United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-10/L.22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
UN General Assembly
Resolution ES‑10/L.22
United Nations General Assembly resolution A ES 10 L 22 vote.png

  Voted in favor
  Voted against
  Abstained
  Not present
Date 21 December 2017
Meeting no. 10th Emergency Special Session (continuation)
Code A/RES/ES‑10/L.22 (Document)
Subject Status of Jerusalem
Voting summary
128 voted for
9 voted against
35 abstained
21 absent
Result Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void”

United Nations General Assembly resolution ES‑10/L.22 is a emergency session resolution declaring the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void.”.[1] It was adopted by the 37th Plenary meeting of the tenth emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly[2] during the tenure of the seventy-second session of the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 2017. The draft resolution was drafted by Yemen and Turkey.[3]Though strongly contested by the United States, it passed by 128 votes to nine against with 21 absentees and 35 abstentions.

Background[edit]

On 6 December 2017, US President Donald Trump said that he would recognise the status of Jerusalem as being Israel’s sovereign capital[4] in a departure from previous UNGA resolutions as well prevailing international norms where no state either recognises Jerusalem as a national capital nor has an embassy there. The move prompted protests from states and communities in many parts of the world.[5]

Following the failure of an United Nations Security Council resolution three days earlier, after an U.S. veto, to rescind the recognition by any states of Jerusalem as a national capital, Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour said that the General Assembly would vote on a draft resolution calling for Trump’s declaration to be withdrawn. He sought to invoke Resolution 377, known as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, to circumvent a veto. The resolution states that the General Assembly can call an Emergency Special Session to consider a matter “with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures” if the Security Council fails to act.[6]

Campaign[edit]

On 20 December, US President Donald Trump threatened to cut US aid to countries voting against the US’ side.[7] The day before the vote, he said: “Let them vote against us…We don’t care…this isn’t like it used to be where they could vote against you and then you pay them hundreds of millions of dollars. We’re not going to be taken advantage of any longer.”[8]Ambassador Nikki Haley warned her country would remember and “take names” of every country that voted in favour of the resolution.[9][10][11][12] The governments of Turkey and Iran denounced USA’s threats as “anti-democratic” and “blackmail“.[13][14] She had sent to a letter to dozens of member states that warned Trump had asked her to “report back on those countries who voted against us.”[15] Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan warned Trump that “he cannot buy Turkey’s democratic will with petty dollars” and “that opposition of other countries will teach the United States a good lesson”.[16][17]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel rejects this vote before it passes and called the UN “house of lies”.[18]

Canada’s, which was seeking re-negotiations of the NAFTA, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland‘s spokesman confirmed its intention to abstain from the vote and that the resolution should not have come to the General Assembly.[19]

Content[edit]

The text of the resolution includes the following key statements:[20]

The General Assembly,

  • Bearing in mind the specific status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for the protection and preservation of the unique spiritual, religious and cultural dimensions of the City, as foreseen in the relevant United Nations resolutions,
  • Stressing that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations in line with relevant United Nations resolutions,
  • Expressing in this regard its deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem,
  • Affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard, calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem, pursuant to resolution 478 (1980) of the Security Council;
  • Demands that all States comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem, and not to recognize any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions;
  • Reiterates its call for the reversal of the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-State solution and for the intensification and acceleration of international and regional efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967.

It concluded in reading that “any decisions and actions, which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council.”[21]

Motion[edit]

The motion was proposed by Yemen and Turkey.[22]

Debate[edit]

In introducing the resolution as Chair of the Arab Group, Yemen’s Amabassador said the US decision was a “blatant violation of the rights of the Palestinian people, as well as those of all Christians and Muslims.” He emphasized that it constituted a “dangerous breach of the Charter of the United Nations and a serious threat to international peace and security, while also undermining the chances for a two‑State solution and fuelling the fires of violence and extremism.”[23]

Turkey, who was the co-sponsor of the draft resolution, also spoke as current Chair of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation(OIC).[23] Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that Trump’s decision was an outrageous assault to all universal values. “The Palestinians have the right to their own state based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is the main parameter and only hope for a just and lasting peace in the region. However, the recent decision of a UN Member State to recognise Jerusalem, or Al-Quds, as the capital of Israel, violates international law, including all relevant UN resolutions.”[22]

The General Assembly heard from Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Al‑Malki, who said that the meeting was “not because of any animosity to the United States of America” but instead the sessions was “called to make the voice of the vast majority of the international community — and that of people around the world — heard on the question of Jerusalem/Al‑Quds Al‑Sharif.” He called the US decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to move its embassy there “an aggressive and dangerous move” which could inflame tensions and lead to a religious war that “has no boundaries.” He added that though the decision would have no impact on the city’s status, it would nevertheless compromise the role of the United States in the Middle East peace process.[23] He urged member states to reject “blackmail and intimidation.”[5]

US Ambassador Nikki Haley then said that her country was “singled out for attack” because of its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. She added that: “The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation,” Haley said. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations, and so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”[15] She added that: “America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that…this vote will make a difference in how Americans view the UN.”[22]

Israel’s Ambassador Danny Danon then told the assembly that the vowed that “no General Assembly resolution will ever drive us from Jerusalem.”[4]

Venezuela’s Ambassador, speaking for the Non‑Aligned Movement (NAM), expressed “grave concern about Israel’s ongoing violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including attempts to alter the character, status and demographic composition of the City of Jerusalem. [It was] slso concerned about the decision to relocate the United States embassy [and] warned that such provocative actions would further heighten tensions, with potentially far‑reaching repercussions given the extremely volatile backdrop.[23]

Other speakers included, Pakistan, Indonesia, Maldives, Syria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Iran and China.[23]

Malaysia’s Ambassador Datuk Seri Mohammed Shahrul Ikram Yaakob said that, as a member of the OIC and NAM, “Malaysia joins the international community in expressing our deep concern and rejects the decision by the United States to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It is also an infringement of the Palestinian people’s rights and their right to self determination.” He called for a peaceful two-state solution and that Malaysia is concerned the situation will only feed into the agenda of extremists.”[2]

Other speakers included, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and South Africa. The Permanent Observer for the Holy See, Tomasz Grysa, emphasised that Jerusalem was most sacred to the Abrahamic faiths and a symbol for millions of believers around the world who considered it their “spiritual capital.” Its significance went “beyond the question of borders, a reality that should be considered a priority in every negotiation for a political solution.” The Holy See, he said, called for a “peaceful resolution that would ensure respect for the sacred nature of Jerusalem and its universal value…reiterating that only international guarantee could preserve its unique character and status and provide assurance of dialogue and reconciliation for peace in the region.”[23]

After the motion was passed, more speeches continued with Estonia, who also spoke on behalf of other states. Australia’s Ambassador then explained her country’s government did “not support unilateral action that undermined the peace process [and] it did not believe today’s text would help to bring the parties back to the negotiating table.”[23]

Other speakers included, Paraguay, whose Ambassador said that the country would abstain because “the question of Jerusalem was a matter for the Security Council, as the primary body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.”[23] This was followed by El Salvador, Argentina and Romania.[23]

Canada’s Ambassador Marc-Andre Blanchard called the proposal “one-sided”[23] and said: “We are disappointed that this resolution is one sided and does not advance prospects for peace to which we aspire, which is why we have abstained on today’s vote.” He, however, added that Canada wanted to emphasise Jerusalem’s special significance to the Abrahamic religions of Jews, Muslims and Christians. “Denying the connection between Jerusalem and the Jewish, Muslim and Christian faiths undermines the integrity of the site for all. We also reiterate the need to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem’s Holy sites.[19]

Nicaragua’s explained its support of the resolution, as it “rebuffed recent unilateral attempts to modify the character and status of Jerusalem. Such unilateral actions were in blatant violation of resolution 2234 (2016) and others…unilateral actions jeopardised peace and stability in the Middle East and drew the international community further away from a solution.”[23]

Mexico’s Ambassador then explained the abstention and emphasised that convening an emergency session was a disproportionate response. “The United States must become part of the solution, not a stumbling block that would hamper progress…the international community was further than ever from agreement.”[23]

The Czech Republic then said that while it supported the European Union position, it had abstained because it “did not believe the draft resolution would contribute to the peace process.”[23]

Armenia said that is position “remained unchanged. The situation should be resolved through negotiations paving the way for lasting peace and security.”[23]

Hungary echoed Armenia’s stance and said it would not comment on the foreign relations of the United States.[23]

Latvia then spoke, before Estonia re-took the floor to say it had also spoken on behalf of Albania, Lithuania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.[23]

Result[edit]

Vote[24] Quantity States
Approve 128 Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Reject 9 Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo, United States.
Abstain 35 Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Haiti, Hungary, Jamaica, Kiribati, Latvia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.
Absent 21 Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, El Salvador, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Mongolia, Myanmar, Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Zambia.

Reactions[edit]

States

Israel – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the result shortly after it was announced in call it “preposterous,” while he also thanked the states that supported “the truth” by not participating in “the theatre of the absurd.” He added that: “Jerusalem is our capital. Always was, always will be…But I do appreciate the fact that a growing number of countries refused to participate in this theatre of the absurd. So I appreciate that, and especially I want to again express our thanks to [US] President (Donald) Trump and Ambassador [Nikki] Haley, for their stalwart defence of Israel and their stalwart defence of the truth.” Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman, reminded Israelis of the longstanding Israeli disdain for such votes. “Let us just remember that this is the same UN about which our first ambassador to the organisation, Abba Eban, once said: ‘If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions’. There is nothing new in what just happened at the UN.” He also praised the US as “the moral beacon shining out of the darkness.” Minister of Strategic Affairs and Public Security Gilad Erdan said: “The historic connection between Israel and Jerusalem is stronger than any vote by the ‘United Nations’ — nations who are united only by their fear and their refusal to recognise the simple truth that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the Jewish people.”

    • However, opposition Joint List Chairman and MK Ayman Odeh called the vote a wake-up call for Israel: “In the international arena, there still exists a large and definitive majority that believes that the Palestinian people, like all other nations, deserve a place in this world and the right to self-determination. This evening’s vote by the majority of the world’s nations against Trump’s announcement, in spite of the pressure and threats, flies in the face of Trump’s and Netanyahu’s diplomatic policy and is a clear statement by the international community in support of peace and the right of the Palestinians to an independent state, whose capital is East Jerusalem,”[8]
Media

Haaretz‘s Noa Landau, wrote, in citing unnamed diplomatic sourced, that Israel was particularly disappointed with countries like India that have enhanced bilateral relations with it recently. “The main disappointment in Israel was with the countries that have enhanced bilateral relations in recent years, especially those that share a particularly conservative worldview with the Netanyahu government. For example, India – whose Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, visited Israel in July, a tour that was memorable mainly for the pastoral photographs of him and Netanyahu embracing and wading in the waves – voted for the resolution against Israel and the United States.”[8]

Others

At a “Solidarity to Save Jerusalem” rally organised by the Barisan National government in Malaysia, one of the attendees Association of NextGen Christians of Malaysia President Joshua Hong said at the Putra Mosque: “We are here because we feel that the decision made by President Trump on announcing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is merely a political decision. He added that the decision also hurts Christian and Arabic churches in Palestine and not just the Muslims. “To us as Christians, Jerusalem is a city of peace and after that announcement, we feel there is no more peace.I think it is not right and unjust. We believe we should continue pursuing the sustainable peace solution for Palestine and Israel, rather than just a single nation declaring it just like that.” He claimed that about 50 members of the group turned up in a show of support for the Palestinian people..[2]

Archery at the 2016 Summer Olympics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archery
at the Games of the XXXI Olympiad
Archery, Rio 2016.png
Venue Sambadrome Marquês de Sapucaí
Dates 6–12 August
Competitors 128
«2012 2020»

The archery events at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeirowere held over a seven-day period from 6 to 12 August. Four events took place, all were staged at the Sambadrome Marquês de Sapucaí.

