NationStates Jolt Archive

What are the pros and cons of Venezuela's Chavez getting the temporary UN security counsel seat? Is it a good or bad idea? What do you think of Chavez's idea? Do you think he may have a scheme behind what he wants? Is he doing it for genuinely, legitmate reasons? or Is he doing this to further his personal agenda to be against the USA? What do you think?

(Sorry, I misspelled Venezuela on the topic line, I acknowledge the mistake, please carry on)

Don't know what Chavez's plan is--got a link, a little context maybe?

What are the pros and cons of Venezuela's Chavez getting the temporary UN security counsel seat? Is it a good or bad idea? What do you think of Chavez's idea? Do you think he may have a scheme behind what he wants? Is he doing it for genuinely, legitmate reasons? or Is he doing this to further his personal agenda to be against the USA? What do you think?

(Sorry, I misspelled Venezuela on the topic line, I acknowledge the mistake, please carry on)

What country wouldent want a seat on the consel that has to deal with security?

Everyone wants a say in worldwide and national security

Venezuela represents the policy of many South aMerican countries, and they have a democratic legitimated leader. So why Venezuela shouldn't be in the security council?

The fact that Chavez doesn't like the USA is no reason to stop Venezuelas membership.

(And as the American government tried to remove him - he has a reason not to like the USA.)

Venezuela represents the policy of many South aMerican countries, and they have a democratic legitimated leader. So why Venezuela shouldn't be in the security council?

The fact that Chavez doesn't like the USA is no reason to stop Venezuelas membership.

(And as the American government tried to remove him - he has a reason not to like the USA.)

Meh, he's a petty dictator. I don't like him. :mad:

There are no pros.

And I can't wait for mi amiga Aelosia to pop into this thread.

There are no pros.

And I can't wait for mi amiga Aelosia to pop into this thread.

I agree.

Here is a link for more information:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11285/hugo_chavezs_world_tour.html#3

Meh, he's a petty dictator. I don't like him. :mad:

actually, an ellected populist if I am not mistaken...

There are no pros.

And I can't wait for mi amiga Aelosia to pop into this thread.

I agree.

I just always like it when Aelosia pokes her head in here. ;)

Here is a link for more information:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11285/hugo_chavezs_world_tour.html#3

Interesting. I don't know about the pros and cons--like the article said, it's only one vote of fifteen and doesn't come with veto power, but it's funny that the US is fumbling the push for their own candidate yet again. As the article said, too many sticks and not enough carrots.

I just always like it when Aelosia pokes her head in here. ;)



:D

You know what's fucked up? I wanna say there's no way the guy should be on teh security council. He's a nutcase, a propagandist and all that. The problem is that because of who occupies the Whitehouse right now we have no credibility at all to say who should or shouldn't be on the Security Council.

I feel that Chavez is attempting to get in the seat to specificly undermine the USA. Our relationship with Venezuela is detioriating slowly but surely.

Con: Venezuela is definitely not a great power. It has no global reach whatsoever. It is not a member of a major bloc , economic or military, and does not have a desirably stable government.

Oh, and the most important reason: It wasn't a member of the United Nations Alliance that defeated Germany in WWII, until after D-Day.

You know what's fucked up? I wanna say there's no way the guy should be on teh security council. He's a nutcase, a propagandist and all that. The problem is that because of who occupies the Whitehouse right now we have no credibility at all to say who should or shouldn't be on the Security Council.

Yes, because Bush = Chavez. :rolleyes:

I feel that Chavez is attempting to get in the seat to specificly undermine the USA. Our relationship with Venezuela is detioriating slowly but surely.

Sure ... it couldent be because he wants to have a say on what a worldwide organization has to say about security :rolleyes:

I am not saying it is a good or bad thing to have him there but automaticaly assuming that this sort of move is because he wants to undermine the us seems sort of ego centric

Con: Venezuela is definitely not a great power. It has no global reach whatsoever. It is not a member of a major bloc, economic or military, and does not have a desirably stable government.

Agreed. I dont think they deserve the seat as well

Yes, because Bush = Chavez. :rolleyes:

Of course Bush doesn't equal Chavez. I didn't say that or even imply that. My implication was that if we have leaders this bad how can we have any credibility when we say who should or shouldn't be on the Secuity Council? The big difference between Bush and Chavez is that Bush can REALLY fuck shit up in a serious way. Just ask any Iraqi. Chavez is very limited in the harm he can do.

We are talking about one of the temp security council seats...

oh no! :eek:

Venezuela will surely do great harm if it were to get one of these seats.. :rolleyes:

We are talking about one of the temp security council seats...

oh no! :eek:

Venezuela will surely do great harm if it were to get one of these seats.. :rolleyes:

Ah, didn't read it right, I thought it was a thread about a Permanent seat.

I feel that Chavez is attempting to get in the seat to specificly undermine the USA. Our relationship with Venezuela is detioriating slowly but surely.

Slowly?

Makes me wonder, Chavez recently postponed a schedule visit to NK. Since the UN has passed resolution 1695 forbidding all UN states from trading with NK for WMDs.

Scroll down to about the 5th paragraph. It talks about his planned trip to NK.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1793

Of course Bush doesn't equal Chavez. I didn't say that or even imply that. My implication was that if we have leaders this bad how can we have any credibility when we say who should or shouldn't be on the Secuity Council? The big difference between Bush and Chavez is that Bush can REALLY fuck shit up in a serious way. Just ask any Iraqi. Chavez is very limited in the harm he can do.

