Venezuela stumbles in bid for UN seat

[ScreamingEagle]

Looks like Chavez calling Bush the devil has backfired.

Venezuela stumbles in bid for UN seat
By Andy Webb-Vidal in Caracas and Mark Turner at the United Nations

Published: October 16 2006 18:15 | Last updated: October 16 2006 18:21

Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez on Monday appeared headed for a personal political defeat at the hands of US-backed Guatemala in his long-held goal to win a temporary seat at the United Nations Security Council.

Guatemala, which has never before held a non-permanent seat on the Security Council, beat Venezuela by 109 votes to 76 in a first round of voting at the General Assembly, and extended its lead to 114 votes versus 74 in the second round, and 116-70 in the third.

But in a fourth vote, Guatemala slipped back to 110 votes, while Venezuela rose back up to 75. Further rounds of voting were postponed until the afternoon.

While Guatemala had not yet garnered the two-thirds of votes it needed to win, as of Monday mid-day in New York, its larger-than-expected lead was a serious blow to the Venezuelan government.

Mr Chávez has travelled the world in recent months on a personal lobbying mission to persuade dozens of foreign leaders and governments to back his bid to win one of the two Council seats open to a Latin American nation.

But the Chávez government’s early defeat at the UN comes only six weeks ahead of December’s elections in Venezuela, in which Mr Chávez’s chances of winning re-election are narrowing, according to recent opinion polls.

Candidates backed by Venezuela in this year’s presidential elections in Peru and Mexico also lost, while Rafael Correa, the pro-Chávez candidate in Ecuador’s elections last Sunday, was forced into a second round of voting.

At the UN, if Guatemala failed to win a two-thirds majority there was a chance that a third, compromise candidate, such as Uruguay, could emerge.

Meanwhile, Indonesia, South Africa, Italy and Belgium all secured seats in the first round.

The only other contested race was Indonesia versus Nepal, with Jakarta winning 158 in favour, out of 192 countries. South Korea withdrew earlier in the race, when Ban Ki-moon, its foreign minister, emerged as the leading, and ultimately successful, candidate to become the next Secretary-General.

The new members will replace Argentina, Japan, Denmark, Greece and Tanzania, which complete their two-year terms at the end of the year. The UN Security Council has fifteen members, five of which are permanent, and ten of which serve two-year terms, alternating in groups of five.

The Republic of Congo, Ghana, Peru, Qatar and Slovakia will serve for another year.

Mr Chavez’ bid appears to have suffered from a controversial speech at the UN General Assembly, in which he called George Bush, the US President, the devil.

While most important Security Council decisions are dominated by the permanent five, veto-wielding members – the US, UK, France, China and Russia – any agreement needs at least 9 votes in favour, and politically a consensus is desirable.

The temporary members emerged as an important constituency in the debate over how to handle Iraq in 2003, and they have significant opportunity to disrupt proceedings.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7ffc2842-5d39-11db-9d15-0000779e2340.html

 

[onedomino]

Among the non-permanent members losing UNSC seats due to term limitation there are two consistent US allies: Japan and Denmark. Among the non-permanent members gaining seats only one is a consistent US ally: Italy. Thus the new composition of the UNSC will be more difficult for the US.

 

[Gunny]

Among the non-permanent members losing UNSC seats due to term limitation there are two consistent US allies: Japan and Denmark. Among the non-permanent members gaining seats only one is a consistent US ally: Italy. Thus the new composition of the UNSC will be more difficult for the US.

All this intrigue and for WHAT exactly? The UN won't be worth a damn next year any more than it was last year.

 

[USViking]

This Goddam Chavez SOB is about 3rd on my list
of world leaders who I would like to see dead.

Kim Jong-il and Whosywhatsy Ahmadinejad are not
that far ahead of him. Maybe the CIA-NSA boys can
work out a good old fashioned coup. It Can't happen
soon enough for me.

 

[akiboy]

This Goddam Chavez SOB is about 3rd on my list
of world leaders who I would like to see dead.

Kim Jong-il and Whosywhatsy Ahmadinejad are not
that far ahead of him. Maybe the CIA-NSA boys can
work out a good old fashioned coup. Can't happen
soon enough for me.

I completely agree with you. The world has enough evil in it without these so called "leaders". Why dosen't the U.S send in the Delta force or CIA/NSA operatives to snipe em out??!! I metioned it in one of my earlier posts but I guess everyone thought I was raving!

Akshay

 

[onedomino]

I completely agree with you. The world has enough evil in it without these so called "leaders". Why dosen't the U.S send in the Delta force or CIA/NSA operatives to snipe em out??!! I metioned it in one of my earlier posts but I guess everyone thought I was raving!
Akshay

Unless war has been declared, it is against US law to assassinate a representative of a foreign government. The CIA used to engage in such practices, but that was more than 40 years ago. Does the CIA perform secret assassinations today? Does it use proxies? Probably not, but there is nothing published on this topic.

 

[Gunny]

I completely agree with you. The world has enough evil in it without these so called "leaders". Why dosen't the U.S send in the Delta force or CIA/NSA operatives to snipe em out??!! I metioned it in one of my earlier posts but I guess everyone thought I was raving!

Akshay

Dude, really .... all you EVER want to do is blow something up or kill someone, and use US people and weapons to do it.

 

[onedomino]

Dude, really .... all you EVER want to do is blow something up or kill someone, and use US people and weapons to do it.

Funny, but accurate. Aki, you might pause and be a bit more thoughtful when you argue for military action or assassination. We appreciate that you are on our side, but be more cautious when you suggest using America's military and intelligence assets.

 

[USViking]

Unless war has been declared, it is against US law to assassinate a representative of a foreign government. The CIA used to engage in such practices, but that was more than 40 years ago. Does the CIA perform secret assassinations today? Does it use proxies? Probably not, but there is nothing published on this topic.

We can probably finegel it so some local does the actual killing.

 

[akiboy]

Dude, really .... all you EVER want to do is blow something up or kill someone, and use US people and weapons to do it.

Don't get me wrong.....But unfortunately N.K's ,Venezuela's, Iran 's leaders hate you guys more then other countries. And they keep bitching about you people everytime. I just responded to U.S Viking's post that IF and only IF there is direct war against these countries then if the U.S wants to avoid war..WHy not kill these leaders? And the CIA/Mossad/NSA/Delta Force are the only capable institutions to do this job. Suppose IF India had to avoid war by assassinating the Pkaistani leader then we would do it!! And I never said Americans to go about killing the evil in this world. Right now the U.S is the global player of this planet. I am not saying that you guys go into action when everytime a Third World Govt screws up or something..I was just giving my opinions on how to tackle America's threats?? Do you have an alternative solution??

Akshay

 

[onedomino]

Don't get me wrong.....But unfortunately N.K's ,Venezuela's, Iran 's leaders hate you guys more then other countries. And they keep bitching about you people everytime. I just responded to U.S Viking's post that IF and only IF there is direct war against these countries then if the U.S wants to avoid war..WHy not kill these leaders? And the CIA/Mossad/NSA/Delta Force are the only capable institutions to do this job. Suppose IF India had to avoid war by assassinating the Pkaistani leader then we would do it!! And I never said Americans to go about killing the evil in this world. Right now the U.S is the global player of this planet. I am not saying that you guys go into action when everytime a Third World Govt screws up or something..I was just giving my opinions on how to tackle America's threats?? Do you have an alternative solution??

Akshay

Aki, in the case of Chavez, America should do everything it legally can to help Manuel Rosales get elected President in December 2006.

Chávez
Chávez's campaign manager Rafael Lacava said that the campaign will be based on defending Venezuela's national sovereignty and promoting world peace, in contrast to the imperialist policies of U.S. President George W. Bush. According to Unión Radio, Lacava added that a campaign theme will be the "country's freedom to no longer be a North American colony".

