Another contradiction arises in the current case of Mexico. Where was the United States when the elections in Mexico resulted in charges of fraud by the losing party? Will the U.S. allow the PRI, which has ruled Mexico for nearly six decades, to ignore the charges? So much for the democratic process that supposedly favors the periodic change of political parties.

So much for democracy in all of Latin America.

One-party rule in Mexico or one-man rule in Chile benefits the United States more than an open, democratic system because the U.S. would rather have order in Mexico City and Santiago than chaos in both cities.

Such a policy will never change, as long as the United States sees Latin America as a group of nations unable to achieve any semblance of government without some form of American intervention.

WHY should the United States be concerned with democracy in Latin America? Maybe because the United States views itself as the world's defender of democracy. Maybe because the United States is the symbol of democracy that many Latin American nations long to be. But when it comes to Latin America, the United States does not defend democracy, it distorts it for its own interests.

What then can Latin American nations do? Imposing a anti-drug policy might keep U.S. support alive, both diplomatically and financially. Yet the time has come for Latin American nations to control their own destiny, especially in terms of achieveing democracy. U.S. intervention must become as antiquated as imperialism or no true democratic change in Latin America will occur.