MEDIA REACTION - CHILE'S ABSTENTION IN UNSC VOTE

UNCLAS SANTIAGO 002185 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR IIP/G/WHA, INR/R/MR, WHA/BSC, WHA/PDA, INR/IAA E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO PGOV PREL VE CI SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION - CHILE'S ABSTENTION IN UNSC VOTE ¶1. Summary: October 17 dailies highlighted claims that former Christian Democratic (DC) party Congressmen Gutenberg Martinez influenced President Bachelet's decision to abstain in the UNSC vote for a Latin American candidate. Martinez had warned that voting for Venezuela would mark a "before an after" in the relations between the DC and the government. The opposition argued that the President lacked leadership. Three dailies ran editorials on the President's handling of foreign policy, criticizing her the delay in making a decision, lack of initiative to promote a consensus candidate, and failure to discuss her decision with all political parties. End summary. ¶2. Following are excerpts of reactions and editorial commentaries in Chilean dailies: ¶3. DC Congressman Gabriel Acensio: "Gutenberg Martinez won here. It is clearly a decision taken under the pressure of Martinez' statement." ¶4. PS Senator Jaime Gazmuri: "I understand the President's reasons to abstain.... (But) There were attitudes expressed in the Concertacion that should not occur again. I am talking about Gutenberg Martinez' statements regarding to a before and after." ¶5. PS Carlos Ominami: "We must draw our conclusions... especially on the 'before and after,' which was a very violent questioning of the President's prerogative." ¶6. PS Senator Alejandro Navarro: "Even abroad this decision will be read as a sign of weakness." ¶7. PS Marco Enriquez-Ominami: "With this decision, Chile's foreign policy of integrating the continent falls to pieces." ¶8. UDI Pablo Longueira: "This shows lack of leadership.... If he (Gutenberg Martinez) had not said there would be a before and after if the government favored Venezuela, the President would have voted differently." ¶9. PS Senator Jaime Gazmuri: "We have to learn to live in a conflictive neighborhood with governments and people who are different from us, who are internally legitimate, and who want to be our friends. But instead, we systematically attack those people." ¶10. Former Foreign Affairs Minister Hernn Felipe Errazuriz said that although the decision would be viewed as a sign of indecision abroad, in terms of domestic policy the decision was prudent and practical, because it "discourages divisions due to Chavez' intervention." ¶11. RN Senator Sergio Romero: "Bachelet's abstention shows lack of leadership.... All polls showed that except for a small minority...no one wanted to favor Venezuela." ¶12. Communist Party Secretary General Guillermo Teillier said Chile's abstention is a "serious setback" and the result of the "pressure exerted by the U.S. government and its internal allies to stop Latin America from expressing its autonomy and independence in the international organization." The PC also held the DC accountable. ¶13. Saul Ortega, President of Venezuela's legislature: "We respect the government's decision, but the DC acted as faithfully as a trained dog with the U.S. .... Chile will have to assess how its democracy can benefit from a neo fascist party such as the DC...which has its hands tainted with the ousting and blood of Salvador Allende, and today again it sings with imperialism." His assessment of Bachelet was very different. "Bachelet did what she had to do as a ruler. We still consider her a friend." ¶14. On October 16, conservative, afternoon "La Segunda" (circ. 33,000) ran an editorial entitled "A Domestic Policy Decision." Quote: "The negative part of this chapter is the image we have shown of how Chile conducts its international relations. The debate revealed a conflict between different sectors of the Concertacion and the government on diplomacy...and demonstrated that we are, to some extent, making the same mistake we accused Kirchner of committing, which is conducting foreign policy based on short-term internal political considerations." ¶15. On October 17, business and financial "Diario Financiero" (circ. 30,000) carried an editorial entitled "Chile's Abstention in the UN." Quote: "Chile's decision to not vote for Venezuela was correct. There is no doubt that it would have been a contradiction within Latin America unity to legitimize someone who is the main cause of division, insecurity, and conflict on the continent.... One question is what was the purpose of delaying the decision...and another is why didn't the government look for a candidate that would represent it more fully, if it did not like Guatemala's bid because it was too close to the U.S. and too far from the continent? These questions...show that Chile should play a different role in the international context and that its foreign policy is far from optimum." ¶16. On October 17, conservative, influential newspaper-of-record "El Mercurio" (circ. 129,000) ran an editorial entitled "Chile's Abstention." Quote "In general it is a bad sign when a foreign policy issue becomes a domestic policy problem, which was the case with Chile's vote in the UNSC and Venezuela's bid.... By definition, a state policy entails consensus or at least wide support among public opinion. This was not the case, and therefore abstention was better than favoring Venezuela.... But the President never discussed the vote with the opposition and only informed the coalition parties shortly before the announcement of the decision. No one questions the President's prerogative to make a decision, but the sole exercise of this prerogative does not constitute state policy." KELLY