According to the Associated Press, Chávez launched his campaign "with warnings that Washington is trying to undermine December's presidential vote and destabilize Venezuela", saying "I am the candidate of the revolution and without a doubt I am the candidate of the national majority," dismissing other candidates as "tools of the U.S. government". El Universal reports that Chávez said, "In this electoral process there are two candidates only, namely Hugo Chávez and George W. Bush."

Chávez promised that, if elected, he will personally convoke a midterm recall referendum in the year 2010 without the need for petition signatures as was the case with the 2004 recall referendum. The 2010 referendum would consult the electorate about modifying the Constitution to allow for the indefinite reelection of a President.


Rosales
Rosales said that the backbone of his government program will be the social arena, saying it will be a "sound and well defined" program, including a "fair allocation of oil revenues by means of two axes – minimum wage for all unemployed and direct contribution to the underprivileged".

According to the Los Angeles Times, Rosales stated that Chávez was vulnerable on his "massive foreign aid programs, government-approved takeovers of land and buildings, and the perception that crime is increasing". Rosales said, "We will distribute land to the peasants, but we will buy it in such a way as to respect the principle of private property, just as we will respect those of human rights and social justice." Rosales would halt oil giveaways, "including sales of discounted oil to Cuba, until Venezuela reduced its high poverty rate."

The Associated Press reports that Rosales accuses Chávez of "overspending on a military buildup" and pledged "to use Venezuela's oil wealth to help the poor and improve education and health care", ridiculing Chávez's "claims of a possible war with the U.S." and saying, "Venezuela's real war should be against rampant street crime."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2006
-

 

[akiboy]

Aki, in the case of Chavez, America should do everything it legally can to help Manuel Rosales get elected President in December 2006.

After reading that article on Rosales , I feel more convinced about his priorities.I feel Rosales is right to concentrate on spending that nation's oil wealth for internal matters rather than buying jets from Russia!!Chavez is living in a world of dreams.Why should or will the U.S attack Venezuela.I have to admit ..I agree to your point on America helping Rosales to win the campaign legally.But how? If America tries to interfere won't Chavez accuse the States "on being imperialistic and resorting to double standards "? and Chavez also might point fingers at Rosales accusing him of "selling" the country to the so called "imperialists"!
Does America have a strategic economic/military/political intersests in Venezuela? To tell you the truth..I don't trust this Chavez guy at all..This guy actually went to Tehran to seek an alliance and also applauded N.K!



Akshay

 

[akiboy]

PS:- Just wanted to know..Does China buy oil from Venezuela? Do they have any economic treaties or any trade agrements or stuff like that...? There was this article in a magazine titled "China's whores" and it was written about China using Iran,Venezuela and other anti-U.S third world countries for their oil and helping them out with their military. Have any info on this regard?





Akshay

 

[Gunny]

Don't get me wrong.....But unfortunately N.K's ,Venezuela's, Iran 's leaders hate you guys more then other countries. And they keep bitching about you people everytime. I just responded to U.S Viking's post that IF and only IF there is direct war against these countries then if the U.S wants to avoid war..WHy not kill these leaders? And the CIA/Mossad/NSA/Delta Force are the only capable institutions to do this job. Suppose IF India had to avoid war by assassinating the Pkaistani leader then we would do it!! And I never said Americans to go about killing the evil in this world. Right now the U.S is the global player of this planet. I am not saying that you guys go into action when everytime a Third World Govt screws up or something..I was just giving my opinions on how to tackle America's threats?? Do you have an alternative solution??


Akshay

Alternative solution to what, exactly? Assasination of every world leader hostile to the US? The pretty-much covers them all, doesn't it?

So then you have to decide which ones are worth killing, and which ones aren't. Then you have to decide if killing them will result in anything in the US's favor, or just more of the same from a different mouth; which, would amount to wasting a lot of time and effort.

A more realistic scenario would be to throw out all the antiquated, Cold War "allies" and make new trade and defense treaties with those nations that are our true allies NOW. Cut the rest off. Let France, Venezuela and Russia be the new benefactors.

