The email sent will contain a link to this article, the article title, and an article excerpt (if available). For security reasons, your IP address will also be included in the sent email.
ARTICLE: "Peru May Join Latin America's Swing to the Left: Free-Trade Opponent's Lead In Polls Poses New Challenge To Market Reforms in Region," by David Luhnow and Robert Kozak, Wall Street Journal, 16 January 2006, p. A1.
We see countries turn to the left in Latin America (serious "caboose braking" in my the-train-can-travel-no-faster-than-the-caboose vernacular) as the rural poor vote for candidates who seem more focused on their needs/fears/dangers in a globalized world.
And it's hard not to worry about the future of free trade in the region.
But then we read the fine print: Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru--all Andean states, all members of the Gap.
When the "leftward" turn of Core states (e.g., Brazil, Chile, Uruguay) is examined, though, we see that leftists that assume power in those countries naturally "governed from the center, keeping government spending in check and continuing to integrate their economies to the outside world."
And yet the WSJ frets over the rise of what it calls the "Andean troika," using that Russian word with purpose, especially since it sees the three falling under the mentorishp of that loser Castro who's accomplished so much in the way of Cuban economic development over the decades. Thus fears are expressed about Argentina and Mexico.
But my guess is that, just like in Chile, Uruguay and Brazil, any leftward turns in those two states would be more based in appearance than reality--the essense of Clintonism as we lived it in the United States in the 1990s
Anyway, interesting how the breakdown so clearly follows the map, huh?
Return to Article
