United Nations Seat for DR

Sep 20, 2003
1,217
44
48
I think some people are missing the larger picture.

I know that I'm probably going to come under harsh attack for writing this(well, from the Americans at least), but someone has to. America is a country in sharp decline. The national debt was 5.2 trillion when Bush came into office. It is somewhere around 9 trillion now. It is projected to be 10 trillion by next year. Even the real estate developer who designed and put the the famous "debt clock" up in New York City in 1989 is now having a new one built to make room for an additional digit when the deficit hits 10 Trillion. When the debt clock went up in 1989, the National debt was "only" 2.7 trillion. G.W. Bush will have easily doubled the National debt by the time he leaves office. The National debt is a critical problem.

The US dollar has lost around 1/3 of it value in the last 3-4 years.

America was still an industrial nation(39% of American workers were employed in manufacturing) in 1988, when I started college. By Feburary 2004 the figure was only 9%. What is the % today? What will the % be if Ford or GM go bankrupt? Outsourcing and Free trade have done a number on the United States. I know, NALS will probably disagree.

I could go on. Whether some want to listen or not. My point is this. What do you think America will look like in 3 years? I don't have a lot of optimism that America will rebound and enter another Golden Age like the 1950's. I'm having visions of America more closely resembling Russia in the mid 1990's.

How much could America really do for the DR? Really? America has to import 70% of its oil. Venezuela accounts for 20% of that. I've read about big dreams of turning Montana's coal fields into synthetic oil and supposed big finds in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico, but I'll believe that when I see it. I can't imagine that Americans will care enough to help the DR. Venezula has the surplus oil, not America. The DR needs oil. America nees oil even more.

The American tourist dollar has lost one third of its punch in the last few years. If(when) the dollar drops further, how much will American tourists be able to prop up the economy? Tourism is a low paying job for Dominicans and according to what I've read, 80% of the hotel workers are Haitian.

I think the DR needs to be more worried about integrating with Latin America and the Caribbean than the United States. Trujillo paid off the National debt without using tourist dollars. The DR under Trujillo could feed itself and most of the clothes and shoes Dominicans wore were manufacted inside the country. CAFTA will destroy the Dominican dairy industry, Lord knows what else will be destroyed. Under Trujillo, the USA was its single largest customer for produce, with CAFTA the situation looks to be reversed. The USA will flood the DR with cheap agricultural products and ruin the smaller farmers and ranchers.

Free trade with America(forced onto Haiti after Baby Doc fled in 1986) destroyed the Haitian poultry industry and has ruined the average rice farmer. Haiti could feed itself in 1986, now it cannot. If the fuel costs suddenly spiked and Haiti could no longer afford to ship in food, there would be a massive famine. The dominicans will bare the brunt of that fall out.

Why bend over backwards for America when that country could be on its knees in a few years? Why make enemies in the United Nations by siding with America? The DR needs to keep a low profile and tread lightly as to not alienate its neighbors. People keep posting about trusting that Chavez will still be in power in a few years. That what Americas have been saying about Castro for 46 years. Why don't these same Americans who doubt Chavez or Castro's staying power start to question their own nations ability to sustain the astronomical National debt load. Why do they not discuss the future(even current) ramifications of massive outsourcing of American factory jobs.

The DR needs to think about its future. If it is all dependent on tourism, then the DR better start looking for Chinese or Gulf Arab state tourists to fill the gap.


Sometimes having a low profile in the world is a good thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sep 20, 2003
1,217
44
48
A lot of my edits were lost when my double, triple, etc posts were deleted (Moderators, sorry for the mess). I added a few more things to the final post. The post you see is my unedited one.

I wanted to add some more info.

Under Truijillo, when the DR's economy was at its strongest, the USA was the DR's largest single buyer of agricultural goods. With CAFTA, that situation will be reversed. The DR is about to lose 90% of its smaller ranchers and diary farmers. What will happen to the other farmers? The US is about to flood the DR with cheap agricultural goods. The DR will see most of its agricultural workers put out of work. Bankrupted. And for what?

