Venezuela’s populist leader, Hugo Chávez, earned giggles and guffaws at the United Nations last month with his mass appeal diatribe ridiculing President Bush as the devil. Mr. Chávez said he could still smell the telltale scent of sulfur on the General Assembly rostrum where Mr. Bush had spoken the day before.

Now it appears that Mr. Chávez’s histrionic performance — styled to win him support from the United States’ many detractors at the United Nations — may have cost his country the seat on the Security Council that he has conducted a global campaign to win.

Developing nations make up a vast majority of the 192 countries in the General Assembly and generally warm to rants against Washington. But they also value the United Nations as a place where their voices can be heard in a dignified setting, and both supporters and detractors here say Mr. Chávez may have miscalculated in turning it into his bully pulpit.

Delegates said they also feared that the performance demonstrated the kind of behavior Venezuela might bring to the orderly confines of the Council chamber.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

I don't know anhyone who is at the UN. But years ago, I did know an interpreter, a good friend of the family, and my father knew a few people from the Belgian and the Canadian delegations. I also remember a supper at dad's house where he had invited an acquaintance who had worked in the peacekeeping office in New York in some capacity the details of which I forget.

From them, I gathered in general that delegations do prefer others who can work together behind the scenes and who can respect the code of diplomatic protocol publicly.

So maybe, Chavez's speech alienated various national delegations by appearing to be "over-the-top" or the equivalent of unparliamentary in UN terms.

After all, had Venezuela been elected, it would have had to work together with other members of the Security Council and some delegations may have been wondering whether Venezuela would be capable of that after the recent ourbursts of rhetoric. What may have hurt his chances were less the attacks on the US, but his frontal verbal assault on the UN itself.

The entire incident, to me, shows the huge difference between "politics" as in playing to the home audience on the one hand and diplomacy on the other. Many countries may have been thinking: we want to work with the UN, we want the UN to be functional, if this man hates the UN system so much, why does he insist on being elected to its highest body?

There was something a bit off in his speech on that score.

I am sure the Latin American countries wil be able to come up with a very acceptable alternative country to speak for them on the Council.

I would root for Argentina myself, if they would be willing to throw their hat into the ring - they are very internationalist in their diplomacy and they are neither too pro-this or too anti-that. Or maybe a small nation like Costa Rica.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Minus Habens ]

The fear appears to be a return to the kind of angry rhetorical jousting and paralysis of the Council seen during the Cold War.

I can't think of anybody less diplomatic than John Bolton and his other US imperialist cronies.

he tells the truth a lot more often than, for example the American Democrats who condemn him, like Nancy Pelosi.

in 2 weeks, can i hold my nose and vote for Pelosi?

it will be very difficult. of course, that's more because of her support for the Iraq war and her statement that a Bush impeachment is off the table.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
What in hell has Guatemala done to deserve a seat on the security council?. Whadda a shithole!

---

One of the problems the speech illustrated is the hollowing out or the impoverishment of Caracas' diplomacy in the past few years.

The diplomatic corps has been purged of many of the career diplomats and replacements have been recruited quickly, often more for their ideological leanings as opposed to people being promoted from within based on the merit principle that a modern civil service should be based on.

This is one comment made in diplomatic circles and in publications like the Ottawa-based Embassy journal that cover foreign relations and diplomacy.

In other words, many of the people currently in the Chavez diplomatic corps are comparative novices or amateurs and they may have misjudged and miscalculated how the speech would be received. Any diplomatic corps has a role of providing its government with impartial advice - that advice may not have been reaching Caracas, or may not have been given at all. The UN has more supporters than detractors in the General Assembly; any experienced diplomatic corps or foreign service would have been able to advise the Venezuelan president than a histrionic speech, in particular one that attacked the UN system itself, would be seen either as a mistake or at minimum would give create serious doubts and misgivings in the minds of many delegations.

Other recent mistakes of Venezuelan diplomatic policy that have raised eyebrows in many diplomatic circles include Venezuela voting on UN human rights bodies to protect authoritarian governments like those of Belarus, Iran, Zimbabwe and Sudan from being investigated for various human rights abuse allegations.

