DON'T JUDGE BOLIVIA THROUGH A LEFTIST PRISM

With Iraq and other priorities competing for the attention of U.S.
policymakers, the question of Bolivia is overlooked. But, situated in
the heart of South America, with the second-largest natural-gas
reserves in the Western Hemisphere, Bolivia's unsettled course bears
close watch.

Evo Morales, who rose to political prominence as leader of the
nation's coca growers, won election as president with 54 percent of
the vote. He enjoys a strong public mandate and a majority in
Congress. Still, winning an election as the head of a large and
diverse coalition is quite different than actually governing.

Popular expectations for immediate and dramatic change have increased
significantly with candidate Morales' sweeping promises to improve
national welfare by rooting out corruption and exerting greater
control over international investors. Yet now that he is president, a
promised program to nationalize gas and mineral extraction could well
wreak havoc on Bolivia's economy, undermining the ability to address
its most urgent need: alleviating poverty.

As these decisions are being made, it is important that the United
States build a relationship with the new government consistent with
our interests and values -- President Bush has already telephoned his
new Bolivian counterpart to good effect -- to encourage a policy
approach that will lead to long-term development and global engagement.

Of primary importance, our policy approach should be based on the
recognition that leftist governments are not by definition a threat to
U.S. interests as may have been the case when the Soviet Union
existed. Latin Americans don't vote for leftist candidates to punish
the United States or to challenge us.

They vote as they do because leaders and parties have failed to create
jobs or to reduce poverty and inequality. In fact, "leftist"
governments like those in Brazil and Chile have been among the most
orthodox in Latin America in their economic management and have proven
to be sound political partners for the United States across a range of
issues. As well, policy makers should strive to keep public rhetoric
subdued, not reacting to various outrageous statements that may
occasionally come out of La Paz. We may not often agree with the new
government, though that remains to be seen. But if we find a modus
vivendi consistent with the pragmatic pursuit of U.S. interests, we
will stand a much better chance of strengthening regional development
and democratic institutions, building energy integration and enhancing
counternarcotics cooperation.

It is vital, too, that we work with other nations to influence
Bolivia's direction, particularly Brazil, Argentina and even Spain,
which may have more at stake in Bolivia than we do.

Finally, Bolivia's most significant problems are primarily internal.
The international community including the United States, already
Bolivia's largest foreign-aid donor, can assist, but we only have
limited tools available, one of which is trade expansion. Though not
sufficient by itself, expanded trade could prove catalytic in terms of
Bolivian development and a check on political excess.

Bolivia should be invited to join trade negotiations with the United
States, as have Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Peru, particularly as
its preference programs with the United States are set to expire at
the end of this year. Despite reports that Brazil's state-run oil
company plans investments of more than $5 billion in Bolivia's
cash-starved gas sector, a clear focus on improving Bolivia's
investment climate to draw significant additional direct, foreign
private investment would do more for long-term prospects than any
amount of foreign assistance ever would. The United States can help
Morales choose engagement with the world. Nonetheless, our ability to
affect Bolivia's direction is limited. The question of Bolivia
ultimately must be answered by Bolivians themselves.