Insulza re-elected for another five-year term

[rabs]

and hillary takes another :spank:ing from the entire hemisphere.

Insulza was re-elected by acclamation a few hours ago in Washington since he had no opposition. Hillary jumped on the bandwagon yesterday (at the last moment when the handwriting was on the wall) saying it would be a "pleasure" to back him. :rofl:

What a two-facer she is. Hil was highly pissed when the OAS suspended the exclusion of Cuba from the OAS after 50 years last year at the Summit of the Americas -- with her boss present.

Then she became ever more P.O.'s when the OAS moved rapidly and threw the Honduran golpistas out of the OAS, and the lobolettis are still outcasts, despite Hillary's recent pleas.

Some of you will remember the Washington Post article published in Santiago's El Mercurio that said Hillary wanted Insulza OUT.

She failed.

The only nation that abastained was Bolivia. Don't know why, will try to find out.

[Judi Lynn]

1. This is interesting. He did create a presence in that position. Rec'ing. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

2. Might have to do with the OAS not helping Morales in Sept '08, when the U.S. ambassador

was funding/organizing the attempted white separatist coup against Morales?

I remember wondering why UNASUR--which had been formalized only months before the U.S. attempted coup in Bolivia--was the organization used to help Morales. They acted swiftly and unanimously and helped him stop the rightwing murders and rioting, and backed him up 100% after he threw the U.S. ambassador and the DEA out of Bolivia. Where was the OAS? Where was Insulza?

Just a possibility--a guess--as to why Bolivia abstained on Insulza.

[EFerrari]

3. That's a good guess. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

4. Makes sense! They made the wrong choice there. Absolutely. n/t

[rabs]

5. Found reason Bolivia abstained

It goes back a long time and was because Chile and Bolivia do not have full diplomatic relations because of the long-festering dispute over Bolivia's maritime status (landlocked since the War of the Pacific.)

Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca said Bolivia could not support Insulza, but also could not vote against him because Bolivia has had and will maintain good relations with the OAS. Choquehuanca said the OAS has supported Bolivia's claims to access to the Pacific, and noted that La Paz did not vote for Insulza in 2005 either.

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

En el caso de Bolivia, el país decidió abstenerse al sugerir la ausencia de relaciones diplomáticas entre Chile y Bolivia por efecto de la desatendida demanda marítima. “No podíamos apoyarlo a Insulza, tampoco queremos obstaculizar el desarrollo importante de esta institución. Hemos hecho conocer que no somos parte de la aclamación. Bolivia no tiene relaciones diplomáticas con Chile; nosotros trabajamos con la OEA, hemos tenido buen trabajo, buena coordinación con las autoridades de la OEA, ellos han respaldado la institucionalidad democrática de Bolivia, por eso hemos decidido no obstaculizar”, declaró el canciller, David Choquehuanca, en La Paz, donde además recordó que tampoco votó a favor del chileno el 2005.

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

An interesting aside: Chile only supported Insulza after Pinera insisted that the OAS not meddle in Chile's internal affairs, i.e. the negotiations between La Paz and Santiago under Michelle Bachelet and Evo Morales in recent years. (I think that under Pinera those negotiations will be put on hold.)

Apparently there is bad blood between rightwinger Pinera and Insulza, a member of Chile's Socialist Party.

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

Suspect that the OAS will wither on the vine during Insulza's new term. It is a Cold War anachronism that is no longer relevant. With the formation of the new hemisphere body (sans USA and Canada) next year, the OAS likely will become ever more pointless.