Competition format[edit]

A total of 128 athletes competed across the four events: the men’s individual, women’s individual, men’s team and women’s team.[1]

All four events were recurve archery events, held under the World Archery-approved 70-meter distance and rules. The competition started with an initial ranking round involving all 64 archers of each gender. Each archer would shoot a total of 72 arrows to be seeded from 1–64 according to their score.

The ranking round was also used to seed the teams from 1 to 12, by aggregating the individual scores for the members of each team.

Each event was played in a single-elimination tournament format, except for the semi-final losers, who would play off to decide the bronze medal winner.

Individual events[edit]

In the individual events, all 64 competitors entered the competition at the first round, the round of 64. The draw was seeded according to the result of the ranking round so the first seed shot against the 64th seed in the first round.

Each match was scored using the Archery Olympic Round, consisting of the best-of-five sets, with three arrows per set. The winner of each set received two points, and if the scores in the set had tied then each archer would have received one point. If at the end of five sets the score had been tied at 5–5, a single arrow shoot-off would have held and the closest to the center would be declared the winner.

Team events[edit]

In the team events, the top four seeded teams from the ranking round will receive a bye to the quarter-final. The remaining eight teams, seeded 5th to 12th, will compete for the remaining four places in the quarter-finals.

For the first time, the team event has followed the same Archery Olympic Round set system as the individual event.

Schedule[edit]

All times are Brasília Time (UTC−3).

Day Date Start Finish Event Phase
Day 0 Friday 5 August 2016 Men’s individual Ranking round
Women’s individual Ranking round
Day 1 Saturday 6 August 2016 9:00 17:45 Men’s team Eliminations/Medal round
Day 2 Sunday 7 August 2016 9:00 17:45 Women’s team Eliminations/Medal round
Day 3 Monday 8 August 2016 9:00 17:45 Men’s individual 1/32 & 1/16 Eliminations
Women’s individual 1/32 & 1/16 Eliminations
Day 4 Tuesday 9 August 2016 9:00 17:45 Men’s individual 1/32 & 1/16 Eliminations
Women’s individual 1/32 & 1/16 Eliminations
Day 5 Wednesday 10 August 2016 9:00 18:55 Men’s individual 1/32 & 1/16 Eliminations
Women’s individual 1/32 & 1/16 Eliminations
Day 6 Thursday 11 August 2016 9:00 17:10 Women’s individual 1/8 Eliminations/Quarter/Semi finals/Medal round
Day 7 Friday 12 August 2016 9:00 17:10 Men’s individual 1/8 Eliminations/Quarter/Semi finals/Medal round

Qualification[edit]

Each National Olympic Committee (NOC) was permitted to enter a maximum of six competitors, three per gender. NOCs that qualified teams for a particular gender were able to send a three-member team to the team event and also have each member compete in the individual event. There were 12 team spots for each gender, thus qualifying 36 individuals through team qualification. All other NOCs might earn a maximum of one quota place per gender for the individual events.[2]

Six places were reserved for Brazil as the host nation, and a further six were decided by the Tripartite Commission. The remaining 116 places were then allocated through a qualification process, in which archers earned quota places for their respective NOCs, though not necessarily for themselves.

To be eligible to participate in the Olympic Games after the NOC has obtained a quota place, all archers must have achieved the following minimum qualification score (MQS):

  • Men: 70m round of 630
  • Women: 70m round of 600

The MQS must have been achieved between 26 July 2015 (starting at the 2015 World Archery Championships) and 11 July 2016 at a registered World Archery event.

Participating nations[edit]

Archers from 56 nations participated at the 2016 Summer Olympics.

Competitors[edit]

