Gaddafi Selects Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann to Represent Libya at UN
Submitted by fyl on Thu, 2011/03/31 - 05:06.
The quick summary is that Libyan honcho Gaddafi has selected former Nicaraguan Foreign Minister and former UN president Miguel d'Escoto to represent Libya at the UN. But, there is a lot more to the story. What is here is pieced together from various press information, most of which seem to leave out various parts of what is happening.
First, Gaddafi's first choice for their new representative to the UN was Dr. Ali Abdussalam Treki but the US government refused to grant him a visa. As he is a former General Assembly president, this appears to be the US government using its visa process to control the representation of another country at a world body that just happens to be located inside the US.
Based on this and the need to get representation in place quickly along with the fact that d'Escoto is in the US and had recently served as UN president, the choice sounds fairly logical. But, the Jerusalem Post reports that the US government has said that d'Escoto must leave the US and re-apply for a new visa.
Assuming this information all fits together, it seems time to cry foul. Whether you support the position of Moammar Gaddafi or not, the process of denying him representation is not how diplomatic games are played.
Articles which offered source information for this post are:
I'm sorry
I just found out that at least the non-government in the form of the U.S. Federal reserve was being really nice to Libya along the way. Guess this makes up for the current stuff.
From Bernanke Provided Billions in Loans to Gaddafi
supporting a criminal
Look like Daniel Ortega's support for the Libyan dictator, is appealing. He is using all his tools to try to save his colleague in Africa.
Something that must be recognized is; that for defend a criminal like Qaddafi, a person must have lot of guts...
Defend vs. Represent
The issue in this thread is one of representation. With what is happening against Libya, it is clear that having representation at the US in important. Let's say Gaddafi is a criminal. So was Al Capone and George W. Bush. Each has been charged with crimes. Does that mean they should be denied representation?
come on
"The issue in this thread is one of representation. '
were discussing this issue between people with different levels of education..but i think the average; WERE enough smart to recognized what the tread is about.
NO ME DES ATOL CON EL DEDO.
What is this thread about
? I think it's about Money. What do you think? BTW. silly question but do you know who is the largest Lumber/Wood/ Merchant in Nicaragua? Not Pellas is it?
Hey you
Quit polluting this thread. I just sent a message to someone about the lumber. LOL
I would hardly call it Polluting
Ièm just being selfish and stealing a moment in time. Thats all. You never know I might get an answer. Here is a fact..april 3rd. Leafs 4. Ottawa 2. These leafs tickets just got better.
I hope to get an answer
Oh please, your Leafs have never recovered from Ballard. You should cheer for a winning team. LOL
Canucks
pollution/hijack either one
Yes, you're suspended but that's because of your team choice. LOL
Yes
you are suspended. You and Gadhafi.
you cannot
suspend Quaddfi. He is not represented.ZZT
That's because his envoys
That's because his envoys are suspended.
No one is denying representation
just want it done as everyone else does and that is not particularly complicated. It is just an issue here, not in the real world. Must be a slow news day in NICA. What body has charged Bush? Other than you of course, or the ones you think should run the world, but just run their mouths.ZZT
Bush article
'Avoiding the Handcuffs': George Bush Cancels Swiss Trip, After Human Rights Groups Seek Arrest on Torture Charges - Feb. 6, 2011.
Not going off topic - just answering your question. On the bright side, I doubt any country would try to extradite him.
But they have no standing
They certainly can write up all they want and in any country will find a few legislators who will back their case. That, my dear, is a looog way from being charged by anybody.....or even close. At the point where they are it is still in the realm of opinion. Like my opinion of...well, I will not say. Or your opinion of...(fill in the blanks). ZZT
charged by whom?
A few legislators? The article said 50 NGOs. But regardless, who would you expect to charge Bush? The US doesn't recognize the world court.
atz..
agree on the george bush is not a criminal..but i think gadifi might be..well everyone has a right to pick who they stand ujp for4
No, Phil
What they are saying is absolutely correct. First, the legitimacy of the appointment must be questioned, as the appointment was made by someone who immediately left the Libyan government. Second, the man is in the US on a tourist visa, and all they are saying is that he would need to leave the US and re-apply for the correct visa, all according to law. Where is the foul? There was no hint that they wouldn't issue the G-1 visa once the legitimacy of the appointment was confirmed. All they said was that if he took the post while there on a tourist visa, they would have to review his visa status (as required by law).
OK
That wasn't clear from anything I read. What about the denial of the visa for the first choice?
What denial?
What denial?
Was no denial to any previous
appointment. The previous guy resigned in the UN after denouncing Libyan government and pleading for help for the rebels. a far cry from being denied anything by anybody...but when you streach for bad USA things, the way fyl has to do at least once a day you can miss some very important facts. I do not think asking the other (NICA) man to have proper credentials is too much to ask. He is an announced foe of the USA...but still had a been granted a tourist visa, so one would think if he did the diplomatic visa application the right way, that would happen too. I don't see any of that as flexing any muscle. But I do wonder why in the hell the US embassy is so big. Maybe they thought it was a good real estate investment....would not be the only gringos about that time to do so.ZZT
This is the problem
Pieces of the story appear in different articles but there is no one article that seems to put it all together. From Bloomberg
OK, so it mentions (almost
OK, so it mentions (almost in passing, as if it was not an issue) that he couldn't get a visa. I still don't understand why you are crying foul. Are you going to tell me that there are no legitimate reasons that he couldn't get a visa? Maybe he just applied for it the previous day. Maybe he is a child molester. Maybe he simply wore out his welcome when he was in the US before (many diplomats have done that in the past). Just because they are immune from prosecution for crimes and other wrong doings doesn't mean there are no records of it. And legitimately, the US can use that to keep them out. For now, there is not one shred of evidence of any foul or other political shenanigans by the US. Give it a rest.
See what Jon said
I only am telling you what the press had to say where there appears to be no complete story. The issue is that right now, the US and its friends are bombing the shit out of a country and they can't seem to quickly get a representative in place at the UN because the UN is in US territory and there are "visa issues" with the US government.
That's the foul. If would be a different picture if the bombing was halted until the "visa issues" were resolved.
Don't read this as me being a fan of Libya. The issue is only that one of those attacking Libya is the same country that is delaying Libya's chance to get UN representation in place.
one of the ..
problems is what u call press..and what everyone else calls it..i dont think most of us consider..it press..but bad mouth the usa propaganda
No , France
and its friends....you get it fyl. Likely not, but we all know why. There is no foul...just procedure. Visa issues are like your commentary...smoke. Having this joker in the UN will make no difference. Who is he going to talk to that does not know he is a jerk and a pawn trying to get another 15 minutes on the world stage. Put you name in..you have as much credibility as he does and likley could do a better job.ZZT
The foul part is the
The foul part is the difference between what the UN security council approved and what is happening on the ground. Now the "friends" in the security council are fighting over this difference.
another issue
It is reported that Moussa Koussa, the foreign minister who defected, informed other member nations, but not the U.N. secretariat, that Libya wanted Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann as its envoy. This is being interpreted as though NO name was submitted, rather interesting since, having been the foreign minister for some time, you might think Koussa knows the procedure. No further explanation is given.
In summary, first, the two top Libyan representatives resigned, then Treki, the next appointee, defected, then Moussa Koussa informed member nations but not the UN secretariat about Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann before Koussa himself defected.
This article from the Wall Street Journal, contains the longer version of the story, including why Mr. d'Escoto is considered a controversial figure.
mining Managua's harbor?
I just read the WSJ article that you referenced. The article says "...Mr. d'Escoto... was foreign minister in 1984 when Nicaragua submitted an appeal ... to block the U.S. from mining Managua's harbor...."
Just curious: What would have been meant by "Managua's harbor"?
Corinto
US assets mined Corinto harbor. See http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/US-mining-nicaragua-harbors.htm... and, well, many other places. Barry Goldwater's letter to Bill Casey is pretty famous with regard to this.
I think the point was
that Managua has not harbor. Pointing out oor fact checking is all. No need to start another off topic diatribe.ZZT
Moussa Koussa
..the man who you say Bloomberg says appointed the man who could not get a visa..(no record of that anyplace but in the Libyan PR machine) has flewed the coup and defected in the UK. Then again, he was only the foreign minister. Hmmm, seems like they need more than a crusty NICA to bail them out over there is the desert. all this noise about his visa status is a pimple on the problem. Just distraction for the weak minded. No one on here, of course. Give it up.ZZT
cry foul..hell..
its about time we started playing the game like it should be played..its called politics..
Nope
While lots of people (including myself) feel the UN should not be in New York, it is. The US not granting visas for a representative to go to the UN is a lot like not letting someone's lawyer meet with their client or appear in court. Yes, it is called politics but the idea that US politics can control what any of hundreds of nations can do is not exactly playing fair. A very different thing from a nation electing to deny a visa for a diplomat being sent as an ambassador within that nation.
"Restricted Visas"
The U.S. has categories of special diplomatic visas as well as an array of restrictions they can attach to any one of them. After all, Gaddafi himself was just in the U.S. not that long ago. Countless others like him have been, too. For U.N. purposes the U.S. can greatly restrict the visa in terms of time and geography. The most restrictive visa limits the person to UN business only, a time-frame of the same, and the person is not permitted outside a relatively tiny strip of land around the UN while not in transit.
The UN is a somewhat strange animal to begin with...
I can sort of sympathize with both perspectives in this case:
1.) A visa should not be denied only because one does not agree with the applicant or his / her politics. This is akin to a a sports coach being able to determine who gets to play on the opposing team.
2.) The US should be able to determine who is able to enter the country and work there.
The entire "Diplomatic Immunity issue" is something I really dislike and I believe has outlived much of the original usefulness. Every time I drive past the US Embassy in Managua, I can't help but wondering why they built a complex of that size in a country with such a small population. Surely it is not to serve the relatively few US ex pats in Nicaragua.
We all know that one should not confuse the US government and their often dirty games with the majority of the US citizens and their generosity and their sense of fair play. None the less, it is often difficult to ignore the actions of the US government. Reacting with a shrug of the shoulders every time the US flexes its muscle is getting old pretty quickly.