It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: Uruguay Elects Leftist, Opens Ties With Cuba

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 05:18 AM
For the first time in 180 years, Uruguay will be under what can be considered a "liberal" government. A third party called Frente Amplio (Broad Front) has upset the two established parties by electing Tabare Vazquez to be Uruguay's president. Vasquez has immediately restored relations with Cuba which were broken three years ago and is expected to take Uruguay down a path following Brazil's example. Uruguay is the most recent of five south American nations to begin leaning to the political left.
Mr Vazquez, whose win in presidential elections in October ended almost 180 years of two-party rule, promised to "work tirelessly" for Uruguay's people.

Uruguay becomes the fifth Latin American nation to move to the left.

Most analysts expect Mr Vazquez to emulate Brazil's President Lula by maintaining a broadly unchanged economic policy but placing greater emphasis on poverty and jobs, our correspondent adds.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

There is a distinct pattern developing in South America which America must be aware of, but should not be afraid of. Leaders are emerging in South America who believe their governments can intervene to correct their economies. If America seeks to be friendly, offer advice and assistance, and promote the success of these attempts to advance, then it will be a positive development for America as well as for the South American nations. If America is hostile toward them, it will only drive developing nations to other potential allies and weaken America's voice with those governments.

Related News Links:[/u rl]

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 12:46 PM
The growing developments in South America could be the death knell for America's flawed policy on Cuba. Our policy towards Cuba has only made Castro the longest-serving leader in the world today. Now on top of that we are likely to see Cuba's quality of life improve as they gain favor among Latin American nations. This will create both a slight improvement to their dismal quality of life, and more importantly a boost to nationalist sentiments. If America doesn't do something productive to gain credibility and influence, Castro is going to have a successor who follows closely in his footsteps.

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 02:25 PM
Seems to me that the US pushed too hard and too fast with the FTAA - with too much drag from the resource vampires. The water thing in Peru (?) didn't help much either.

Personally, I'm kind of glad to see Latin America standing up for itself. ...and no doubt they're choosing their new trading partners for military clout, not just shiny beads and obsolete consumer products. I'd do the same if I was stuck in the northern hemisphere with a big bully who kept tryin to rip off my lunch money.


posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:00 PM
I think the really ironic thing here is that the simple and shortminded nature of corporate rule is causing America to miss much larger opportunities. I obviously believe in market forces- where they function properly they can not be ignored (they do malfunction in certain situations), but I believe that in as much as international trade is a matter of foreign relations and a matter of providing for citizens that it should be to some level supervised, and guided by governments. There are opportunties for America that the corporations dont care about here.

In many situations, people will naturally let themselves fall under the leadership of whoever among them is most capable. This is especially true when there is any kind of goal. America has what it takes to be a leader here- to gain the respect and loyalty of our neighbors. If we helped these people to prosper and become stronger, their strength would be an assett to us. Imagine the political leverage that America would gain from building a political alliance through participating in MUTUALLY beneficial trade blocs. We might seriously gain the clout to fix the UN through such measures.

We shouldn't be so adamantly opposed to social programs, we shouldn't be setting broad "rules" that we expect people to follow, and we DEFINITELY shouldn't be trying to impose our foreign policy on these people vis a vis the isolation of Cuba.
What we should be doing is making creative ventures and searching for ways to create nationally beneficial trade in ways that direct capitalist interaction can't do. Through multi-lateral arrangements between nations and industries, governments can "set things in motion", taking the initial necessary but unprofitable moves which open up the possibility for new and profitable ventures, from which the governments can then recoup their losses through taxation on those profits.
If we'd get involved in REAL nation building that way, looking first at what we want to achieve for the people, then engineering a way to make it profitable or at least minimally expensive, we would be able to arrest South America's slide to the left, befriend them as equals, and count on their enthusiastic support whenever we and our way of doing business became threatened.

We're missing the boat here. We are only thinking about how to get our corporations in there for the quick buck, and its poisoning a great opportunity and driving away would-be allies. (I hope I've made good sense on this issue, I'm a bit tired. I may have to make things more clear later when I'm firing on all cylinders.)

posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:42 PM

You did fine Vagabond. Well written and a good argument.

Moi - am so p'od at what's been done to Mexico, Central America and South America - in the name of "capitalism." Hah, not! ...Straight takeovers most often - and vile, violent, beyond unjust and probably, worse than the druglords. ...As I understand it, the drug trade evolved so these people could finance an opportunity to fight back. ...and then got out of control. Old story, huh?

Point being - I couldn't write what you did.

new topics

top topics

log in