RSS

FOLLOWING TWO-DAY DEBATE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS SIX DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON QUESTION OF PALESTINE, MIDDLE EAST

05 Jan

Home || Permalink
Question de Palestine Situation au Moyen-Orient – L’AG adapte six
résolutions – Communiqué de presse Français

Take the UNISPAL user survey!
Department of Public Information (DPI)
2 December 2009

General Assembly
GA/10896
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-fourth General Assembly
Plenary
54th Meeting (AM)

FOLLOWING TWO-DAY DEBATE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS SIX DRAFT RESOLUTIONS

ON QUESTION OF PALESTINE, MIDDLE EAST

Address: Peaceful Settlement, Palestinian Rights Committee, Jerusalem,
Special Information Programme, Palestinian Rights Division, Syrian Globe

Fresh from observing the International Day of Solidarity with the
Palestinian People, the General Assembly this morning concluded two
days of plenary debate on the question of Palestine and the broader
situation in the Middle East with the adoption, by recorded vote, of
six resolutions aimed at promoting the inalienable rights of
Palestinians – particularly to statehood –and permanently ending
Israel’s “illegal” actions in Jerusalem and Syrian Golan.

In early action, the Assembly turned its attention to Palestine with
the adoption of four texts. It first adopted, by a recorded vote of
109 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall
Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 55 abstentions,
a resolution on the “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable
Rights of the Palestinian People” (document A/64/L.20) (for voting
details, see Annex I). By that text, it asked the Committee to
continue to exert all efforts to promote the realization of
Palestinians’ inalienable rights, including to self-determination.

By a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Canada,
Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, New Zealand,
United States) with 54 abstentions (Annex II), the Assembly next
adopted a resolution on the “Division for Palestinian Rights of the
Secretariat” (document A/64/L.21), by which it requested the
Secretary-General to continue to provide the Division with the
necessary resources and ensure that it continued to carry out its
programme of work.

Next, by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 8 against (Australia,
Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United
States), with 5 abstentions (Benin, Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea,
Tonga) (Annex III), the Assembly adopted a resolution on the “Special
Information Programme on the Question of Palestine of the Department
of Public Information of the Secretariat” (document A/64/L.22), by
which it requested the Department to continue its special information
programme for the 2010-2011 biennium.

The Assembly also adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7
against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru,
Palau, United States) with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Fiji,
Tonga) (Annex IV), a resolution on the “Peaceful Settlement of the
question of Palestine” (document A/64/L.23), by which it reaffirmed
the illegality of a host of Israeli actions aimed at altering the
character, status and demographic composition of Jerusalem and the
territory as a whole, among them, Israel’s construction of a wall in
the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East
Jerusalem.

More broadly by the text, the Assembly reaffirmed its full support for
the Middle East peace process, based on relevant United Nations
resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, the Arab Peace Initiative,
the Quartet Road Map and existing agreements between the Israeli and
Palestinian sides. It urged the parties to take immediate steps in
follow-up to their joint understanding reached at the 2007 Annapolis
Conference, and encouraged the convening of an international
conference in Moscow, as envisioned by Security Council resolution
1850 (2008).

Speaking before the votes, the United States representative said his
Government was deeply saddened to be presented with unbalanced
resolutions, which unlike the Assembly’s actions vis-à-vis other
States, placed demands on Israel and failed to acknowledge that both
sides had obligations. While the United States accepted the principle
that the Assembly might look into the practices of States, resolutions
under this item formed a clear pattern of institutional bias directed
at one Member State.

Speaking after the votes, the representative of Israel said his
Government had voted against the resolutions, which reflected a
one-sided agenda that had been repeated year in and year out. People
in the region did not need another biased General Assembly resolution;
they needed peace based on mutual recognition, which would result from
negotiations.

Following that action, the Assembly adopted two texts on the situation
in the Middle East.

By a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 7 against (Israel, Marshall
Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States), with 5
abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga), the
Assembly then adopted the resolution on “Jerusalem” (document
A/64/L.24) (Annex V), by which it expressed grave concern at any
action taken by any body – Governmental or non-governmental – in
violation of resolutions 181 (II) (1947), 36/120 (1981), 56/31 (2001)
and 478 (1980).

Next, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 7 against (Canada,
Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States),
with 51 abstentions, the Assembly adopted a resolution on “The Syrian
Golan” (document A/64/L.25) (Annex VI), by which it declared that
Israel had failed to comply with Security Council resolution 497
(1981) and that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its
laws on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void. Continued
occupation of the Syrian Golan was a stumbling block to achieving a
just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region. It called on
Israel to resume talks on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and demanded
its withdrawal from all the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4
June 1967.

Speaking after action, the observer of Palestine said the resolutions
sent a strong signal on the importance of upholding the clear
principles of international law. The building of illegal settlements,
the building of an illegal wall, and the annexation of East Jerusalem
were all obstacles to peace. The resolutions were not one-sided. “We
could not all of us be wrong”, he said. Israel was acting as if it
was above international law and it was high time to bring it into
compliance.

Also speaking in explanation of vote after the vote on the resolutions
related to Palestine were the representatives of New Zealand and
Sweden (on behalf of the European Union).

Also speaking in explanation of the vote after the vote on the
resolutions related to the Middle East were the representatives of
Argentina (also speaking for Brazil), Iran and Syria.

The General Assembly will reconvene at 3 p.m. Wednesday, 2 December to
take up the reports of its First Committee (Disarmament and
International Security).

Background

The General Assembly met today to take action on draft resolutions
relating to the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle
East. (For summaries of the resolutions and debate, please see press
releases [GA/10894] and [GA/10895]).

Action on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 16 on Question of Palestine

Resuming its consideration of the question of Palestine, the Assembly
first turned to a draft text on the Committee on the Exercise of the
Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/64/L.20).

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the United States
representative said, on the situation in the Middle East, his
Government had clearly stated that there should be two states living
side by side in peace and security. The United States was deeply
saddened to be presented with unbalanced resolutions, which unlike the
Assembly’s actions vis-à-vis other States, placed demands on Israel
and failed to acknowledge that both sides had obligations. While the
United States accepted the principle that the Assembly might look into
the practices of States, resolutions under this item formed a clear
pattern of institutional bias directed at one Member State. Of
particular concern were three resolutions on the entities established
more than a generation ago that perpetuated that bias.

He said the millions of dollars spent on the Division of Palestinian
Rights, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the
Palestinian People and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli
Practices could be better directed towards other issues, including
direct assistance to needy Palestinians, as could staff resources.
The United States had provided significant financial support to the
Palestinian Authority and to Palestinian refugees. The United States
was the largest single donor to the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). He reiterated
the call for all to review the continued existence of those bodies
with a sharp focus on what, if anything, they contributed to finding a
solution to the Middle East conflict.

In addition to those three resolutions, the Assembly would consider
others that would prejudge the outcome of permanent status issues, he
said. They called into question the United Nations’ credibility.
Through good faith negotiations, parties could agree on an outcome
that reconciled the goals of a viable Palestinian state, and the
Israeli goal of a Jewish state living in secure and recognized
borders. The United States’ commitment to achieving a solution of two
states living side by side in peace was unwavering.

By a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada,
Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States)
with 55 in abstention, the Assembly then adopted the text on the
Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian
People (document A/64/L.20) (Annex I), by which it asked the Committee
to continue to exert all efforts to promote the realization of the
inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to
self-determination. It authorized the Committee to adjust its
approved work programme after considering developments and report to
the Assembly.

Further by the text, the Assembly requested the Committee to continue
its cooperation and support to Palestinian and other civil
organizations, as well as involve additional civil society
organizations and parliamentarians in its work to mobilize support for
the Palestinian people. It requested the United Nations Conciliation
Commission for Palestine, and other United Nations bodies associated
with the question of Palestine, to cooperate fully with the Committee.
Finally, it requested the Secretary-General to circulate the report
of the Committee to all competent bodies of the United Nations and
urge them to take the necessary action, as appropriate.