There is already a bloc in Latin America that openly opposes free trade. Let the DR find customers for its produce there. Why destroy the DR's agricultural economy?
 

Rick Snyder

Silver
Nov 19, 2003
2,321
2
0
Joel,

What is your problem? In post 10 you state your opinion as to the DR becoming part of the UNSC and how you are against it. You seem to be under the impression that the DR should keep their head buried in the sand and not become noticed. Okay I can understand your position.

I on the other hand feel that the DR is attempting to be noticed. I don't know if this is something only LF wants or if it is something that the country wants but regardless I stated in the last paragraph that I hope they get it.

Why you decided to use my whole quote I have no idea. Why you decided to attack the US I have no idea. This thread is about the DR acquiring a seat on the UNSC and not your opinion of the US. Keep it DR related and get off the attack mode.

Why you decided to post the same post 5 times is beyond me.

Rick

Edited to add;

Joel I reinstated your last post as you said that was the correct and edited one
 
Last edited:
Sep 20, 2003
1,217
44
48
Rick, the posts being repeated was an accident. I tried to delete the posts, but I guess you beat me to it.

As for me attacking the US, well, its not really what you make of it. I'm thinking of the DR's future. The post was DR related. If America wrecks the DR's agricultural industry with CAFTA, that's a big problem for the DR. The US did wreck Haiti's farmers, that was debated a few months ago and a series of newspaper articles were posted to support that notion.

If America is sinking financially, why should the DR vote with the American government if it will only anger the DR's Latin American neighbors? Why do so much for America when it seems to me to be so damaging to the future of the DR(CAFTA,voting in support of the US)

I suspected this would be the response. So be it. I've said it.

The DR is in no postion to have a high profile. Just maintain a low one and try to saty neutral. Why should a country as small and weak as the DR make enemies?

It is DR related.

One last thing.

I've never had much luck splitting up a quoted post, so I just post the whole thing.
 
Last edited:

Rick Snyder

Silver
Nov 19, 2003
2,321
2
0
Okay is an argument is what you wish for be it from me to deny you that.

This THREAD is about the DR wishing to become a member of the UNSC. If you can sit down and compose a response that indicates as to how your ranting about the US and lost of the agricultural industry with CAFTA and chickens going astray and such has a bearing on the member seat on the UNSC then go for it. If you cannot relate the two together then don't post nonsense.

If your desire is to voice your opinion as to how you think the CAFTA is ruining the DR then I suggest you look for that thread or start one of your own. We have many thread dealing with many subjects and one of the normal procedures is to post those things in a thread that deal with the OP. Not only is it normal procedure but it's a rule of the board and not that hard to follow.

As I'm a moderator on this forum and as I read the OP and I and others responded to the OP it would only be proper that you do likewise.

As I'm a little slow in comprehending things then you will have to point out how your responses relate to the OP when you decide to go on a tangent. If you fail to do so then there is the possibility the big red button will appear out of nowhere. Excuse me I must attend to that other thread that you are trying to get cute in.

Rick
 
Sep 20, 2003
1,217
44
48
Okay rick.

The DR getting a seat on the Security Council is a bad idea. Why? The DR's voting record could make it so serious enemies(Venezuela, China, Russia).

The DR is a small country. It cannot afford to make enemies.

I was not getting cute on the other thread. If you are refering to the "Closure on Balaguer" thread, I responding to your overboard attack on NALS. That's it. Why must people take things so personally on these boards?
 

Rick Snyder

Silver
Nov 19, 2003
2,321
2
0
Joel that was basically a repeat of your post #10 and we understand where you are coming from.

There were a number of well respected posters that answered the OP as to why the DR was pursuing this seat but gave no personal opinion as to whether they thought it was the right thing to do. Celt202 in post #2 said, (Copy and paste with quotation marks) "My question would be what's the disadvantage?", and the only people that came out against it were Joel and Ggrande.

Would others care to share their opinion?

Rick
 

qgrande

Bronze
Jul 27, 2005
805
4
0
Celt202 in post #2 said, (Copy and paste with quotation marks) "My question would be what's the disadvantage?", and the only people that came out against it were Joel and Ggrande.
Would others care to share their opinion?

Hey, just to clarify my opinion, I have not come out against the DR pursuing a seat, just gave my 2 cents on what could be a possible disadvantage. Votings at the Security Council are such clear head-counts of allies and enemies for superpowers and would-be superpowers that diplomatic blunders could have messy effects for a small country that depends on good relatons with both sides. But on the other hand, with really visionary diplomacy and statesmanship there could in a similar situation be a glorious mediating role for a country like the DR. I'm not saying the DR should shy away for this role, but this is not a state visit to Queen Elizabeth, it's just not impossible to think of disadvantages.
 

RHM

Doctor of Diplomacy
Sep 23, 2002
1,660
30
0
www.thecandidacy.com
Joel, I take it you know very little about the American economy ..


All empires fall. I doubt anybody will argue with that. But I think Joel's timeline of three years is not even close. Whenever a Republican is in office the opposition tends to go on and on with "Doomsday" scenarios.

We shall see.

Scandall
 

aegap

Silver
Mar 19, 2005
2,505
10
0
Scandall, that is not what I'm getting at.

..his analysis of the U.S and world economy is a joke ..

about the only truly threat to the U.S. as the dominant economy and only super powere in the world is China, and even that threat isn't in the offing. -It's at least twenty to thirty years from POTENTIALLY coming into effect.
 
Last edited:

RHM

Doctor of Diplomacy
Sep 23, 2002
1,660
30
0
www.thecandidacy.com
Scandall, that is not what I'm getting at.

..his analysis of the U.S and world economy is a joke ..

about the only truly threat to the U.S. as the dominant economy and only super powere in the world is China, and even that threat is at least twenty to thirty years from POTENTIALLY coming into effect.

Sorry, I didn't mean to include your quote in my post. I was making a general statement.

Scandall
 

Tuan

New member
Aug 28, 2004
204
2
0
All reasons posited here for DR interest in a temporary back seat at the UNSC have merit, but they all suffer from the shaky premise that UNSC fulfills a serious executive role under the UN's 1945 San Francisco charter.
About as much as the UN Human Rights Commission run by Sudan, Libya, Iran and Goofy and Clarabelle.
To make my earlier post icily clear: a vote on the UNSC is for personal rewards to bureaurats of sex, money and power. All else is B.S.
 

RHM

Doctor of Diplomacy
Sep 23, 2002
1,660
30
0
www.thecandidacy.com
All reasons posited here for DR interest in a temporary back seat at the UNSC have merit, but they all suffer from the shaky premise that UNSC fulfills a serious executive role under the UN's 1945 San Francisco charter.
About as much as the UN Human Rights Commission run by Sudan, Libya, Iran and Goofy and Clarabelle.
To make my earlier post icily clear: a vote on the UNSC is for personal rewards to bureaurats of sex, money and power. All else is B.S.

More importantly...why spend time, money, and resources going for a seat when a million Dominicans do not even have birth certificates...education is embarrassing...the electricity is worse than most parts of Africa...the roads are in disrepair...and the government is full of corruption?

No need to go on.

Priorities are way out of order.

It's all about Leonel.

Scandall
 

Rick Snyder

Silver
Nov 19, 2003
2,321
2
0
Thank you all for that input but a special thank you I direct to Scandall when he said,

"More importantly...why spend time, money, and resources going for a seat when a million Dominicans do not even have birth certificates...education is embarrassing...the electricity is worse than most parts of Africa...the roads are in disrepair...and the government is full of corruption?"

It is times like this I have those rose colored glasses on and am thinking that I am looking at the big picture whereas in reality it is just part of the kaleidoscope that makes up the DR.

Rick
 

aegap

Silver
Mar 19, 2005
2,505
10
0
Aegap, I take it you never read the foreign press.

Fox "News" is not the best source of information.

coming from you, I wasn't expecting a better response.

...thank you for not disappoingting ..