment. My GF is from Eastern Europe. As she has explained in detail, the Soviet days were an endless low-grade misery of deprivation, fear of informers, and pretending to work while employed at numbing jobs.

Why do you think there's still, in 2006, such a great disparity (in wealth per capita, in employment, in quality of life, in health) between former East Germany and former West Germany - even after the Westerners have pumped a cool trillion Euros into the East? Just what should West Germany have done differently?

Ideology is a blindfold. Is it possible your ideas are shaping your comprehension of evidence? No economic system works to everyone's betterment, but some are better than others.

Peace.

[northzax]

16. the shock therapy

was really exposure to other nations with a 50 year head start in almost everything. The Soviets pumped enough cash into Eastern Europe to keep it afloat, but really nothing else. once the spigot of money was turned off, there really wasn't anything keeping the bottom from falling out. Sure, parts of the cities looked pretty under Moscow, but as you point out, life was a miserable grind for most people.

[One Honest Guy]

18. Its not my "shock therapy".

The term itself was coined in the immediate post-World War II era by American corporatists. What are you saying, these nations are better off now? Now that they have their freedom, even though people are dying daily from malnutrition, pulmonary diseases, and AIDS, all of which are running rampant through former Soviet republics and/or satellite states? Isn't that the same argument neo-cons use for Iraq and Iraqis? That they are free now, even though their lives are in fact much worse.

You said: "Dry up the money, and you get nothing left."

That is true for any economy. Pretty obvious stuff.


You said: "the system that existed in the past wasn't a system, it was pure charity from the outside in exchange for political power."

You mean what US does all over the planet nowadays, in particular in regards with third world nations and former Soviet republics. You know: we give you cash, economic aid, military toys, and you let us build our bases on your land and you vote our way at the UN? That kind of stuff? Difference is that Soviets were much better at it, with perhaps more honest intentions. Socialized and free health care and education, for example. Those things are non-existent in most of those nations now. So now they have this low-level oppression (not so low-level in some places, Uzbekistan for example) by their respective governing institutions (funded by your tax money) + no social services (or charity as you call it). On top of that, they are getting robbed blind of their natural resources by means of privatization instituted by foreign/western powers and corporations. Much better, eh?

You said: "those nations weren't shattered, they weren't nations to begin with. Poland, the Czech Republic, the former East Germany, Hungary, they're all doing fine"

No they are not. East Germany while better off than the rest is still in bad shape. Unemployment rates in the East are still much higher as is general poverty. Poland, the Czech Republic, as well as Hungary are still trying to stay afloat and are dealing with problems unseen in the Soviet era. Including but not limited to: unseen levels of corruption in all levels of government, organized crime, (illegal human and substances trafficking), ongoing privatization (theft of natural resources by foreign governments), you name it.

They are not better off.

[northzax]

19. well, you're right I guess

Bring Back Tito! Bring Back Ceacescu!

in fact, I recommend a little experiment. I suggest that you walk the streets of Bucharest with a T-shirt that says "Bring Back Nicolae Ceauşescu." See what happens. But to complete the experiment, make sure you wear the shirt when you visit the former prisons where those opposed to him were tortured and executed. It's good fun, I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

oh, and as for your little orphans is AIDS analogy? the highest population of orphans in Romania was in 1988, at the tail end of your little dream regime. it's believed that 1 in 3 was infected with HIV, but since the government of Romania refused to recognize that HIV existed, the data's hard to come by. and since the standard of living in Romania was lower in 1989 than 1970, it's hard to believe things were hunky dory. as for your organized crime comment, well, it's tough to compete with the government as an organized crime syndicate. Sure, the elite were better off, but the working class? so much better off that there was a mass uprising in 1989. People were so happy that mobs literally dragged the local aparatchiks from their beds and killed them. Yup, that's the type of thing happy people do.

the Eastern European system was supported by the Soviet Union, it wasn't even close to self sufficient, after 40 years. Think about it, after 40 years, there was no US aid, save military alliances, heading to Western Europe. the US was no longer pumping economic development dollars into France, Germany, Belgium, Italy and the like. in fact, those states seemed to be doing just fine. You'll notice that the borders of the Eastern states in 1988 were manned by armed guards, but not those particularly interested in keeping Western Europeans out, but Easterners IN.

Remember, most of these states still have communist parties, and they are so popular that people keep electing them, over and over, to bring back the good old days. right? How many seats in Warsaw does the Communist party hold? how're they doing in Budapest? Belgrade? Sarajevo? Bucharest? Prague? Bratislava? not Europe, but how about Ulaan Baator? really, how're they doing? Maybe, just maybe, people think that they are better off.

