EDITORIAL - The Panama compromise
After more than 40 rounds of deadlocked voting, Venezuela and Guatemala
last Thursday sensibly agreed to end their contest for a seat on the United
Nations
(U.N.) Security Council and endorse Panama as their compromise replacement.
It was not necessarily the agreed choice, but the pull-back should have
happened a long time ago, to allow the U.N. and the Security Council to get on
with some serious work, in the absence of what essentially was a conflict
between Venezuela and the United States (U.S.).
For, whatever else may have been claimed, Guatemala was America's proxy in
the race. Of course, neither Jamaica
nor its partners in the Caribbean Community (Caricom) could have supported
Guatemala for the Security Council seat, for more than the fact of its past
record on human
rights
and the absence of a full acceptance of those wrongs, particularly during Central
America's
proxy wars of the 1980s. There are other, fundamental issues, such as
Guatemala's claim to all the territory of its English-speaking neighbour and
Caricom member, Belize. Guatemala's support of the challenge at the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) of the European Union's banana regime undermined preferences
to the Caribbean.
Venezuela, on the other hand, has been a long and committed partner to the
Caricom region and the practical and tangible economic support has been
strengthened in recent years by the initiatives of President Hugo Chávez.
Yet, our commitment to Venezuela on this issue notwithstanding, the Caricom
region has quietly been urging Caracas on the need to engage Guatemala City in a
compromise to end the deadlock. Its candidacy had become untenable.
There is a salutary lesson in this for President Chávez. Many countries would
have supported Venezuela's candidacy for the Security Council seat as a sort of
counterweight to American dominance and the Anglo-American agenda on the body.
But most would expect that execution of foreign policy to be thoughtful and
measured, rather than driven by emotion, no matter how big and right the ideal.
And even in disagreement, there is usually the need to maintain relationships.
In our case, one such long-standing and, mostly, mutually-beneficially
relationship is with the U.S. Even when there is a wide global view that chunks
of recent U.S. foreign policy have been fashioned in ideological cordite, our
preferred approach would be to coax Washington to new thinking rather than
engaging in personal insults in the hope for change. So the characterisation of
President Bush as the devil just isn't on.
In the end, from a geo-political perspective, all sides lost in this contest.
It is significant that no one, or very few, saw Guatemala as a candidate in its
own right. That suggests that there are things to fix in Guatemala's body
politic and national psyche, including reclaiming its independence.
But there is a lesson to Washington that even in an environment of doubt
about the agenda and tactics of President Chávez, and with all the power and
authority at its disposal, it could neither drag, nudge nor coax a sufficient
number of countries into support of its designated/preferred candidate.
But President Chávez and his advisers should reflect on how they probably
squandered a fine opportunity for a place on the Security Council.
Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM
SPONSORED LINKS
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ |