{"id":198614,"date":"1991-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-03-12T17:38:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/?p=198614"},"modified":"2019-03-12T17:38:03","modified_gmt":"2019-03-12T17:38:03","slug":"auto-insert-198614","status":"publish","type":"document","link":"https:\/\/www.un.org\/unispal\/document\/auto-insert-198614\/","title":{"rendered":"Fifth European NGO Symposium (Vienna, 26-27 August 1991) – Report – DPR publication"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
<\/p>\n
FIFTH Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµITED NATIONS<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n EUROPEAN REGIONAL NGO SYMPOSIUM<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n ON THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Austria Centre, Vienna<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 26-27 August 1991<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \n <\/p>\n CONTENTS<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Page<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………..1<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n OPENING MEETING…………………………………………………………..2<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n PANEL DISCUSSION………………………………………………………….4<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n CLOSING STATEMENTS………………………………………………………..7<\/p><\/div>\n Annexes<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n I.\t<\/span>Declaration adopted by the Fifth United Nations European<\/p><\/div>\n \t<\/span>Regional NGO Symposium on the Question of Palestine……………………..9<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n II.\t<\/span>Workshop reports……………………………………………………11<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n III.\t<\/span>1991-1992 European Coordinating Committee for NGOs<\/p><\/div>\n \t<\/span>on the Question of Palestine…………………………………………18<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n IV.\t<\/span>List of participants and observers……………………………………21<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \n <\/p>\n INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 1.\t<\/span>The Fifth United Nations European Regional NGO Symposium on the Question of Palestine was held under the auspices of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, at the Austria Centre, Vienna, on 26 and 27 August 1991. The Symposium was convened in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 45\/67 B of 6 December 1990.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 2.\t<\/span>The Symposium was attended by 125 non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 75 of them as observers. It was also attended by several observers from Governments, intergovernmental organizations and United Nations bodies (see annex IV).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 3.\t<\/span>The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People was represented by a delegation composed of H.E. Mrs. Absa Claude Diallo (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee; H.E. Mr. Khodaidad Basharmal (Afghanistan), Vice-Chairman of the Committee and Mr. Nasser Al-Kidwa (Palestine), Observer on the Committee.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 4.\t<\/span>The programme of the Symposium was formulated by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People in consultation with the European Coordinating Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine. Its theme was "Time for Palestine. The role of Europe in securing Palestinian rights".<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Two panels were held:<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>(a)\t<\/span>On Panel I entitled "Implementation of United Nations resolutions on Palestine: European collective responsibility and strategies following the Gulf war", presentations were made by the following experts:<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Mr. Uri Avnery (Israel) and Mr. Hael El Fahoum (Palestinian);<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>(b)\t<\/span>On Panel II entitled "International protection of the Palestinian people: The responsibilities of European States as co-signatories of the Fourth Geneva Convention", presentations were made by the following experts:<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>Mr. Bernard Mills (United Kingdom) and Mr. Khaled Muhammed<\/p><\/div>\n \t<\/span>Batrawi (Palestinian).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 5.\t<\/span>Seven workshops were also held on the following topics:<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>(a)\t<\/span>Effective lobby work in Europe – review of past experience and future initiative;<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>(b)\t<\/span>Mobilizing public opinion in Europe – end the occupation now;<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>(c)\t<\/span>Contributing to fair and factual reporting on Palestinian issues in the mass media;<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>(d)\t<\/span>New initiatives for securing international protection for the Palestinian people;<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>(e)\t<\/span>Economic effects of the Gulf war on Palestinians – NGO actions;<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>(f)\t<\/span>Jewish immigration and its impact on Palestinian rights – responsibilities of European States and public opinion; and<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>(g)\t<\/span>Development projects on Palestine – how to cooperate with governmental and intergovernmental institutions.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 6.\t<\/span>The Symposium adopted a Declaration as well as proposals emanating from the workshops (annexes I and II).<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n OPENING MEETING<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n 7.\t<\/span>Opening the meeting, H.E. Mrs. Absa Claude Diallo<\/u> (Senegal), Chairman of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, said that the Symposium was being held at a particularly delicate moment in the long history of international efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict in general and the Palestine question in particular.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 8.