[One Honest Guy]

21. Being uninformed is not a crime, so you are not guilty of anything.

First of all, Tito and Ceausescu are nowhere near the same as you seem to imply. But I guess to you a communist, socialist, Stalinist, Maoist, its all the same, right? They are all Jesus-hating red-flag-waving, commies. Right?

You said: "oh, and as for your little orphans is AIDS analogy"

Where did I write anything like that? Where did I write the word orphan and/or orphans for that matter. Please point it out?

You said: "your little dream regime"

Mine? Now you are writing fiction. All I mentioned was several large eastern European cities, and dire economic situation that has fallen upon the people and nations those cities represent. I see that this topic has touched you deeply.

You said: "the Eastern European system was supported by the Soviet Union, it wasn't even close to self sufficient, after 40 years. Think about it, after 40 years, there was no US aid, save military alliances, heading to Western Europe. the US was no longer pumping economic development dollars into France, Germany, Belgium, Italy and the like. in fact, those states seemed to be doing just fine. You'll notice that the borders of the Eastern states in 1988 were manned by armed guards, but not those particularly interested in keeping Western Europeans out, but Easterners IN."

You are getting quite incoherent. What does that have to do with the disastrous effects of "economic shock therapy" and continued effects privatization is having upon former Soviet republics and/or Soviet satellite states?

By the way, I can wear both a shirt with Tito's and Ceausescu's portraits and whatever slogan as well. It all depends where you wear it. I could wear a Saddam shirt too. In some parts of Iraq I would be cheered, in some I would be beheaded. For example, Tito is in some parts of former Yugoslavia considered as an icon. Man who brought a golden age to the eternally war-torn Balkans. In other parts, such as parts of Croatia, and most of Serbia, the man is despised. He is considered as a man who represented the movement (Communism) which destroyed the Serbian monarchy, who many Serbs saw as a rightful rulers of west Balkans. They forget he saved their butts from the Nazis during WWII, but then again, Serbs never really viewed Nazis or fascists as enemies. It is worth noting that the Serbian monarchy was as much despotic, if not more, when compared to Tito's regime. But for Serbs, even though the monarchy was utterly oppressive and despotic (although not toward Serbs as much, but toward other non-Serb minorities), they saw the monarchy as their despots. It also probably had to do with the fact that Tito himself came from a Catholic family. Catholicism as always, as is today, is seen as the eternal enemy by people in that part of the world.

As for the east European immigrants trying to reach the west? Well, they are still arriving today in hundreds of thousands, and there isn't a communist despot in sight. That tells you a lot about the effects of "economic shock therapy" that west has imposed upon east Europe.

You said: "How many seats in Warsaw does the Communist party hold?"

Communist parties have reformed, softened up, and merged with softer Social-Democratic parties which are present in nearly every European nation. Social-Demo parties are currently in power (in parliamentary sense) in at least 20 European nations, including several east-European nations. They are doing what they can, but Christian Democratic parties, or Demo-Christian parties are numerous as well. Such as Demo-Christians in power in Germany, Christian-National Unionists in Poland, Radicals in Serbia, you name it. These neo-fascists are trying to grab power everywhere. Luckily, they are led by incompetent, barely literate, pseudo politicians, qualities which are reflected in the people that vote for them. In the long run, they are nothing to worry about. Barring a complete economic breakdown of Europe, they can only dream about their fascist utopia and/or utopias.

[northzax]

22. the point is

that people feel so worse off that they keep electing the reformers to power, and no one in the region is seriously proposing a return to 1988. The parties that controlled the states prior to 1989 have, in your own words 'reformed, softened up, and merged' with other paties. Even the people who once ran the states don't publically ask to return to the old way.

you say people are not better off, and yet, collectively, they don't seem to want to return to the time when they were, in your opinion, better off. Why you think that is? Is it irrational behaviour, or perhaps do people think, on the whole, that they might actually be better off? Or do they not get to make that decision, in your world?

[One Honest Guy]

23. Like I wrote before,

and I hate quoting myself, but: What does that have to do with the disastrous effects of "economic shock therapy" and continued effects privatization is having upon former Soviet republics and/or Soviet satellite states?

Nowhere did I mention a return to 1988, or anything like that.

You said: "keep electing the reformers to power"

That is exactly my point. People see privatization as the enemy, and yet every government and/or regime that is put in place does nothing about it. It probably has to do with the fact that in many cases it is the western corporations and governments that are doing the putting of governments or regimes in question. For example: various color coded revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and most certainly the upcoming color coded revolution in Belarus. Look at Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko was hailed as a western backed messiah, and yet in the year that he has been in power, privatization has picked up pace and Ukraine's economy has gone down the toilet, and now he is hated by his former supporters.

People want progress of course, but ever since the fall of Soviet Union many of the former Soviet republics and/or Soviet satellite states have regressed way beyond 1988. We are talking about 19th century economics, privatization of the worst kind. (Is there a good kind of privatization?) They are being forced to put up their national resources on auction block, and the the worst of all, the people and even the corrupt puppet-string leaders have no say in it. They are being forcibly robbed of their resources by means of privatization.

You have pulled every possible strawman available. There is no denying it, privatization along with many other factors is destroying these nations in the post-Soviet era.

They are most definitely not better off than they were.

[northzax]

24. and I hate to keep repeating myself

but you keep saying people are worse off than in 1989. And I keep pointing out that they, the people actually living it, don't seem to agree with you.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northzax]

31. actually, you make a good point

after 40 years of absrudly bad economic rule, Eastern Europe needed about $250 billion in infrastructure improvements, simply to get to the level of the worse off western european states. In order to rise to the level of the developed states, it needed close to $1 trillion in infrastructure. that's roads, power and sewer, transportation and the stuff you need to live. there was no industry, no jobs, save those under a sham system. Turns out, that under the model the rest of the world uses, someone actually has to pay for those things. See, the west had been building all that, slowly, over half a century, while Eastern Europe lagged behind. Every year, in the 1980s, Eastern Europe was adding $50 billion to that deficit. Whatever wealth was being generated was squandered, not reinvested in infrastructure and development.

So either the western european states kicked in about $5000 per capita, in one year, to rebuild eastern europe (followed by about $500/capita for the next decade) or another model needed to be found. Turns out, people don't actually want to pay for that sort of thing (you can, of course, make your check for $10,000 out to the water and sewer department in Eastern Europe of your choice) in countries that squandered the resources they did have. After 50 years of not accumulating capital, it has to come from somewhere.

Germany, for instance, spends about $500 more, per capita, annually, on reinvestment in Eastern Germany. And it still lags way behind Western Germany.

THE Soviet sphere of influence ruined the infrastructure, government systems and economic base of Eastern Europe. Ground it into nothing. (and this is where we started, remember, talking about US vs. Soviet spheres of influence) to the tune of a TRILLION dollars. the USSR set eastern europe 40 years behind the rest of Europe. That's the effect. I'd say Latin America is much luckier to have the US as a neighbor than Eastern Europe was to have the USSR, don't you think?

Everyone in Eastern Europe who's inheritance was squandered shouldn't be angry at the west, they should be angry at the people who spent it, and left them penniless in the cruel, hard world.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northzax]

33. before this gets locked or deleted

(which, thanks to those lovely links you posted, it should be)

allow me to provide you with a link that might help you out:

www.sesamestreet.org

there you can learn about counting. and maybe something about the fact that there were no real ecomonies internally in Eastern European states. Outside of Warsaw, for instance, was a factory that employed a thousand people. it made ball bearings from Russian Steel. it exported the Ball Bearings back to a plant in the Ukraine, which melted them back down into ingots, and sent the ingots back to Poland where they were turned into ball bearings. that's some smashing economic development isn't it?

yes, when people are used to having the state run everything, privatisation can be considered a problem. SAy the privatising of power plants. it's like every other country in the world does it. Who do you think owns the power plant that keeps your computer turned on? the State? not a chance.

where is the capital coming to build all the roads you speak off? most of it is private capital. oh yes, private money. Seems that Volkswagen, having built factories in the East, now actually wants to get cars from there to the people who can buy them. strange that. And it seems that the people in cities like drinking clean water (I know, it's a shock, but people sometimes do) it turns out that state run factories and companies also don't do very well when forced to compete against private companies. and that collective farms produce more food in the hands of private individuals, especially smaller holders. that's a lot of the privatization you are talking about. It hasn't been done well in all places, and it results in short term economic pain, but that was coming anyway, you can't maintain a factory that makes ball bearings no one wants to buy. you can't maintain a factory that makes cars no one wants to buy, you can't maintain a power plant that makes electricity too expensive for people to buy. After all, the state run model was so brilliant that it failed, miserably. remember that. Even at the significantly lower labour costs, the existing industrial infrastructure was pathetially unable to compete, even in it's own country. Romania, for instance, produced 10% less electricity in 1989 than in 1980.

when even people in your own country won't or can't buy your products, you have problems. When's the last time you bought a Czech refrigerator? or a Polish automobile? or a Romanian-made television? drive a Lada, do you? have a Bucharest Machine Tools workstation on your desk? no? why not?

[One Honest Guy]

34. ...

...

[northzax]

35. please do present your alternate plan

for economic development in Eastern Europe. I'd love to hear it.

[One Honest Guy]

36. Private money?

Do you have any idea what privatization is? A foreign company, let's say German, goes into Romania, and offers to buy a state owned factory (at 20-40% actual cost) that employs roughly 1500 Romanians. Cash strapped Romanian government of course accepts this.

But here is the catch, they don't even pay them those 20-40% to begin with. A contract is made that allows the Romanian government to own anywhere between 5-10% of the factory in question, and instead the Germans will pour hundreds of millions of euros into modernizing the factory. Now, any sane government wouldn't allow a foreign corporation to buy the state owned company to being with, especially if said company had potential, but as I said Romanian government in dire need of a cash infusion. But Germans promise the Romanians that they will develop the factory and it will benefit both the workers and Romanian economy. Also, it doesn't hurt that the German corporatist are putting some serious pressure on Romanian officials, both with threats and some good ole kickbacks. So the deal goes through, and Romanian factory is sold to a corporation in Germany.

Now you see, German corporation never had any intention of developing the Romanian factory . They saw their French rivals were about to snatch the Romanian factory and use it to boost their production. So Germans wanted to preempt em. Now, you see, Germans have no intention of spending hundreds of millions of euros on developing this, by their standards, decrepit factory. They just wanted to keep it out of the hands of the French, or Chinese, or British, or whoever. So after about 6-12 months, they decide that the Romanian factory, which seems to be draining resources, needs some tightening up. So they fire 1000 out 1500 workers. Two thirds that is. Now both Romanian government and people are protesting, but they can't do much, because the Romanian government is only a minor shareholder.

Now multiply this by a thousand, and that is privatization.

[northzax]

38. and what is your alternative?

keep a factory that isn't profitable running? with what money? Since the Romanian government doesn't have the money to modernize the factory, where should the operating capital come from? Seriously, where?

[One Honest Guy]

39. You missed the point.

If western corporations had good intentions, everything would be fine, but they don't. All they can see in east Europe is easy profits, and even worse, they see easy profits for their rivals, and this worries them. So there is this race to snatch as much territory as they can before their rivals do. And this has done tremendous damage. European, American, and Asian firms, with full support of their respective governments and under the guise of "economic shock therapy", are buying up as much as they can in east Europe because they fear that if they don't do it today, their rivals might do it tomorrow.

The virtual factory in question was just fine before the Germans came along, as far as the domestic market is considered. Remember, Soviet Union might be gone, but many of the old institutions and closed market rules are still in play in eastern Europe.

It wouldn't have been better if the French bought it, or the Chinese. Because none of them have the best interests of east Europeans on their mind.

You said: "keep a factory that isn't profitable running"

But I never said that it was not profitable. I said that the government in question was cash strapped, and German corporation used threats and kickbacks to corrupt the process. Hey, a Romanian parliamentarian might love his country, but offer him a villa on the French riviera, and he might be able to bend his beliefs a little.

You said: "where should the operating capital come from?"

What about doing business with some honesty? I know, its not going to happen in an open market economy and with people like Blair, Bush, Merkel, and many others running around. IMF and World Bank loans are death traps, if African third world nations are any kind of example. Thing is, most of these nations can do it on their own if left to their own devices, but that is not going to happen. There is too much at stake for the corporate world. They see trillions in potential profits, which will go to their rivals if they don't grab them first. Also, there is a chance of all these nations choosing an alternate economic, social, and/or political system all of the sudden, creating their own closed economic alliances (much like what is going on in Latin America now), and shutting off these lucrative markets to western firms for who knows how long. West can't let that happen. A foothold must be established at all costs. Look at Iraq. Iraq is nothing but a foothold in a much larger war.

[eridani]

40. As a matter of fact, the state DOES own the power plant--

--my computer is hooked up to. Or rather the City of Seattle does. Our rates are lower than people get with nearby privately-owned utilities. Recall that it was the city-owned utilities that didn't have brownouts during the Enron-Reliant scamming in CA.

Private capital builds roads? Geez, that's not what it said on my last property tax bill.

[northzax]

41. I'd call hydro power a different story

given the massive cash infusions needed. And no, actually, the City of Seattle only generates 25% of used electricty in its own dams, the rest comes from BPA, Canada and other sometimes renewable sources. For instance, Seattle Light purchases power from PG&E, a private company in Portland. Seattle Light purchases power from windfarms in eastern Washington (private), biodiesel plants (private) and others. the company that provides you with electricty may be public.

oh, and I forgot to ask, who owns the Centralia Generating Plant these days? Not the people who commissioned it (Seattle Light and Puget Sound Energy) cause they sold it, to TransAlta, a, you guessed it, private company (and a Canadian one at that). And, just for the fun of it, you might want to look into the operation of Diablo and Skagit, you might be suprised by what you find.

