US considering naming a new envoy to Venezuela following Caracas' rejection of first choice

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

US considering naming a new envoy to Venezuela following Caracas' rejection of first choice
By Associated Press

3:50 p.m. EST, January 3, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration says it may nominate a new ambassador to Venezuela after its previous choice was rejected by the government of President Hugo Chavez.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the U.S. believes it is important to have an ambassador in Caracas in order to manage relations, which have been strained by Chavez's condemnations of the U.S. and by U.S. criticisms that democracy is deteriorating in Venezuela.

Crowley said Monday the administration regrets that Chavez refused to accept Larry Palmer as ambassador. It said that if a decision is made to seek Venezuela's agreement on another envoy, that candidate's nomination would have to be submitted to the Senate for confirmation. Crowley said this was now under consideration.




Read more: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-bc-us-venezuela,0,2175771.story

[Judi Lynn]

1. Venezuela, US leaders in 'cordial' encounter

Venezuela, US leaders in 'cordial' encounter
The handshake between Chavez and Clinton came as leaders were at the inauguration of new Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff.
AP
Published: 00:00 January 3, 2011

Caracas: President Hugo Chavez and US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton shook hands and chatted briefly on Saturday in a rare cordial encounter amid a diplomatic dispute that has left Venezuela and the United States without ambassadors in each other's capitals.

The handshake came as leaders were at the inauguration of new Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. It was unclear what Chavez and Clinton discussed.

Chavez later described the interaction as pleasant, though he did not give much detail."We greeted each other," he told reporters at the Brasilia airport. "She had a very spontaneous smile and I greeted her with the same effusiveness."

In the past week, their governments have stood firm as the United States revoked the Venezuelan ambassador's visa in response to Chavez's refusal to accept the chosen US envoy. "They thought we were going to back down. "Anything negative that happens will be the responsibility of the United States," veteran Venezuelan diplomat Roy Chaderton said on Thursday.

More:
http://gulfnews.com/news/world/other-world/venezuela-us-leaders-in-cordial-encounter-1.739825

[molly77]

2. Ambassadors should be approved by the country they are representing

and the country where they are to be sent.Good for Chavez. Once again, he is a true leader and courageous.

[DissedByBush]

3. I am by no means a Chavez fan

However, he has every right to reject diplomats, and should do so when he doesn't like one.

Even if that's because the person told an inconvenient truth about the Chavez regime.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

4. which truth? nt

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

6. This is the same elegant argument you used when defending

the illegal coup in Honduras. About as accurately, too.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jwirr]

8. You working for the oil companies? They also hate Chavez,

[DissedByBush]

18. I hate authoritarians

And Chavez is one. Bush was another. The Castro brothers, most definitely. Kim Jong Il, Putin, etc.

[Judi Lynn]

9. There's that effort to keep repeating the "FARC" lie, hoping that repitition will trick people

into believing it. We are able to repeat the truth just as often:

~snip~
At the end of Alvaro Uribe's last presidential term, Colombia's judiciary was investigating allegations that the president ordered the wiretapping of members of the judiciary and the opposition, as well as investigating the alleged corruption of one of Uribe's own sons. Caught in these cases, which are ongoing and not new, Uribe succeeded in diverting the attention of Colombia towards Venezuelan President Chavez with his accusations, which are also ongoing and nothing new.

Uribe is making believe that the International Criminal Court, the OAS, and the U.N. are going to hang Chavez for supporting terrorists. But Colombia is not a Jewish community, nor is Venezuela a Palestinian community, nor is Latin America the Middle East. The unequivocal international rejection of Operation Phoenix, Colombia's 2008 raid on a FARC camp in Ecuadorean territory, demonstrated the international recognition of the right of each Latin American country to sovereignty over their territory.

The question is, who is responsible for taking care of the Colombian border and fighting the FARC - Chavez? Venezuela is not unique. It is estimated that there are more than 100 FARC camps scattered throughout Brazil, 62 in Ecuador, 40 in Peru, and around 20 in Panama, according to information from different government sources. Even in those countries that say they attack FARC, such as Panama and Peru, the FARC maintains a presence. Are these countries also harboring terrorism?

In all of those cases, Colombia is unable to stop FARC guerrillas crossing into its neighbors' territory, and consequently it does not really have control of its own borders. This situation is Colombia's fault, not that of its neighbors. No bordering country has Colombia's capacity to fight the FARC. That Colombia can't control its borders doesn't make its neighboring countries terrorist collaborators. None of these countries can show that it fought and removed the FARC from their territory, and Chavez can't be the only one forced to take responsibility for what no country has been able to accomplish, even Colombia.

More:
http://colombiareports.com/opinion/153-jose-maria-rodriguez-gonzalez/11227-chavez-is-right-uribe-is-not.html

[fascisthunter]

11. thank you for being here protecting the truth

getting sick of the people purposefully repeating lies.

[Tempest]

31. Not to mention the unsubstantiated allegations that are made

We're seeing evidence of that here as well.

[sabrina 1]

13. Thank you, it's a tough job having to repeat the truth over and over

again, but since the lies are repeated over and over again, it really is necessary. Thanks for your hard work in making the truth available. I know how exhausting it can be. :-)

[Zorro]

16. More typical FUD from you

The key issue is whether the Venezuelan government actively supports FARC.

There are serious and credible allegations that it does.

This is what you continue to ignore as you repeat your truthiness on this topic.

[Tempest]

17. Please provide credible cites that it does

At least Judi has provided cites to back up her posts.

[Zorro]

19. Here you go

http://ustreas.tpaq.treasury.gov/press/releases/hp1132.htm

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Terrorism-Proliferation-Narcotics/Documents/farc_chart_09122008.pdf

Now search on Henry Rangel Silva and see where he is these days.

[Judi Lynn]

20. Do you have any evidence pertaining to Hugo Chavez and the FARC? n/t

[Tempest]

24. Preferably from a non-biased source would be nice

He believes what comes out of the U.S. government when pertaining to Venezuela can be considered credible.

Boggles the mind.

[Zorro]

26. Here you go. Knock yourself out.

http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2010/03/01/auto_farc_eta.pdf

[Tempest]

28. You can't be serious

I don't read whatever language that is, and to assume that I do is arrogant on your part.

Second MAJOR FAIL!

[Zorro]

38. You asked for another source and you got it

Maybe you can get Judi to translate it for you.

[Judi Lynn]

29. This is an English language site. Provide a translation, or other source. n/t

[Tempest]

30. And any translation will have to be scrutinized

Considering how badly U.S. translations are when it comes to Latin America.

[Judi Lynn]

34. This is old trash, anyway, from months ago, and fell by the wayside due to the fact it was FALSE.

The judge, Eloy Velasco, has been a laughing stock for his attempt to fix a case against Hugo Chavez and label him a "terrorist supporter." God, that gets old, doesn't it?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_MKLsgAEmlco/S48D7EeVHzI/AAAAAAAAAlQ/rknNtlOBvX8/s400/EloyVelasco.jpg

Eloy Velasco, the blowhard in the tan suit.
FARC: Spanish judge in Colombian 'war' against Venezuela
Monday, 12 April 2010 06:41 Kirsten Begg

~snip~
Velasco also accused the Venezuelan government of illicit cooperation with the internationally designated terrorist groups.

His indictment includes evidence that a suspected member of the ETA, Arturo Cubillas Fontan, has served numerous high-level roles within the Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chavez, and acted as a link between the ETA, the FARC, and Venezuela.

Venezuela denied the allegations, and labelled the indictment "part of a campaign to discredit Venezuela."

Uribe defended Venezuela, saying that an investigation into a government official's ties to terrorism doesn't mean that the government itself is terrorist-affiliated.

