Uruguay elections

Yes, there are elections taking place in other parts of the world these days. And while none of them have the worldwide significance of the United States, check out this story on Uruguay's election of a left-leading candidate.

I cannot really claim to be an expert on current affairs in Latin America. Nonetheless, I do have a pretty good knowledge of the region's history and some knowledge of current affairs. So I'll spout off a bit about me. Believe any of it at your own risk.

Uruguay has just joined a number of nations who have elected left-leaning regimes in the past few years. Venezuela is of course the most famous (notorious depending on your outlook) but also Brazil, and to a lesser extent Argentina and Chile have elected left of center candidates recently. With the exception of Venezuela, this has all happened without the US seeming to care. For over 100 years, the United States has intervened in Latin America in order to crush regimes that seem unfriendly to US interests. There are many examples of this: among the most famous are of course Guatemala in 1954, the Bay of Pigs in 1961, supporting Pinochet in 1973, the Contras throughout the 1980s, Grenada in 1983, and Venezuela in 2002. I'm sure you're all familiar with the disastrous attempt of the US to support the Venezuelan coup against Chavez, something that only strengthened his support among working-class Venezuelans. There are numerous interventions before WWII as well that are less well known today. Perhaps the most famous is creating Panama because Colombia wouldn't allow us to build the canal through their nation and then let have sovereignty over the region.

Why have so many countries in Latin America turned to the left recently? The reason is pretty clear to me--the US supported regimes that cracked down on dissent between the 60s and early 80s implemented free market reforms (Pinochet's advisors were heavily influenced by Friedman and Hayek I understand) that were complete failures. Many historians believe the major reason that the military gave up control in southern South America by the 1980s was that they didn't want to be blamed for the economic failure that was increasingly obvious. Plus they had already killed most of the "communists." The US tried to build this region up with a series of client states that would have the potential to be major economic and political players in the region. And they failed. The economy of South America has mostly collapsed over the past 5 years, with Argentina being the most well-known example. Uruguay has also struggled mightily. As free-market capitalism has failed in South America, many nations are tentatively beginning to reject its main principles. Venezuela has perhaps gone a bit farther in this aspect than Brazil has or Uruguay is likely to, but nonetheless there is a widespread rejection in South America of supply-side economics, which is a necessary first step in bringing greater social equality to the region.

Why hasn't the US stepped in more strongly to protect its interests? There are several reasons I believe. First is that the US-backed coup in Venezuela was such a complete fraud and disaster. I believe that the Bush administration is somewhat hesitant to repeat such an embarrassing episode.

Second, clearly the Bush administration's priorities are elsewhere in the world. The US has traditionally seen control over Latin America as absolutely vital to its interests. Bush has generally ignored the region, of course focusing on the Middle East and war on terror. Although I completely disagree with nearly everything the Bushies have done, it probably does make more sense to make the Middle East the most important global priority--with the exception of Venezuela and to a lesser extent, Mexico, Latin America doesn't have the black gold we need for our economy to survive. And of course the only real reason the US backed the coup attempt in Venezuela was because of its oil.

Third, with the exception of Venezuela and of course Cuba, these new leftist governments have laid off the anti-American rhetoric that was so common among backers of social change in the region during the 1960s-1980s and they have not been relatively market friendly as well. Thus, the US has not had a real logical reason to work to overthrow these governments. Now, its easy to look at the Arbenz government in Guatemala or the Grenada situation and say that those weren't legitimate threats to American capitalism in the region either but nonetheless, it seems that with the region as a lower priority today than in the past, we've moved away from knee-jerk reactions to these governments.

Although widespread social revolution hasn't happened in Latin America, the growing spread of left-leaning governments in Latin America does deserve a great deal of attention. It is a particularly interesting and welcome phenomenon as the results of supply-side economics and free trade policies have deeply affected people on the ground through Latin America.