\t<\/span>Since 1983, when the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, held at Geneva, first proposed the holding of an international peace conference on the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations, the Committee had promoted this objective in the belief that the Conference format recommended by the General Assembly provided the best opportunity for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. However, all efforts aimed at bringing the parties together with a view to a negotiating process were welcomed. In particular, the Committee was following with interest endeavours to convene a regional peace conference under the co-sponsorship of the United States of America and the Soviet Union.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 9.\t<\/span>During the past year, the international community had shown renewed determination to ensure that the principles of international law and provisions of the United Nations resolutions, in particular those of the Security Council, were respected and implemented. The Committee expressed its appreciation for the consistent efforts made by the European countries to promote a just settlement based on international principles of international law and respect for the rights of all parties concerned.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 10.\t<\/span>Since its inception, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People had done all in its power to draw the attention of all the relevant United Nations bodies to the violation of the human rights of Palestinians and had condemned the Israeli repression of the intifadah<\/u> which had taken an increasing toll not only in human lives, but also in all aspects of the social, cultural and economic life of the occupied Palestinian territory. The suffering inflicted upon the Palestinians had become so acute that their very existence as a people appeared to be increasingly threatened.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 11.\t<\/span>During the past year, the Committee had received many appeals from Palestinians living under occupation calling on the United Nations to ensure their safety and protection. This question should and must urgently be addressed by the Security Council and other concerned bodies. It was their prime duty, especially that of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention which, under article I, of the Convention, were required to ensure that it was complied with in all circumstances.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 12.\t<\/span>By their numerous activities the European NGOs had contributed to creating a greater awareness of the situation and to mobilize indispensable support for the adoption of concrete measures. The countries of the European region could play an important role in advancing the peace process.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 13.\t<\/span>Mr. Mikko Lohikoski<\/u> (Finland), Chairman of the European Coordinating Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine (ECCP), said that the one year that had elapsed since the last Symposium had been one of the most difficult periods, given the grave danger posed by the Gulf crisis, not only to the region and its people as a whole, but also to the Palestinian people. <\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 14.\t<\/span>The suffering of the Palestinian people continued and had become even worse owing to the economic and political consequences of the war and as a result of new harsh measures by the occupying army to stifle the Palestinian intifadah<\/u>. The occupying power was no longer trying to secure a status quo<\/u>, but was aggressively pursuing a policy of de facto<\/u> annexation of the occupied territories.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 15.\t<\/span>The Palestinians continued to suffer in other parts of the region, be it in Lebanon, where the Palestinian community was facing grave social and economic hardships increased by the flow of refugees from the Gulf, or in Kuwait, where many Palestinians had been subjected to extremely harsh measures.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 16.\t<\/span>Regarding the perspective of a peace conference under the Chairmanship of the United States of America and the Soviet Union, any effort aimed at reaching a just solution to the Middle East crisis, and its core, the Palestine question, must be encouraged. It was of greatest importance to get the peace process started.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 17.\t<\/span>Some of the recent developments were worrying: the refusal of the Israeli Government to withdraw from the occupied territories, and the discussion about Palestinian representation at a peace conference.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 18.\t<\/span>Without solving the Palestinian problem, the Middle East crisis would remain unsolved. The rights of the Palestinian people were inalienable rights and not favours that someone should give or take away. NGOs should continue to work for the implementation of the principles contained in United Nations resolutions and in international law and continue to call for an International Conference on the Middle East under United Nations auspices as the most suitable mechanism to achieve peace.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 19.\t<\/span>Although the work of NGOs had been affected by the various events during the past year, a most significant development had happened in the field of development cooperation which was highlighted by the conference of the European NGOs in the occupied territories (NENGOOT), organized in July in cooperation with ECCP. That meeting was a serious effort to increase coordination among European NGOs and Palestinian NGOs, and between Europeans and Palestinians.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 20.\t<\/span>The Coordinating Committee to be elected by the Symposium participants would have a heavy task ahead: not only to solve the acute problem of office facilities but also to coordinate NGO activities, both in Europe and in relation to the Palestinian scene.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 21.\t<\/span>Mr. Faisal Aweidah<\/u>, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations (Vienna), after conveying to the participants of the meeting on behalf of the PLO Executive Committee and the Palestinian people, the regards, the gratitude and the appreciation of Mr. Yasser Arafat for all the efforts deployed in supporting the Palestinian cause, stated that the Palestinian question represented the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict and was still after more than 43 years without a solution. It was now at a crucial juncture with Israel trying to liquidate it by depriving the Palestinian people of their rights and subjecting them in the occupied territory to oppression, despotism, terrorism and tyranny, violating all international treaties and conventions, particularly the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Israel continued its occupation policy of illegitimate confiscation of agricultural land for building settlements, attempting to Judaize the Palestinian land, obliterate its historical and cultural features and change its demographic character.