Strongmen of South America flex their muscles

[cal04]

ON the front line of a new cold war between North and South America, Maria Velazquez Hernandez has already chosen sides. She returned home to Nicaragua last week after an all-expenses paid visit to Venezuela for a cataract operation that vastly improved her sight.

(snip)
It was a measure of Chavez’s rapidly expanding clout in the region that even a country as poor and widely ignored as Bolivia can send shockwaves around the western world. Evo Morales, its populist new president, announced that he was following Venezuela’s example and nationalising energy resources, despite efforts by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, to prevent political shocks that might increase American petrol prices. Officials in Washington wanly acknowledged that US influence in South America was at a dangerously low ebb, with allies of Chavez jockeying for power in elections in Peru, Nicaragua and Mexico.


(snip)
Yet it is Nicaragua that has become the most intriguing proxy for the battle over Latin hearts and minds. Having spent millions of dollars under President Ronald Reagan to oust the left-wing Sandinista regime, Washington is now facing the prospect of a democratic comeback by Daniel Ortega, the former Sandinista leader again running for president — this time with the help of Chavez.

(snip)
Potentially most worrying for Washington is a presidential election in Mexico, where Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a populist former mayor of Mexico City, has been fighting accusations that he is a Mexican version of Chavez. A hero to Mexico’s poor, Lopez Obrador is wary of alienating conservative voters and has been keeping his distance from Chavez, who labelled Vicente Fox, the outgoing president, a “puppy” of the United States.

more
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2168400,00.html

[Peace Patriot]

1. This article is a hoot! Just try to think of all the negative modifiers

you could use to describe the peaceful, democratically elected, populist leaders of Latin America, who are banding together and sticking it to the Bush junta...

"Strongmen" (in the title)
"swashbuckling would-be revolutionary leader"
venomous propagandist ("yet another propaganda victory in his venomous battle with Washington")
(a communist): a "volatile mix of neo-Marxist zeal and charitable largesse"
belligerent ("the belligerent strongman")
insulting ("his anti- American insults")
(anti-business): "newfound enthusiasm for bashing foreign companies"
(power mad, dangerous): from the Times' handy quotable expert: "Power has gone to the heads of these countries. It’s a very dangerous trend.”
"...which US officials see as a rogues’ gallery of failed dictators, corrupt opportunists and potentially sinister presidential wannabes."
(equity for the poor is mere political pandering): "his spending on the poor has all but guaranteed him re-election"
(invoking the Mafia): "The godfather of the movement is President Fidel Castro of Cuba"
(silly, clownish): "Chavez’s antics"
(aspersions from a fascist enemy): "...Chavez was suffering from 'perhaps an excess of alcohol'."

The article is unfriggingbelievable, in its hatred of Chavez, and of his allies in Latin America, and in its contempt for the vast population of poor, brown-skinned people who are at last coming into their own as a political force, after decades of oppression and brutality, much of its sponsored by the U.S. Their magnificent achievement of transparent, democratic elections and effective political organization is not even mentioned.

Needless to say, the article is rife with disinformation. For instance, it states that Chavez is "unpopular" in Argentina. Chavez just bailed Argentina out of IMF/World Bank debt. Who is he "unpopular" with--Argentinian sweatshop owners? Looters of the poor? Bankers?

Christ. But, as I said, it's so bad it's funny.

"Strongmen," indeed.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Wonderful remarks, Peace Patriot.

Many "journalists" are hopping on tne bandwagon, writing anti-Latin American leader slurs, insults, lies as if their very lives depend upon it.

They can't say "would-be" nearly enough. It's in every article, as if they believe it's going to bury the people they are trying to tear down. It's completely meaningless, and anyone knows it's gibberish. "Would-be revolutionary," or how about this one: "self-styled?" Jesus.

You really have to wonder how they would describe our own swaggering little P.O.S., using their creative slams and slurs. It wouldn't be pretty.

[Vidar]

4. Thank you, Peace Patriot. Viva Chavez.

[Mythsaje]

3. I remember an article about Daniel Ortega back in the day...

that remarked the most expensive thing he personally owned was his eyeglasses. He drove around in a Jeep.

It would be quite an ironic coup for this administration if he managed to be elected again on their watch.