Lula became president of the republic in the subcontinent's largest country, with a territory of 8.5 million square kilometers and a population of over 170 million inhabitants, supporting a program of political, economic and social changes, among which the broad and deep democratization of the state, the implantation of a new
development model with social inclusion, distribution of income and national sovereignty, the fulfillment of an agrarian reform, entering a path that will make the country follow the way to social progress. Lula's victory raised enormous expectations regarding the Brazilian people, a strong feeling of hope that «vanquished fear», as he put during the speech of victory before a crowd that gathered in Paulista Avenue, São Paulo.

The meaning and causes of Lula's victory

The electoral triumph of the Brazilian left-wing progressist forces breaks a historical cycle of domination by oligarchic, conservative, antidemocratic forces subordinated to the international centers of power. Those forces have occupied ruling positions in the national state since the proclamation of the republic 113 years ago, a period that was also marked by military coups and dictatorships, some of fascist character, such as the one that lasted 21 years in the recent period (1964-1985). For the first time in the history of Brazil, a political force of democratic and progressist nature reaches the highest rank of the national power with even another unprecedented characteristic that is the fact that the new president has lived a life of epical character. A son of the most impoverished strata of Brazil's deep inlands, he emigrated at an early age to São Paulo, a city that was already the main industrial center of the country by the middle of the previous century. He spent part of his childhood as a street salesperson, attended only primary school, became a metalworker, worked in a local factory of a great automobile multinational, where he became a unionist. President of the Metalworkers Union in São Bernardo (a city that is part of the industrial region of São Paulo), he led the most important workers' strikes by the end of the 70's, when the military regime was fully effective. This was his baptism of fire in the social struggle. Later he entered the politics as a founder of the Workers' Party.

Lula won the presidential elections after failing in three previous attempts: 1989, 1994 and 1998. It is important to understand why he won this time. Short-sighted politicians, but with an influent voice in the media, attribute Lula's victory to merely juncture-related factors and a well-polished marketing campaign, in a clear overestimation of publicity instead of politics. There is no way to deny that Lula has also surpassed that obstacle, finding the precise manner and form to carry out the campaign, breaking or neutralizing the unnamable prejudices of a cosmopolitan
and obtuse middle class that visits Miami twice a year but never had a close look at the slums surrounding the country's large urban centers where vast masses of
impoverished people are concentrated.

The limits of the situation too cannot be underestimated. Lula won the election in an unfavorable situation regarding the correlation of forces, in a society that is essentially conservative, under the pressure of neoliberalism and facing the blackmail of the owners of the financial capital, creditors of the Brazilian foreign debt and holders of the capitals that finance the country's foreign debts, obliging him to make some programmatic concessions, especially concerning the acceptance of aspects of the
macroeconomic policy imposed by the last agreement made with the IMF. In this situation, PT completed its social-democratic conversion, becoming acceptable and even deserving compliments made by the local dominant classes and also liberal and conservative forces from America and Europe. But none of those factors alone could explain the defeat of a political force solidly installed in the power, such as was the case of the group of former president Cardoso.

Lula's victory corresponds to the failure of the neoliberal policy made effective by Fernando Henrique Cardoso's two consecutive administrations, taking the country to
financial bankruptcy, causing extreme foreign vulnerability, creating a foreign and domestic debt that cannot be paid, provoking the devaluation of the national
currency in face of strong currencies, unemployment and a previously unseen poor labor conditions, an impoverished economy, aggravating all of the country's historical social and structural problems. Under the economic and financial orientation of the International Monetary Fund, Brazil turned into a factory of primary surpluses in order to finance a public debt surmounting 60% of the GDP. And it is also a tourniquet of monetary restriction due to the mechanism of establishing high interest rates. The logic behind such orientation is restraining growth and generating exportable goods in order to religiously pay the foreign debt service. The country is exhausted by the prolonged maintenance of that policy. An indication that the model wears out, aside the economic and financial phenomena mentioned above, is the social crisis represented by the fact of 50 million Brazilian living under the line of poverty and also by the dreadful increase of urban violenceabout 30 thousand people are victims of violent actions of several kinds. Objectively, Brazil reaches the end of a cycle. Neoliberalism took the people and the nation to an extreme situation that, if maintained, would cause grief, compromising irreversibly the future of the country, and could take society to an unprecedented stage of degradation. By means of differentresources and procedures, that is what the people became aware of and it
was for that reason that the people manifested by granting Lula such a massive victory, identifying in Lula the interpreter of their yearnings and desires.

