Environment in the OPT – Global Ministerial Environment Forum/21st session of UNEP Governing Council – Vote on Dec 21/16 (excerpts)

---

---

GLOBAL MINISTERIAL ENVIRONMENT FORUM

PROCEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL

AT ITS TWENTY-FIRST SESSION

…

Environmental situation in the occupied Palestinian territories (decision 21/16)

1. At the 7th meeting of the Committee of the Whole, on 9 February 2001, the Committee agreed to transmit, in square brackets, the draft decision on the above subject for consideration by the Council on the basis of the draft decision contained in conference room paper UNEP/GC.21/CW/CRP.3, submitted by Egypt (on behalf of the Arab Group).

2. The representative of the United States of America wished the following statement to be placed in the record of the meeting:

“It is disappointing that we are obliged yet again to consider a draft decision which attempts to insinuate highly contentious political issues into an essentially science-based forum which is otherwise respected for its ability to work in harmony and cooperation to find ways to address a profound challenge facing our governments, the improvement of the environmental inheritance we will leave to our children.

“The fact that this issue has been considered repeatedly over the past decades only attests to the calculated decision by some among us to cheapen the value of this forum and to seek to twist it to their own ends.  We cannot accept that simply having spoken of this issue before, no matter how often, justifies the Governing Council entering into topics so alien to its mandate.  Any attempt to cloak this issue in environmental dressing is a cheap construct that in the end is transparent to all.

“Additionally, we are being asked to accept the premise that the Governing Council should insert itself into regional issues without the consent or willing involvement of an involved government.  It is ironic that several among those introduced this draft decision have vehemently denounced the possibility that UNEP might become involved in politically controversial issues that directly affect their own interests – most notably with regard to water issues.  The distinction is non-existent and purely a matter of convenience.”

3. The representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that in the opinion of the European Union, this was predominantly a political matter that should not be dealt with at that forum. The European Union would therefore abstain in the event of a vote.

4. The representative of Egypt stressed his country’s position that this was not a new issue in the Governing Council and that it was within the UNEP’s mandate to consider the environmental status of and provide assistance to the Palestinian State.

5. The representative of Israel said that the draft decision created a connection with political issues and discredited environmentalists because it turned the Governing Council into a political forum.  UNEP had always focused on global environmental issues and should not be used for blatant political purposes.

6. The observer for Palestine expressed appreciation to those delegations that supported a “humanitarian request” from the Palestinian people who were facing an environmental catastrophe.

7. At the request of the representative of the United States of America, a vote on the draft decision was taken by roll-call.  The draft decision was adopted by 19 votes to 1, with 21 abstentions.  The voting was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Brazil, Burundi, China, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kazakhstan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkey, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

Against: United States of America

Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Samoa, Thailand, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

…