:rolleyes:

Con: Venezuela is definitely not a great power. It has no global reach whatsoever. It is not a member of a major bloc , economic or military, and does not have a desirably stable government.

Oh, and the most important reason: It wasn't a member of the United Nations Alliance that defeated Germany in WWII, until after D-Day.

We're not talking about a permanent seat. Do you know how the Security Council works? The very idea is that temporary seats should not be exclusively for WW2 Allied powers nor for major world powers.

Meh, he's a petty dictator. I don't like him. :mad:

I won't lie. I can't stand Chavez. Even so, I don't see why we have to antagonize him. IMO, the U.S. should at least try to get along with him. If we can't be friends with him, we can at least try to not be enemies.

I won't lie. I can't stand Chavez. Even so, I don't see why we have to antagonize him. IMO, the U.S. should at least try to get along with him. If we can't be friends with him, we can at least try to not be enemies.

Yeah, give the asshole a big hug. :rolleyes:

Yeah, give the asshole a big hug. :rolleyes:

A lot of countries are going out of their way to tolorate our asshole we could at least try

Yeah, give the asshole a big hug. :rolleyes:

I didn't say we had to love the son of a bitch. But we should at least try have warm relationships. If he wants to be a little bitch, though, there's no reason we should stoop to his level.

A lot of countries are going out of their way to tolorate our asshole we could at least try

And you could try using this new invention: the period. It's used to end sentences.

A lot of countries are going out of their way to tolorate our asshole we could at least try

Exactly.

I didn't say we had to love the son of a bitch. But we should at least try have warm relationships. If he wants to be a little bitch, though, there's no reason we should stoop to his level.

But if he wants to act like a little bitch, there's no reason we should treat him as any better.

I feel that Chavez is attempting to get in the seat to specificly undermine the USA.

So? States are allowed to have goals opposite of those of America, you know? The fact is that Chavez represents a significant (perhaps even the majority) share of the World's opinion on many issues, especially issues related to the USA.

While we may not like the idea of a blatant anti-American demogogue being on the Security Council, the fact is the UN is a body dedicated to expressing a global view on global governance (regardless of how poorly it actually does that) and it would be horrendous to silence the population of the world in voicing their opinions.

And you could try using this new invention: the period. It's used to end sentences.

Wow … was my little comment so hard to counter that you just gave up and picked on me for sentence structure?

Wow … was my little comment so hard to counter that you just gave up and picked on me for sentence structure?


No, it was just that ignorant.

And you could try using this new invention: the period. It's used to end sentences.

I thought it was used to end menstrual cycles.

I thought it was used to end menstrual cycles.

ROFLMGDFAO

But if he wants to act like a little bitch, there's no reason we should treat him as any better.

Of course there is, its called the Moral High Ground. Everyone agrees that its a great place to be and a terrible place not to be.

No, it was just that ignorant.

Interesting, personally I find bigger things to worry over such as content of an argument when the form is understandable. But if you would rather avoid the issue and attack form go for it.

I will do my best to punctuate correctly (as well as correct my atrocious spelling) so that you may actually start making points that are relevant to the topic at hand again.

I will do my best to punctuate correctly (as well as correct my atrocious spelling) so that you may actually start making points that are relevant to the topic at hand again.

When you do the same, I'll be sure to take note.

When you do the same, I'll be sure to take note.

I was until your punctuation hijack.

Anyways like I said before while I don’t automatically assumed malicious intent I don’t think they particularly deserve a seat either. Who else that is not on the consul should be though? (honest question)

Con: Venezuela is definitely not a great power. It has no global reach whatsoever. It is not a member of a major bloc , economic or military, and does not have a desirably stable government.

Oh, and the most important reason: It wasn't a member of the United Nations Alliance that defeated Germany in WWII, until after D-Day.You don't have to be to be on the Security Council. I think you're thinking of the permanent members. These are the current elected members of the Security Council:
1. Argentina
2. Republic of the Congo
3. Denmark
4. Ghana
5. Greece
6. Japan
7. Peru
8. Qatar
9. Slovakia
10. Tanzania

There's no reason Venezuela couldn't be on that list in place of one of them. Now I'm not saying that Venezuela should be on that list, just that there's no reason they couldn't be.

There are no pros.

And I can't wait for mi amiga Aelosia to pop into this thread.Yeah there are. It's a temporary seat.

Con: Venezuela is definitely not a great power. It has no global reach whatsoever. It is not a member of a major bloc , economic or military, and does not have a desirably stable government.They're not a member of the non-aligned states? Could be...

Oh, and the most important reason: It wasn't a member of the United Nations Alliance that defeated Germany in WWII, until after D-Day.Er... neither was Germany...

The UN admittingly needs a major reform, they know it, we know it, and having Chavez be part of the security counsel is of great concern.

The UN admittingly needs a major reform, they know it, we know it, and having Chavez be part of the security counsel is of great concern.

Why on earth would it be "of great concern"?

