Democratic Palestine : 36 (ص 31)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 36 (ص 31)
- المحتوى
-
which was faced with a PLO request
for admission as a full member state;
currently the PLO holds observer
status. UNSECO’s Direetor-General
Federico Mayor tried to avoid this
debate, stating that UNESCO should
limit itself to increasing aid to Palesti-
nians living in the occupied territories.
Therefore, prior to the 159-nation con-
ference, UNESCO’s executive board
recommended that the request be post-
poned until 1991. Shortly thereaf-
ter,the general conference, which is
the highest decision-making body, con-
firmed this decision, but ruled to give
the PLO a bigger role in UNESCO.
Israel objected to the decision, say-
ing that the issue of Palestinian mem-
bership should be completely removed
from the agenda, while the US and
Britain said after the conference they
would review their decision about
retuming to the body. The US stated
that if Palestine (which over 100
nations have recognized as an indepen-
dent state) was admitted, that would
remove any possibility of its return.
(Both the US and Bnitain quit
UNESCO in the mid 1980’s, claiming
that the organization had become too
politicized, spent too much money and
was poorly managed under the former
director.)
FAO
Coinciding with the opening of the
UN dgbate on Palestine, the United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organi-
zation held its conference in Rome.
On November 29th, the FAO
approved a resolution which called for
(1) cooperation with the PLO in dis-
tributing food to Palestinians in the
occupied territories, (2) the PLO to
assist with economic development in
the occupied territories, (3) opposition
to the Israeli confiscation of Palesti-
nian land and expropriation of Palesti-
nian water resources, and (4) the FAO
to include the occupied territories in
future programs. The vote was 96-2
(Israel and the US), with 14 absten-
tions.
The US threatened to cut off funds
to the FAO if the the resolution were
Democratic Palestine December 1989
to pass. This resotuuon can be viewed
as a PLO victory, particularly in light
of the pressure and monetary threats
which the US has historically resorted
to.
Upgrading the PLO’s status
Two days before the debate on
Palestine was to begin, the PLO
announced that several Arab countries
planned to introduce a resolution in
the General Assembly that would
upgrade the PLO’s observer status to
observer nation. Presently, the Vati-
can, North and South Korea, Switzer-
land and others hold this status. If this
resolution were to pass, the PLO
would still be unable to vote or
address the General Assembly unless
invited to do so.
The PLO’s announcement elicited
an immediate US reaction: The State
Department threatened to cut off $216
million (one-fourth of the UN budget)
which the US is obligated to pay annu-
ally. The US also owes the UN more
than $500 million in unpaid regular
budget dues and payment for
peacekeeping operations.
The resolution was formally intro-
duced on November 29th, which not
only opened the UN’s debate on Pales-
tine, but is also the UN-declared inter-
national day of solidarity with the
Palestinian people, as well as the date
of the UN decision to partition Pales-
tine in 1947. The vote on this resolu-
tion was postponed on several different
occasions.
Eventually, the PLO and the Arab
countries postponed indefinitely the
resolution for several reasons. First
and foremost was the unprincipled US
threat to cut off funding to the UN,
which is used as a lever to pressure the
international body, and in turn the
PLO and the Arab countries, in order
to have them withdraw the resolution.
Another reason for the postponement
was that Egypt and Morrocco were not
in favor of the resolution, thus not pre-
senting a united Arab front, even at
the UN.
In general, the resolutions adopted
by the General Assembly, particularly
over the past two years, have been
basically politically solid, condemning
Israeli repression and supporting the
Palestinian cause on various levels. On
the other hand, UN Security Council
resolutions have been limited to the
most blatant Israeli violations of
human rights, such as expulsions. This
in large is due to the negative role the
US plays in the Security Council and
its use of the veto.
Concerning the Arab position, many
Arab countries have proposed resolu-
tions in the world body, but much
more can be done on the international
level. For example, the struggle for
upgrading the PLO’s status demanded
a united Arab stance, but the historical
link between US imperialism and the
reactionary regimes led some of them
to take negative stances vis-a-vis the
question of Palestine. The Arab coun-
tries have not been effective enough in
meeting the requirements of the
intifada. What is needed now, more
than ever, from the Arab states and
the international community is to work
for the isolation of Israel, as is the case
with South Africa. This type of punish-
ment is only fitting since Israel has dis-
played flagrant disregard for UN resol-
utions.
With increasing int-rnational con-
sensus on the convening of a fully-
empowered international peace confer-
ence, and awareness of the plight of
the Palestinian people, the intransi-
gence of Israel and its ally, the US,
remain as stumbling blocks. This
alliance is being exposed consistently
at the UN. With increased condemna-
tion of Israel by the international
body, and resolutions such as 43/177 of
December 1988 citing the usage of
Palestine in place of the designation
PLO throughout the UN system, the
Palestinian people and the intifada are
achieving more and more gains inter-
nationally, compounding Israeli isola-
tion. Without a doubt, these gains are
due to a large extent to the Palestinian
intifada in the occupied territories;
with its continued escalation, more can
be expected.
e
31 - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 36
- تاريخ
- ديسمبر ١٩٨٩
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed