Os Estados Unidos e Israel voltaram a ficar num quase absoluto isolamento ao votarem contra uma resolução sobre o direito do povo palestino à auto-determinação aprovada pelo 3.º Comité (Assuntos Sociais, Humanitários e Culturais) da Assembleia Geral da ONU.
O documento (The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination - document A/C.3/65/L.52) foi adoptado com 177 países a favor, com votos contra de Washington e de Tel Avive, acompanhados pelos pequenos Estados do Pacífico de Nauru, Micronésia, Ilhas Marshall e Palau.
Também exitiram quatro abstenções: Canadá, Camarões, Tonga e Congo Democrático.
O texto conta com dois pontos resolutivos, o primeiro dos quais reafirma o direito do povo palestino à auto-determinação, inclusive a um Estado da Palestina independente.
O outro chama todos os Estados e organismos especializados e do sistema da ONU a continuarem o seu apoio e assistência ao povo palestino "para a pronta concretização de seu direito à auto-determinação".
Na sua parte introdutória o texto da Assembleia menciona uma longa lista de instrumentos e documentos internacionais relacionados com essa prerrogativa, os direitos humanos e a descolonização.
Além disso, refere a construção por Israel de um muro no território palestino ocupado, como uma acção que "menospreza gravemente o direito do povo palestino à auto-determinação".
Também aponta a necessidade de retomar e acelerar as negociações no Médio Oriente em busca de "um acordo de paz justo, duradouro e geral entre as partes palestina e israelita".
A resolução defende o respeito e a preservação da "unidade, contiguidade e integridade territoriais de todo o território palestino ocupado, incluído Jerusalém Oriental" e reafirma o direito de todos os Estados da região a viver em paz dentro de fronteiras seguras e reconhecidas internacionalmente.
No final de Novembro, Washington e Tel Avive já tinham ficado praticamente isolados no seu voto contra seis resoluções sobre várias questões referidas ao conflito no Médio Oriente e que foram então aprovadas pela Assembleia.
Os textos tratavam sobre o Comité para o exercício dos direitos inalienáveis do povo palestino, o Secretariado da Divisão dos Direitos dos Palestinos, o Programa especial de informação sobre a questão Palestina, o Arranjo pacífico da questão Palestina e os casos de Jerusalém e do Golan sírio.
Em todas essas votações, as delegações norte-americana e israelita sufragaram de maneira negativa, com o exíguo respaldo das Ilhas Marshall, Micronésia, Palau e Nauru.
A Austrália votou com Washington e Tel Avive em quatro dessas resoluções, Canadá também o fez por quatro vezes, mas em diferentes textos, e o Japão e a Nova Zelândia por uma vez, mas também sobre diferentes textos.
Texto respigado do comunicado de imprensa:
"The Committee then took action on the draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/C.3/65/L.52).
That draft would have the Assembly express the urgent need for the resumption and accelerated advancement of negotiations within the Middle East peace process, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Road Map, and for the speedy achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides. Affirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders, it would reaffirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine; as well as urge all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination.
The representative of Egypt, the main sponsor, made a statement, saying that the inalienable right to self-determination was enshrined in international agreements and was not a gift to be bestowed on people under foreign occupation, such as the Palestinians, who had been counting on the international community to protect their right to self-determination. It was hoped that the international community would show solidarity by adopting the resolution by consensus. The resolution would enable the Palestinians to establish on their own land a sovereign State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The Chair of the Committee said that a recorded vote had been requested. Egypt asked who had requested the vote, to which the Chair answered that Israel had made the request.
Speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote, the representative of Israel said that, shortly after being sworn in as the Israeli Prime Minister last year, Benjamin Netanyahu spoke about his vision for Israel and Palestine, discussing two free peoples living side by side, with neither threatening the other. Netanyahu had appealed to his Arab neighbours, saying, “let us talk peace”. That simple and genuine offer remained today, just as when it was first made. Israel had called for a vote on the text and would vote against it, as one-sided political resolutions would not result in real progress. Progress would, instead, take place on the ground through direct bilateral negotiations. Israel continued to call on Palestine to return to negotiations without preconditions. Peace could not happen without two sides sitting down to talk. While the resolution called for unity, it failed to discuss Hamas’ separating Gaza from the West Bank. It failed to ensure Palestine’s respect for the security of the State of Israel. Thousands of mortars had been launched at Israel from the Gaza Strip. Real peace could only be based on mutual respect.
The Committee then approved the resolution by a recorded vote of 174 in favour to 5 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Nauru, Marshall Islands, United States) with 3 abstaining (Canada, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo).
In an explanation of the vote after the vote, the representative of Argentina wished to reaffirm the country’s recognition of the inalienable right of Palestine to self-determination. Self-determination required an active subject — if that subject did not exist, there would be no right to self-determination. On the issue of the Malvinas Islands, the United Kingdom had expelled the peaceful Argentine population and replaced it with its subjects. That made it a special case of decolonization and recognized as a sovereignty dispute. The means to resolve it was the renewal of bilateral negotiations to find a fair, peaceful solution. Argentina hoped that the draft resolution would result in a Palestinian State that was independent. Argentina expressed full support for the right to self-determination of people under foreign occupation.
The representative of the United Kingdom said that the Government had no doubt about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The United Kingdom’s relationship with all its territories was based on partnership. Regarding the democratic relationship with those on the Falkland Islands, the people had been informed that they were entitled to self-determination. There were no indigenous people and no people had been removed. The people confirmed that they were, and had been, the only people on the Falkland Islands and did not wish to change their status.
The Observer of Palestine, expressing appreciation to those who had co-sponsored the resolution, said, without a doubt, the denial of the Palestinian people their right to self-determination remained the problem in the Middle East. The reaffirmation of that right, shown by the resolution, was crucial, until the right was realized. The resolution should not be seen as contrary to peace efforts. It was complementary and could only promote peace, not undermine it. Self-determination was not an issue under negotiation, and Palestine must not continue to be robbed of it. The message that Israel sent by casting its vote was that it rejected the creation of a Palestinian State and the idea of two States side by side. Israel violated the crux of the agreement, because it could not reject the recognition of Palestine while recognizing self-determination. The “so-called peace” alluded to by Israel was the continuation of illegal Israeli policies.
The two-State solution for peace was in serious jeopardy and was being undermined by Israel’s policies, he continued. That was unmistakably evident in the colonization of land and the creation of the wall, which were undermining the right to self-determination. That was the real threat to peace, not the resolution. The statement made by Israel merited no response, as the vote spoke for itself, and was only an attempt by a power to continue its occupation. To achieve peace in the Middle East, the recognition of the right of Palestinians to self-determination was the first step. The right of the Palestinians to self-determination would not be surrendered until that right, and the independence of the Palestinian State, with East Jerusalem as its capital, was a reality"
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário