Latin America insights

Miamista has given some very good insights about political scenario of Latin American countries as a reply to my comment.For his post go on the below link
http://miamista.blogspot.com/2006/11/venezuela-congratulates-correas-win-to.html#links

And his reply is
The most "radical" leftist to date has been the Nestor Kirchner, who actually refused to pay international "debt", finally forcing creditors into a pennies on the dollar pay off. For all the bluster Chavez has not and would not venture to do the same. Brazil's Lula has been accused, perhaps unfairly, of splitting or selling out the left. Brazil has internal mechanisms (as oppose to a US imposed pressure) that makes his position more tenuous. Brazil has a notoriously corrupt system that will not let their congress or state governments (especially those in the South) fall into the hands of reformers. Brazil is a nation where the Odebrecht family engineering conglomerate (Bush political donors-family friends) actually paid off the majority of Brazil's congress regardless of party, had the massive fraud uncovered and no one was punished. (If you are a Miamian the Odebrecht name may be familiar to you- MIA, Miami Arena, Metromover, Metrorail, Carnival/Miami Performing Arts Center, American Airlines Arena, Port of Miami...)

Most of Latin America has always had an owner/independent minded technocrat class that resents US interference in its political and economic affairs, especially as it relates to that class's space for economic growth. South American governments have tapped into this re the ALBA and Mercosur.

A country by country analysis of Lat Am would yield interesting results. However, I think the most interesting dynamic is why the US has been so reticent to intervene as it has in the past. True, the US intervened in classical fashion in Mexico (see the IRI, NED activity in this election and the coordination through the right wing bloc of the EU for cover). Mexico however is a special case, for nat resource/economic reasons and for immigration and national security concerns.

The US hasn't decamped or put away its big stick altogether. It has become somewhat a paper tiger as long as its resources are spread thin. It is also not clear that the current US administration is interested in supporting some of the international financial interests in the region. All things being equal it seems that the Bush administration would not mind leftist governments that sold products and resources at fair market values. The other significant factor is China as a more agressive player in the region. China has made it clear that it will not concede the region economically, especially as the US has invited itself into the Caspian, been agressive in India and entirely pushed it aside in Pakistan.