Post by plutopup on Dec 6, 2012 15:09:45 GMT -5
Questions are starting to be asked about just what did Australian lobbyists at the U.N. do and how far did they go to secure winning the vote on October 18 that will see Australia sit on the Security Council for two years as a non-permanent member from January, 2013.
The questions are being asked given the surprise election when it was widely believed Australia's chances of winning the position were very much a 'long shot' proposition with Finland being heralded as being the firm favourite with Luxembourg being the likely winner of the second postion in the group of three contenders with Australia mising out. Surprisingly, Australia received 140 votes on the first ballot with Luxembourg receiving 128 which meant Australia was in on the first ballot and Luxembourg got through on the second ballot with Finland losing out.
Now, in the light of the revelations of what Michael Costa had to say on the Bolt Report on the weekend in which he publicly contended that Labor Party numbers people realized that for Australia to vote against the resolution at the U.N. upgrading Palestinians to non-state oberserver status would in all likelihood alienate the muslim population in a number of electorates held by Labor in which there is a large muslim community and could possibly result in a rebound against Labor at the Federal election next year.
And herein lies the heart of questions being asked given that Costa clearly indicated in the Bolt Report that the person behind the push in caucus to force PM Gillard to change her stance from opposing the resolution to abstaining was none other than Bob Carr, a former premier of the state of NSW and no less a founding member of the Labor Friends of Israel group in Australia. That Carr was not only supportive of Australia not voting against the resolution at the UN, but was intimately involved in securing the numbers to make sure he could force PM Gillard to change her stance is what is boggling the minds of some. And here arises the question of what deals, if any, were done in the weeks, months prior to the Security Council election in October which saw Australia win in the Security Council and win handsomely, against the odds.
Were promises made to certain countries that if support was given for Australia's bid for a place on the Security Council, then Australia will look at paying back the favour in due course, even if it meant going against previous history when it came to Australia supporting certain issues at the UN? Like a 'you scratch my back, and I will scratch your back' arrangement?
And given this scenario and the standing and influence that Carr has in the Caucus and if in fact an arrangement had been made with other countries to get Australia onto the Security Council and now, he had been asked to 'pay up', a lot of what has happened over the past couple of months begins to make sense.
Of course, a lot of this could just be a load of baloney and Australia was elected to the Security Council on its merits and the move to force PM Gillard to change her stand was simply due to a realization of domestic politics and the importance of not alienating the Muslim vote which the Labor Party will sorely need at the next election if they are to have any chance of winning.
Link to the Bolt Report interview on You Tube published on 01 December - relevant section starts at 5min 48sec.
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WaVD-Kc7nPw
The questions are being asked given the surprise election when it was widely believed Australia's chances of winning the position were very much a 'long shot' proposition with Finland being heralded as being the firm favourite with Luxembourg being the likely winner of the second postion in the group of three contenders with Australia mising out. Surprisingly, Australia received 140 votes on the first ballot with Luxembourg receiving 128 which meant Australia was in on the first ballot and Luxembourg got through on the second ballot with Finland losing out.
Now, in the light of the revelations of what Michael Costa had to say on the Bolt Report on the weekend in which he publicly contended that Labor Party numbers people realized that for Australia to vote against the resolution at the U.N. upgrading Palestinians to non-state oberserver status would in all likelihood alienate the muslim population in a number of electorates held by Labor in which there is a large muslim community and could possibly result in a rebound against Labor at the Federal election next year.
And herein lies the heart of questions being asked given that Costa clearly indicated in the Bolt Report that the person behind the push in caucus to force PM Gillard to change her stance from opposing the resolution to abstaining was none other than Bob Carr, a former premier of the state of NSW and no less a founding member of the Labor Friends of Israel group in Australia. That Carr was not only supportive of Australia not voting against the resolution at the UN, but was intimately involved in securing the numbers to make sure he could force PM Gillard to change her stance is what is boggling the minds of some. And here arises the question of what deals, if any, were done in the weeks, months prior to the Security Council election in October which saw Australia win in the Security Council and win handsomely, against the odds.
Were promises made to certain countries that if support was given for Australia's bid for a place on the Security Council, then Australia will look at paying back the favour in due course, even if it meant going against previous history when it came to Australia supporting certain issues at the UN? Like a 'you scratch my back, and I will scratch your back' arrangement?
And given this scenario and the standing and influence that Carr has in the Caucus and if in fact an arrangement had been made with other countries to get Australia onto the Security Council and now, he had been asked to 'pay up', a lot of what has happened over the past couple of months begins to make sense.
Of course, a lot of this could just be a load of baloney and Australia was elected to the Security Council on its merits and the move to force PM Gillard to change her stand was simply due to a realization of domestic politics and the importance of not alienating the Muslim vote which the Labor Party will sorely need at the next election if they are to have any chance of winning.
Link to the Bolt Report interview on You Tube published on 01 December - relevant section starts at 5min 48sec.
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WaVD-Kc7nPw