The Assembly then adopted by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 9
against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia,
Nauru, Palau, New Zealand and United States) with 54 in abstention, a
resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat
(document A/64/L.21) (Annex II), by which it requested the
Secretary-General to continue to provide the Division with the
necessary resources and ensure that it continued to carry out its
programme of work. It requested the Division, as part of the
observance of the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian
People on 29 November, to continue to organize an annual exhibit on
Palestinian rights or a cultural event in cooperation with the
Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine.

By a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada,
Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and United States)
with 5 in abstentions (Benin, Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and
Tonga), the Assembly next adopted a resolution on the Special
Information Programme on the Question of Palestine (document
A/64/L.22) (Annex III), by which it requested the Department of Public
Information, in full cooperation with the Committee on the Exercise of
the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, to continue its
special information programme for the biennium 2010-2011. It
encouraged the Department to find ways for the media and civil society
to engage in open and positive discussions to explore means for
encouraging people-to-people dialogue and promote peace and mutual
understanding in the region.

Next, the Assembly adopted by recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7
against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau
and United States) with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Canada, Fiji and
Tonga), a resolution on the Peaceful Settlement of the question of
Palestine (document A/64/L.23) (Annex IV), by which it reaffirmed the
illegality of Israeli actions intended at changing the status of
Jerusalem, including measures such as the so-called E-1 plan [which
aims to connect Jerusalem to the West Bank and settlement of Ma’ale
Adumim].

It also reaffirmed the illegality of other unilateral measures that
are contrary to international law and endeavour to alter the
character, status and demographic composition of the city and the
territory as a whole, among them, Israel’s construction of a wall in
the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East
Jerusalem. It expressed deep concern at the continued Israeli policy
of closures and restrictions on the movement of persons and goods,
medical and humanitarian personnel and goods, continued establishment
of checkpoints and imposition of a permit regime throughout the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, which had
created a dire humanitarian crisis.

Also by the text, the Assembly reaffirmed its full support for the
Middle East peace process, based on the relevant United Nations
resolutions, Madrid terms of reference, the Arab Peace Initiative, the
Quartet Road Map and existing agreements between the Israeli and
Palestinian sides. It encouraged continued regional and international
efforts to promote the Arab Peace Initiative; urged parties to
undertake immediate steps in follow-up to their joint understanding
reached at the 2007 Annapolis Conference; and encouraged the convening
of an international conference in Moscow.

The Assembly also stressed the need for advancing reconstruction in
the Gaza Strip; called on Israel to comply with its obligations under
international law; and reiterated the demand for complete cessation of
all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the Syrian Golan.
Reaffirming its commitment to the two-State solution of Israel and
Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized
borders, based on pre-1967 borders, the Assembly stressed the need for
Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian territory occupied since 1967,
including East Jerusalem.

Finally by the text, the Assembly stressed the need for justly
resolving the problem of Palestine refugees; called on parties to
resume direct peace negotiations towards conclusion of a final
peaceful settlement; urged States to speed provision of economic
humanitarian and technical assistance to Palestinians; encouraged the
Quartet’s Special Representative to strengthen Palestinian
institutions and requested the Secretary-General to continue efforts
towards the attainment of a peaceful settlement of the question of
Palestine.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Israel said his
Government had voted against the resolutions, as it had done in the
past, because they did not reflect the reality of the region. They
reflected a one-sided agenda repeated year in and year out. They did
not help the conflict. People in the region needed peace based on
mutual recognition, which would result from negotiations. They did not
need another biased and one-sided General Assembly resolution. The
Middle East required an agreement that would allow countries to live
in peace.

Speaking in explanation of its vote on resolutions A/64/L.21 and
A/64/L.22, the representative of New Zealand said his country had
consistently supported negotiations toward a two-state solution to the
Middle East conflict. New Zealand said it was essential to approach
the issues raised in these resolutions with balance and regard for the
intent of the text in question.

Regarding the resolution on the special information programme, New
Zealand supported the dissemination of balanced information and
welcomed this resolution’s focus on promoting dialogue between the two
sides. While he voted in favour of this resolution, he called on the
department’s special information programme to carry out its mandate in
a manner that reflected the full spectrum of perspectives.

Regarding the resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights, New
Zealand was not convinced that the Division was a constructive use of
resources and it did little to contribute to the Middle East peace
process. It voted against the resolution. But, that did not detract
from its strong support for Palestinian self-determination.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Sweden
explained its vote regarding the resolution of the “Peaceful
settlement of the Question of Palestine” (A/64/L.23). The Union urged
the Palestinian Authority and Israel to enter into serious peace
negotiations as soon as possible.

The European Union was deeply concerned about the continued settlement
activities and evictions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,
including East Jerusalem and reiterated that they were an obstacle to
peace. It was also concerned about the recent developments in East
Jerusalem and was closely following the situation around the Al Aqsa
mosque and Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif.

It was gravely concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and
what was, in effect, a blockade. It consistently called for the
immediate openings of crossings to let humanitarian aid, commercial
goods and people go into and out of Gaza. Without that,
reconstruction and economic recovery would not be possible.

Action on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 15 on Situation in Middle East

The Assembly then turned its attention to the situation in the Middle East.

By a recorded vote of 163 in favour, to 7 against (Israel, Marshall
Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States), with 5 in
abstention (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga), the
Assembly then adopted the resolution on Jerusalem (document A/64/L.24)
(Annex V), by which it expressed grave concern at any action taken by
any body – Governmental or non-governmental – in violation of
resolutions 181 (II) (1947), 36/120 (1981), 56/31 (2001) and 478
(1980). It expressed grave concern at Israel’s continuation of
illegal settlement activities, including the so-called E-1 plan,
construction of the wall around East Jerusalem and restricted access
to and residence in East Jerusalem.

Further by the text, the Assembly reiterated its determination that
any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and
administration on Jerusalem were illegal and, therefore, null and
void. It called on Israel to immediately cease all such illegal
measures and stressed that a comprehensive, just and lasting solution
to the question of Jerusalem should take into account the legitimate
concerns of both Palestinians and Israelis and should include
internationally guaranteed provisions to ensure freedom of religion of
its inhabitants. Finally, it requested the Secretary-General to
report back to it at its sixty-fifth session on the implementation of
the resolution.

Next, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour, to 7 against (Canada,
Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States),
with 51 in abstention, the Assembly adopted a resolution on The Syrian
Golan (document A/64/L.25) (Annex VI), by which it declared that
Israel had failed to comply with Security Council resolution 497
(1981) and that the Israeli decision of 14 December 1981 to impose its
laws on the occupied Syrian Golan was null and void. It reaffirmed
its determination that all relevant provisions annexed to the Hague
Convention of 1907 and Geneva Convention relative to the protection of
Civilian Persons in Time of War continue to apply.

Further, the Assembly determined that continued occupation of the
Syrian Golan was a stumbling block to achieving a just, comprehensive
and lasting peace in the region. It called on Israel to resume talks
on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks and demanded its withdrawal from all
the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967. Finally, it
called on all parties concerned to exert efforts to

ensure the resumption of the peace process by implementing Security
Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and requested the
Secretary-General to report to it at its sixty-fifth session.

Speaking in explanation of the vote after the vote, the representative
of Argentina, also speaking on behalf of Brazil, said the two
countries voted in favour of the resolutions because they understood
the territory under dispute was taken by force and, thus, such action
violated the Charter of the United Nations. In that regard, Brazil
and Argentina believed it was important that there was forward
movement in finding a resolution to the problem of the Middle East and
urged both Israel and Syria to renew negotiations that would lead to a
definitive resolution of the situation in the Syrian Golan, which
would also be in conformity with the requirements of the land for
peace principle.

The representative of Iran, also speaking in explanation of the vote
after the vote, said he voted in favour of all the draft resolutions
just adopted by the Assembly, in the spirit of solidarity with the
Palestinian people and cause, as well as in support of other people
under occupation. However, he expressed his reservations on those
parts of the resolutions that he felt could not be in line with the
stated policy of his country, or could be construed as recognition of
Israel.

