Fernando Lugo, the left-leaning President-elect of Paraguay has publicly announced that he will seek to renegotiate the 1973 Itaipu Treaty with Brazil.

The term of the treaty was set for 50 years (until 2023) and established that both Paraguay and Brazil would each receive one half of the electricity generated. However, the contract also stipulated that if one side didn’t consume all of its energy it would sell the surplus to the other side, essentially at cost.

Prensa Latina explains:

According to official data, Paraguay just consumes 13 percent of the energy generated by the Itaipu dam, the largest of its kind in the world, and Brazil consumes the rest, the total of which is 20 percent of the Brazilian internal demand.

According to an article published by Terra España/AFP, Lugo has stated that the current annual amount of $300 million paid by Brazil to Paraguay today is ridiculous and should actually set at the market price of between $1.5 and $2.0 billion.

So those are some of the facts and quotes from Lugo.

I would not jump to the conclusion that Lugo is the next Evo Morales in Latin America and there is no way he can “seize” the Itaipu Dam from Brazil. The dam is built on the Paraná River that represents the border between the two countries and realistically there’s no way to “take” the assets in the way that Bolivia seized properties from private investors, for the good of the pueblo of course.

Secondly, according to the L.A. Times while Lugo’s received support from the left, he was not associated with the type of anti-American coca leave growers that formed the foundation of Morales’ rise in Bolivia. Lugo’s campaign received support from a broader representation of Paraguayan politicians and movements, and the tone was less antagonistic. The Times says:

Just as Lugo has refrained from attacking Washington, he has also been careful not to assail Venezuela’s Chavez or lavish excess praise on him…. [He] insisted he would not be beholden to any side in the ongoing chill in relations between Chavez and the United States.

Lugo says that he see himself as someone in between the radicals like Chavez and Morales and the moderates like Lula and Chile’s Bachelet. Let’s hope he governs that way.

My primary concern here isn’t that another leftist was elected to presidency in another Latin American country, even though it’s the current trend. Rather, I’m more troubled by a serious point made in the LA Times article:

It is a measure of the changing times in U.S.-Latin American relations that a president-elect like Lugo hardly raises eyebrows in Washington. A decade ago, a chief of state with Lugo’s background probably would have sounded alarm bells. The ex-bishop endorses Liberation Theology, a doctrine criticized by the Vatican for Marxist influence.

Many observers on the continent say Washington’s intense focus on the Middle East in recent years has contributed to its diminished influence in Latin America. A region that was once at the center of Cold War politics is now an afterthought, according to many Latin American analysts.

I have no idea where the three remaining U.S. presidential candidates stand on the Latin America policy. I believe that John McCain has little patience for leaders like Hugo Chavez and terrorist groups like the FARC, and if necessary he would take action. During the Pennsylvania campaign Hillary was not afraid to say that she would “obliterate” Iran, so she gets some points for that. But I don’t know how either one’s views on the region.

I’m convinced that if there were problems south of the border Barack Hussein Obama would try to organize a kumbaya conference with Chavez, FARC leaders and others in order to understand their feelings in the “hope” of achieving a state of harmony with these despots and terrorists. He seems to enjoy the company of terrorists and radicals, so this would be his inclination.

Hopefully we’ll hear something about Latin America during the U.S. Presidential campaign, but I’m not holding my breath.