[eridani]

42. The fact of public ownership in Seattle--

--provides public oversight of energy policy that does not occur when you have "markets" infested with the likes of Enron. The fire department buys its firetrucks from private companies, but it is nonetheless stll public.

[Flanker]

13. Yes it would have been better

I don't know if you are aware but the USSR was really far away and too disinterested to project power in the region, the only allies they got were countries that practically fell on their lap like Cuba and it was the latter that was most responsible for influencing the region.

Latin America is to the US what eastern europe was to the Soviets.

[Judi Lynn]

8. Oh, God! Isn't it overpowering that SO MANY places in Latin America

look like this? It's not just one or two barrio areas in a huge land mass. It's consistent, it's throughout South and Central America, and Mexico.

Thank you for the views.

[Bacchus39]

25. ummm...no kidding

you really need to get out more.

[JVS]

20. Obviously they'd have fared better under Spain and Portugal's rule!

Look at the triumph that is Mozabique.

Bolivar was clearly a stooge of America :sarcasm:

[Bacchus39]

26. bring back slavery too maybe??

n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. "Children in Sao Paulo (Brazil) playing in sewage."

Get those vigilantes out!!!

[Judi Lynn]

2. Kirchner's remarks are consistant with earlier statements.

From an article written in 2003, when _Bush was trying to push Latin American countries to accept his bidness ideas for them:

Last Updated: Monday, 9 June, 2003, 01:13 GMT 02:13 UK

Latin America stands up for itself

~snip~
Washington is trying to tempt all of Latin America into a free trade pact but Colin Powell will find a region increasingly determined to pursue its own agenda in the world.

Memories in Latin America are still strong of US interference in support of military dictators across the region which, perhaps, explains why there was so much public scepticism about US motives in Iraq and so little support here for the war.
(snip)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2973274.stm

[boobooday]

4. North America would be better with a different US too

As would the entire planet.

[On the Road]

6. As Simon Bolivar Said Almost Two Centuries Ago:

"There is at the head of this great continent a very powerful country, very rich, very warlike, and capable of anything... the United States seems destined to plague and torment the continent in the name of freedom."

[Judi Lynn]

9. Have never seen that observation before. He was accurate then,

and his statements hold up now, even more, as in prescient.

[MrPrax]

10. Good to hear...

Amazing that the only legitimate struggle of corporate globalization is taking place elsewhere.

Also amazing that 'progressives' have managed to be it's biggest defenders, while at the same time at a loss to explain how it is they don't get elected on a stance of 'you losing your job is a good thing for the 'changing' economy' and why the new international slave-trade agreements need to be explained to working people rather than opposed unilaterally.

Funny, like the environment, globalism is a great concern to the average person, regardless of where they are, but western elites, regardless of their political stance, speak as one voice on both issues believing them to be inevitable routes of human development.

[EFerrari]

11. Actually, Nestor, the less the US has to do with SA, the better

you all do. Which you would know if you were a lefty.

Hmmm.

[northzax]

17. I certainly agree

I think the US should cease any interaction with anyone south of the Rio Grande immediately. Of course, since over a third of the ecomonic activity in Central and South America is directly tied to the US, there will certainly be some short term pain. But I bet Venezuela will be fine without selling the US $10 billion of oil a quarter, and Mexico will be fine without the $25 billion sent home every year from immigrants to the US. Surely Costa Rica will sustain those national parks without USAID funding, and the thousand Peace Corps volunteers teaching and working in medical clinics in Central America can be easily replaced, along with the money to protect rainforest from development in Brazil, as will the $10+ billion in private aid to Central and South America every year. They'll be fine. no problem.

Look, my point isn't that the US hasn't been a bad actor, but that it could easily have been much worse. After all, take a look at another poverty ridden continent with a localy wealthy continent nearby and make the comparison. Who's in better shape, Central and South America, or Africa?

[dysfunctional press]

27. the entire world would be better with a different U.S.

i would love to see a two-year moratorium on military expenditures in the united states- just to give people a hint as to what kind of good use the collective wealth of the people could be put to.

[eppur_se_muova]

28. "Poor Mexico--so far from God, so close to the United States."

attributed to Porfirio Diaz.

[Seabiscuit]

30. "...not quite sure where to put him"? You have the right to put him

somewhere? No you don't.

Shrub would like to put him in Gitmo, but it ain't gonna happen. Shrub created the current political shift in Latin America with his antagonistic policies.