So, we may be witnessing not so much a big backlash against Chaveista diplomacy, but a questioning, or the beginnings of doubts about what it is really about.

The man may have overplayed his hand and may have to moderate his approach a little.

P.S. The previous poster has alluded to something that is also raising more and more eyebrows in foreign policy circles, and that is Venezuela's public interference in the internal affairs of other states, especially in Latin America.

Chavez is of course not a big imperialist like the United States can be and has been in Latin America for decades, but to many he is looking like a mini-imperialist caudillo. Mini-imperialist for lack of a better term.

The Latin Americans I know resent interference by the Big Brother US. They are not about to accept interference from Little Brother.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Minus Habens ]

GUATEMALA??? Whada'n icehole!

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minus Habens:
.

The Latin Americans I know resent interference by the Big Brother US. They are not about to accept interference from Little Brother.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Minus Habens ]

---

on the other hand, there IS a strongly pan-continental nationalism: I recall a song sung by UNAM students in Mexico City,

"Soy latino-americano, yo soy Latino ...
de Rio Bravo a Tierra del Fuego .""

meaning: Mexico, Argentina, Whatever, we are all in this together

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And thanks for that brief lesson on diplomacy and sovereignty from the U.S. multinational-occupied state of Alberta. Keep the oil flowing south, and maybe you'll receive another "prosperity" cheque-bribe in the mail.

GUATEMALA??? Whada'n icehole!

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:

Why is it whenever we bring up Venezuela you bring up Guatemala? (or Alberta)

---

Because Guatemala has also made a bid for UNSC membership recently?. It's been in the news for weeks. And Alberta? - just a running joke among socialists shrewd and business-like enough not to let big oil companies siphon-off the national wealth while bribing serfs with 40 pieces of silver once in a while. What did your last personal news servant die of, btw ?.

Viva la revolucion!

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

the equivalent of unparliamentary in UN terms.

---

As in referring to one's former companion as a dog in the House of Commons? Or challenging somebody in the House for a fight "if he has the gonads"? Or firecrackers in the House? Or ... or ...

I listened to the whole speech. (Have you MH?) In spite of the histrionics - and definitely having overdone it re the devil and the smell of sulfur IMO - I didn't get a sense of disrespect for the UN. (Maybe because I'm Canadian? )

And as to 'everybody' knowing about GWB, that may well be the case on Babble, but is this true of the gazzillions worldwide who only have newspapers or radio news to learn about the rest of the world? People who have nothing as source for news but the equivalent of the infoganda machine that the CBC has become?

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And thanks for that brief lesson on diplomacy and sovereignty from the U.S. multinational-occupied state of Alberta. Keep the oil flowing south, and maybe you'll receive another "prosperity" cheque-bribe in the mail.

GUATEMALA??? Whada'n icehole!

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

Don't talk to me about prosperity, when I come from a people who are about 60 nations away from the kind of prosperity the 'average' Canadian supposedly enjoys.

Diplomatic relations between Chile and Venezuela have definately soured (keep in mind that Chile's President, Bachelet was herself a victim of torture and her father was murdered by Pinochet's thugs, and she is not right wing), and other South American nations are getting antsy, even the left ones. I'm not talking about the selective reporting in English-language papers that badly mistranslate Chavez's Spanish speeches for political gain. Chavez, or his diplomatic representatives have pissed a lot of people off by doing strange or extreme things, or making extreme accusations towards those that could be his allies.

I'm glad he's there though...South American left-wing politics are failry moderate, and he manages to keep things from going too centrist...but he needs to balance that with not totally alienating his neighbours.

By the way, Venezuela recently offered to withdraw and support Bolivia as a candidate...I wonder how the votes would go with this change?
Spanish language article

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Yiwah ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yiwah:

Hmmm, what unfounded assumptions are you making about me, I wonder?

---

I think it was this that got me steamed a little:

quote:

---

[qbI'll tell you what it HASN'T done, and that is to help set up troops along the borders of Bolivia, the frontiers of which lay along the borders of five other nations. Other South American nations are getting very tired of Venezuela...[/qb]

---

Guatemala is a thirdworld democratic capitalist, U.S.-friendly sh!thole that allows former right-wing death squad leaders, trained at the School of the Americas, to run around that country free as birds while women are still being terrorized by "former" death squad members while its children living in grinding, abject poverty. Ya, we're tired of reading about those things in repressive little Guatemala. Meanwhile, millions of Venezuelans are seeing doctors for the first time in their lives.

Donald "the Don" Rumsfeld, the fascist bastard, announced millions in aid for Latin America's militaries several months ago. Venezuela hasn't imposed on anyone's national sovereignty. But the U.S. does have a recent history of doing exactly that and threatening Chavez with military coups, as well as removing democratically-elected leaders. Get off it already, because you're not making any sense.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Guatemala is a thirdworld democratic capitalist, U.S.-friendly sh!thole that allows former right-wing death squad leaders, trained at the School of the Americas, to run around that country free as birds while women are still being terrorized by "former" death squad members while its children living in grinding, abject poverty. Ya, we're tired of reading about those things in repressive little Guatemala. Meanwhile, millions of Venezuelans are seeing doctors for the first time in their lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Latin America's militaries several months ago. Venezuela hasn't imfringed on anyone's sovereignty. Get off it already.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

We're being asked to believe that the defeat of Venezuela in the UN is all about diplomacy, when in fact we all know it's about power and politics. It's about the ability of the United States to get what it wants at the UN, by arm-twisting, threats, and bribery.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Well when Venezuela carpet bombs another nation to smithereens and justified with lies and propaganda, or begins repressing its own people with right-wing death squads trained at the Skool of the Americas, maybe I'll look back on your little post here and admit you told us so. Until then, fuck off!~

---

Uh-huh. So basically, you want to ignore the political realities of the situation because you support Venezuela. I didn't realise you were just talking about 'how it should be' instead of 'here is how it is'. The first is obvious.

I love the lateral violence here among lefties...and the ridiculous assumptions you continue to seem to make about my position on the matter.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Yiwah ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[QB]This thread is rife with bullshit.

We're being asked to believe that the defeat of Venezuela in the UN is all about diplomacy, when in fact we all know it's about power and politics. It's about the ability of the United States to get what it wants at the UN, by arm-twisting, threats, and bribery.

---

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Yiwah ]

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Yiwah ]

The New York Times wants us to think that Chavez is the author of Venezuela's own misfortune, rather than pointing to the USA's efforts to isolate the country diplomatically, militarily, economically, and politically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Maybe you should be more concerned with Washington's known history for fomenting military coups against democratically-elected socialists in South America. US liaisons with South American military dictatorships which have committed human rights atrocities IS the geopolitical legacy throughout Latin America. You can quit sounding like a stooge for U.S. imperialism anytime now.

---

The fact is, Guatemala represents less of a regional threat than Venezuela precisely because it kowtows to Washington. It makes total political sense to side with Guatemala over Venezuela when the political goal is maintaining relationships with the US. That doesn't mean it's right. Welcome to life.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Yiwah ]

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Yiwah ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The bottom line is that nothing Chavez could have said or done would change the determination of the USA to block Venezuela's bid for a security council seat.

The New York Times wants us to think that Chavez is the author of Venezuela's own misfortune, rather than pointing to the USA's efforts to isolate the country diplomatically, militarily, economically, and politically.

It's sad to see so many people here willing to drink the NYT's kool-aid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
This thread is rife with bullshit.

---

I think in part this is because Chavez polarises different "camps".

"Chavez" has been among my google news alerts for months and I get a variety of hits from very right wing anti-Chavez Venezuelan sources to very pro-Chavez Venezuelan and outside sources, inlcuding (largely unfriendly, even before the UN speech) US media, Prensa Latina and others.

Some see him as the devil incarnate, others as a saviour from US imperialism.

It's not easy to decide where "the truth" lies. Think Castro: Are there middle of the road opinions or just pro and con?

But when I read the obviously exaggerated statements by the extreme anti-Chavez people I have no difficulty to decide where "the truth" lies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:

Last but not least: Why does he keep winning elections and referenda? Is there anybody in the West who has won that many elections/referenda in a row?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yiwah:
Since when has the centrist or right wing English-language media done anything but deflect attention onto Chavez...even if they had to fabricate or mistranslate in order to do so?

---

quote:

---

And since when has there been a lack of anti-Chavistas to gobble it up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Since never.

But anti-Chavistas used to be a tiny minority on babble. Now it seems there are many here who are prepared to dump on Chavez as soon as the NYT gives the signal.

---

I don't see it as unusual in the left generally...just consider how even among the leftwing there are very strong opinions both for and against Castro and the Cuban model. Everything should be considered as being non-absolute...and dialogue is good...but I do wish that some of the people yapping about these nations actually visit them and gain a more real perspective.

I also think it is interesting to see how the western centrist/right media has dealt with Evo Morales compared to Chavez. Where have all the dire predictions about Evo gone to?

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Yiwah ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yiwah:
In many ways, you're talking about the same thing here. The main motivation for Chile to NOT support Venezuela in this is that it has developed fairly good ties with the US.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

When did Chile drop support of Venezuela for UNSC?.

---

Since it was a secret vote, there was no need to announce that Chile would abstain...except to make a point.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Yiwah ]

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Yiwah ]

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

anti-Chavistas used to be a tiny minority on babble. Now it seems there are many here who are prepared to dump on Chavez as soon as the NYT gives the signal.[/QB]

---

I also thought it was very clear...absent money and power, those on the left wing need to be angels in order not to be demonised...and as far as I've seen, there hasn't been a left-wing leader in history that managed to live up to this ridiculous standard. Great evils can be committed by the right wing as long as they say, 'we tried our best', but you make one wrong move on the left, and the comparisons to Stalin begin...

To the right, only the results matter. But when judging the left, results are nothing, only the methods are important.

However, in reviewing this thread, I don't see the dire condemnations you've alluded to.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Yiwah ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yiwah:
I don't see it as unusual in the left generally...just consider how even among the leftwing there are very strong opinions both for and against Castro and the Cuban model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
If you delve through some earlier threads you will see that Chavez has been much more popular around here than Castro. At least so far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yiwah:
I also think it is interesting to see how the western centrist/right media has dealt with Evo Morales compared to Chavez. Where have all the dire predictions about Evo gone to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
They're still there, actually. Powerful anti-government forces in Bolivia are rallying against Morales.

And now that Venezuela has proposed Bolivia as a "compromise" candidate for the Security Council we will see a revitalization of the propaganda onslaught in the NYT and other newspapers of record.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yiwah:
Great evils can be committed by the right wing as long as they say, 'we tried our best', but you make one wrong move on the left, and the comparisons to Stalin begin...

---

Not to mention the meaning of "The Axis Of Evil". (The devil?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOBWc7vmaLg&mode=related&search=

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Good move. It'll keep Warshington off balance while they deal with the quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. They need an anti-war party in the States.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

That tells you something about the guy, since the pro-Chavez candidate probably won, and at the very least finished in a near-dead heat with the winner.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Yeah, yeah, it was a speech that is undermining Chavez's efforts at the UN and the US arm twisting, threats and buy-offs. That's all secondary.

Where do we find these people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gollygee:
They fail repeatedly through arm-twisting, or other means to win more than a miniscule of support on many foreign policy issues such as those involving Israel

---

Most certainly not!

At least not where it counts, that is after the veto or in the Security Council. (The General Assembly is mainly a debating club.)

Aren't we still waiting for Res 242 to be implemented?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Nice try though.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

quote:

---

The USA has little influence on the voting of many of the 190 plus members of the UN. They fail repeatedly through arm-twisting, or other means to win more than a miniscule of support on many foreign policy issues such as those involving Israel or Cuba. they have 'some' influence on who will be a temporary member of the council but not enough to make a great difference if members were in favour of Venezuela.

---

What a stooge.

So why is it the alternative is a torture state closely associated with the US? Didn't the US engineer the election of Koffie Anann? And now the Korean guy? Wake up already.

Oh, and when Chavez gave that sppech he, "generated the loudest burst of applause for a world leader at the summit," according to the Washington Post.

Suddenly now they didn't appreciate it all, huh? Go back and apologize for the 600,000 Iraqis murdered for imperialism. You're better at that.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
It's about oil.

---

I think it's about more than that. Or maybe I should have said, I hopeit's about more than that.

quote:

---

Four months after Bush took office, Vice President Dick Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group recommended that the administration "make energy security policy a priority of our trade and foreign policy." The Administration has faithfully followed that blueprint, using war and muscular diplomacy to corner U.S. energy supplies in the Middle East and Central Asia.

What most Americans don't know is that Venezuela's reserves are enormous. According to a department of energy estimate, they are considerably greater than Saudi Arabia's, and may be as high as 1.3 trillion barrels. Most Venezuelan oil is heavy and expensive to refine, but as long as oil stays above $50 a barrel - and few doubt it will go lower - it is an almost endless gold mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:

Most certainly not!

At least not where it counts, that is after the veto or in the Security Council. (The General Assembly is mainly a debating club.)

Aren't we still waiting for Res 242 to be implemented?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

Nice try though.

[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]

---

Nice try but wrong. The VERY REASON they need to use the veto is that they don't get the votes necesary in the General Assembly. they have actually lost vote of 160 or so to 3 with a few abstaning on issues like Cuba.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gollygee:
In the last couple decades the USA has 'got it's way' less than other members of the security council in sharp contrast to the first decades of the UN when the USA did not need to use it's veto

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yiwah:

Tensions between Chile, Bolivia and Peru have run high since the War of the Pacific. Things have almost exploded into conflict a number of times over very minor things. Putting Bolivian troops (mixed Venezuelan regulars as well) on the border with Chile has racheted up the tensions again. It's not a smart move if you're looking for support.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Nothing in there about building a caring society, I'm afraid.

---

I think there is.

You and I do not follow the same commentators.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

This is nothing more than hysterical right-rightist fear mongering. Bolivia has one of the smallest militaries in Latin America and are focusing troop deployments on stopping drug trafficking and stabilizing the situation within its own borders. Chile currently leads the arms race in South America with buying submarines and F16's from the U.S. and Holland, tanks from Germany and more.

---

Arbenz moved towards local control over resources by nationalizing the United Fruit Company. Problem was, the head of the CIA was also high up in the United Fruit Company. So Arbenz was eliminated and more malleable puppets put in place.

Since that time, one of the pro-US regimes decided to firebomb the Spanish Embassy where peaceful indigenous protestors were sheltered. The Guatamalan government succeeded in murdering BY INCINERATION 39 protestors and allegedly shot all those who tried to leave the burning building. I believe there were Spanish diplomatic staff casualties as well - needless to say, the Spanish Government was outraged. This is the sort of regime the US wants on the Human Rights Council.

In contrast, the Venezuelan government has been carrying out all sorts of policies biased in favour of the poor - including poor people in the US itself made homeless by natural disaster, etc. There's no comparison.

[ 26 October 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

A speech won't destroy your chances of being elected if people really support you, but a speech felt to go beyond the boundaries of acceptable diplomatic practice certainly won't help you grow your support beyond the original group.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minus Habens:
Countries, or most countries I would venture to say, genuinely want the UN to work, at least in a minimally efficient way. If it turns into a permanent "Fight Club", that defeats the purpose.

---

Personally I'd like to see a bit more dissension in the Security Council.

quote:

---

There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world ... the United States, when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along. - John Bolton

---

[ 31 October 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Near as I can tell, the chosen US candidate is still Guatamala. Guatamala is the original banana republic and has a long history of US interference going back to the violent overthrow of the democratically elected Jacabo Arbenz Guzman government.

Arbenz moved towards local control over resources by nationalizing the United Fruit Company. Problem was, the head of the CIA was also high up in the United Fruit Company. So Arbenz was eliminated and more malleable puppets put in place. ...

There's no comparison.

---

No comment, just that the whole post was spot on. Yours too, M. Spector. I don't believe Chavez had any real intentions toward actually gaining a seat in the Security Council. I think Chavez realized he is the object of Washington's affection since the CIA-sponsored military-business coup attempt against him in 2002. Pick me, I'm the guy ?. Don't think so. Chavez knows the UN is a Washington-dominated farce.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minus Habens:
If it turns into a permanent "Fight Club", that defeats the purpose.

---

You keep repeating that this would be the case. Is this possibly western propaganda?