:rolleyes:

Cool. I feel you, bro. How about this - let's go head to head about the threats to world security not posed by either leader, but actually realized by either leader. You list all the big problem in the world caused by Chavez and I'll list the ones caused by Bush. :) You go first. Understand, it isn't that I think Chavez should be on the Security Council, I'm lamenting the fact that the US, because of the disasterous record of this administration, has lost all credibility when it comes making those decisions. And by that I mean that the rest of the world has lost so much respect for us during Bush's tenure that the no longer seem willing to listen to us or to look to us for leadership.

What are the pros and cons of Venezuela's Chavez getting the temporary UN security counsel seat? Is it a good or bad idea? What do you think of Chavez's idea? Do you think he may have a scheme behind what he wants? Is he doing it for genuinely, legitmate reasons? or Is he doing this to further his personal agenda to be against the USA? What do you think?

(Sorry, I misspelled Venezuela on the topic line, I acknowledge the mistake, please carry on)

Pro: More people will read Noam Chomsky

Con: Venezuela might end up a parking lot.

Meh, he's a petty dictator. I don't like him. :mad:

Well, he hasn't concentration camps set up around the globe and he's not spying on his people and he's not messing up in two wars abroad.
Considering who else is out there he's pretty sympathetic.

What are the pros and cons of Venezuela's Chavez getting the temporary UN security counsel seat? Is it a good or bad idea? What do you think of Chavez's idea? Do you think he may have a scheme behind what he wants? Is he doing it for genuinely, legitmate reasons? or Is he doing this to further his personal agenda to be against the USA? What do you think?

(Sorry, I misspelled Venezuela on the topic line, I acknowledge the mistake, please carry on)

The con is that there are no pros.

One obvious pro would be that the vast impoverished population in Latin America would finally have some voice in global affairs. Another would be that Chavez would probabaly pick somebody who would actually create a space for more radical debate at the international level. And if Ms. Rice and her staff make a large effort to keep Venezuela out of the security council, and fail, it would be a sign of the Bush regime's loosening grip on global power.

Con: Chavez himself is a bit of a clown, and this will only make him sillier.
Con: The folks in the USA who fear fabricated enemies like the Axis of Evil and the impending terrorist invasion will probably panic, and Bush will have to implement some more draconian foreign policies to placate them.

It is amusing that the current USA government fears elected leftist governments from Latin America so much that they are actively campaigning to keep Venezuela out.

One obvious pro would be that the vast impoverished population in Latin America would finally have some voice in global affairs. Another would be that Chavez would probabaly pick somebody who would actually create a space for more radical debate at the international level. And if Ms. Rice and her staff make a large effort to keep Venezuela out of the security council, and fail, it would be a sign of the Bush regime's loosening grip on global power.

Con: Chavez himself is a bit of a clown, and this will only make him sillier.
Con: The folks in the USA who fear fabricated enemies like the Axis of Evil and the impending terrorist invasion will probably panic, and Bush will have to implement some more draconian foreign policies to placate them.

It is amusing that the current USA government fears elected leftist governments from Latin America so much that they are actively campaigning to keep Venezuela out.

Guatemala is the current front runner ahead of Venezuela. They can be Latin America's voice. They will be much better than some Simon Bolivar wannabe who half of South America can't even stand and who quite possibly may be handing out Venezuelan passports to Arabic terrorists.

Guatemala is the current front runner ahead of Venezuela.

Are you sure?
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1793
The race is close but Caracas is likely to win. If so, it will represent a crushing defeat for State Department diplomacy.
Washington probably has doomed Guatemala’s prospects to obtain a seat by smothering the effort with its preeminence in the campaign, unless, that is, Chávez commits a major gaff.


They can be Latin America's voice.
Historically, Guatemala is the hemisphere’s worst human rights violator, with thousands of atrocities never solved and many terms of the 1996 UN-brokered peace agreement never implemented.

They will be much better than some Simon Bolivar wannabe who half of South America can't even stand and who quite possibly may be handing out Venezuelan passports to Arabic terrorists.

Please provide links showing that half of Latin America do not like Hugo Chavez, and as for your terrorist ties, I've heard that song before from Bush's intelligence people. It wasn't right then, and it has yet to be proven this time.

Hm, someone has to tell these egocentric Americans who think they are the only nation in this world that there are other countries and other opinions.

And he should tell them that the UN is not their toy, it belongs to all nations in this world. Oh, and not every president who dislikes the USA is a dictator. I remember that the US had installed Pinochet in Chile - and removed a working democracy.

Chavez is a left wing populist, but he was elected in a democratic way. Accept that.

The UN admittingly needs a major reform, they know it, we know it, and having Chavez be part of the security counsel is of great concern.
The security counsel?

"Now, now... it's OK, Bush... just because we of the UN disliked your war on Iraq doesn't mean you're a bad country, you're just... well... different"
*Bush wipes away his tears*
"You really mean that?"
"Yes... now look, there are things which can help with your condition..."
"Really? That would be so useful! I could be truly respected again!"

etc.




More to the point : It's only of great concern if you are stupid enough to hang on every word that Bush says and will believe that Venezuela is even remotely a cause of concern to the US and will blow up the UN's offices or whatever.

Better Venezuela than Sudan.

Are you sure?
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1793




http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/cuba/15773087.htm



http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6151700,00.html

oh it is damn close, but Venezuela was supposedly a sure thing only a few days ago.



Please provide links showing that half of Latin America do not like Hugo Chavez, and as for your terrorist ties, I've heard that song before from Bush's intelligence people. It wasn't right then, and it has yet to be proven this time.


Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Columbia, Brazil, Chile, Panama have become increasingly incensed with Venezuala's antics. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/20/world/americas/20chavez.html?ei=5088&en=205644ed584e31d0&ex=1305777600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)

As for ties to terrorism...

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2006/68968.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30350

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203414,00.html


...Ofcourse I personally can not prove it, but there is enough talk out there and given Chavez behavior and record, I would not put it past him. Neither should you, unless ofcourse you're one of those who think America is the evil one.


Do you honestly think Venezuela would be better than Guatemala? You bash Guatemala for their human rights abuses...what about Venezuela?

Political Persecution (http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200509152101)

List of Missing Persons/Prisoners (detained and freed) (http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200403020624)

Electoral Faud[/quote]

[url=http://www.proveo.org/fraud_report.pdf]Fraud Report (http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200604251640)

Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu)

Amnesty International Reports (http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-ven/index)


Only a fool, a Chavez apologist or a misguided communist would actually want Venezuela to win this vote. All they would do is obstruct America and use the position for their own gain. With all the problems right now with N. Korea, Iran, the War on Terror and Venezuela themselves...The last thing the already conflicted Security Council needs is Venezuela.

Hm, someone has to tell these egocentric Americans who think they are the only nation in this world that there are other countries and other opinions.

And he should tell them that the UN is not their toy, it belongs to all nations in this world. Oh, and not every president who dislikes the USA is a dictator. I remember that the US had installed Pinochet in Chile - and removed a working democracy.

Chavez is a left wing populist, but he was elected in a democratic way. Accept that.

You're a Fool. without the US the UN would not even exist. Before you get blinded by your obsessive need to "stick it" to America, realize that Chavez in fact wants to use the UN as his toy and wants nothing more than to better himself and to obstruct America. The Security Council and UN itself is already poluted with countries only looking out for their self interests, Venezuela would only aggravate this further.

Why on earth would it be "of great concern"?
Indeed... Why would it? I would also like an answer.

You're a Fool. without the US the UN would not even exist. Before you get blinded by your obsessive need to "stick it" to America, realize that Chavez in fact wants to use the UN as his toy and wants nothing more than to better himself and to obstruct America.
And?

The Security Council and UN itself is already poluted with countries only looking out for their self interests, Venezuela would only aggravate this further.
You mean like the veto-power that is the USA, right? Or?

actually, an ellected populist if I am not mistaken...

Yeah, some elected populist. Must be nice to have voters born in the 1800's to go out to the polls.

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200604251640

Why on earth would it be "of great concern"?

I apologize for the delay in answering your question. I was away from my computer.

How could Chavez be trusted in the security counsel if he can't be trusted in his own country of Venezuela? http://vcrisis.com/mar1001.pdf

Now is Chavez a person who is sincere in regards to security, human rights, etc... I think not.
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu

I apologize for the delay in answering your question. I was away from my computer.

How could Chavez be trusted in the security counsel if he can't be trusted in his own country of Venezuela? http://vcrisis.com/mar1001.pdf

Could you summarize the findings of that pdf from 2003 you provided. In your own words, of course. That should be interesting. Then could you perhaps make an assessment of the current situation in Venezuela; Has it worsened or got better in three years..?

Now is Chavez a person who is sincere in regards to security, human rights, etc... I think not.
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezuNo probably not. Have you checked other nations in that wonderful site..? Could you post in this thread when you find a sincere champion of human rights in there? Thanks.

Cool. I feel you, bro. How about this - let's go head to head about the threats to world security not posed by either leader, but actually realized by either leader. You list all the big problem in the world caused by Chavez and I'll list the ones caused by Bush. :) You go first. Understand, it isn't that I think Chavez should be on the Security Council, I'm lamenting the fact that the US, because of the disasterous record of this administration, has lost all credibility when it comes making those decisions. And by that I mean that the rest of the world has lost so much respect for us during Bush's tenure that the no longer seem willing to listen to us or to look to us for leadership.

You've got a wonderful tendency to try turning any thread into an anti-Bush rant. Did you even notice that this thread was about Venezuela?

Better Venezuela than Sudan.

Only barely.

You're a Fool. without the US the UN would not even exist. Before you get blinded by your obsessive need to "stick it" to America, realize that Chavez in fact wants to use the UN as his toy and wants nothing more than to better himself and to obstruct America. The Security Council and UN itself is already poluted with countries only looking out for their self interests, Venezuela would only aggravate this further.

Ah, someone who gets it, finally.

Well...he's not spying on his people and he's not messing up in two wars abroad.
Considering who else is out there he's pretty sympathetic.

No spying at all...lol. You have never lived in VZ. They dont even bother resealing your mail after they tear it open to read everything. Good luck with a international package, half the stuff will be broken or missing.

Anyway, there are worse leaders, but there are a far larger number of better leaders. Thats like saying the world should not only support Bush but make him the leader of a future world goverment, because he is better than Mugabe (and Chavez.)

Could you summarize the findings of that pdf from 2003 you provided. In your own words, of course. That should be interesting. Then could you perhaps make an assessment of the current situation in Venezuela; Has it worsened or got better in three years..?

No probably not. Have you checked other nations in that wonderful site..? Could you post in this thread when you find a sincere champion of human rights in there? Thanks.