Male archers

  • Entry list at 1 August 2016[1]
NOC Name Age Hometown World ranking Team ranking
 Australia Alec Potts February 9, 1996 (age 22) AustraliaSouth Australia Clayton Bay 108 19
 Australia Ryan Tyack June 2, 1991 (age 26) AustraliaQueensland Brisbane 59 19
 Australia Taylor Worth January 8, 1991 (age 27) AustraliaWestern Australia Yangebup 15 19
 Belarus Anton Prilepov February 5, 1984 (age 34) Belarus Mogilev 18
 Belgium Robin Ramaekers October 26, 1994 (age 23) Belgium Tongeren 97
 Brazil Marcus Dalmeida January 30, 1998 (age 20) BrazilRio de Janeiro (state) Rio de Janeiro 17 17
 Brazil Bernardo Oliveira June 8, 1993 (age 24) BrazilFederal District (Brazil) Brasilia 99 17
 Brazil Daniel Rezende Xavier August 31, 1982 (age 35) BrazilMinas Gerais Belo Horizonte 114 17
 Canada Crispin Duenas January 5, 1986 (age 32) CanadaOntario Toronto 20
 Chile Ricardo Soto October 20, 1999 (age 18) Chile Arica 113
 China Gu Xuesong June 21, 1993 (age 24) China Shanghai 39 3
 China Wang Dapeng December 3, 1996 (age 21) China Huangdao 118 3
 China Xing Yu March 12, 1991 (age 26) China Beijing 12 3
 Chinese Taipei Kao Hao-wen March 17, 1995 (age 22) Chinese Taipei Hualien 31 6
 Chinese Taipei Wei Chun-heng July 6, 1994 (age 23) Chinese Taipei Taoyuan 10 6
 Chinese Taipei Yu Guan-lin November 29, 1993 (age 24) Chinese Taipei Nantou 55 6
 Colombia Andres Pila May 11, 1991 (age 26) Colombia Montelíbano 82
 Cuba Adrian Andres Puentes Perez July 3, 1988 (age 29) Cuba Sancti Spíritus 123
 Egypt Ahmed El-Nemr November 21, 1978 (age 39) Egypt Cairo 156
 Fiji Robert Elder April 25, 1981 (age 36) Fiji Suva 199
 Finland Samuli Piippo January 1, 1980 (age 38) Finland Oulu 75
 France Lucas Daniel January 1, 1995 (age 23) France Riom 25 15
 France Pierre Plihon October 29, 1989 (age 28) France Nice 42 15
 France Jean-Charles Valladont March 20, 1989 (age 28) France Champigny-sur-Marne 4 15
 Germany Florian Floto April 12, 1988 (age 29) GermanyLower SaxonyBraunschweig 77
 Great Britain Patrick Huston January 5, 1996 (age 22) United KingdomNorthern Ireland Belfast 38
 India Atanu Das April 5, 1992 (age 25) India Kolkata 22
 Indonesia Riau Ega Agatha November 25, 1991 (age 26) Indonesia Blitar 29 14
 Indonesia Hendra Purnama November 12, 1997 (age 20) Indonesia Bantul 98 14
 Indonesia Muhammad Wijaya November 22, 1996 (age 21) Indonesia Jambi 209 14
 Italy Marco Galiazzo May 9, 1983 (age 34) Italy Padua 381 5
 Italy Mauro Nespoli November 22, 1987 (age 30) Italy Vigna di Valle 11 5
 Italy David Pasqualucci June 27, 1996 (age 21) Italy Genzano di Roma 28 5
 France Rene Philippe Kouassi December 14, 1979 (age 38) France Angers 279
 Japan Takaharu Furukawa August 9, 1984 (age 33) Japan Aomori 19
 Kazakhstan Sultan Duzelbayev March 12, 1994 (age 23) Kazakhstan Almaty 125
 Libya Ali Elghari January 31, 1997 (age 21) Libya Tripoli 440
 Malawi Areneo David June 6, 1995 (age 22) Malawi Gumulira 440
 Malaysia Haziq Kamaruddin July 21, 1993 (age 24) Malaysia Kuala Lumpur 100 18
 Malaysia Khairul Anuar Mohamad September 22, 1991 (age 26) Malaysia Kemaman 41 18
 Malaysia Muhammad Akmal Nor Hasrin July 15, 1995 (age 22) Malaysia Kuala Lumpur 235 18
 Mexico Ernesto Boardman February 23, 1993 (age 24) MexicoCoahuila Arteaga 16
 Mongolia Gantugs Jantsan April 12, 1972 (age 45) Mongolia Ulaanbaatar 114
 Nepal Jitbahadur Muktan August 31, 1979 (age 38) Nepal Kathmandu 338
 Netherlands Mitch Dielemans January 6, 1993 (age 25) Netherlands Geldrop 51 7
 Netherlands Sjef van den Berg April 14, 1995 (age 22) Netherlands Oss 5 7
 Netherlands Rick van der Ven April 14, 1991 (age 26) Netherlands Arnhem 7 7
 Norway Baard Nesteng May 14, 1979 (age 38) Norway Fredrikstad 52
 Slovakia Boris Balaz November 20, 1997 (age 20) Slovakia Liptovský Mikuláš 202
 South Korea Kim Woo-jin June 20, 1992 (age 25) South Korea Chungju 1 1
 South Korea Ku Bon-chan January 31, 1993 (age 25) South Korea Andong 2 1
 South Korea Lee Seung-yun April 18, 1995 (age 22) South Korea Seoul 8 1
 Spain Miguel Alvarino Garcia May 31, 1994 (age 23) SpainGalicia (Spain) A Coruña 9 9
 Spain Antonio Fernandez June 12, 1991 (age 26) SpainExtremadura Cáceres 23 9
 Spain Juan Rodriguez Liebana June 19, 1992 (age 25) SpainCommunity of Madrid Madrid 30 9
 Thailand Witthaya Thamwong September 19, 1987 (age 30) Thailand Lampang 101
 Tonga Hans Arne Jensen February 25, 1998 (age 19) Tonga Nuku’alofa 869
 Turkey Mete Gazoz June 8, 1999 (age 18) Turkey Istanbul 14
 Ukraine Viktor Ruban May 24, 1981 (age 36) Ukraine Kharkiv 36
 United States Brady Ellison October 27, 1988 (age 29) United StatesArizona Globe 6 2
 United States Zach Garrett April 8, 1995 (age 22) United StatesMissouri Wellington 3 2
 United States Jake Kaminski August 11, 1988 (age 29) United StatesNew York (state) Elma 26 2
 Venezuela Elias Malave October 26, 1989 (age 28) Venezuela Maturín 35
 Great Britain Gavin Ben Sutherland June 26, 1979 (age 38) United Kingdom Worthing 177

Female archers[edit]

