Two voices are competing in Latin America today. Through their politics, their projects and their doctrines, Chavez and Uribe stand for two radically different views of national and regional life. Despite the somewhat simplistic parallels categorizing them both as populists or neo-populists, their countries’ situations after several years of their respective leadership are quite distinct. Chavez is trying to influence and infiltrate other countries’ politics; a global assessment of his achievements would seem to be negative at home, more mitigated abroad (in terms of efficiency). On the other hand, the Colombian president’s policies have met with significant success in terms of strengthening peace and democracy. The already problematic relations between the two countries have been complicated by the international dimension the conflict has developed (the Castro brothers still see Chavez as a fellow-traveler on the Castrist path; Uribe is closer to the Americans and to his social-democrat counterparts). So the contrast could hardly be sharper between the “Bolivarian project” in favor of “revolutionary” struggle (the Venezuelan president grants the FARC guerillas and the Colombian government equal status) and Colombia’s policy of strengthening national authority (democratic security policy, a firm anti-FARC stance) with the support of the U.S.A. (with the 1999 launch of Plan Colombia, Colombia became a leading recipient of American aid). In this struggle for political and moral leadership of Latin America (brought to light recently by the Betancourt affair), Lula’s Brazil is trying to break up the Chavez-Uribe standoff and establish itself as a middle path.