The most influential South American leaders of the 20^th Century gathered in montevideo to celebrate the inauguration of the new uruguayan president’s administration, Tabaré Vásquez. Although some are criticised in their own countries for not yet having fulfilled certain promises, (Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva being the most glaring example of this) they step into the international arena as the true leaders of a region that during the 1990's only offered governments that were obedient to the politics of Washington.

The impressive Eastern leader joined this great alliance of opposition, in which Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, stands out with his increasingly combative discourse, the Argentine leader Nestor Kirchner shows a firm hand when it comes to negotiating foreign debt, and Lula takes great strides in the UN's Security Council. Similarly, the favourite for December's presidential elections in Chile, Michelle Bachelet, and her Bolivian counterpart Evo Morales seem to be passable allies in consolidating the existence of the "monster that promises to make noise in the United States' backyard".  But the question is how much this 'monster' can grow and whether or not it will be allowed to.

Whilst capitalist globalisation tries its best to eliminate diversity, ever maintaining that tired line about the end of history, South America gives it a taste of its own medicine with the globalisation of resistance. 

From Montevideo

Hugo Chávez says "There is only one Latin America and it begins in Mexico. It must fight to stop ALCA and establish the ALBA and Mercosur projects. This will be, without doubt, the century for Latin America".

Tabaré Vázquez On his inauguration day, Tabaré Vásquez said, in reference to the North, "We say it with respect but with the utmost intransigence: we will not tolerate external powers meddling with our internal affairs. Uruguay's problems and decisions will be resolved by the people of Uruguay".

Néstor Kirchner says, referring to the head of the IMF, Rodrigo Rato, "We do not need your advice, the Argentineans have already suffered enough at the hands of the (International Monetary) Fund". Rafael Bielsa, Argentina's Foreign Minister added his own anecdote: "The IMF is no longer a corral and all the little animals are starting to run away".

Richard Boucher, spokesperson for the North American State Department: "Chávez is a problem because he is using his influence and his country's petrol supplies in order to introduce his combative style of politics to other countries. We are concerned about certain movements that are starting to spring up in the region".

It is impossible to ignore. It is denounced in the North and announced in the South; the map of Latin America is mutating and there is only one direction in which it can go. Chavéz has the lead and is enthusiastically supported by (his mentor?) Fidel Castro, Kirchner, Lula and now, Tabaré Vásquez. And, as though in a football team, they are joined by Michelle Bachelet - a victim of torture under Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship and the favourite to be become the first female president of Chile - and Evo Morales, the leading coca farmer with a fast-growing popularity amongst the Bolivian people.

Not even the famously "anti-Castro" international analyst, Andrés Oppenheimer, has ignored this historical turn in events in his article "The Left of the New Wave", even if his interpretation takes a rather dubious scientific approach: "The images of Cuban and Venezuelan flags in the Uruguayan capital seemed to have sent the region back to the stone age. Latin America's problem is not political but psychiatric".

It would be a difficult task indeed to establish whether or not Latin Americans are crazy, but one thing is certain: this supposed madness is contagious.

Whose side are the leader on?

Putting their indisputable international prominence aside, many of these leaders have, on their own soil, been accused of not honouring the historic call of their people. The most notorious example is Lula, accused of being a traitor by the most radicalised factions of the Worker's Party (PT) who have since decided to distance themselves from the Brazilian government.

And this is by no means a closed case. The polemics continue: has Lula maintained his predecessor's liberal policies? Does he plan to further strengthen economic production and growth in order to then tackle the dire problems of those most in need? Is he really willing to confront the international interests, or will he meekly conform to the designs of the North?

If the reaction of the Uruguayan people during the festivities celebrating Tabaré's inauguration is anything to go by, then the answer is overwhelming: Lula no longer generates the same sympathy as before. Today all fervour is directed at the figure of Hugo Chávez (by far the most popular) along with Kirchner and Fidel Castro, who was unexpectedly absent at the Uruguayan celebrations.

In Argentina, however, the leftists are a long way from handing Kirchner a blank cheque. They admit that he has made positive decisions regarding human rights and other matters regarding justice, but unlike most of the region's progressive governments, who have completed their last negotiations with private investors, the Argentinean president has a responsibility to remain as submissive to the IMF as previous governments – "He complains but always ends up paying".

Furthermore, he is constantly reminded of his similarities to Peron and his alliance with Eduardo Duhalde, vice president during Menem's first term and, for many, the boss of a political mafia that controls Buenos Aires' illegal activities from the shadows.

The motivation behind Chávez is much easier to visualise. Since having been the victim of a White House-led coup d'etat, the Venezuelan president asserts his anti-imperialism more than ever, constantly accusing the Agencies of the United States of wanting to assassinate him. In Venezuela there exists an almost total polarisation that seems to be quite simple – the rich hate Chávez and the rest of the population supports him unconditionally; a fact confirmed by the referendum results.

In contrast, the new Uruguayan government poses many new questions, such as who will have more influence – the revolutionary factions lead by the 'tupamaro', Pepe Mujica, or the more conservative voices represented by the Minister for the Economy, Danilo Astori?

No one knows what will happen with Uruguay's Frente Amplio project but the nation has already given the world two signs. On his first day in office, Tabaré passed an emergency plan in order to combat poverty and re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba that were suspended during the previous presidency led by Jorge Batlle.

SPEECHES AND CONRETE MEASURES

The speeches given by the presidents' in Montevideo were an important symbolic expression of the region's goals. However, rhetoric did not govern the meeting entirely, with crucial economic and politics pacts also being signed.  The most unexpected was the Venezuelan government's announcement that it would be buying up $500 million worth of Argentina's foreign debt in bonds. Chavéz spoke also of a agreement to exchange Uruguayan meat for Venezuelan oil. Furthermore, it was suggested that Argentina and Brazil would sell Venezuela supplies in order to allow the country to develop its oil industry.

Argentina and Uruguay also promised to work together in solving the cases of Uruguayan citizens who 'disappeared' in their neighbouring country during the last military dictatorship. In turn, they assured that they would intensify the investigation into the fate of Argentinean poet Juan Gelman's daughter-in-law, María Claudia, who was kidnapped in Argentina by an Intelligence Services unit and handed over to the Uruguayan military. She continues 'disappeared' to this day.

Conclusions to the meeting in Montevideo

The day of the Uruguayan president's inauguration, March 1, 2005, appears to have been the starting point for the long-awaited project of a united Latin America. However, as commented by various Uruguayan leaders, "no-one should expect dramatic changes overnight" - advice applicable not just to Uruguay but also the rest of the subcontinent.

In situations where the numbers of those living below the poverty line have reached historic levels and the social fabric has seriously deteriorated, it is difficult to imagine a speedy recovery. But they are not starting revolutions; the objectives set out here are less ambitious and, in any case, the true revolution will be all children eating four meals a day or adults returning to work and recovering their much trampled dignity. Once the most urgent needs are served, there will be time to discuss other matters.

But there is also a certainty.  For years now Latin American problems have always been the same, its nations were forced to isolate themselves so as not to be able to support each other in the face of wild and rampant capitalism. And the greatest tragedy of all is that each country suffered the same terrible consequences.

Why then not change strategy? Why not denounce the crimes, or promote change as a united entity, without ignoring each nation's idiosyncrasies? If the United States has a Department for Latin American Affairs, then, why shouldn’t the latin american countries create a department for the United States affairs?.

Why continue using CNN to inform ourselves of matters that concern us? Is it not possible to create an information network that reflects Latin American problems through real Latin American eyes? The Telesur project proposed by Chavez, or something similar, could be very beneficial.

There is still a long way to go, but for many this is an historic occasion – a sentiment certainly shared by one young Uruguayan as he displayed his hopes on a placard: "Tabaré, Fidel, Kirchner, Lula, Chávez, Lagos. This is a unique opportunity that Latin America demands: Don't throw it away".