Lula's victory is also the result of an accumulation of forces that is taking place in the Brazilian society since the period of the struggles against the military regime
(pacific and violent, legal and clandestine, electoral and armed struggles), going through the campaign for direct elections (1984), by the Constitutional Assembly
(1986-1988) and countless political and social struggles, among which the presidential campaigns mentioned above. The electoral triumph of the Brazilian progressist forces is also a product of a mature political left that found
ways to avoid isolation and found out that broad fronts and united forces constitute the fundamental instrument for victory. In that sense, the contribution of the Communist Party of Brazil was of extraordinary importance, since,
with its political and ideological density and experience, it has played a key role in the formulation of the new political policy on which the campaign was based. Lula's
election, based on a broad front, was the concrete form of facing the present correlation of forces in the world and in Brazil, which is heavily characterized by the
conservative and right-wing offensive against the transforming revolutionary forces. In the Brazilian case at least, it was proved that, in order to cope with such a
situation, it is necessary to create broad coalitions and wave broad flags able to gather broad masses around concrete, clear and precise objectives. In Brazil, due to
its economic, social and political formation, three interrelated key matters emerged: the national matter, for Brazil is extremely dependent; the democratic matter, for,
although under a formal constitutional regime, the Brazilian democracy is restrictive; and the social matter, for capitalism in Brazil is socially iniquitous and causes
unbearable regional and social inequalities.

A trend with a revolutionary meaning in Latin America

The inauguration of a government by progressist forces in Brazil makes changing the correlation of forces in the region something feasible. In fact, Lula's electoral
victory took place in a series of facts that are shaking the continent.

In Ecuador, where political and economic instability is dominant along with a shocking deterioration of the living conditions of the people, where the economy was dollarized
and where important political crises took place in the last five years, former colonel Lúcio Gutiérrez, also heading a broad coalition of political and social forces, won the
presidential elections, leaving behind the candidates of the oligarchies. Gutiérrez became known in the political arena as he took part of the leadership of an Indian
popular rebellion in January 2000, a broad and deep popular movement that brought down the government and opened the way to a revolutionary change in the Andean country.

It seems that a strong trend is evolving with a lasting effect in the political evolution in the region. Such trend points to the intensification of the struggles and the
cries for profound changes in the status quo. It was also manifested, in a different form and by different ways, in Argentina in the occasion of the blatant downfall of Fernando de la Rua's administration. The country is the most eloquent and sharp manifestation of the failure of the neoliberal model. The popular rebellion that brought de la Rua down did not turn into revolution due to a delayed subjective factor of which the fragmentation of the left is the greatest sign. But it resulted in the creation of a new
social movement, a combative one based on the streets that is little by little turning into a decisive and progressist factor amidst the chaos and the ruins of the institutions.
The politicization and the construction of unity are still the greatest challenges.

The political situation in Latin America was heavily influenced: by the memorable electoral campaign of Evo Morales in Bolivia, concentrating anti-oligarchic and
anti-imperialist feelings from vast strata of the population; by the events in Venezuela, where coup attempts, sabotages and the direct interference of the
United States cannot stop the drive for change that was stimulated in the population by the Bolivarian revolution; by the new possibilities arising in Uruguay with the growth of the Broad Front and its consolidation as the main political force in the country; while the popular movement in Peru is resumed after the end of Fujimori's
dictatorship. In Colombia, the appearance of an extreme right-wing government, which opted for increasing militarization, cannot restrain the armed struggle. The Colombian conflict still demands retaking the discussions and the search for fair and long-lasting solutions.

Add to all that the united movement being built against the FTAA based on the same national awareness that reproves privatizations and the payment of debts at the expense of the hunger of peoples. The two referenda held in Brazil (in 2000 on the foreign debt and in 2002 on the FTAA) are paradigmatic facts of that feeling, such as the continental meetings taking place last year in Ecuador and Cuba and the 11th Meeting of the São Paulo Forum in Antigua, Guatemala, as well as the 3rd World Social Forum in Porto Alegre at the beginning of the current year.

All the above constitute a new trend and a new political environment in the social struggle. But it is still not enough to make substantial changes in the correlation of
forces. It is a trend that needs time to settle and take a clearer anti-imperialist character, since, by now, it is still heavily influenced by hesitant and intermediary
forces. On concrete form and ways, it is a colorful trend that is manifested in different paces in different countries, which intensity still corresponds to a balance of forces still conditioned by the debacle of socialism as a world system and by the exercise of the hegemony by the North American superpower. But the important thing to grasp
is that the phenomenon is revolutionary at its core.

Hegemonic control and the threats of US imperialism

In its entirety, Latin America also goes through the end of a cycle coinciding with the crisis of neoliberalism and an unfair international order that must perish in order to
open the way to social progress. Stagnation, dependency and foreign vulnerability are the main characteristic of the economic situation.

With variations of forms and paces only according to specific national situations, Latin America lived the last 15 years under the sign of the "Washington Consensus" and
the agreements made with the IMF, which recipe involve permanent fiscal adjustments, more flexible labor laws, disregardful economic and financial opening, generalized privatizations and the strict payment of foreign debt services. In order to apply that recipe, a situation based on "controlled democracies" was created:

 political regimes that, despite being strongly democratic, restricted popular representation and used parliaments as echo chambers for the executive power. That sort of government is the warranty of political control by the US imperialism and international financial organizations after the end of the military regime era. A kind of conjunction of interests was created involving sectors of the local dominant classes and the international financial capital, which began to dictate the rules of the economic policies by means of the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. In essence, although it is not always manifested that way, it is
against that order, that vile imperialist domination, that the present social and political movement is being developed in Latin American countries.

At the same time as the political process in course in Brazil and Latin America gives way to hopes for political, economic and social transformations and opens the way to
changing the correlation of forces, it also presents many risks and threats to democracy and the sovereignty of Latin American countries and peoples.

The United States will never stop considering Latin America its backyard and the whole of its strategy of hegemonic domination of the world derives from a consideration that is viewed as a definitive matterLatin America is definitively integrated into its area of influence. For that reason, it is a mistake to think that the fact of the United States being concentrated in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Far East would diminish its efforts to exert economic and politic control on the subcontinent. 

Where are the main threats?

First, in authorities of the US imperialism reaffirming that, despite the terms of the political evolution, the United States will not make concessions and will not renounce to its control over the subcontinent. It was made clear in the US behavior during the Venezuelan crisis, when the Bush administration openly took part in the opposition,
proposing the withdrawal of president Hugo Chaves and when it reacted to the Brazilian proposal of creating the group of friend countries, first fighting it and then, when it became reality, demanding its inclusion among the member countries. The reaction of the United States to Lula's election in Brazil and to Gutiérrez's election in Ecuador illustrate how the superpower is facing the political changes that are taking place. At the same time as the government of the United States invited Lula to visit the White House even before the new president's inauguration, it posed veiled threats, showing that it is not willing to tolerate changing the way things go: Lula and Gutiérrez may be leftists, but as long as they are democratic and willing to be friends with their neighbors and the United States () we may work with them to contribute to freedom and security in the hemisphere», said Otto Reich, then United States' Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America.

Second, in the strategy of the United States of exerting such hegemonic control disguised as «integration» by means of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, the FTAA, expected to become effective in 2005. More than a commercial integration or the formation of a «common market» in the Americas, a fiction in face of the colossal disparities between the economy of the United States and the other countries in the region, the FTAA is part of a strategic project of the US imperialism with a view to increase its domain over Latin America. Once settled, the project will imply another step in the traditional relations of economic and political dependency between the gigantic power of the North hemisphere and the Central and South American
countries. It is the most ambitious and comprehensive plan of Americanization and subordinated integration that was ever conceived by the United States in Latin America. It is a project of neocolonialist domination, of abasement, when the countries taking part of it will become appendixes and colonies of the United States. The process of implementing the FTAA is being developed fast. The Trade Promotion
Authority, passed by the US Congress, is the new version of the «fast tack» and the beginning of concrete negotiations and each country delivering its proposal of tariff
reduction by the beginning of the current year are steps taken to make the FTAA feasible. The integration proposed by the United States, which also includes exhuming the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, MIA, will result in an economic disaster to all Latin American countries, affecting definitively their sovereignties. Its tragic
consequences are predictable: it will further the neoliberal model; it will result in completely open economies, ruining what is left of the national assets; it
will create a privileged economic zone to great US economic and financial groups; it will imply in new sacrifices to workers, resulting inevitably in more flexible labor laws
and rights becoming void; in political terms, the democratic life will suffer new mutilations, since the countries will be ruled not by their Constitutions, which
will become useless, but by supranational codes and norms.
The FTAA is connected to two other strategic plans: the Plan Puebla Panama focused on Central America and the Caribbean, and the Colombia Plan the Regional Andean
Initiative, implying politicaland maybe militaryinterference in the Colombian conflict. 

It is clearly a threatening scenario.

The third set or risks and threats hanging over Latin America and especially over Brazil is the threat of another financial collapse. In the last years, Brazil was not able
to cope with its balance of payments or finance its foreign trade without massive yearly foreign investments, something that is being secured due to successive agreements made with the IMF. This is the greatest challenge in the Brazilian economic life and it is the main obstacle to national development and the creation of an alternative model based on national independence and social justice.
Even before the end of the electoral process, and especially after the inauguration of the new government, the main foreign pressures and, let us say, the main
concessions made by the government converge to this point.

In the period between the first turn and the runoff, the US Deputy Treasury Secretary, Kenneth Dam, declared: "The United States is willing to collaborate with Lula's
administration as long as it adheres to healthy policies based on budgetary balance (i.e., tight fiscal measures), inflation control and respect to contracts (i.e., the
religious payment of debt services). () The IMF money is there as long as the right policies are also present." Until now, Lula's administration is being impelled to give
in to those pressures. The economic policy that was announced and made effective during the transitional period, under the command of a former Trotskyite, converted
to monetarism and currently Minister of Economy, and by the former Bank Boston president, now heading the Central Bank, is similar to the previous administration's policy. That policy includes an agenda of "reforms" regarding the Social Security, the country's tributary structure and the financial system (conceding autonomy to the Central Bank) according to the model designed by the international financial organizations.

This economic policy is the paradox of Lula's administration, which is clearly an active, advanced administration full of initiatives for social areas and foreign policy. It may have a paralyzing effect on the transforming project, making it unviable, what would result in defrauding the expectations and the trust of the Brazilian people, which remain high. The core of the political struggles will be dealing with the economic impasses in order to build a new model of national development and promote social justice. The chosen options will cause the differentiation and filtration of political forces. Lula's administration is headed by a heterogeneous left-wing party, the PT, which grants shelter to countless factions, from the majority of social democrats to small inconsequential "ultra left" groups. It counts with the support and participationincluding in ministerial levelsof the Communist Party of Brazil, which
exists autonomously and independently in Brazil for more than eight decades. In the Ministries are also present center parties representing important parts of the dominant classes. It is, therefore, a center-left administration (what in Brazil and Latin America does not have the same meaning as in Europe)a plural and heterogeneous
administration that gathers broad political forces. All signs show that there will be unity and struggle inside that administration. Unity will be present when the common
national and popular interests included in Lula's electoral platform converge. Struggle will be seen in the confrontation of the Brazilian society's two opposite conducts and the two antagonistic projects in the present stagethe project of continuity and subordination to neoliberalism and the democratic, national and popular project that consists on opening a new path to the country, including economic development, social progress and broader democracy.

The possibility of a new correlation of forces

During the last decades, Brazil has proven to be a country full of potentials regarding struggles for change. Lula's administration, due to his life and his commitments and
also to his capacity of uniting a politically mature body of the Brazilian left, of which the communists are part, may be an important trench in this struggle. It may also
make a decisive contribution to change the correlation of forces in the region in favor of the peoples. That trench, in a time of imperialist globalization, necessarily involves the international arena, especially the São Paulo Forum and the World Social Forum. The São Paulo Forum is and will be for a long time an area of convergence for the Latin American and Caribbean left. After 11 meetings, it is settled as one of the areas where the most relevant international advanced and progressist forces meet. Certainly, that convergence does not imply rigidity or deny differentiations. In its interior are also present the unity and the struggle between third-rank and
adaptative points of view and revolutionary concepts of broader strategic range.

The World Social Forum, after three meetings in Porto Alegre, is consolidated as an event of reasoning, debate and struggle against the imperialist globalization. As it
prioritized political matters, such as the struggle for peace, the struggle against the FTAA and questioned the neoliberal economic and financial order, in practice, the
Forum became politicized, denying objectively the false premises on the fragmentation of social movements and their isolation from a political perspective. Instead of
affirming the «movement of movements» as a way to surpass the «general political crisis», the World Social Forum brings the social movements closer to politics. Its
relations to political parties become, in that way, a matter of method. And such is the case in balancing the struggles inside national borders and the struggles of international range. The interaction between both spheres is also imposed by practice. The events taking place in Brazil and all over Latin America are the best illustration
of that fact.