It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Panama wins UN seat

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
The country of Panama has won a seat on the UN security council after Venuzela and Guatemala give up their bids on a seat. Panama was the compromise candidate after more than 40 rounds of voting neither country was able to get the required amount of votes.

Even after Venuzela's president tried to buy some members he was able to block Guatemala.Well it was bound to happen some time but i am glad Hugo did not win the seat.

Here is a better link. www.foxnews.com...
[edit on 7-11-2006 by spinstopshere]

[edit on 7-11-2006 by spinstopshere]
[edited title and removed empty 'news' code -nygdan]

[edit on 7-11-2006 by Nygdan]

[edit on 9-11-2006 by Nygdan]




posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Interesting, I had been following this for a few days, it didn't look like either side was going to back a compromise candidate. Looks like, in the end, Venezuela decided that it was better to have a member from Latin America, and one that was backed by a large number of states, rather than to hold out and throw the whole process.


all five new members of the Security Council had now been chosen — Belgium, Indonesia, Italy, Panama and South Africa.


What exactly is the purpose though of adding these powerless states? What exactly is belgium or panama or south america going to do on the Security Council? I don't see any of these states as being sensible choices really. Perhaps Indonesia, by virtue of being the most populous muslim nation, can at least serve to represent muslims on the council, but its not like its going to be able to take action on the world stage.



posted on Nov, 8 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   
It's a rotating council position. They are important because they bring a voice to other parts of the World who normally dont get a say in security matters. It's much more favourable to have new voices than to have a virtual monopoly of security by the permenant member states.

Italy is the wildcard out of the list if you ask me. It's no longer pro-US Berlusconi who's in control there now. He was put out on his ass in national elections and now faces fraud charges. The government that replaced him will not cowtow to the United States any more. Add that to obviously anti-US Indonesia and Panama who is becoming overrun with Chinese nationals and you have a very split Security Council.



posted on Nov, 9 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
But there should be a monopoly on the security council. Its purpose is to get the power players together and give them a forum in which they can work out their differences, and where they can act collectively.




top topics
 
1

log in

join