Ollanta Humala, once (and perhaps still) a protege of Venezuela’s firebrand President Hugo Chavez, was declared the winner of Peru’s presidential election on Monday. The two men have a lot in common: both former army officers who tried to overthrow their governments before they became the government by election. At one time, they shared a strong taste for state control of private industry and strong distaste for the U.S.
Humala lost his first bid for president in 2006 in a campaign that was reportedly bankrolled by Chavez.
This time, Humala stumped in a business suit, went out of his way to defend free markets and democracy, and distanced himself from Chavez. “The Venezuelan model is not applicable to Peru,” Humala said.
He convinced enough Peruvians — in a race against the daughter of a former president who is in prison for corruption and crimes against humanity. He hasn’t exactly convinced investors or business leaders, though. Peru’s stock market plunged a whopping 12 percent on Monday. (It recovered a good chunk of that loss on Tuesday.)
And so the U.S. faces a new challenge in South America. It is losing an ally with the departure of President Alan Garcia. How it handles his successor could have a significant impact on our standing, and Hugo Chavez’s standing, in the region.
There is potential, despite Humala’s history. He has pledged to abide by the free trade agreement with the U.S. implemented in 2009. Now the U.S. should work with Humala so free trade continues to flourish between the two countries. One reason he was elected: Even though Peru’s economy has been white-hot, many poor citizens feel left out of the largesse.
Humala has vowed to help with another high priority of the U.S.: eradicating the production and smuggling of drugs northward. Peru can be a case study that cooperation on drug trafficking enhances the security of Latin Americans.
Establish friendly U.S. relations with Humala, and Chavez will continue his long, slow slide into irrelevance.
Chavez’s taunts against the U.S. still make headlines. But with Venezuelan oil prices plummeting and his country struggling economically, taunts are about all he has left. Venezuela can no longer afford to bankroll his ambitious socialist agenda at home or his designs on spreading his regional influence. Inflation is out of control in Venezuela. Store shelves are empty. Caracas is one of the world’s most dangerous capitals.
No wonder Humala says the Venezuelan model “is not applicable.”
The U.S. opportunity in Peru, however, assumes that Humala’s rhetoric is genuine. The U.S. has been burned before.
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, the former Marxist revolutionary, vowed to build consensus there. Now he is unleashing goons against his critics. Evo Morales initially won over the middle class in Bolivia. Now he is cozying up to Iran. Rafael Correa of Ecuador took office with a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois. Now he is an erratic leader who jails journalists and who just expelled the U.S. ambassador.
Once in office, all three leaders took their cues from Chavez and forced constitutional changes that enhanced their powers and eliminated limits on their terms in office. If Humala is tempted to follow the same path, he will doom his country.
The U.S. has shown it can work with left-wing governments in Chile, Uruguay and especially Brazil, whose economy and international stature rose under the recently departed leftist president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Humala seems more enthralled these days with Lula than Hugo. Still, he will require an especially artful approach by the U.S.
