Guatemala says it won't quit U.N. fight

[arcos]

Guatemala says it won't quit U.N. fight

GUATEMALA CITY - Guatemala's foreign minister said Monday his country is not giving up its fight for a seat on the U.N. Security Council and will court non-Latin American members to sway the vote in its favor over rival Venezuela.

<snip>

Venezuela has also refused to withdraw, saying that to do so would be to cede victory to the United States, which has campaigned against it and for Guatemala.

Latin American and Caribbean countries are also too divided to pick one of the many compromise candidates that have been suggested, including Costa Rica, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Mexico, Brazil and Chile.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/breaking_news/15832152.htm

[davidinalameda]

1. Brazillion choices there

[Judi Lynn]

2. Whatever country is chosen will have a leader who bows and scrapes

in _Bush's general direction, or there will be ANOTHER knock-down-drag-out.



Guatemala has been maleable for years, thanks to some expert U.S.-right-wing pResidential conditioning:

"Few private companies have ever been as closely interwoven with the United States government as United Fruit was during the mid-1950s," writes Kinzer. For decades, Dulles had been one of its principal legal counselors.
(At one time Dulles negotiated an agreement with Guatemala that gave United Fruit a 99-year lease on a vast tract of land, tax free.) Dulles' brother -- Allen, the CIA Director -- had also done legal work for the company and owned a big block of its stock. So did other top officials at State; one had previously been president of United Fruit. The head of our National Security Council was United Fruit's former chairman of the board, and the president of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development was a former board member.
(snip)

Arbenz was even bolder. He persuaded the National Assembly to pass the Agrarian Reform Law, which gave the government the power to seize and redistribute uncultivated land on estates larger than 672 acres. United Fruit owned more than 550,000 acres, about one-fifth of the country's arable land, but cultivated less than 15 percent -- while many thousands of Guatemalans were starving for land. So in 1953, Arbenz's government seized 234,000 uncultivated acres of United Fruit's land, for which the government offered in compensation (one can imagine the vengeful hilarity this must have stirred in Arbenz's circle) a paltry $1.185 million -- the value United Fruit had declared each year for tax purposes.
That did it. The Dulles gang back in Washington, all "products of the international business world and utterly ignorant of the realities of Guatemalan life, considered the idea of land redistribution to be inherently Marxist," writes Kinzer. So they began using the same techniques as in Iran, although much more elaborately played out -- first portraying Guatemala as having fallen into the hands of Communists, a falsehood that was supported by the U.S. press, including a series in The New York Times. Dulles even got Francis Cardinal Spellman, the most powerful and most hysterically anti-communist priest in America, to recruit Guatemala's Catholic clergy to "rise as a single man against this enemy of God and country." Then the CIA launched a bogus "invasion" by an "anti-Communist" force, followed by a bogus "revolt."
Arbenz was forced into exile and replaced by Col. Carlos Armas, who promptly canceled reforms and established a police state. He was soon assassinated, but bedlam continued. By overthrowing Arbenz, writes Kinzer, "the United States crushed a democratic experiment that held great promise for Latin America. As in Iran a year earlier, it deposed a regime that embraced fundamental American ideals but that had committed the sin of seeking to retake control of its own natural resources."
The dismantling of Arbenz's administration was named, with the usual buffoonery of our undercover government, "Operation Success."
When Guatemalans saw that democracy was dead, thousands revolted, took to the hills, and, inspired by Fidel Castro's victory in Cuba, formed guerrilla bands. "To combat this threat," writes Kinzer, "the Guatemalan army used such brutal tactics that all normal political life in the country ceased. Death squads roamed with impunity, chasing down and murdering politicians, union organizers, student activists, and peasant leaders. Thousands of people were kidnapped... and never seen again. Many were tortured to death on military bases ... This repression raged for three decades, and during this period soldiers killed more civilians in Guatemala than in the rest of the hemisphere combined." A United Nations commission put the toll at 200,000.
It was a great victory for Dulles' side; today 2 percent of the people in Guatemala still own half the arable land.
To maintain that status quo, the United States from 1960 to 1990 gave Guatemala hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, including training and arming its death squads. Guatemala didn't need an air force; we dispatched our own planes from the Canal Zone to drop napalm on suspected guerrilla camps.
(snip)

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Book_Reviews/Overthrow_review.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



How DARE Jacobo Arbenz look out for his people.
Guess Dwight D. Eisenhower showed him.

[Peace Patriot]

3. This is a pretty interesting fight--the old Latin America, the Corporatists,

successors to the bloody dictators the U.S. always favored, vs. the NEW Latin America, the Leftists (Majorityists) who have been creating real democracies, believe in using resources for everyone's benefit, who are finding their way toward peaceful political change, and a fine balance between business, trade and capitalism, on the one hand, and progressive socialist policy on help for the poor, workers rights and widespread participation in government and politics.

There is no question that the Left is winning. Leftist governments have been elected in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Venezuela and Bolivia. Ecuador will be next. And in the next election cycle, Peru. There is an enormous leftist movement in Mexico, in the southern states centered in Oaxaca, and in Mexico City (with the two movements allied). And Daniel Ortega--leader of the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua in the 80's--is poised to win the presidential election there.

The Corporatists have stymied the revolution in Mexico, but I don't think for long. This leftist democracy movement that is sweeping Latin America is unstoppable. It has the momentum of a huge ocean wave. As socialist Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia, has said, "The time of the people has come." And you only have to LOOK at some of these remarkable leaders to see that the vast population of the poor and brown--oppressed and brutalized for decades, and centuries--are finally coming into their own. It is a wonderful thing to see. There is great optimism--and considerable wisdom--in these new Latin American leaders.

And miserably pour countries like Guatemala, Columbia and Honduras, run by extremely corrupt rich elites, seem like fossils by comparison. There are also some countries that are not quite so destitute and devoid of hope, but have large discrepancies between rich and poor, with no enlightened leadership; countries where US influence is strong--like Costa Rica and Panama and, currently Peru (although it has a strong leftist movement that may sweep all the corruption out, eventually). Haiti is a disaster area. And Paraguay--where the Bush crime family apparently is purchasing 100,000 acres (as a refuge from prosecution?), is not very stable, and has a weak government that is permitting Bush "war on drugs" death squads to move in from Columbia (big US military activity in Paraguay).

There is a clear line in the sand in Latin America between good government and bad government. The U.S., of course, and the Bushites, promote everything that is bad, without exception. And they don't want this New Latin America to have a voice on the UN Security Council.

If the deadlock between Guatemala (Bush's choice) and Venezuela (choice of the New Latin America) continues, I think I would favor Chile as the compromise. It is headed by its first woman president, socialist Michele Batchelet, who has personally experienced torture. She was tortured by Pinochet, as was her family. That would be a good perspective to have on the US Security Council sitting across from John Bolton!

Hugo Chavez may be more colorful, but Batchelet is no slacker. She would play a quieter game, but a tough one.

Brazil and Uruguay are also good candidates, from a Leftist's perspective, especially Brazil, which led the 20-country strong third world revolt at the WTO meeting in Cancun a few years ago. Brazil would be a good organizer of the interests of the worldwide poor.

I would of course like to see Hugo Chavez smack John Bolton up side the head. The fireworks would be spectacular. And it's time for the UN to get out of the doldrums. There is revolution in the air--not the desperate and sometimes violent modes of the past--but something new. That quiet South Korean guy who just became UN head may surprise everybody. South Korea has also undergone a leftist revolution. They want peace. They want the US out. They think the North will fall of its own accord--it's a very rickety regime--and that they can broker a peaceful reunion.

The times they are a-changin.'

[Judi Lynn]

4. Great comments. Thanks for mentioning South Koreans, in many cases,

have been protesting this war, protesting _Bush, and it has been kept normally under wraps here. Our corporate media never bother the public with this news, not wanting the public to worry its pretty little heads, so no one ever seems to know about it, unless he/she already knows he/she is being intentionally short-changed, and does additional reading.

[Bacchus39]

8. Colombia better off than Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador,Brazil

among others in Latin America. more or less equal to Venezuela. you know nothing about Colombia as evidenced by your inability to spell it correctly.

[Peace Patriot]

9. ColUSmbia is a viper's nest of US military activity, which is spreading like a

cancer into Paraguay, and thus threatening the leftist (majorityist) government of Bolivia, with designs also on Peru, to prevent a good government from being elected there next cycle.

All of these countries--ColUSmbia, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil (and others)--have vast populations of extremely poor, brown and often indigenous people, who have been brutally repressed by US-backed dictators and/or immensely exploited and impoverished by US/World Bank/IMF/Corporate policy in South America. The murderous US "war on drugs" is one aspect of this repression and exploitation. The DIFFERENCE between these countries is the difference between hope and despair. Some now have good governments--the result of long hard work by the OAS, the Carter Center, EU election monitoring groups and local civic groups on TRANSPARENT elections--and some have bad governments, highly corrupt governments controlled by the rich elites in collusion with US corporations and the US state department. Bolivia, Brazil, and Venezuela now have good governments, governments making real efforts at justice, fairness and empowerment of the majority, governments that truly reflect the majority of the people. Ecuador will be next (the leftist is way ahead in the polls). And, if the Bushites fail in their nefarious schemes, Peru will follow in the next election cycle (after the Bush-picked president destroys Peru's economy; the leftist Ollanta Humala gave that corrupt corporate shill, Alan Garcia, a real run for his money this time, coming out of nowhere, and will be back.)

These countries that are part of the Latin American revolution, have healthy democracies, with hopeful, progressive policies, and far thinking leaders.

Now tell me about ColUSmbia. Tell us the ways in which it is "more or less equal to Venezuela." And please give some detail about its leaders and their progressive policies on education, adult literacy, medical care, low cost housing, community centers, small business loans and grants, use of the country's resources to help the poor, encouraging political participation by the poor, returning lands to the indigenous, land reform for food self-sufficiency, constitutional democracy and transparent elections.

A swipe at me over spell-checking is not sufficient, Bacchus39. Defend your statements.

[Bacchus39]

12. Colombia just elected their president with about 60%

of the vote. all of latin america has poor brown and black people. and white people too particulary in Argentina and Chile.

however, again since you cannot even spell the countries, I wouldn't expect you to know much about them.

Colombia has a per capita income similar to Venezuela, free health care, has affirmative action for indigenous peoples, has a large agricultural sector much more diverse than Venezuela who is almost exclusively dependent on oil.

Colombia per capita $6700
Venezuela $4500
http://www.success-and-culture.net/articles/percapitaincome.shtml

Colombia literacy rate is 93%

Colombia moved towards a universal health coverage system in 1993. http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Colombia-HEALTH.html

Colombia provides low cost housing assistance. but like everywhere else, low cost housing equates to poor living conditions.

Colombia has food self sufficiency. the agricultural sector is huge. Venezuela does not because of the over reliance on oil.

don't hate on Colombia just because you don't like their president.

have you ever been to Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil?? bet not.

[Flanker]

18. Most of your data is misleading

"Colombia per capita $6700
Venezuela $4500"

You are using oudated data, 2003 was conviniently when the economy was struggling.

Here is up to date numbers.



As you can see income in nominal terms has been increasing (even in real terms if you account for inflation.

Sector E is the poorest of the poor, the one that live in shacks/barrios/favelas. Their income is $3812, and increasing 15% anually in real terms.

Sector D is what might be defined in the US as poverty, they live better off than E but would not be considered middle class in the states. their income is $5000.

Class C it is 10,000

AB 50,000

Suffice to say that after 3 years of a booming economy we might be doing better than Colombia.

Venezuelan literacy is above 95%

Colombia has de jure universal healthcare but no defacto, just signing a law does not make it so, you have to fund it.

"
Colombia has food self sufficiency. the agricultural sector is huge. Venezuela does not because of the over reliance on oil."

This is accurate.

[Bacchus39]

20. thank you. I also did not mention the war in Colombia

that keeps Colombia from advancing further unfortunately. Colombia has lots of problems certainly. however, even so, in economic terms there are less well off countries in latin america.

I am sure Colombia's drug business is a boon to the economy as well.

[Peace Patriot]

19. Columbia is a common spelling error. I didn't spell check it. So what?

Eyes getting a little old. Why do you keep dwelling on it?

But thanks for the info on ColUSmbia. I'm glad to see that US drug money--pro-drugs, anti-drugs, what does it matter?--has raised the "per capita" income, and that ColUSmbia is "moving towards" universal health coverage. But will that coverage help the thousands of peasants who have been poisoned by US-pesticide manufacturers in the murderous US "war on drugs", or those tortured and killed for being leftists, or for supporting indigenous rights?

Bush's Dirty War
Colombia's peasant farmers are being driven off their land.
And we are helping.
by George Monbiot

(--Monbiot describes the Bush Junta's plans for aiding US arms dealers back in 2001, then...)

"Welcome as these incipient crises are, however, the war industry also requires immediate conflict. So the US has been seeking opportunities all over the world. None has so far proved as fruitful as its support for a scheme devised by the government of Colombia.

"The purpose of Plan Colombia, according to President Andres Pastrana, is to help eliminate the production of drugs, generate employment, boost trade and bring peace to a country which has been mauled by civil war for more than 50 years. The Clinton and Bush administrations have generously supplied this worthy scheme with $1.3bn, promising the American people that the money will be spent to assist the war on drugs. Eighty-four per cent of the funding will take the form of military aid.

"To control drugs, the US insists, first it must control the country. To this end, it has supplied 104 combat helicopters and trained three Colombian army battalions. But the army is not exactly the instrument of peace that Mr Pastrana has claimed. As Amnesty International has recorded: "Colombian army personnel, trained by US special forces, have been implicated... in serious human rights violations, including the massacre of civilians."

"The army works alongside Colombia's ultra-right paramilitaries, who are responsible for the assassination of thousands of trades union and peasant leaders and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. As one of Colombia's official human rights ombudsmen has noted: 'The paramilitary phenomenon... is the spearhead of Plan Colombia: to create territorial control and to control the civilian population. This is a terror tactic.' The US, with the help of the Colombian government, is waging yet another dirty war in Latin America.

"Far from eliminating drugs production, this war will only make it worse. Plan Colombia funds the aerial spraying of coca and opium fields with Roundup, the broad-spectrum herbicide patented by Monsanto. Roundup destroys almost everything it touches, wiping out legal crops alongside illegal ones, poisoning rivers, shattering one of the most fragile and biodiverse forest ecosystems on Earth, precipitating both acute and chronic human diseases. It is the Agent Orange of America's new Vietnam. (Agent Orange, interestingly, was also a Monsanto product.) Now the US administration wants to take this ecocide a step further, by spraying the jungle with a genetically engineered fungus which produces deadly toxins.

"When their livelihood has been destroyed, the peasant farmers and indigenous people have no means of survival but to flee further into the jungle and start growing drugs. Since the aerial spraying program began, the area devoted to drugs cultivation in Colombia has tripled.

"But Plan Colombia is not a war against drugs: it is a war against people. Its ultimate purpose, as several international observers have pointed out, is to eliminate both leftwing guerrillas and grassroots democratic movements, in order to facilitate the seizure of the country's most valuable land." (MORE)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0522-03.htm

-----

Amnesty International URGENT ACTION APPEAL (2002)

"Amnesty International is seriously concerned for the safety of the peasant community of 'La Galleta' farm worked by members of the political party Corriente de Renovacion Socialista (CRS), Socialist Renovation Movement in Montebello Municipality, Antioquia Department, following an increasing number of attacks by army-backed paramilitaries. These attacks have resulted in the killing of 11 peasants from the community in recent months.

"On 1 March, an army-backed paramilitary group reportedly raided houses close to 'La Galleta' and abducted five peasants from the community. Two days later, the bodies of the five peasants were found. Marks on their bodies indicated that they had been tortured.

"On 17 March, another peasant from the community was reportedly killed. During July, there were further attacks against the community. On 15 July four peasants were reportedly massacred. The most recent victim, Hector de Jesus Ayala, whose family has been displaced from 'La Galleta' because of death threats against them, was reportedly taken from his home on 16 July and the following day his body was found, showing signs of torture. Previous requests for protection measures for Hector de Jesus Ayala had reportedly been ignored, despite the fact that he was an important witness in legal proceedings involving members the of the armed forces.

http://colhrnet.igc.org/newitems/july02/aiuract.724.htm

------

COLOMBIA: PEASANT ACTIVISTS ASSASSINATED (2004)

"On March 27, relatives found the bodies of Colombian campesinos Javier Alexander Cubillos, Wilder Cubillos and Heriberto Delgado at the morgue in Fusagasuga, Cundinamarca department. The army had apparently taken their bodies there, claiming they were guerrillas killed in combat. The three men were Communist Party activists from the community of San Juan de Sumapaz, in the federal district of Bogota, just north of Fusagasuga. They had been missing since March 18, when they went to the community of La Hoya del Nevado to inspect some of their family's livestock. Several days later, the media published reports that three guerrillas had been killed in combat in the area. The Neighborhood Association of San Juan de Sumapaz and the Union of Agricultural Workers insist that the three men were not guerrillas and did not die in combat, but were murdered by the Colombian army. (Red de Defensores no Institucionalizados, March 30)

"A coalition of community groups and trade unions in the region released a public statement saying that the three men were well-known political and campesino activists in the region who were leading members of both their trade union, the National United Agricultural Union Federation (FENSUAGRO), and the local branch of the Colombian Communist Party."

http://ww4report.com/colombiapeasantsassassinated

----

(coming here soon)

The Disappeared Mayor
by Justin Podur
August 29, 2004

"The weapon of detention is used ruthlessly against them as well.  In January of this year, 8 people from Toribio were arrested and shipped off abysmal conditions in prison to the department's capital, Popayan, without a shred of evidence or due process, on the charge of 'insurgency'.  According to Colombia's anti-terrorist laws, these people, now in jail in Popayan, the capital of Cauca, have no rights to face their accuser; no rights to see the evidence against them; no rights to a jury trial. Instead, their fate will be decided by the state prosecutor's office, in private.  The families of the detained collected 3,000 signatures in the community of people who swore that these eight individuals had nothing to do with the insurgency. Against this, the prosecutor general had the testimony of someone in a ski mask... (MORE)

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=&ItemID=6122

------

Zmag.org: Featured Articles (2006)

Leech: Drummond in Colombia
Sep 30,2006
In early August 2006, while driving on the highway that links the northern Colombian cities of Bucaramanga and Santa Marta, a uniformed officer with a sidearm signaled for us to pull over to the side of the road. The officer was speaking into a walkie-talkie as he approached our vehicle and I noticed the words “private security” emblazoned on his uniform and a name badge hanging from his breast pocket identifying him as an employee of the Drummond Company. (MORE)

Private Eye: BP Colombia
Jul 20,2006
BP has secretly settled the case being brought by more than 50 destitute Colombian farmers rendered homeless by construction of a major oil pipeline through their land (Eye 1142). The claim switched to the UK from Colombia after one of the farmers, Jhon Morales, was killed by gunmen and their lawyer, Marta Hinestroza, was threatened, her name finding its way on to a paramilitary hit list. (MORE)

Podur: Colombia May 15
May 17,2006
Colombia's peasant, indigenous, and union organizations called for a major mobilization on May 15, 2006. With elections on May 28, 2006, the organizations sought to demonstrate their opposition to the Colombian regime's Free Trade Agreement with the United States, its civil war, its relationship with the paramilitaries, and its proposed constitutional changes. (MORE)

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Colombia/colombiatop.cfm

---------


Bacchus39, when you say I "don't like" Colombia's president, you misstate my position, and make it sound like an ordinary political matter. It's not that I "don't like" Uribe, it's that I loathe Uribe for being a tool of Bush Junta death, torture, oppression and exploitation.

And you know damn well that I don't "hate" Colombia, any more than I "hate" the United States in my loathing of the Bush regime.

That is exactly the sort of demagogic statement that Bushites use in the face of any and all criticism. 'You don't like George Bush, you must hate America."

How can you be defending this murderous, corrupt, corporate-controlled, Bush-ass-kissing, ColUSmbian regime?

But, hey, I must be wrong because I can't seem to spell it right.

[Bacchus39]

21. Colombia's problems predate Bush and will outlast him

the war on drugs is a joke and certainly hurts latin american nations more than the US. the US has the addiction.

I did not mention the war which is not only paramilitaries but includes a large rebel group that is not interested in peace. it is quite unfortunate and certainly has inhibited Colombia.

nevertheless, grouping Colombia with Honduras and Guatemala in a negative light regarding poverty and trying to differentiate other countries like Bolivia, Venezuela, or Brazil who have the exact same problems if not worse is misleading at best.


by the way, I support Guatemala for the SC, and using your same logic just because Guatemala and Colombia are on friendly terms with the US, does not mean they are puppets of Bush. Colombia and Guatemala have been and will be friends of the US under a Democratic government. will Venezuela??

[Scurrilous]

5. Chávez: U.N. bid has hurt 'the empire'

President Hugo Chávez said Venezuela's attempts to join the U.N. Security Council have damaged the United States.

<snip>

"President Hugo Chávez said Sunday that Venezuela had achieved its objective by preventing Washington's preferred candidate from winning a seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Venezuela is trailing Guatemala after 35 rounds of secret balloting in which both countries have failed to garner the two-thirds majority required to win the seat.

But despite falling behind Guatemala, Caracas has successfully challenged U.S. interests, Chávez said.

''We have taught the empire a lesson,'' Chávez told thousands of supporters in Valencia, an industrial city about 65 miles west of Caracas. Even if "Venezuela isn't able to enter the Security Council, we've done damage to the empire. That was our objective."

The U.N. General Assembly is slated to resume voting on Wednesday. Guatemala has led Venezuela in 34 of 35 of the votes by the 192-nation General Assembly. Chávez says his country will not withdraw, vowing to continue confronting the U.S."

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15825421.htm

[Bacchus39]

7. what spin!!

Chavez has been campaigning for the seat forever.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_chavez_s_setbacks;_ylt=ArvTd4QApIiKvwARH9h20Y.3IxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Chavez suffers international setbacks By IAN JAMES, Associated Press Writer
Mon Oct 23, 11:09 PM ET



CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez has suffered a string of international setbacks, seeing his campaign for a U.N. Security Council seat fall short and his favored leftist candidates losing elections in Peru and Mexico.


Calling President Bush "the devil" still rallies faithful Chavistas in Venezuela, where Chavez leads in the polls six weeks ahead of elections. But critics say his superheated rhetoric is turning away some potential supporters elsewhere.

"Taking these kinds of broadsides against the U.S. hasn't really worked for him politically abroad," said Daniel Erikson of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think tank. "A lot of governments indicated they would vote for him in the U.N., and then when it came to the secret ballot, they

[Peace Patriot]

10. And you're pushing WHOSE spin, Bacchus39? Ah, AP's spin! Karl Rove's

spin! John Bolton's spin! Bush Junta spin! The spin of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies! The spin of corporate reporters who have unfailingly used the phrase "increasingly authoritarian" ("according to his critics"), or some similar phrase, to describe Hugo Chavez--on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. I tracked it back to a rightwing Catholic Cardinal--kicked out of the Vatican finance office during the fascist banking scandals of the 1980s (he is that bad)--who is the ONLY person I could find who actually said this.

And you don't think Chavez has a right to some spin of his own?

The "lost" elections in Peru and Mexico--and the Bush Junta's bribery and bullying to keep Venezuela off the Security Council--are not 'setbacks" for Hugo Chavez. They are setbacks for democracy, justice, fairness and majority rule. They are setbacks for the poor. They are setbacks for those who want peace, and oppose genocide and torture.

And you are crowing over this? Who ARE you, Bacchus39? And why are you pushing this line of crap from AP?

[Bacchus39]

11. Mexico and Peru elected their own governments

in the case of Peru, Chavez hurt "his" candidate Humala. In fact, Humala told Chavaz to butt out.

Chavez is entitled to his spin. and that is exactly what it is. Chavez has been lobbying for at least a year for the SC position. he did not get it and now he is claiming victory.

[Peace Patriot]

22. You're calling what they had in Mexico an ELECTION?

Millions of Mexicans disagree with you.

As for Peru, yeah, Chavez really "hurt" Humala. First of all, Humala came out of nowhere, with no political experience and no money, and won 30% of the preliminary vote, in a multiple field, knocking the rightwing candidate out of the race. THEN Chavez endorsed him--as did Bolivia's president Morales--who is 100% indigenous, as is Humala--which may have been important in what happened next. Even though Humala had bumped out the RIGHTWING candidate, Humala INCREASED his vote in the general election by 15%, for a final total of 45% of the vote. Where did he get these ADDITIONAL votes from? Not likely from rightwing voters. Clearly, Chavez's and Morales' support HELPED him--brought more leftist votes out--in the general election. So a leftist candidate with almost no chance to start with, came surprisingly close to winning the presidency, and was boosted in that effort by the Chavez and Morales endorsements, which probably inspired more indigenous to vote.

You are accepting our war profiteering corporate news monopolies' "spin" on that election.

And I would like to see a source for Humala telling Chavez to "butt out."

BECAUSE of Humala's strong showing, the Corporatists and Bushites had no rightwing candidate to back, so they went with the most corrupt liberal and corporate shill, Alan Garcia. And once his policies decimate Peru's economy--as neo-liberalism has done to Argentina and other Latin American countries--Humala and the leftists (majorityists) will be back to pick up the pieces.

The true majority in Latin American countries is extremely poor, and have far less resources, time and energy to organize, travel, pay for publicity and all the expenses of electoral politics--and are often up against a wall of corporate news monopolies who prevent leftists from being heard (just as here). A good example of the impacts of poverty on the efforts of the majority to win elections occurred in Mexico, where many precincts were unmonitored by Lopez Obrador supporters, and Calderon's supporters had free reign to stuff ballot boxes and disappear votes.

Do you support this enormous handicap that the poor majority suffer under, Bacchus39? You sound like you do. You just blithely say that "Mexico elected its own government." Who is "Mexico" to you--the minority who are well off, or the majority who are dirt poor? Do you think that was a fair election? Whose word are you taking that it was?

And I really don't understand your objection to Chavez "spinning" the deadlock in the UN over the Latin American Security Council seat either. You seem to greatly underestimate the UNFAIRNESS of the spin against him--which has been lying, deceitful, slanderous and utterly baseless. He is not a dictator. He is not authoritarian. He is not even close to being those things. Yet he is accused of it incessantly by our corporate press. And what is your problem with HIS underestimating the vile, bullying, bribing Bush Junta campaign against Venezuela getting that seat? He feels the need to do a bit of face-saving about it. So what? Is that so bad? And HE said nothing that was untrue. He HAS embarrassed this murderous, lying Junta, and has challenged their power in the UN. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT?

I don't get you, Bacchus39. You defend murderers, torturers and oppressors--and jump all over a real, democratically elected president who hasn't murdered, tortured or oppressed ANYONE, and who, on the contrary, is implementing many desperately needed reforms to help the poor of Venezuela.

[Bacchus39]

23. here is a link to the Humala comments on Chavez

I will get back to you on your other amusing comments on this post, got to go exercise.

http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/06/03/en_pol_art_03A716163.shtml

* The Peruvian people know the "characteristics" of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, and therefore anything he says "is irrelevant," claimed Peruvian nationalist presidential candidate Ollanta Humala, disregarding Chávez' latest insults against Humala's rival Alan García.


"When asked if Chávez would stop interfering in Peru, Humala replied: "Of course he will. The electoral process belongs to the Peruvian people. In this sense, I am asking all countries not to interfere in the process taking place in Peru and this includes Venezuela, obviously."

now Peace Patriot, just as we agree on the proper spelling of Colombia, are we in agreement that the above statement by Humala could be adequately interpreted to mean "butt out Hugo" ???

[Peace Patriot]

24. This is the same El Universal that supported the violent coup against Chavez.

See "El Universal" cited below as the first of the newspapers in the list of the Venezuelan corporate news organizations that have carried on a unrelenting campaign of disinformation about Chavez, his supporters and his government? (See ** below, 2nd paragaph.)


A Case Study of Media Concentration and Power in Venezuela (Part IV: Case Study - Venezuela)
Saturday, Sep 25, 2004
By: Eva Golinger - Venezuelanalysis.com


"The first media coup d’etat ever occurred on April 11, 2002 in Venezuela against a democratically elected and popular president.


'Disinformation, flashing negative imagery, fear and stress induction techniques, quasi-hypnotic suggestion, excessive repetition and falsification and forgery are just but a few of the mindshock techniques deliberately being used, not just in overtly political spots but also in regular programming…Numbing repetition, relentless slandering and demonizing of Chávez supporters. Exaggeration, negative spinning and saturation coverage of any minor fact or event that can remotely make the Chávez government look bad. Loud, rapid-fire, invariably negative interviews. Excessive use of panic-inducing words ('Castro-Communism' is a favorite of Venevisión, along with 'mobs', routinely used to describe Chávez supporters). Deliberate use of loaded terms like 'crimes against humanity' or 'genocide' in the wrong contexts, to describe current events in Venezuela. Exploitation of children in interviews to stir up anti-Chávez sentiment…Venezuelans are being subject to a massive Chávez-aversion therapy program, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, month after month, ad nauseam. People wake up and go to sleep with it…'


"In Venezuela, five major private television networks control at least 90% of the market and smaller private stations control another 5%. This 95% of the broadcast market began to outwardly express its opposition to President Chávez’s administration as early as 1999, soon after Chávez began his first term in office. After President Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned television channels – Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión, Televen and CMT – and nine out of the ten major national newspapers, including **El Universal**, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo PaÌs and El Mundo, took over the role of the traditional political parties, Acción Demcrática (AD) and COPEI, which had lost power after Chávez won the presidential election. The investigations, interviews, reports and commentaries of these mass media have all pursued the same objective for the past four years: to undermine the legitimacy of the government and to severely damage the president’s popular support. (MORE)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1283

--------------

How am I to trust this news source as to what Humala said? And IF Humala said it, how do we know what kind of corporate lies, deceit, defamation and disinformation HE was fighting, and having to defend himself against as best he could?

We saw what our war profiteering corporate news monopolies did here, against John Kerry, Max Cleland and others. They've done far worse against Chavez--openly supporting a coup against the legitimate government, and every sort of disruptive activity from the crippling oil professionals' strike to a pointless and expensive (and US-funded!) recall election (that Chavez easily won), and filling the airwaves with 24/7 vitriol against Chavez, his government and his supporters.

Bacchus39, when I asked for a source on the Humala comment, I should have said a RELIABLE source. "El Universal" was part of the attemted coup!

See Part IV: Case Study - Venezuela - "The Media Coup"

(This section of the report chronicles the hands-on role that the corporate media played in the attempted coup against Chavez.)

"The front page of one of the two largest national daily newspapers, El Universal, headlined, 'A Step in the Right Direction!' on the days after the coup. The media were clearly in complicity with the illegal usurpation of government power."
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1283

-----------------------

I'm sorry but I don't accept this source. Maybe Humala said it, maybe he didn't. Maybe he said something else and they twisted it to their purpose. I have no way of knowing. You might as well be citing Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity as the source. That's how much credibility El Universal has.

[rinsd]

13. "Chavez has a right to some spin of his own"

Of course he does.

If DUers would stop treating his spin as the truth, his word as gospel and the slightest critique of him as tantamount to heresy, then maybe just maybe we could move forward.

[bemildred]

6. I read the old record was 155 votes.

This could go on for a while.

[rinsd]

14. Wow 155 votes. I wonder which vote that was over (nt)

[Minstrel Boy]

27. I think one was Cuba; I forget the other.

Both withdrew for the compromise of Mexico.

[davidinalameda]

15. Guatemala has supplied troops to UN peace keeping missions

Venezuela hasn't

[Bacchus39]

16. that is correct, and Guatemala has never been on the SC

while Venezuela has 4 times.

[Flanker]

17. Yeah like to Haiti?

I am glad we did not.

[gorbal]

25. Update: Chavez is discussin options

One of which is in possibly nominating the Bolivia President-

Caracas - Venezuela would consider withdrawing its candidacy for a non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council, but only if rival, US-backed candidate Guatemala did the same, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro said on Tuesday.

Maduro confirmed to reporters that Caracas has initiated talks with other countries in order to overcome the current deadlock in the search for a Latin American council member to replace Argentina on January 1, 2007.

However, the minister insisted that Venezuela is still a candidate for the seat.

Bolivian President Evo Morales said Tuesday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez would propose Bolivia as a consensus candidate.

'There are a series of initiatives to search for some consensus formula, and we have said at the negotiating table that Venezuela will not give up its candidacy - we could only talk about that option in case Guatemala withdraws its candidacy,' Maduro said.

He added that in order for Venezuela to stand down it is also necessary that the United States 'cease in its gross pressure and blackmail to the governments of the world and that there is a transparent process of talks to look for some kind of option that represents the region.'

(snip)

More here-

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/southamerica/article_1214307.php/Venezuela_could_withdraw_UN_candidacy_if_Guatemala_does_too__1st_Update_

[Minstrel Boy]

26. Bolivia!

"Bolivian President Evo Morales said Tuesday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez would propose Bolivia as a consensus candidate."

I was hoping for this. Guatemala and Bolton won't roll over, of course, but Bolivia is an attractive compromise.