In early 1999, Chavez was sometimes passed off as a throwback out of step with the rest of the region. Today the Venezuelan president looks more like the beginning of a fresh chapter on populism in Latin America. Since his election, left-leaning presidents allied with Chavez have risen to power in democratic elections in Brazil, Ecuador and Argentina.

There are political and economic implications for the United States, of course. Brazil represents the largest economy in South America, and the Brazilian market is vital to U.S. trade. Venezuela is the fourth-largest supplier of oil to the United States, providing nearly 15 percent of all U.S. imports. (South America as a whole has the largest quantity of proven reserves of oil in the world outside the Middle East.)

There are consequences, too, for the U.S. government's war on drugs. Colombia continues to be a major supplier of cocaine. The effort to crack down on the Latin American drug cartels will require the cooperation of Colombia's neighbors, Venezuela, Brazil and Ecuador.

None of the other newly elected presidents is nearly as pugnacious as Chavez in public comments about relations with the United States. Chavez argues, for example, that a subservient relationship with the United States is a thing of the past. "I am not against the United States," he said in August 2001. "I'm against hegemonies of any kind because they have been the cause of many injustices. The old policy of imposition, of acting as the world's sheriff -- it does not suit anyone in the new century."

But the new heads of state do share some key political tenets. The newly elected Latin American presidents are all resistant to market reforms that thus far have failed to bring prosperity to Latin America. They see an opportunity to champion the rights of their own people, particularly the poor, over the interests of foreign investors.

Chavez can count on other presidents in the region, then, to back him up in otherwise uncertain times. "All these meetings, with Fidel [Castro] and Lula [da Silva] and other presidents, strengthened my resolve," he announced in January 2003. He even spoken of his desire to form an "axis of good" with his neighbors in order to challenge the dominance of the United States.

This sort of challenge comes as unwelcome news at an awkward time in Washington, D.C. In late 2002, U.S. officials, fixated on Afghanistan and the Middle East, wobbled quite erratically on Venezuela policy. During an attempted coup d'etat against Chavez in December 2002, U.S. officials surreptitiously financed opposition to Chavez. They'd already blamed him publicly for polarizing Venezuelan society. "(Chavez) was democratically elected. He won a majority of votes," a senior U.S. official said in June 2002, but finished his statement with this: "Legitimacy is something conferred not just by a majority of votes, though."

But when Chavez was returned to power days after briefly being toppled, the administration of President George W. Bush changed its tune. The U.S. government announced that it opposed "illegal and/or violent actions" to tamper with Chavez's "democratically elected" government. The administration argued, however, that "the only peaceful and politically viable path out of the crisis (in Venezuela) is through the holding of early elections."

The challenge for U.S. policy makers is clear. They face new conditions in trying to assert U.S. interests without simultaneously damaging Latin American democracies.

Click on the topics to see snapshots sketching the relationships between Washington, D.C., and key Latin American capitals, and also between the newly elected key leaders in the region.

back to top
David Montero is a freelance journalist based in Oakland, California.

Producer: Angela Morgenstern; Designed by: Susan Harris, Fluent Studios; see full web credits.