While the world's attention is focused on the U.S. presence and conflict in Iraq, we have seen little coverage of what is certain to become one of the biggest news stories of 2006.

In the words of BBC Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler, "George W. Bush has lost Latin America."

Such a statement implies the region is missing or needs to be found, and that it once belonged to President Bush. But that is not what is going on there.

What has occurred is that the United States is slowly losing its grip on one of its biggest allies and its neighbor to the South. And for Latin Americans, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

In 1823, President James Monroe's "Monroe Doctrine" warned Europe to stay out of Latin American affairs. That would be the job of the United States, who has always thought of Latin America as its "backyard."

History shows the United States certainly did become involved in Latin American affairs.

In the 20th century, the United States has undermined or overthrown about 40 Latin American governments, whether directly through military intervention or indirectly through covert operations like the CIA-supported ousting of President Salvador Allende in Chile by allies of General Augusto Pinochet.

Latin American nations are part of the Third World -- a term that today is often associated with poor countries.

But the term "Third World" was originally coined by French demographer and anthropologist Alfred Sauvy to represent countries that did not want to align with either the Americans or the Soviets during the Cold War.

The Cold War is over, but the language surrounding it isn't. In Latin America, and elsewhere in the world, people who wish to nationalize services and industries and minimize U.S. involvement in Latin American affairs are often branded "communists," or some similar term meant to be derogatory -- and more importantly, to discard what these people advocate.

Not everyone in Latin America is against U.S. involvement. Some politicians, businessmen and others benefit from the status quo of U.S.-Latin American relationships. But judging from recent national polls, most Latin Americans are not happy with governments that place U.S. interests above of those of their own citizens.

The Leftist and Nationalist candidates have won the recent national elections in Bolivia and Chile, and will possibly win in Peru and Mexico, among others.

In countries such as Costa Rica, where Leftist candidates have not won elections, the candidates won the elections by only a very small margin.

It seems that unless you have a strong interest in history or politics, the average American cares little about the changing political landscape in Latin America.

Some of my friends have even told me that even if many Leftist candidates win in Latin America, the United States would not, in the 21st century, intervene militarily to remove a government it dislikes in a sovereign nation. Yeah right. Have they heard of the current conflict in Iraq?

How well Latin American presidents respond to the needs of their citizens, in spite of pressures from the United States, will determine the social and political stability in those nations.

When free trade agreements that benefit only elite groups are ratified, inequality increases -- and so does the prevalence of violence, poverty and immigration.

The United States is better off thinking of Latin America as what it is: its neighbor, not its backyard. Americans should take an interest in the affairs of their neighbors, but not intervene to manipulate them to suit their interests.

And Americans should not negatively view the changing political landscape just to the south of their border.

After all, like my grandmother always tells me, "He who owes nothing fears nothing."