The representative of Syria said he was very thankful for the
Assembly’s decision to promote peace and justice by adopting, with a
majority, resolution A/64/L.25 and the other resolutions on the
question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East. The votes
showed the international community’s commitment and Member States’
desire to achieve the objective goals of the United Nations Charter.
It also showed the rejection of the foreign occupation by Israel and
the support for those people’s rights to recover their territory,
which had been occupied by Israel for more than 40 years. The votes
sent a message to Israel that its expansionist policies and its
aggression were rejected and violated the Charter and Fourth Geneva
Convention of 1949. It also showed that the borders needed to be
recovered and a Palestinian State needed to be created.

The observer of Palestine expressed his gratitude to all whom
sponsored the resolutions and those whom voted in favour of the
resolutions. It was a strong signal from the Assembly to uphold and
reaffirm the clear principles of international law. The international
community had to work diligently to see that the Israeli side
complied. The essence of these resolutions was rooted in
international law, he said.

The building of illegal settlements, the building of an illegal wall,
and the annexation of East Jerusalem were obstacles to peace. He said
the Israelis “could not take us for a ride” based on their conditions.
They had to abide by their obligations and international law. The
Palestinians were interested in moving forward in the direction of
peace.

He said the resolutions were not one-sided. “We could not all of us
be wrong”, he added. Israel was acting and behaving as it was above
international law and it was “high time” to bring them into
compliance, he said.

ANNEX I

Vote on Palestinian Right Committee

The draft resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the
Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/64/L.20) was
adopted by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 8 against, with 55
abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize,
Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte
d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq,
Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s
Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia,
Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman,
Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and
Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates,
Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia
(Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El
Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece,
Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal,
Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation,
Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga,
Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo,
Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malawi,
Mongolia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe,
Seychelles, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu,
Yemen.

ANNEX II

Vote on Palestinian Rights Division

The draft resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights (document
A/64/L.21) was adopted by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 9
against, with 54 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina,
Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize,
Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Costa
Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq,
Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s
Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia,
Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman,
Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and
Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates,
United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam,
Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia
(Federated States of), Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, United States.

Abstain: Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia,
Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro,
Netherlands, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal,
Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation,
Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga,
Ukraine, United Kingdom.

Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Central African Republic, Congo,
Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malawi,
Mongolia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe,
Seychelles, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Special Information Programme

The draft resolution on the Special Information Programme on the
Question of Palestine (document A/64/L.22) was adopted by a recorded
vote of 162 in favour to 8 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina,
Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus,
Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana,
Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia,
Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte
d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark,
Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador,
Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia,
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana,
Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy,
Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao
People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia,
Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali,
Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro,
Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama,
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, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon
Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname,
Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,
Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates,
United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan,
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia
(Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain: Benin, Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga.

Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Central African Republic,
Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Madagascar,
Malawi, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe,
Seychelles, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Peaceful Settlement

The draft resolution on Peaceful Settlement (document A/64/L.23) was
adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against, with 4
abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina,
Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados,
Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi,
Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa
Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark,
Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador,
Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia,
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana,
Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy,
Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao
People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia,
Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia,
Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco,
Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman,
Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, 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, Sierra Leone,
Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa,
Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland,
Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan,
Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic
of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia,
Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain: Cameroon, Canada, Fiji, Tonga.

Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic,
Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Malawi, Panama,
Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles,
Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Jerusalem

The draft resolution on Jerusalem (document A/64/L.24) was adopted by
a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 7 against, with 5 abstentions, as
follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina,
Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados,
Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi,
Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros,
Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland,
France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India,
Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,
Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta,
Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea,
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, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon
Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname,
Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,
Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates,
United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan,
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of),
Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States.

Abstain: Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Tonga.

Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic,
Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada,
Honduras, Kiribati, Malawi, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome
and Principe, Seychelles, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VI

Vote on the Syrian Golan

The draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/64/L.25) was
adopted by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 7 against, with 51
abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize,
Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina
Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador,
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea,
Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica,
Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia,
Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman,
Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar,
Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands,
Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria,
Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey,
Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of
Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia,
Zimbabwe.

Against: Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania,
Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga,
Ukraine, United Kingdom.

Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Central
African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial
Guinea, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Malawi, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and
Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu,
Vanuatu.

* *** *

Posted via email from RoftoRadio “Radio of The Others”

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 5, 2010 in Uncategorized

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: