Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

Le développement agricole dans les TPO/Résolution sur les technologies agricoles au service du développement – Débat de la Deuxième Commission de l’AG, vote – Communiqué de presse (extraits) Français
Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter

Source: Department of Public Information (DPI)
General Assembly
4 December 2009

General Assembly

        Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-third General Assembly
Second Committee
39th Meeting (PM)



The Second Committee (Economic and Financial) met this morning to take action on draft resolutions relating to macroeconomic policy questions, sustainable development, globalization and interdependence, eradication of poverty and other development issues, towards global partnerships and the United Nations University, and to hear the introduction of a draft relating to macroeconomic policy questions.

Action on Draft Resolutions


As the Committee prepared to take action on a draft entitled Agricultural Technology for Development (document A/C.2/64/L.21/Rev.1), the representative of Iraq, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, in explanation of position before the vote, said that as long as the Group of 77 Developing Countries and China had submitted a draft resolution on agricultural development and food security under agenda item 60, there was no justification in terms of substance for the submission of a new draft resolution on the issue.  Furthermore, the Israeli draft resolution did not maintain a balance between the interests of developing and developed countries, nor did it address important issues such as transfer of agricultural technology, funding and the lifting of trade barriers.

Furthermore, he said, Israel had no credibility because it, as an occupying Power, it routinely violated and rejected United Nations resolutions and, showing such disdain for the Organization, was unqualified to submit a resolution to it.  As an occupying Power, Israel had systematically undermined agriculture in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the occupied Syrian Golan since 1967.  Various United Nations reports had shown the disastrous consequences of these practices.

Finally, he said that Israel blatantly exploited the issue of transfer of agricultural technology and the needs of many developing countries.  “Attacks by Israeli settlers on the farms and trees of Palestinian farmers, the theft of water resources from the occupied Arab territories and their transfer to Israeli settlements and the burial of nuclear waste in the occupied Syrian Golan, lost Israel any moral legitimacy to talk about the transfer of agricultural technology.”

The Committee then approved the draft by a recorded vote of 131 in favour with none against, and 37 abstentions.  (See Annex I for voting details).

Immediately after the action, the representative of Israel in explanation of the vote said that the wide spectrum co-sponsors who supported the resolution demonstrated the importance of the issue, and that the Arab Group’s statement and the abstentions simply indicated how politicized the issue had become.  In conclusion, while the adoption reflected only the beginning of what needed to be done, she was confident it would be translated into action.



Vote on Agricultural Technology for Development

The draft resolution on Agricultural Technology for Development (document A/C.2/64/L.21/REV.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 131 in favour to none against, with 37 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia.

Absent:  Algeria, Azerbaijan, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Iran, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.


* *** *

For information media • not an official record

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter