Last year witnessed a decisive turn in Latin America. A growing number of countries in the region now seem determined to pursue their interests regardless of what the US desires.
Jose Miguel Insulza's election as secretary general of the Organization of American States, in which he defeated the candidate supported by the Bush administration, emphatically demonstrated the decline of America's continental leadership. The US not only lost control of the organization, which generally serves US interests, but also failed to persuade last year's Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina, to endorse unanimously a declaration supporting US economic and political stances in the region. That setback was all the more striking, given that the summit was structured to defend and promote US positions.
Attempts throughout last year by the Bush administration to discipline Venezuela's government also failed. US President George W. Bush was simply unable to get other governments to back the policy of isolation that he sought to impose on President Hugo Chavez's administration. The US has also been frustrated in its effort to obtain regional support for its policy of direct involvement in Colombia's internal strife.
Of course, not everything is going against the US. The election of Colombian Luis Alberto Moreno as president of the Inter-American Development Bank had clear US backing. This means that the bank is likely to continue its orthodox, neoliberal policies. But a clear line in the sand has been drawn between Latin American countries that want to pursue regional integration on their own terms, and those that favor hemispheric integration under US direction.
Led by Brazil and backed most enthusiastically by Argentina and Venezuela, the project of one group of Latin American nations is to construct the Community of South American Nations. The nations of the so-called Mercosur regional economic group -- which includes Brazil and Argentina as well as Paraguay and Uruguay -- seek to protect their respective national interests and promote a more just and democratic international order. They do not seek confrontation.
In the second group of Latin American nations, the countries that pursue a direct relationship with Washington, there are two trends. Some countries, such as Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, act individually, while others, notably the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic, act from a regional perspective. They have aligned themselves with the policy already initiated by Mexico and, to a lesser extent, by Chile.
But it is the ideological picture that presents the starkest contrasts. Indeed, there could be political consequences affecting the entire region if the confrontation between Venezuela and the US worsens, and if the Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional wins an electoral victory in Nicaragua. The US is likely to consider the eventual formation of a triangle linking Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua as a direct threat to regional stability, putting Latin America in a dangerous position on top of the Bush administration's security agenda. The triumph of Evo Morales's Movimiento al Socialismo in Bolivia will only fan this anxiety.
To be sure, one should not view Latin America only in terms of the region's relations with the US. There are also deep concerns about the internal situation in many countries that suffer almost permanent political and institutional crises, such as Haiti, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Unfortunately, the structural causes that prompted these crises cannot begin to be resolved by next year.