This time of the year, everything starts to warm up in the international level. The United Nations holds its annual meeting at the General Assembly in its headquarters in New York. Humanity hears the speeches of all the presidents of the member states while diplomacy is in its highest level. Also, every year the Security Council, the legally binding and highest organism within the United Nations, holds the election of the one of the two non-permanent members of the Security Council. The Security Council is formed by fifteen members. There are five permanent members and ten non-permanent members, which have a two-year period as members of the council. The five permanent members are: the United States of America, The French Republic, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The Federation of Russia and the People’s Republic of China. These five countries have the right to veto, which is the right to revoke any resolutions that they believe non-favorable to their interests. The ten non-permanent members of the Security Council represent the various regions of the world. Hence, the division stands as follow: three for Europe, three for Africa/Middle East, two for Latin America and the Caribbean and one
for Asia.As a norm, the Security Council non-permanent members for these regions are elected under caucus of the member states belonging to that specific realm. Nevertheless, when the regions cannot get into an agreement, the decision is made by vote in the General Assembly, where veto is not present and each country, regardless of power or influence, represents an equal vote.
This year, Argentina concludes its non-permanent membership on behalf of Latin America and the Caribbean, and this has aroused a controversial issue for choosing its successor. On one hand, we have the Middle America country of Guatemala. It is a small country located south of Mexico, with 75% of its people living below the poverty line. It holds the largest city in
Middle America and it’s heir to a history of human rights violations by the military on the country’s civil war ending on 1996 by a brokerage of the United Nations. On the other hand, we have South America’s biggest oil reserve holder, Venezuela.
Recently, it has become the world’s most fierce opponent to US foreign policy, due to his current leader, Hugo Chavez.
Chavez has been a critic of President Bush’s administration since it begun. He just called him “the devil” and a hypocrite in front of the United Nations General Assembly almost two weeks ago. He has shown his support to Iran’s nuclear power development projects and has created an axis of repudiation towards the United States in Latin America and other parts of the world. His sphere of influence was magnified by his world tour, taking him to places in the Middle East and Asia.
As it was to be expected, the United States’ State Department has launched a fierce diplomatic campaign for states to back-up Guatemala.Venezuela as a state, ignoring Chavez, has been a great nation that has always abided to the rules of the United Nations, unlike Guatemala. Guatemala has the hemisphere’s record of human rights violations with a total of 300,000 people killed on the civil war by the military. After the peace negotiations took effect, they still have not complied with every aspect of the statutes of the peace agreement. Guatemala has argued that it is a founding member of the organization and has never been in the Security Council. Nevertheless, with such a
record, organizations like Amnesty International and the United Nations itself would not let its primary focus, peace and equality, to be violated and on such a big scale. Neglecting these main concerns, Guatemala has received total support from Middle America and US-allies in South America, Colombia and Peru. Also, the European Bloc and some East Asian countries have supported its candidacy. All of this thanks to the support of the effective allegiance that the United States has throughout the world.
Venezuela would seem like a better choice
than Guatemala, if it was not for its president, Hugo Chavez. Selecting Venezuela to the Security Council will be a suicide to the peace and diplomatic decorum. President Chavez will make a circus out of the whole diplomatic experience. He has done it in the past, by not respecting the President of the United States, who he might not be in agreement with as many of us, but that is the President of the host nation of the United Nations organization. Selecting Venezuela for such a high ranking post will not only unbalance the Security
Council, but will cause shame to the name of the country. Venezuela’s arguments for this post are that it respects the right of self-determination and has been a nation with a nice record over the years of its membership. Nevertheless, ALL of these factors are weakened because of the presence of this clown who pretends to be a President. He is far from being the president of such an important nation, but a quixotic fool who tries to portray himself as the great Bolivar, when he is an ignorant novice in what Bolivar was an expert: strategy. It needs to be wondered how patriots such as Marshall Sucre or Bolivar himself would feel to be quoted almost on a daily basis by an irascible ignorant whose main concern is misleading with his truculent ideas those countries in need of his “petrodollars”.
The time of elections is approaching. In October, we will know who will take Argentina’s post next year. Nevertheless,we are not sure if Guatemala with its human rights violation record but with a stable, democratic, market-economy oriented government or Venezuela with its clean profile but with a maniac fool as its leader should occupy the post for representing this development-struggling realm. What we do know, is that we need to choose what is best for our realm and our interests as a continent and not supporting the foolish personal struggle of an ignorant.
I would argue that the Latin American countries should vote for other countries for the post. Creating more divisions in an already fragmented region is what we do not need. Latin America should choose a neutral country that does not represent their ideologies as a priority, but that represents the true ideals of the region. Hence, I dare to say that none of the proposed countries should be elected. Latin America does not need to be divided in order for develop, it needs to be united. The governments should not think of their allegiances when voting, but in the future of the decisions they are going to take and how will this affect the people they are representing, in the long run. If the General Assembly of the United Nations votes for any of these two countries, they will not be taking a conscious decision. They will do what they always do: favor the interests of certain political groups. This will once again prove as every year that the United Nations needs to be reorganized to meet the challenges of the future. In the case of choosing either two, choose Guatemala. it might have violated the rights of human beings, but at least is not leaded by a pretentious fool that will just create underdevelopment to the already questionable Security Council decisions.