Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS
Summary record of the 34th meeting
Held at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, 12 November 2009, at 3 p.m.
Chairperson: Mr. Mićić (Vice-Chairperson) ................................................................................. (Serbia)
later: Mr. Park In-kook (Chairperson) ................................................................................................. (Republic of Korea)
Agenda item 40: Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources ( continued)
13. The Chairperson invited the Committee to take action on draft resolution A/C.2/64/L.12, which had no programme budget implications. A recorded vote had been requested.
14. Ms. de Laurentis (Secretary of the Committee) noted that the document symbol given in footnote 7 to draft resolution A/C.2/64/L.12 should be changed to read A/64/77-E/2009/13.
15. Mr. Tag-Eldin (Egypt) said that there were eight additional sponsors whose names were not reflected in the text. They were: Bolivia, Comoros, Cuba, Ecuador, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Senegal, South Africa and Venezuela. Three other countries wished to join the list of sponsors: Brunei Darussalam, Namibia and Pakistan.
16. Mr. Alahraf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) asked who had requested the recorded vote.
17. The Chairperson said that two delegations had requested the recorded vote.
18. Mr. Tag-Eldin (Egypt) said that he believed that the representative of Libya wished to know which delegations had requested the recorded vote.
19. The Chairperson said that Israel and the United States of America had requested the recorded vote.
20. Ms. Davidovich (Israel), speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that the world faced serious issues related to health, food security, climate change and women’s empowerment, inter alia, and the Committee might therefore be expected to devote its time and resources to issues such as those. It was disappointing, therefore, to be considering a draft resolution which was the result of politicized objectives rather than professional conduct.
21. The resolution, presented ad nauseam , ignored the fruitful and intensive bilateral cooperation taking place between Israel and the Palestinians on a variety of issues, including the environment. It also ignored the numerous agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that had already conferred jurisdiction with respect to the relevant issues on the Palestinians. It was not productive to adopt a resolution on the subject each year. Those wishing to address relevant concerns should do so in the context of the appropriate forum on the ground.
22. The action reflected a pattern which failed to address all sides in an equitable manner, but was rather part of an effort to institutionalize an anti-Israel narrative within the United Nations. While it had apparently succeeded, it had not served the interests of the Palestinian people, nor those of anyone seeking a peaceful resolution in the Middle East. For all of the reasons cited, Israel had called for a vote on the resolution and would vote against it.
23. A recorded vote was taken on draft resolution A/C.2/64/L.12.
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt,
El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Australia, Canada, Fiji, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States of America.
Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Panama.
24. Draft resolution A/C.2/64/L.12 was adopted by 152 votes to 9, with 3 abstentions.
25. Mr. Hijazi (Observer for Palestine) thanked those Member States which had voted in favour of the draft resolution just adopted. Contrary to what the representative of Israel had said, it addressed an issue that was of critical importance to the Palestinian people, and of no less importance as the other issues before the Committee. The draft resolution came at a particularly hard time for the Palestinians, as they continued to suffer the dire consequences of the 42-year military occupation, which spared no effort to plunge them deeper into poverty and hopelessness.
26. By adopting the resolution, the international community had reaffirmed its commitment to international law and the rights it proclaimed. The adoption of the resolution also sent a clear message to the Palestinian people, whose rights and resources were being stolen and remained under seizure by the occupying Power, that the international community stood with them and their inalienable right to a life of dignity and prosperity, in which their natural resources were employed for their benefit and not for the benefit of the illegal settlers. It also demonstrated the international community’s overwhelming support for holding all States to the same standards and responsibilities, clearly demonstrating that no member of the Organization was above international law and covenants.
27. A people’s permanent sovereignty over its natural resources was part and parcel of its inalienable right to self-determination as established by international law, and must be safeguarded by the international community in the interests of peace and stability. The resolution just adopted provided such legal and moral protection, and was a step in the right direction, towards establishing justice, development and peace.
28. Claiming that such resolutions were irrelevant was yet another assault, similar to the one carried out by the Prime Minister of Israel in the General Assembly, against the will of the international community, which had repeatedly tried to uphold international law and the principles for which the United Nations stood.
The meeting rose at 4.10 p.m.
This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned within one week of the date of publication to the Chief of the Official Records Editing Section, room DC2-750, 2 United Nations Plaza, and incorporated in a copy of the record.
Corrections will be issued after the end of the session, in a separate corrigendum for each Committee.