More current info regarding Chavez and Human Rights unless you feel that the "Human Rights Watch" isn't legitimate or are wrong on their findings.
How can you trust Chavez to do the right things in the Security Counsel with his past and current records of his choices?

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/venezu12258.htm

Could you summarize the findings of that pdf from 2003 you provided. In your own words, of course. That should be interesting. Then could you perhaps make an assessment of the current situation in Venezuela; Has it worsened or got better in three years..?

No probably not. Have you checked other nations in that wonderful site..? Could you post in this thread when you find a sincere champion of human rights in there? Thanks.

Okay, since I'm assuming you didn't like or believe the credibility of the "Human Rights Watch", how about amnesty.org? Are they credible? Is anyone of body credible for that matter? http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR530012003

To the point of the OP, having a record like Chavez, Venezuela should not be permitted to be in the security counsel. Their main objective is to obstruct the USA for personal interests and gains.

I would also say, that if he does get that seat in the security counsel, that the USA completely withdraw from the UN. In fact, I'll be writing the White House on this very issue to protest that very issue. This must be the UN's last straw. The UN is a failed organization. They are a corrupt organization. I'll be demanding that we send them an eviction notice.

Just for the record, many human rights watchdogs have some not so nice things to say about the United States as well. Lets look at the "P5" China, they have a real great record on human rights? No! Russia? Please! The US now tortures people or was Abu Ghraib just my imagination? Not to mention the new law to be signed today "The Military Commissions Act" that doesn't suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus it simply eliminates it. Say good-bye to "The Bill of Rights"

So, who cares if Venezuela get on the S.C.? It's not like they would have veto power and they don't hate the American people, they hate the American government at present as do most countries at this moment in history.

The US is simply acting like a child. Everything must be their way or the highway. "You're with us or against us" That's the type of maturity level I'd expect from my 8 year old.

What are the pros and cons of Venezuela's Chavez getting the temporary UN security counsel seat? Is it a good or bad idea? What do you think of Chavez's idea? Do you think he may have a scheme behind what he wants? Is he doing it for genuinely, legitmate reasons? or Is he doing this to further his personal agenda to be against the USA? What do you think?

(Sorry, I misspelled Venezuela on the topic line, I acknowledge the mistake, please carry on)

Pros- Amusement factor

The US is simply acting like a child. Everything must be their way or the highway. "You're with us or against us" That's the type of maturity level I'd expect from my 8 year old.

And probably the same sort of political commentary you can expect from your eight-year-old as well.

Okay, since I'm assuming you didn't like or believe the credibility of the "Human Rights Watch", how about amnesty.org? Are they credible? Is anyone of body credible for that matter? http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR530012003

To the point of the OP, having a record like Chavez, Venezuela should not be permitted to be in the security counsel. Their main objective is to obstruct the USA for personal interests and gains.

I would also say, that if he does get that seat in the security counsel, that the USA completely withdraw from the UN. In fact, I'll be writing the White House on this very issue to protest that very issue. This must be the UN's last straw. The UN is a failed organization. They are a corrupt organization. I'll be demanding that we send them an eviction notice.

Oh yeah - personal interests and gains. The USA is the master of using other nations for it's own personal interests and gains.

Well, he hasn't concentration camps set up around the globe and he's not spying on his people and he's not messing up in two wars abroad.
Considering who else is out there he's pretty sympathetic.

actually he does spy on his own people, has a notoriously corrupt police force, and is in general a thug.

dont let his opposition to bush blind you to the fact that this "democratic leader" is president for life, regardless of whether he holds that title or not.

I lived with a venezualan when i was in school. He basically said the only way to ensure freedom for yourself there was to have enough money to bribe whatever government official was nearby.

The greater the diversity in the make up of the Security Council the better its decisions will be.

And probably the same sort of political commentary you can expect from your eight-year-old as well.

Political commentary that makes blanket statements like "You're with us or against us" is very child like. Unless of course you're one of those people who believes that the world is made up of only the United States interests and who can they screw over next!

Interesting.....This topic is about Venezuela but somehow, someway, the USA is brought about very frequently. :headbang:

:headbang: ATTN: This topic in no way, no how is supposed to be comparing Venezuela with the USA. If you want a topic such as that, then make one. In fairness, when it comes to Human Rights, the USA in no way can be compared to Venezuela's Chavez. Make your own topic on this subject please. :headbang:

Question is.....For those who did NOT understand...:headbang: ...is:

What are the Pros and Cons of Venezuela's Chavez of being in the Security Counsel? :D

Pros=In my opinion, are NONE
Cons=Too many, such as, human rights violations, corrupt police force, fixed elections, continued violence within Venezuela, biased and unfair Judiciary, self-interests, etc...etc...

Pros=In my opinion, are NONE
Cons=Too many, such as, human rights violations, corrupt police force, fixed elections, continued violence within Venezuela, biased and unfair Judiciary, self-interests, etc...etc...

Um all the cons you listed aren’t cons of them holding the position, they are problems (real or not) with the country itself.

I thought the whole topic was pros and cons of them on the security consul

Interesting.....This topic is about Venezuela but somehow, someway, the USA is brought about very frequently.

I believe that the question of Venezuela being on the S.C. and the fuss around it has everything to do with the US and what it wants and doesn't want, mainly for the purpose of the topic, Venezuela being on the S.C. So to bring up the US, Venezuela's biggest detractor is quite relevant. After all, if not for the US voicing such strong objections at the U.N. Venezuela would of had the seat yesterday. However because of the US objections and lobbying of other U.N. member states is why it will probably not happen. Thus it is relevant to bring the US into the discussion.

The US government's webpage on Venezuela accuses Venezuela of being "increasingly out of touch with the world", which I can't help but find... ironic. ;)

The page explaining why Cuba is a "State sponsor of terrorism" is, quite frankly, hilarious. It begins by stating that "Cuba actively continue[s] to oppose the U.S.-led Coalition prosecuting the global war on terror and has publicly condemned various U.S. policies and actions." Not agreeing with the US! Having a mind of their own! How dare they? Clearly, they must support terrorism!

A few other choice excerpts:


To date, the Cuban Government has taken no action against al-Qaida or other terrorist groups. [...] Official government statements and the government-controlled press rarely speak out against al-Qaida or other designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations.


Possibly because al-Qaida and terrorist groups neither operate on their soil nor threaten them? Note also the "rarely". I love the use of the word "designated", too.


The Cuban Government continues to permit U.S. fugitives to live legally in Cuba,

... and the US government continues to permit Cuban fugitives to live legally in the US. Is the US a "State sponsor of terrorism" by its own definition?


and is unlikely to satisfy U.S. extradition requests for terrorists harbored in the country.

Perhaps the US could stop harbouring convicted anti-Cuban terrorist Luis Posada Carriles and extradite him to Cuba or Venezuela?

The Government of Cuba maintains close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and North Korea

North Korea, despite having a despicable government, has not been linked to (or even suspected of) any terrorist acts since the 1980s.

There is no information concerning terrorist activities of these or other organizations on Cuban territory. [...] The United States is not aware of specific terrorist enclaves in the country.


Thank you for admitting it. So, erm... why do you still claim Cuba is a State sponsor of terrorism?

The entry on North Korea, ironically, is even shorter. Just two paragraphs, the first of which states:

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987.


And... you've not thought of removing them since then?

Anyway, thank you to whoever supplied that link (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64337.htm). It amused me greatly.

Venezuela, I might add, isn't on the list. Even the US government isn't accusing them of sponsoring terrorism.

I believe that the question of Venezuela being on the S.C. and the fuss around it has everything to do with the US and what it wants and doesn't want, mainly for the purpose of the topic, Venezuela being on the S.C. So to bring up the US, Venezuela's biggest detractor is quite relevant. After all, if not for the US voicing such strong objections at the U.N. Venezuela would of had the seat yesterday. However because of the US objections and lobbying of other U.N. member states is why it will probably not happen. Thus it is relevant to bring the US into the discussion.

Indeed. I find it highly ironic that people here are afraid Venezuela may have a voice of its own and oppose US policies in the Security Council. The UNSC does not exist for the sole purpose of rubber-stamping the decisions of one member State.

Indeed. I find it highly ironic that people here are afraid Venezuela may have a voice of its own and oppose US policies in the Security Council. The UNSC does not exist for the sole purpose of rubber-stamping the decisions of one member State.

Nobody's "afraid" of having Venezuela on the UNSC. And, no, the UNSC doesn't exist for "rubber-stamping" the decisions of any one member. France, Russia and China are permanent members, if you recall. Take your baseless rhetoric elsewhere, please.

Nobody's "afraid" of having Venezuela on the UNSC. And, no, the UNSC doesn't exist for "rubber-stamping" the decisions of any one member. France, Russia and China are permanent members, if you recall. Take your baseless rhetoric elsewhere, please.

Bolded part for emphasis, sense they ARE permanent members unlike Venezuela; we can’t now oppose their membership really.

I am sure if someone was trying to nominate them now for a temporary position we would be bitching about them too if there was anything we could try and do about it.

Bolded part for emphasis, sense they ARE permanent members unlike Venezuela; we can’t now oppose their membership really.

I am sure if someone was trying to nominate them now for a temporary position we would be bitching about them too if there was anything we could try and do about it.

Hell, I often say that France and the UK don't deserve seats on the UNSC. They're second-rate powers (and now all the Brits and French can flame me). I'd much rather see a country like India, Japan or Australia have a permanent seat.

Um all the cons you listed aren’t cons of them holding the position, they are problems (real or not) with the country itself.

I thought the whole topic was pros and cons of them on the security consul

I beg to differ, the problems within Venezuela, should have a direct impact on the reasons why they shouldn't be given the seat. They have no ability to secure their own country. How would it be possible for them to voice the right in a legitimate fashion to others?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/cuba/15773087.htm



http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6151700,00.html

oh it is damn close, but Venezuela was supposedly a sure thing only a few days ago.

Well, that's the way political campaigns and democracy work. I would like to point out that even if Venezuela loses, it still has done an impressive job drumming up support, especially when you consider that they can bring far less power to bear than their rivals in this race, the USA.

Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, Columbia, Brazil, Chile, Panama have become increasingly incensed with Venezuala's antics. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/20/world/americas/20chavez.html?ei=5088&en=205644ed584e31d0&ex=1305777600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)

The article focuses mainly on Peru, and Chavez's relationship with Alejandro Toledo. It also discusses his relationship with several other prominent politicos. I was looking more for a poll showing the opinion of the majority of Latin American people. While I am aware of Bush's opinion of Chavez, I would not say that his opinion is representative of all US citizens.
According to Consulta Mitofsky, he is tied for third most popular leader in Latin America
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brlatinamericara/242.php?nid=&id=&pnt=242&lb=brla

As for ties to terrorism...

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2006/68968.htm
Chavez is definitely uncooperative with the US in its anti-terrorism efforts. So am I, in certain respects. The US has a long history of meddling in Latin American affairs, and many of the proposals that the US has put forth to Latin America would infringe on Latin American sovereignty. Many Latin Americans are tired of the influence of the USA over their affairs.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30350

This one made me giggle.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203414,00.html

This one is a report on your first link.


...Ofcourse I personally can not prove it, but there is enough talk out there and given Chavez behavior and record, I would not put it past him. Neither should you, unless ofcourse you're one of those who think America is the evil one.

Many states sponsor terrorists. It is a disgusting and evil act each time.

Do you honestly think Venezuela would be better than Guatemala? You bash Guatemala for their human rights abuses...what about Venezuela?

Political Persecution (http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200509152101)

This is the electoral database. I have no idea why the Chavez government made it public domain, but it's not like there's a secret blacklist of people.

List of Missing Persons/Prisoners (detained and freed) (http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200403020624)
Yes, your repeated use of this blog is wearing thin. It seems only substantiated by itself, or other blogs.

Electoral Faud

Fraud Report (http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200604251640)[/QUOTE]

Allegations of electoral fraud! Well, you can use the database provided in the other link to verify the claim if you want. Or provide a link to someone who has...

Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu)

Amnesty International Reports (http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-ven/index)

[url]http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/guatemala/index.do

http://hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=guatem

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/americas/guatemala.html

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27900.htm

The Government's human rights record was poor; although there were improvements in some areas, serious abuses persisted. There were credible reports of killings by individuals linked to security forces and of politically motivated killings by nonstate actors. There were reports of violent deaths, killings, and "social cleansing" in which persons deemed socially undesirable (for example, gang members, local delinquents, street children, prostitutes, and homosexuals) were killed by unknown assailants. There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances. The Constitutional Court confirmed the 2001 conviction of three former military members and one priest for the 1998 killing of Bishop Gerardi. An appeals court overturned the 2002 conviction of Juan Valencia Osorio for the 1990 murder of anthropologist Myrna Mack Chang. In October, the President completed the disbanding of the Presidential Military Staff (EMP).

Only a fool, a Chavez apologist or a misguided communist would actually want Venezuela to win this vote. All they would do is obstruct America and use the position for their own gain. With all the problems right now with N. Korea, Iran, the War on Terror and Venezuela themselves...The last thing the already conflicted Security Council needs is Venezuela.

So, am I a fool, a Chavez apologist, or a misguided communist?:)

Venezuela would undoubtedly obstruct many of the US proposals in the Security council. This is obvious when you consider that the US and Venezuela have opposing goals in many fields. I do not see why this is a problem. Unless you feel that the veto power is not enough to ensure US hegemony in the UN...

In my mind, Venezuela would create a space for debate that could be instrumental in solving many problems, while the current situation of unilateral decisions and lack of egalitarian debate does not seem to be moving closer to a solution.

Hell, I often say that France and the UK don't deserve seats on the UNSC. They're second-rate powers (and now all the Brits and French can flame me). I'd much rather see a country like India or Australia have a permanent seat.

While we often disagree I can see a legitimate argument for those choices definitely.

While we often disagree I can see a legitimate argument for those choices defiantly.

Defiantly? You defy my choices? :p

Oh, and I added Japan to my post while you were typing yours. ;)

Defiantly? You defy my choices? :p

Oh, and I added Japan to my post while you were typing yours. ;)

Sorry word auto corrected on me

Hell, I often say that France and the UK don't deserve seats on the UNSC. They're second-rate powers (and now all the Brits and French can flame me). I'd much rather see a country like India, Japan or Australia have a permanent seat.

France has a great deal more respect for international law than the US (although yes, France has a history of violating it too for its own advantage - more quietly and more effectively in most cases than the US, I might add).

Even more importantly, France has the respect and support of the international community - unlike the United States, which truly is "increasingly out of touch with the world".

I would fully support India and Japan gaining permanent seats in the UNSC. Maybe not Australia. They're a regional power in the Pacific, but that's about it... and we already have one US puppet nation on the Council.

Okay, since I'm assuming you didn't like or believe the credibility of the "Human Rights Watch", how about amnesty.org? Are they credible? Is anyone of body credible for that matter? http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR530012003Don't assume. I quite like Human Rights Watch. I simply asked, or implied, that there wouldn't be one single member in the SC if only those without human rights violations could be members. Just look what HRW says about the big 5 with vetos in the SC... that's what I meant.

Sorry word auto corrected on me

Just busting your balls, mate. ;)

Venezuela on the SC would have only one goal – to antagonize the US.
They do not care who they associate or cooperate with to do so. They will behave like a petulant child and attempt to obstruct the US on issues such as North Korea (which I think almost everyone can agree on) for no other reasons than out of spite.

When a country blatantly obstructs good policies simply because the US supports them, they have no business being on the Security Council.



On a slightly off topic note – a reshaping of the permanent members was mentioned…
I think the UK and France should not each have a permanent seat considering that the EU is attempting to create a ‘unified foreign policy’. Their seats should be combined into an EU seat and the 5th permanent seat given to India.

Venezuela on the SC would have only one goal – to antagonize the US.
They do not care who they associate or cooperate with to do so. They will behave like a petulant child and attempt to obstruct the US on issues such as North Korea (which I think almost everyone can agree on) for no other reasons than out of spite.

When a country blatantly obstructs good policies simply because the US supports them, they have no business being on the Security Council.


You've given one of the few potentially valid arguments in this thread. Although I'm not convinced even Chavez would deliberately antagonise the rest of the SC and weaken the position of his country... not when he's been trying to portray himself as a leader of the Third World.

I think the UK and France should not each have a permanent seat considering that the EU is attempting to create a ‘unified foreign policy’. Their seats should be combined into an EU seat and the 5th permanent seat given to India.

Rubbish. The foreign policies of the UK and France are often radically different. While a part of me wouldn't be averse to kicking the UK out and having France as sole representative of the EU, it would make very little sense.

I'm fully in favour of including Brazil, India, Japan, Germany and one or two African nations.

Not to mention Chavez had post poned his scheduled trip to NK.
Sounds suspicious to me.

Any overall reform should include more power to democratically elected developing nations, and an end to the veto power.

Not to mention Chavez had post poned his scheduled trip to NK.
Sounds suspicious to me.

Elaborate? This should be good...

Makes me wonder, Chavez recently postponed a schedule visit to NK. Since the UN has passed resolution 1695 forbidding all UN states from trading with NK for WMDs.

Scroll down to about the 5th paragraph. It talks about his planned trip to NK.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1793

This is from earlier...

This is from earlier...

Chavez plans trip to North Korea. UN says he shouldn't. Chavez says he won't.

What the hell's your point?

Chávez was, however, judicious enough to postpone a rumored side-trip to North Korea, perhaps due to some unfriendly international gossip that the visit would result in an oil-for-missile trade agreement. Since the UN passed Resolution 1695 this month, which bans all UN member states from either trading material or technology for WMDs or from receiving missiles or technology from Pyongyang. Chávez’s decision not to go to North Korea was prudent, whatever the motive.

Chavez plans trip to North Korea. UN says he shouldn't. Chavez says he won't.

What the hell's your point?

Ariddia wanted me to elaborate, so I did. Is that a problem?

The point could be made as to what his true intentions are, considering the World knew that NK have been seeking nukes.
It's pure speculation on my part, but it makes me wonder if his intention was to instigate NK further against the USA than what NK is currently attempting to do. I do not see any positive actions occurring from that trip.

Ariddia wanted me to elaborate, so I did. Is that a problem?
Still didn't make any kind of point, bar an unproven assertion.

The point could be made as to what his true intentions are, considering the World knew that NK have been seeking nukes.
Then the Assembly could have asked him doring the election had they wanted to, and had proof that he had an alterior motive.

It's pure speculation on my part, but it makes me wonder if his intention was to instigate NK further against the USA than what NK is currently attempting to do. I do not see any positive actions occurring from that trip.
For one, you're right. It is just completely baseless specualtion. Without proof, that is just an assertion, and a poor argument against North Korea joinging the Council.

To the point of the OP, having a record like Chavez, Venezuela should not be permitted to be in the security counsel. Their main objective is to obstruct the USA for personal interests and gains.

So? That's not exactly unheard of in international politics, nor a strategy the US refrains from themselves.


I would also say, that if he does get that seat in the security counsel, that the USA completely withdraw from the UN. In fact, I'll be writing the White House on this very issue to protest that very issue. This must be the UN's last straw. The UN is a failed organization. They are a corrupt organization. I'll be demanding that we send them an eviction notice.
Why? Because it would be business as usual? It's not a requirement that you have to be a democratic nation to be on the UNSC - hell, you don't even have to be nice.

Interesting.....This topic is about Venezuela but somehow, someway, the USA is brought about very frequently.
No wonder, since it's the US that's the voice of opposition.


What are the Pros and Cons of Venezuela's Chavez of being in the Security Counsel? :D
I don't see that it should be especially beneficial nor problematic.

Pros=In my opinion, are NONE
Cons=Too many, such as, human rights violations, corrupt police force, fixed elections, continued violence within Venezuela, biased and unfair Judiciary, self-interests, etc...etc...

Which is why we don't let China on the UNSC. O WAI.

Ariddia wanted me to elaborate, so I did. Is that a problem?

The point could be made as to what his true intentions are, considering the World knew that NK have been seeking nukes.
It's pure speculation on my part, but it makes me wonder if his intention was to instigate NK further against the USA than what NK is currently attempting to do. I do not see any positive actions occurring from that trip.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, eh?

Ariddia wanted me to elaborate, so I did. Is that a problem?

The point could be made as to what his true intentions are, considering the World knew that NK have been seeking nukes.
It's pure speculation on my part, but it makes me wonder if his intention was to instigate NK further against the USA than what NK is currently attempting to do. I do not see any positive actions occurring from that trip.Don't talk NK dear, This thread is about Venezuela, remember? I asked you a question... a couple, in fact... answers?

They're not a member of the non-aligned states?
Actually they're a high players.
They are also an important member of OPEC.


Er... neither was Germany...
Flawless Post.