http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/9091-farc-spanish-judge-attempts-to-discredit-venezuela.html

~~~~~
Even slimy little Uribe knew this was a little over the top for this right-wing a-hole.

[Zorro]

37. Point out where DU is declared to be only an English language site

[Bacchus39]

39. Venezuela tolerates FARC rebels in border region, residents say

TOCUCO, VENEZUELA — Members of Colombia's largest rebel group live openly on or near several Indian reservations in western Venezuela with at least the tacit approval of President Hugo Chavez, indigenous leaders here charge.

Although the border area has long absorbed Colombian refugees fleeing decades of war, members of the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia have become visible as never before in the last two or three years, buying supplies, looking for medical assistance and forging relationships with indigenous women, said Venezuelan Congressman Arcadio Montiel, a Wayuu Indian.


Leaders of several Indian communities clustered around this town in a wild rain forest area that forms the border with Colombia told The Times over the weekend that the FARC's presence is harming their culture and youth.


"They have replaced the caciques, or chiefs, as authority figures and so who do the youths now want to emulate? The rebels," said Javier Armato, a Yupa Indian who is a former Zulia state deputy and onetime Chavez supporter.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/21/world/fg-venezuela-farc21

http://estrategiaynegocios.net/imgnotas/chavez+and+farc+commander.jpg

Chavez with FARC commander Ivan Marquez

[DissedByBush]

58. Those dastardly imperialist Indians, how dare they make Chavez look bad n/t

[Judi Lynn]

59. How did it happen you neglected to include the information Chavez was OFFICIALLY speaking with FARC?

DU'ers are used to this, but it should be included along with your misleading implication that Chavez is close to the FARC.

Wikipedia:

Mediation by Hugo ChávezPresident of Venezuela Hugo Chávez was contacted by Colombian liberal senator Piedad Córdoba to bargain a negotiation for the "humanitarian exchange". President Uribe authorized his mediation with the condition that the meetings between him and the FARC occurred in Venezuelan territory. On November 5, 2007, Chávez announced that members of the Secretariat of the FARC (higher command) were in Venezuela.<9>

Meeting with the FARCOn November 8, 2007, Chávez met at the Palacio de Miraflores with alias "Iván Márquez" one of the highest members of the FARC and members of its Secretariat. Márquez is considered one of the most radical political leaders of the FARC. Chávez announced that the FARC wanted the demilitarization of the municipalities of Florida and Pradera in the Department of Valle del Cauca and also asked for a meeting between Chávez and alias "Manuel Marulanda Velez" leader of the FARC in the Region of Yari. The Yari is considered a historic enclave by the FARC, but after the military offensives of Plan Colombia and Plan Patriota these were pushed out from the area. The region of Yari is located within the Department of Vichada, near the border with Venezuela and Brazil. To these Chávez publicly asked Uribe for the creation of the demilitarized zone.<10>

On November 19, 2007, President Chávez, Senator Cordoba and President Sarkozy met in Paris with most of the media expecting videos proving that the kidnapped remained alive. President Uribe meanwhile announced that he had set up a limit for President Chávez as negotiator for the humanitarian exchange until December 31, 2007. This, after Chávez proposed a meeting between "Tiro Fijo" and President Uribe. Chávez did not provide any evidence.<11>

End of mediation by Hugo ChávezOn November 22, 2007, President Uribe decided to end the mediation by President Chávez and senator Cordoba after Chávez decided to communicate directly with the higher command of the Colombian military. Uribe, in a private conversation, had warned Chávez during the 17th Ibero-American Summit not to talk directly with members of the Colombian military without going through the chain of command and the proper diplomatic channels.<12>

Chávez talked directly with the General of the Colombian National Army, Gen. Mario Montoya Uribe and asked him detailed information about the number of hostages in Colombia. He also asked the Colombian military to support the demilitarization of the municipalities of Pradera and Florida in the Department of Valle del Cauca. Chávez supported the creation of the demilitarized area for an eventual reunion of him with Manuel Marulanda Velez.

In a public address Chávez then told Uribe that he would be open at anytime to mediate again between the government and the FARC. The mediation duties in time were returned to the Colombian High Commissioner for Peace Luis Carlos Restrepo who thanked the mediation of President Chávez and senator Cordoba.<13> President Sarkozy asked Uribe to find alternative channel to negotiate.<14> The exchange of words heated up between Uribe and Chávez that led to suspension of Colombia-Venezuela relations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_exchange

People who haven't taken the time to find out about what's behind the disinformation might be misled, and we all know you wouldn't want that to happen.

[Bacchus39]

40. more

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/world/americas/03venez.html

[Bacchus39]

41. more

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/world/americas/03venez.html

[Tempest]

23. I ask for credible sources and that's what you give me?

Press notices from a U.S. agency who are biased and hostile against the Venezuelan government?


MAJOR FAIL!

[Zorro]

25. Are you asserting the US Treasury Department has fabricated phony allegations?

You have anything to contradict the allegations?

Other than willful ignorance?

[Tempest]

27. Unless it can be independently verified

I don't trust anything that comes out of our government.


You have anything to contradict the allegations?

You're asking me to prove a negative. Very bad form.


Other than willful ignorance?

Ah, personal insults. The equivalent of surrender.

[Zorro]

36. I see

Apparently all US government employees are engaged in conspiracies to lie to the public, since you have nothing to contradict the allegations other than you "don't trust anything that comes out of our government".

Willful ignorance indeed.

[Tempest]

47. "All" government employees are not involved in official reports

Only those at the top are.

And we saw how the Bush administration would distort and lie about the raw data they received.


It's ignorant to believe lowly government employees have any input into final reports.

[Tempest]

12. He was rejected because he openly criticized the government

He poisoned the water before he was even in the boat.

I would have rejected him as well.

[sabrina 1]

14. Very smart of Chavez to refuse to be brow-beaten into having a

potential spy ring in his country. And he will still have to worry about that considering that the world now knows the U.S. State Dept. spies, illegally, on U.N. member states. After the Wikileaks revelations, the U.S. really had no choice BUT to withdraw someone not trusted by the host country now that we know that the State Dept. has acted illegally as an espionage organization.

Btw, when will there be hearings to find out why this happened and who is responsible? I know they're busy trying to find a crime to charge the editor and publisher of an International News Org. with, but still, this really is illegal, they don't have to look for a crime to start an investigation. Wikileaks provided the evidence.

[DissedByBush]

21. The spying was nothing out of the ordinary

All embassies spy on their host countries. In fact, spies in target countries are divided into two categories by their diplomatic status.

"Legals" or "official cover" agents are those who have diplomatic immunity with their status as part of the official diplomatic mission. They are immune to prosecution and will at most get sent home if caught spying. Embassy personnel with vague titles such as "cultural attache" are likely part of the country's intelligence service and are there to spy on the host country or supervise other spies already in place. A recent example is how Russia recently expelled two Spanish diplomats for spying.

"Illegals" or "non-official cover" agents are those who are not legally related to the embassy and thus do not have diplomatic immunity. They risk imprisonment or worse if caught, although often they get to come home on a spy swap. That's what happened with the recent Russian spy ring caught here.

It's business as usual, WikiLeaks revealed nothing new overall.

[sabrina 1]

33. I'm talking about the illegal use of the State Dept. to spy on

United Nations member states and on the Secretary General.

I know we are now a country that mocks the law, but I still believe in it, and apparently so does the U.N. Secretary General.

It won't help much that he believes in it though, because the U.S. is an Empire now, we don't bother with silly laws, so what is he going to do about it?

As you more or less said ~

I do remember when DUers did believe in the rule of law, but that was when Bush was president.

[DissedByBush]

44. Since when are embassies not State Dept?

AFAIK, there's no general international law against spying to be violated.

[sabrina 1]

46. The State Dept. was conducting an intelligence operation

against the U.N. Secretary General and other member states, using U.S. intelligence agencies such as the CIA eg to do so. This is against International Law.

US diplomats spied on UN leadership

The leak of the directive is likely to spark questions about the legality of the operation and about whether state department diplomats are expected to spy. The level of technical and personal detail demanded about the UN top team's communication systems could be seen as laying the groundwork for surveillance or hacking operations. It requested "current technical specifications, physical layout and planned upgrades to telecommunications infrastructure and information systems, networks and technologies used by top officials and their support staff", as well as details on private networks used for official communication, "to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys and virtual private network versions used".

The UN has previously asserted that bugging the secretary general is illegal, citing the 1946 UN convention on privileges and immunities which states: "The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action".

The 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which covers the UN, also states that "the official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable".

Is there some reason why you are defending this? I find it outrageous that the U.S. continuously violates International Law while hypocritically acting outraged when others do so. Why don't we just burn all the laws and let everyone act whatever way they want to? Because I don't get what makes Americans think that it's okay for them to break laws but not anyone else. The world doesn't work that way. Either we abide by the laws we are signed on to, or we keep our mouths shut when others do what we do.

[DissedByBush]

49. Still nothing new

I am defending it because it is SOP for pretty much every country.

I just showed you it is SOP by the very categories spies are put in. Still, the US IS EVIL right? We always do baaaaaad. What's with the self-hatred?

As far as trying to bug someone else's embassy, the Soviet Union so thoroughly bugged an embassy we were building in the 80s that we had to destroy it and start over.

All it resulted in was the usual political row.

Why? We spy on them, they spy on us, that's how the business works.

If you don't think a good chunk of the UN delegate staff are spies too, spying on us and each other, you're being naive.

[sabrina 1]

50. Spying on the Sec. Gen. of the U.N. is illegal. I guess it doesn't

matter here in the U.S. though, so not point in discussing it with anyone here.

As for 'everyone doing it', sure they do, and we in the U.S. are the first to scream over how bad they are for doing it. And the first to throw anyone in jail who does it to us. Acting always as though we are the arbiters of moral behavior.

As you so perfectly pointed out, we are no better than any of those we criticize. So, from now on, I hope we won't be hearing from the U.S. about how rotten everyone else is for not abiding by the rule of law. We have no moral authority for doing so.

'Everyone else does it'! Yes, I remember when I was a kid I tried that excuse, but it never worked for me. It shows how low we have sunk morally, that we think that is an excuse for our behavior.

[DissedByBush]

51. He's supposedly so special?

He's a politician representing a political power in this world. He is subject to spying.

"And the first to throw anyone in jail who does it to us."

You haven't been reading. You can only throw the illegals in jail. The legal ones, the ones under cover of the State Department as is claimed in this case, are at most expelled from the country.

"'Everyone else does it'! Yes, I remember when I was a kid I tried that excuse, but it never worked for me."

In this case, everyone else does do it, including those who are complaining about us doing it.

[sabrina 1]

52. Apparently he is special. That is why it is illegal.

If everybody does, tell it to the DOJ. They don't seem to like it when someone does it to us. Are we so special?

[DissedByBush]

53. You apparently think the world is a kumbaya love fest

Sorry to be the one to burst your bubble.

Diplomatic relations is a cutthroat business and is deeply intertwined with spying.

[sabrina 1]

54. The 'everybody does it' fall-back.

To you, believing in upholding the rule of law means thinking that the world is a giant kumbaya love fest?? Breaking the law makes you tough?

The reality is that a nation that does uphold the rule of law without resorting to wild west tactics, will have the respect and moral authority that is necessary to remain strong. We eg, are simply laughed at now when we attempt to criticize other countries for human rights violations. No one pays attention. And when we catch someone spying on us and start screaming about it, no one will take that seriously either.

Abiding by the rule of law is not just done to be nice and decent. It is done because when you have moral authority you have respect. And when you are respected you are trusted and that gives you influence making it far more likely you will get what you want.

I hate to burst YOUR bubble, but breaking the law doesn't get anyone anywhere in this cutthroat world whether you are an individual or a government. Strength is not determined by how many laws someone can break. Nor does a strong government resort to breaking the law because they think everyone else is doing it. Setting the standard, not following the herd, is what makes a country strong.

While being a lawbreaker might work for a while, no lawbreaking government has ever retained power for very long.

[DissedByBush]

55. Everybody does it makes it de facto law

Every country spies.

Every country screams about when it gets spied upon. The fake indignation and tit-for-tat is part of the game.

Every country knows that's how it works.

Some naive people think it's special when the US spies. It's not.

Information is king. The strong countries know what their enemies, and even their allies, are up to.

Yes, allies. We're actually a large target for Israeli spying, and we know it since we've caught several of their spies. Yet we continue good relations. We know China has had a MASSIVE dedicated spying program against us for years. Our relations remain cordial.

It's just the game as has been played for decades. And you think it's something new and shocking.

Welcome to the real world.

[sabrina 1]

56. Everybody doesn't spy on the Sec. Gen. of the U.N.

Please provide something to back up your 'opinion'. Laws are there for a reason. Do you feel the same way about the Bush administration's war crimes? War is a common occurence, war crimes are a common occurance, no big deal. Torture too, everybody does it, Saudi Arabia, the Brits, the Chinese. Is that 'de facto' law now too?

No, I do NOT think it's something new and shocking. We knew the Bush administration was caught doing it. But then, that's why I am not a Republican. They share your attitude that laws were made to be broken.

I will check back for your links to back up the claim that everybody violates the International Law against spying on the U.N. Sec. Gen.

Maybe you just got used to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld wild west attitude towards the rule of law, a lot of people did. But those of us who voted for 'change' intended and were promised, a return to the rule of law, to a civilized society.

Your 'real world' resembles Bush's world. And that's a world that badly needs changing.

[DissedByBush]

57. It goes way back before Bush

Clinton, Carter, Johnson, JFK, Truman, etc.

CIA pilot Francis Gary Powers was shot down over the Soviet Union, violating Soviet airspace while spying, during the Truman administration.

The laws are there, but all parties involved in the law know the exceptions and how they will be handled.

Don't buy into the fake indignation of the Sec Gen.

They all act like that, even when they have their own spies spying upon the country that just got caught

And with all the corruption in the Secretariat, I sure hope countries are spying on them (at least the British and Soviets made it a regular practice too).

It's probably the only real check on their power.

[rabs]

10. Palmer's nomination has expired

(Went over to check Ven. version of the story.)

Ven. news agency Telesur quotes Crowley as saying the nomination expired (quedo sin efecto) with the closure of Demo-dominated Congress last week. Crowley said State would "evaluate" relations with Caracas but did not flat-out confirm that a new nominee would be chosen.


Hil and Hugo spoke for 15 minutes in Brasilia on Saturday. Hil did not reveal what was discussed; Chavez said they spoke about "two or three current issues."

Bottom line; Hil has backed down on Palmer; score one for Hugo.

Spanish

http://www.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/86598-NN/nominacion-de-palmer-como-embajador-de-eeuu-en-caracas-quedo-sin-efecto/

[sabrina 1]

15. Nice photo. I used to think so highly of Hillary.

I thought she cared so much about the poor people of the world, the way Chavez does. I never dreamed she would ever turn into such a war-monger with no regard for the deaths of so many beautiful children from the illegal drone bombings and cluster bombs and white phospherous. I don't know how they sleep at night.

[Lord Magus]

22. When was she not a hawk?

There's a reason that Hillary voted to invade Iraq, and it wasn't just a failed political calculation.

[sabrina 1]

32. If she was a hawk when she was first lady, it wasn't obvious. I guess

she realized that if she wanted to make it in politics, she had to show the big guys she could condone murder and torture as easily as they could. And it looks like voting for the slaughter in Iraq really paid off for her.

[eridani]

35. She voted for the Iraq war, no?

No one who was not foursquare in favor of US imperial bullying would be allowed within 1000 miles of the presidency.

[sabrina 1]

43. Yes, she did and that was when I realized she would never get my

support for president. And she didn't. I supported Obama in the end, because while I now believe he would have voted for the war, at that time, at least he was off the hook on that vote. No one who voted for the war got my support, even those who apologized for it later. We need leaders who get it right from the beginning, not who 'see the light' or the 'poltical light' after the damage is done. So Edwards and Hillary were never on my list of people to support.

[creon]

42. not worth a fight

This is not worth a big argument.

It would be nice for the countries to have envoys of ambassadorial rank. But, not having one would not be a disaster.

[Fool Count]

45. Isn't it exactly the case when diplomatic secrecy may be of benefit to

both sides? Shouldn't a nominating country get from a host country a prior approval for any ambassador candidate through diplomatic channels before
announcing the candidate publicly? Wouldn't it spare them public humiliation when the candidate is rejected and remove the need for a
reciprocal action?

[rabs]

48. Venezuela initially expressed its "beneplácito"

to the nomination of Palmer after Obama nominated him in June. "Beneplácito" in diplomatic-speak = consent.

But when the repug senator Lugar leaked Palmer's ill-advised answers to a written questionnaire from Lugar about Venezuelan internal affairs, that beneplácito was canceled.

The Hugo-Hil meeting in Brasila on Saturday resulted in a public, diplomatic humiliation for Hillary and Obama.