  • Entry list at 1 August 2016[2]
NOC Name Age Hometown World ranking Team ranking
 Australia Alice Ingley January 13, 1993 (age 25) AustraliaWestern Australia Perth 353
 Austria Laurence Baldauff November 19, 1974 (age 43) Austria Vienna 93
 Azerbaijan Olga Senyuk January 23, 1991 (age 27) Azerbaijan Baku 83
 Bangladesh Shamoli Ray April 5, 1994 (age 23) Bangladesh Dhaka 175
 Bhutan Karma Karma June 6, 1990 (age 27) Bhutan Trashiyangtse 229
 Brazil Marina Canetta April 1, 1989 (age 28) BrazilSão Paulo (state) São Paulo 105 20
 Brazil Ane Marcelle dos Santos January 12, 1994 (age 24) BrazilRio de Janeiro (state) Maricá 64 20
 Brazil Sarah Nikitin December 27, 1988 (age 29) BrazilSão Paulo (state) São Paulo 126 20
 Canada Georcy Thiffeault Picard February 8, 1991 (age 27) CanadaQuebec Montreal 46
 China Cao Hui September 7, 1991 (age 26) China Liaoning 34 6
 China Qi Yuhong August 25, 1989 (age 28) China Shanghai 21 6
 China Wu Jiaxin February 28, 1997 (age 20) China Shanghai 20 6
 Chinese Taipei Le Chien-ying April 17, 1990 (age 27) Chinese Taipei Taipei 7 4
 Chinese Taipei Lin Shih-chia May 20, 1993 (age 24) Chinese Taipei Hsinchu 10 4
 Chinese Taipei Tan Ya-ting November 7, 1993 (age 24) Chinese Taipei Hsinchu 2 4
 Colombia Carolina Aguirre January 29, 1996 (age 22) Colombia Antioquia 79 13
 Colombia Ana Maria Rendon March 10, 1986 (age 31) Colombia Medellín 27 13
 Colombia Natalia Sanchez March 20, 1983 (age 34) Colombia Medellín 36 13
 Dominican Republic Yessica Camilo Gonzalez April 23, 1993 (age 24) Dominican Republic Santo Domingo 157
 Egypt Reem Mansour December 20, 1993 (age 24) Egypt Cairo 179
 Estonia Laura Nurmsalu June 1, 1994 (age 23) Estonia Viljandi 75
 Finland Taru Kuoppa November 14, 1983 (age 34) Finland Lahti 96
 Georgia Kristine Esebua March 19, 1985 (age 32) Georgia (country) Khobi 8 7
 Georgia Yuliya Lobzhenidze August 23, 1977 (age 40) Georgia (country) Tbilisi 85 7
 Georgia Khatuna Narimanidze February 2, 1974 (age 44) Georgia (country) Batumi 37 7
 Germany Lisa Unruh April 12, 1988 (age 29) GermanyBerlin Berlin 16
 Great Britain Naomi Folkard September 18, 1983 (age 34) United KingdomEngland Leamington Spa 67
 Greece Evangelia Psarra June 17, 1974 (age 43) Greece Thessaloniki 95
 India Deepika Kumari June 13, 1994 (age 23) India Jamshedpur 12 4
 India Bombayla Devi Laishram February 22, 1985 (age 32) India Imphal 69 4
 India Laxmirani Majhi January 26, 1989 (age 29) India Chittaranjan 15 4
 Indonesia Ika Rochmawati July 2, 1989 (age 28) Indonesia Bojonegoro 26
 Iran Zahra Nemati April 30, 1985 (age 32) Iran Tehran 47
 Italy Lucilla Boari March 24, 1997 (age 20) Italy Mantua 24 9
 Italy Claudia Mandia October 21, 1992 (age 25) Italy Salerno 74 9
 Italy Guendalina Sartori August 8, 1988 (age 29) Italy Monselice 17 9
 Japan Yuki Hayashi October 2, 1984 (age 33) Japan Kawanishi 33 10
 Japan Kaori Kawanaka August 3, 1991 (age 26) Japan Kotoura 13 10
 Japan Saori Nagamine July 5, 1993 (age 24) Japan Nagasaki 61 10
 Kazakhstan Luiza Saidiyeva March 17, 1994 (age 23) Kazakhstan Shymkent 107
 Kenya Shehzana Anwar August 21, 1989 (age 28) Kenya Nairobi 195
 Mexico Gabriela Bayardo February 18, 1994 (age 23) MexicoBaja California Tijuana 62 12
 Mexico Aida Roman May 21, 1988 (age 29) MexicoMexico City Mexico City 14 12
 Mexico Alejandra Valencia October 17, 1994 (age 23) MexicoSonora Hermosillo 18 12
 Moldova Alexandra Mirca October 11, 1993 (age 24) Moldova Chișinău 60
 Myanmar San Yu Htwe October 14, 1986 (age 31) Myanmar Mindat 191
 North Korea Kang Un-ju February 1, 1995 (age 23) North Korea Pyongyang 72
 Poland Karina Lipiarska-Palka February 16, 1987 (age 30) Poland Gmina Zabierzów 41
 Russia Tuiana Dashidorzhieva April 14, 1996 (age 21) RussiaZabaykalsky Krai Chita 11 2
 Russia Ksenia Perova February 8, 1989 (age 29) RussiaSverdlovsk Oblast Lesnoy 5 2
 Russia Inna Stepanova April 17, 1990 (age 27) RussiaBuryatia Ulan-Ude 48 2
 Slovakia Alexandra Longova February 7, 1994 (age 24) Slovakia Viničné 57
 South Korea Hye Jin Chang May 13, 1987 (age 30) South Korea Daegu 6 1
 South Korea Choi Mi-sun July 1, 1996 (age 21) South Korea Gwangju 1 1
 South Korea Ki Bo-bae February 20, 1988 (age 29) South Korea Gwangju 3 1
 Spain Adriana Martin April 17, 1997 (age 20) SpainCommunity of Madrid Madrid 51
 Sweden Christine Bjerendal February 3, 1987 (age 31) Sweden Lindome 77
 Tonga Karoline Lusitania Tatafu February 20, 1998 (age 19) Tonga Nuku’alofa 309
 Turkey Yasemin Anagoz October 14, 1998 (age 19) Turkey Izmir 31
 Ukraine Veronika Marchenko April 3, 1993 (age 24) Ukraine Lviv 9 8
 Ukraine Anastasia Pavlova February 9, 1995 (age 23) Ukraine Nova Kakhovka 44 8
 Ukraine Lidiia Sichenikova February 3, 1993 (age 25) Ukraine Chernivtsi 45 8
 United States Mackenzie Brown March 14, 1995 (age 22) United StatesTexas Flint 4
 Venezuela Leidys Brito July 5, 1984 (age 33) Venezuela Maturín 55

External links

Medal summary[edit]

Medal table[edit]

Rank Nation Gold Silver Bronze Total
1 South Korea 4 0 1 5
2 United States 0 1 1 2
3 Germany 0 1 0 1
France 0 1 0 1
Russia 0 1 0 1
6 Australia 0 0 1 1
Chinese Taipei 0 0 1 1
Total 4 4 4 12

Medalists[edit]

Event Gold Silver Bronze
Men’s individual
details
Ku Bon-chan
 South Korea
Jean-Charles Valladont
 France
Brady Ellison
 United States
Men’s team
details
 South Korea (KOR)
Ku Bon-chan
Lee Seung-yun
Kim Woo-jin
 United States (USA)
Brady Ellison
Zach Garrett
Jake Kaminski
 Australia (AUS)
Alec Potts
Ryan Tyack
Taylor Worth
Women’s individual
details
Chang Hye-jin
 South Korea
Lisa Unruh
 Germany
Ki Bo-bae
 South Korea
Women’s team
details
 South Korea (KOR)
Chang Hye-jin
Choi Mi-sun
Ki Bo-bae
 Russia (RUS)
Tuyana Dashidorzhieva
Ksenia Perova
Inna Stepanova
 Chinese Taipei (TPE)
Le Chien-ying
Lin Shih-chia
Tan Ya-ting

Submarine Volcano Near Grenada May Erupt, Could Pose Caribbean Tsunami Threat

The Kick ’em Jenny submarine volcano near the island of Grenada may erupt within hours and could pose a tsunami threat for countries in the Caribbean, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center says. “Should a tsunami occur,

the waves would reach Grenada within just a few minutes.

If the tsunami were large enough to expand further,

It would reach St. Vincent within 10 minutes,

Martinique and Tobago within about 30 minutes,

Barbados within about 40 minutes,”

the warning centre said in a statement. A very large tsunami could potentially reach

the northern coast of Venezuela to the south and the Leeward Islands and Puerto Rico within an hour and a half.

Compulsory voting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compulsory voting, enforced.
Compulsory voting, not enforced.
Compulsory voting, enforced (only men).
Compulsory voting, not enforced (only men).
Historical: the country had compulsory voting in the past.

ContentsCompulsory voting is a system in which electors are obliged to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day. If an eligible voter does not attend a polling place, he or she may be subject to punitive measures such as fines or community service. As of August 2013, 22 countries were recorded as having laws for compulsory voting and 11 of these 22 countries as enforcing these laws in practice.

History[edit]

Athenian democracy held that it was every citizen‘s duty to participate in decision making, but attendance at the assembly was voluntary. Sometimes there was some form of social opprobrium to those not participating. For example, Aristophanes‘s comedy Acharnians 17–22, in the 5th century BC, shows public slaves herding citizens from the agora into the assembly meeting place (pnyx) with a red-stained rope. Those with red on their clothes were fined.[2] This usually happened if fewer than 6,000 people were in attendance, and more were needed for the assembly to continue.

Arguments for[edit]

Supporters of compulsory voting generally look upon voter participation as a civic duty, similar to taxation, jury duty, compulsory education or military service; one of the ‘duties to community’ mentioned in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[3] They believe that by introducing an obligation to vote, it helps to overcome the occasional inconvenience that voting imposes on an individual in order to produce governments with more stability, legitimacy and a genuine mandate to govern, which in turn benefits that individual even if their preferred candidate or party isn’t elected into power.

Compulsory voting systems can confer a high degree of political legitimacybecause they result in high voter turnout.[4] The victorious candidate represents a majority of the population, not just the politically motivated individuals who would vote without compulsion.[5]

Compulsory voting also prevents disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compelling voters to the polls for an election reduces the impact that external factors may have on an individual’s capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. If everybody must vote, restrictions on voting are easily identified and steps are taken to remove them. Countries with compulsory voting generally hold elections on a Saturday or Sunday to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Postal and pre-poll voting is provided to people who cannot vote on polling day, and mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes, hospitals and remote communities to cater for immobilized citizens.

If voters do not want to support any given choice, they may cast spoilt votes or blank votes. According to compulsory voting supporters, this is preferred to not voting at all because it ensures there is no possibility that the person has been intimidated or prevented from voting should they wish. In certain jurisdictions, voters have the option to vote none of the above if they do not support any of the candidates to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the candidate list rather than simple apathy at the whole process.

Another perceived benefit of the large turnout produced by compulsory voting is that it becomes more difficult for extremist or special interest groups to get themselves into power or to influence mainstream candidates. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for lobby groups to motivate a small section of the people to the polls and influence the outcome of the political process. The outcome of an election where voting is compulsory reflects more of the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) rather than reflecting who was more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).

Other advantages to compulsory voting are the stimulation of broader interest politics, as a sort of civil education and political stimulation, which creates a better informed population. Also, since campaign funds are not needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics decreases. High levels of participation decreases the risk of political instability created by crises or charismatic but sectionally focused demagogues.[5]

There is also a correlation between compulsory voting, when enforced strictly, and improved income distribution, as measured by the Gini coefficient and the bottom income quintiles of the population.[6]

Arguments against[edit]

Voting may be seen as a civic right rather than a civic duty. While citizens may exercise their civil rights (free speech, right to an attorney, etc.) they are not compelled to. Furthermore, compulsory voting may infringe other rights. For example,Jehovah’s Witnesses and most Christadelphians believe that they should not participate in political events. Forcing them to vote ostensibly denies them their freedom of religious practice. In some countries with compulsory voting, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others may be excused on these grounds. If however they are forced to go to the polling place, they can still use a blank or invalid vote.

Similarly, compulsory voting may be seen as an infringement of Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of political opinion and thus the right of citizens to believe in a political system other than a democratic one, such as an absolute monarchy. However, it may also be argued that citizens may legitimately be required to vote since the right to believe in a different political system does not conflict with the obligation to conform with legal requirements of the system in place.

Another argument against compulsory voting, prevalent among legal scholars in the United States, is that it is essentially a compelled speech act, which violates freedom of speech because the freedom to speak necessarily includes the freedomnot to speak.[7]

Some do not support the idea of voters being compelled to vote for candidates they have no interest in or knowledge of. Others may be well-informed, but have no preference for any particular candidate, or may have no wish to give support to the incumbent political system. In compulsory voting areas, such people often vote at random simply to fulfill legal requirements: the so-called donkey vote may account for 1–2% of votes in these systems[citation needed], which may affect the electoral process. Similarly, citizens may vote with a complete absence of knowledge of any of the candidates or deliberately skew their ballot to slow the polling process or disrupt the election.

Low voter participation in a voluntary election may not be the result of political apathy. It may be simply an expression of the citizenry’s political will, indicating satisfaction with the political establishment in an electorate.[citation needed]

The Australian system of preferential voting means a person’s vote usually ends up favouring one of the two main political parties, even though the voter may not wish to advantage either. Former Australian opposition leader Mark Latham urged Australians to lodge blank votes for the 2010 election. He stated the government should not force citizens to vote or threaten them with a fine.[8] At the 2013 federal election, despite the threat of a non-voting fine of up to $170,[9] there was a turnout of only 92%,[10] of whom 6% lodged either informal or blank ballot papers.[11] In the corresponding Senate election, contested by over 50 groups,[12] legitimate manipulation of the group voting tickets and single transferable vote routing resulted in the election of one senator, Ricky Muir of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, who had initially received only 0.5% of first-preference support.[13] The system was accused of undermining the entitlement of voters “to be able to make real choices, not forced ones—and to know who they really are voting for.”[14]

By countries[edit]

Historical[edit]

  • Austria – introduced in 1924 and exercised during 1925 presidential elections
  • Chile – removed from the Constitution and replaced with voluntary voting in 2009; voluntary voting was regulated and put into practice in 2012; all eligible citizens over 17 are automatically enrolled (only those over 18 on election day may vote; although the act of voting itself is voluntary, polling officer duties are not if chosen by a commission for the job)[15]
  • Fiji – Abolished in 2014 [16]
  • Italy – Introduced in 1945, abolished in 1993.
  • Netherlands – introduced 1917 along with universal suffrage, abolished in 1967.
  • Spain – 1907–1923, but not enforced
  • US State of Georgia in 1777 (10 years before the adoption of the federal Constitution of 1787):

    Every person absenting himself from an election, and shall neglect to give in his or their ballot at such election, shall be subject to a penalty not exceeding five pounds; the mode of recovery and also the appropriation thereof, to be pointed out and directed by act of the legislature: Provided, nevertheless, That a reasonable excuse shall be admitted.

    Constitution of Georgia, 5 February 1777, Article XII [17]

This provision was omitted from the revised Georgia constitution of 1789.[citation needed]

Present day[edit]

As of August 2013, 22 countries were recorded as having compulsory voting.[1] Of these, only 10 countries (and one Swiss canton) enforce it. Of the 30 member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 10 had forms of compulsory voting.[19]

Enforced[edit]

These are the 11 countries that enforce compulsory voting:

  • Argentina – Introduced in 1912.[20] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70 and between 16 and 18. (However in primaries, citizens under 70 may refuse to vote, if they formally express their decision to the electoral authorities, at least 48 hours before the election. This is valid only for the subsequent primary, and needs to be repeated each time the voter wishes not to participate.)
  • Australia – Introduced in 1924.[20] Compulsory for federal and state elections for citizens 18 years of age and above. The requirement is for the person to enroll, attend a polling station and have their name marked off the electoral roll as attending, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. The act does not explicitly state that a choice must be made, it only states that the ballot paper be ‘marked’. According to the act how a person marks the paper is completely up to the individual. In some states, local council elections are also compulsory.[21] At the 2010 Tasmanian state election, with a turnout of 335,353 voters, about 6,000 people were fined $26 for not voting, and about 2,000 paid the fine.[22]
  • Brazil[23] – Compulsory for literate citizens between 18 and 70 years old. Non-compulsory for Brazilian Youth age 16-17 or over 70 or illiterate citizens of any age. A justification form for not voting can be filled at election centers and post offices.
  • Cyprus – Introduced in 1960.[20]
  • Ecuador – Introduced in 1936.[20] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 65 years old; non-compulsory for citizens aged 16–18, illiterate people, and those older than 65.
  • Liechtenstein
  • Luxembourg – Voluntary for those over 70.
  • Nauru – Introduced in 1965.[20]
  • Peru[24] – Introduced in 1933.[20] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70.
  • Singapore – Compulsory for citizens above 21 years old on 1 January of the year of election
  • Uruguay – Introduced in 1934, but not put into practice until 1970.[20]
  • Schaffhausen canton in Switzerland has compulsory voting – Introduced to Switzerland in 1904, but abolished in all other cantons by 1974.[20]

Not enforced[edit]

Countries that have compulsory voting on the law books but do not enforce it:

Measures to encourage voting[edit]

Although voting in a country may be compulsory, penalties for failing to vote are not always strictly enforced. In Australiaand Brazil, providing a legitimate reason for not voting (such as being sick or outside the country) is accepted. In Argentina, those who were ill on voting day are excused by requesting a doctor to prove their condition; those over 500 km (310 mi) away from their voting place are also excused by asking for a certificate at a police station near where they are. Belgianvoters can vote in an embassy if they are abroad or can empower another voter to cast the vote in their name; the voter must give a “permission to vote” and carry a copy of the eID card and their own on the actual elections.

States that sanction nonvoters with fines generally impose small or nominal penalties. However, penalties for failing to vote are not limited to fines and legal sanctions. Belgian voters who repeatedly fail to vote in elections may be subject todisenfranchisement. Singapore voters who fail to vote in a general election or presidential election will be subjected to disenfranchisement until a valid reason is given or a fine is paid. Goods and services provided by public offices may be denied to those failing to vote in Peru and Greece. In Brazil, people who fail to vote in an election are barred from obtaining a passport and subject to other restrictions until settling their situation before an electoral court or after they have voted in the two most recent elections. If a Bolivian voter fails to participate in an election, the person may be denied withdrawal of the salary from the bank for three months.[28][33]

Petrocaribe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Petrocaribe S.A.
Type Public[citation needed]
Industry Oil
Founded June, 2005
Headquarters ?
Products Oil
Revenue Increase USD/$ ? billion (2006)
Operating income Increase USD/$ ? billion (2006)
Net income Decrease USD/$ ? billion (2006)
Parent PDVSA
Website www.petrocaribe.org

  Venezuela
  Petrocaribe members and CARICOM members
  Petrocaribe members not part of CARICOM
  CARICOM members not part of Petrocaribe

Petrocaribe is an oil alliance of many Caribbean states with Venezuela to purchase oil on conditions of preferential payment. The alliance was launched on 29 June 2005 in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela. In 2013 Petrocaribe agreed links with the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), to go beyond oil and promote economic cooperation.[1]

Treaty details

The agreement was initiated with the aim of having solidarity with other countries in accordance with ALBA. The payment system allows for purchase of oil on market value for 5%-50% up front with a grace period of one to two years; the remainder can be paid through a 17-25 year financing agreement with 1% interest if oil prices are above US$40 per barrel. The agreement builds on payment terms from the San Jose Agreement and the Caracas Energy Accord.[2] Energy and Petroleum Minister and President of PDVSA Rafael Ramírez said of the deal that it seeks to cut out the middleman in such transactions: “We’re not talking about discounts…We’re talking about financial facilities, direct deliveries of products, [and] infrastructure.”[3]

Membership

A clickable Euler diagram showing the relationships between various multinational organisations in the Americas.vde

There are a total of 17 members, plus Venezuela; 12 of the members are from the 15 member CARICOM (excluding,Barbados, Montserrat and Trinidad and Tobago). At the first summit, 14 countries joined the alliance. These were:Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Venezuela. At the third summit, Haití and Nicaragua joined the union.[2] Guatemala joined in July 2008 but left the organization in November 2013 stating that Venezuela had not provided them with the ultra-low financing rates that they had been promised.[4]

Haiti had not been initially invited to the talks, since Venezuela did not recognize its then post-Jean-Bertrand Aristide government. The country finally joined the alliance in April 2006, once the newly elected president René Préval took office. Honduras became the 17th member of the alliance in December 2007, under President Manuel Zelaya but left the organization after the 2009 coup d’état and later rejoined it on May 2012.[5] Belize set up the Belize Petroleum Energy Company to coordinate for the project.[6]

Non-members

Barbados denied that it had succumbed to pressure from the United States, who had a strained relationship with Venezuela, as the reason, but has not ruled out agreeing to Petrocaribe in the future. On August 31, 2005, Energy Minister Anthony Wood said that they are weighing options over signing Petrocaribe.[6] In April 2011 Hugo Chávez renewed his offer for Barbados to join PetroCaribe.[7]

Panama applied for membership on March 3, 2009[8] and initially said it would continue to join PetroCaribe under the new president,[9] but Panama remains a non-member.

Summits

The first summit, which launched the project was held in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela.[2] The second summit of Petrocaribe was held in Montego Bay, Jamaica.[6] The third summit was held in Caracas, Venezuela and the fourth summit was held in Cienfuegos, Cuba in December 2007.[2] Seventh summit was held in Caracas, at 6 April 2013. Honduras membership was revived after suspension because of coup in 2009 and Guatemala became official new member of Petrocaribe. Summit also propose deeper cooperation between Petrocaribe states and states of ALBA on basis of new economic zone. Summit had discussion also about tourism, air traffic and food security.The 11th Summit was hosted by Haiti in Port-au-Prince by the invitation of the Martelly/Lamothe administration, this was the first Petrocaribe Summit after the death of former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez who started the Petrocaribe economic initiative after his death from cancer related illnesses. The Venezuelan delegation included his successor President Maduro who agrees to continue the programs of former President Hugo Chávez.