What's going on in Latin America? The lead up to the vote for the seat on the UN Security Council in October should usually be an uncontested foregone conclusion. However, now it's evident there's a power struggle afoot on the continent and the Security Council election is but one example. Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, is flexing its muscles and the US under George Bush seems to be getting increasingly agitated.

On the face of it, it's a straight contest between Guatemala and Venezuela for a seat on the UN Security Council for two years. If Latin American and Caribbean countries fail to reach a consensus by Oct. 16, the issue will be decided by a secret vote in the U.N.'s 192-member General Assembly. Behind the scenes, it's apparent that this is just another expression of the new political order in US-Latin American relations.

Dr. Jose Luis Rocha, a Nicaraguan academic from Universidad Centroamericana, recently said in London about the Nicaraguan elections, that they've become ostensibly an election between Chavez (supporting Daniel Ortega- FSLN) and Bush (supporting Eduardo Montealegre- ALN). For me there are obvious parallels with the tussle for the Security Council. Warning bells ring when Central America's more powerful neighbours interfere so blatantly in Central American affairs because, to be frank, there's a history of this kind of thing happening.

New York University professor Greg Grandin in his new book, "Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism," examines how U.S. foreign policy in Latin America has served as a model for U.S. actions in the Middle East and beyond. It certainly worth considering Grandin's thesis of how the U.S. has interfered in Central America using it as a kind of workshop- CAFTA is perhaps the latest case in point. Grandin states:

"What happened is that the United States, in -- well, and not just in El Salvador, in Guatemala and Nicaragua, turned Central America into one of the last killing fields of the Cold War. And this is why Central America has such a pull on the imagination of the neo-cons, is that it occurred simultaneously with the end of the Cold War."

Coming back to the Security Council elections, who knows what will happen? According to recent press reports, Guatemala Foreign Minister, Gert Rosenthal, has said:

"Right now we do not have enough support to win but enough to keep campaigning" (Reuters) Rosenthal has also said: "In some countries I have to admit the U.S. has come on too strong in its opposition to Venezuela. We would be happier if they would not promote our cause so much because we would like to be our own promoter.''

Whatever the situation with the votes- the election is proving to be divisive. So why shouldn't Guatemala, a founding UN member that's never sat on the UN Security Council, have its turn in 2007-8?

What's interesting is that certain international groups like the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), seem to be prepared to disbar Guatemala from the Security Council on the basis on its heinous human rights record. Guatemala's human rights record over the last 30 years is certainly heinous, but the list of countries who similarly should be disbarred from participation in UN institutions on that basis is fairly lengthy.

You can't help feeling (and Rosenthal certainly seems to) that the real reason counting against Guatemala in the eyes of UN members is its backer, the U.S. So how's this particular story of interference in Central America likely to pan out?

According to the Security Council Report (14-08-2006):

"Both Venezuela and Guatemala seem to have a very strong core of base support, probably ensuring that both command a "blocking third"-meaning that the other will not be able to get the necessary two-thirds majority. Normally in contested elections, commitments begin to waiver, especially once a few rounds of voting begin to establish a trend.

However, at this point, it seems that the increasing polarisation of the contest for the Latin American seat may instead have the effect of reinforcing the base support commitments of each candidate. A protracted stalemate is therefore possible.

There are precedents involving over 30 rounds of voting and with no result even by the end of December. And there are also precedents for the emergence of a third candidate, either as a compromise to break the stalemate, or as an opportunist able to take advantage of the situation."

Whoever wins the seat- it's tempting to think that the election would not be as divisive if Venezuela stuck to promoting Venezuela, and Guatemala was left to promote Guatemala.