 

[onedomino]

Alternative solution to what, exactly? Assasination of every world leader hostile to the US? The pretty-much covers them all, doesn't it?

So then you have to decide which ones are worth killing, and which ones aren't. Then you have to decide if killing them will result in anything in the US's favor, or just more of the same from a different mouth; which, would amount to wasting a lot of time and effort.

A more realistic scenario would be to throw out all the antiquated, Cold War "allies" and make new trade and defense treaties with those nations that are our true allies NOW. Cut the rest off. Let France, Venezuela and Russia be the new benefactors.

Good points, Gunny. You raise an interesting question: what nations can America definitely depend on as allies? Here's my list and it is short:

Definite:
UK
Denmark
Poland
Georgia
Israel
Australia
Singapore
Taiwan
Japan

Maybes:
Canada (things have improved lately)
Norway
Italy
Ukraine
Jordon
Kuwait
India
Thailand
South Korea
New Jersey
California

No longer allies:
France
Belguim
Netherlands
Spain
Germany
Greece
Turkey

Never were allies:
Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Mexico
Every country in South America
Every country in Africa

No need to mention:
Russia
China
Every Arabic speaking country, except Jordon

 

[Annie]

Good points, Gunny. You raise an interesting question: what nations can America definitely depend on as allies? Here's my list and it is short:

Definite:
UK
Denmark
Poland
Georgia
Israel
Australia
Singapore
Taiwan
Japan

Maybes:
Canada (things have improved lately)
Norway
Italy
Ukraine
Jordon
Kuwait
India
Thailand
South Korea
New Jersey
California

No longer allies:
France
Belguim
Netherlands
Spain
Germany
Greece
Turkey

Never were allies:
Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Mexico
Every country in South America
Every country in Africa

No need to mention:
Russia
China
Every Arabic speaking country, except Jordon

This is a good start.-

 

[Gunny]

Good points, Gunny. You raise an interesting question: what nations can America definitely depend on as allies? Here's my list and it is short:

Definite:
UK
Denmark
Poland
Georgia
Israel
Australia
Singapore
Taiwan
Japan

Maybes:
Canada (things have improved lately)
Norway
Italy
Ukraine
Jordon
Kuwait
India
Thailand
South Korea
New Jersey
California

No longer allies:
France
Belguim
Netherlands
Spain
Germany
Greece
Turkey

Never were allies:
Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Mexico
Every country in South America
Every country in Africa

No need to mention:
Russia
China
Every Arabic speaking country, except Jordon

I'd shorten that definite list to:

UK
Israel
Japan

 

[Annie]

I'd shorten that definite list to:

UK
Israel
Japan

I'd lengthen your 'shortened list' to:

UK
Israel
Japan
Australia (more American than America)
Poland
Chech Republic
Most Eastern European blocs (though not able to 'help')

 

[Gunny]

I'd lengthen your 'shortened list' to:

UK
Israel
Japan
Australia (more American than America)
Poland
Chech Republic
Most Eastern European blocs (though not able to 'help')

I would list Australia as "iffy."

Not too sure about the former commie nations. I was raised during the Cold War. That's like getting Capt Kirk to like Klingons!

 

[onedomino]

I'd lengthen your 'shortened list' to:

UK
Israel
Japan
Australia (more American than America)
Poland
Chech Republic
Most Eastern European blocs (though not able to 'help')

Good call. Although Denmark is steadfast. I am not sure why. Maybe it is because they never would have held on to Greenland for this long if not for us. Australia might be our number one ally. They have been on the ground with us from day-one in Afghanistan and Iraq. I agree with your assessment of most East Euros. They remember what oppression is really like: they lived it for almost 50 years. If Kurdistan was a country (and it should be), they would make the "definite" list. With the advent of the Conservative Government in Canada, they are inching back toward the "definite" list. But America does not have much support in Eastern Canada.

PS. Singapore, for what it's worth, is hard-core pro-American.