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 22.\t<\/span>The endeavours by the United States to reach a political settlement in the Middle East, despite their seriousness lacked the basic elements needed for a successful outcome: not only was Israel continuing to defy the international community by its continued building of settlements, which were regarded worldwide as an obstacle to peace, but it continued to accelerate its acts of oppression against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. Those acts, to which the United States were putting no end, meant that the peace conference was to be convened in form without content. The call for a dual approach to the issue, i.e., by solving the Arab-Israeli conflict, first, then proceeding to solve the question of Palestine, was ignoring the fact that it constituted the core of the conflict in the area.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n The Palestinians had made several efforts towards a just political settlement and had supported all constructive international initiatives. They felt that pressures were being exerted upon them to accept the Israeli conditions to relinquish their absolute right to independent representation, to agree to the non-inclusion of the question of Jerusalem in the agenda of the proposed conference, and to accept conditions that determined the composition of the Palestinian delegation. The Palestine Liberation Organization, which was leading the struggle of the Palestinian people and was representing it, had the sincere desire for the achievement of a just and comprehensive peace that guaranteed the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people to return, self-determination and the establishment of the independent Palestinian State on the Palestinian land, with its capital, Jerusalem.<\/p><\/div>\n PANEL DISCUSSION<\/strong><\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Panel I<\/strong>:\t<\/span>"Implementation of United Nations resolutions on Palestine –<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n \t\t<\/span> European collective responsibility and strategies following the Gulf war<\/u>"<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 23.\t<\/span>Mr. Uri Avnery<\/u> (Israel), founding member of the Israeli Council for Israeli-Palestinian Peace and columnist, Ma'ariv Daily<\/u> and Ha'aretz Daily<\/u>, said that the United States of America was now the only superpower in the Middle East. No country in the Middle East was able to withstand American pressure, including Israel. It was under that pressure that the Shamir Government had agreed to take part in the peace process.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 24.\t<\/span>From a pragmatic American point of view, the current situation could be considered ideal since all Middle Eastern States, while quarrelling with each other, were now totally dependent on the United States economically, militarily as well as politically; the United States now controlled all Arab oil and its prices; massive arms sales to Middle Eastern Governments helped to recycle petro-dollars; Israeli-Arab tensions as well as inter-Arab rivalries helped perpetuate that situation and kept everybody else in line. But there were some long-range dangers: the unsolved Palestinian problem which added to the frustrations and humiliations engendered by the Gulf war might add fuel to fundamentalist, nationalist and other extreme tendencies, destabilize pro-Western Arab régimes and create a new wave of revolutions, such as swept through the Arab world in the wake of the 1948 war. It was against that background that the peace process had to be asserted.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 25.\t<\/span>The outcome would depend on four main questions:<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>–\t<\/span>Did the United States really desire a comprehensive peace, and how strongly?<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>–\t<\/span>Did the Arab partners really desire such a peace, including the implementation of the rights of the Palestinian people, and were they united and resolute enough to press for it?<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>–\t<\/span>Would the Shamir Government change its resolute rejection of any withdrawal from occupied lands?<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n \t<\/span>–\t<\/span>Were there additional factors, such as Europe, the United Nations and world public opinion, that could significantly influence the outcome?<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 26.\t<\/span>Obviously, there could be no real peace settlement without the full participation of the Palestinian people, under their authentic leadership, the PLO. There might be the possibility of a "second Camp David" between Syria and Israel involving the Golan Heights. The peace process which was now unfolding might follow several scripts from nothing to a comprehensive peace and many options in between. Those scripts were subject to the forces brought to bear in the negotiations, many of those forces being imponderable. The peace process itself might have a powerful psychological effect on the emotions of all the peoples concerned. Although Europe was not a major player in the Middle East and its European interests in the region were different from the American, once the peace process started, European groups, parties and media could play a useful and important role by directing public opinion efforts at specific targets such as a freeze of Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories; recognition of the PLO by European Governments and the inclusion of the PLO in the peace process; Palestinian self-determination and the like.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 27.\t<\/span>Mr. Hael El Fahoum<\/u>, Director, European Department of the Political Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said that Europe gave massive support to the Zionist movement and that that aid and resources largely contributed to the over militarization of Israel, the achievement of its expansionist ambitions, the annexation of East Jerusalem, the expropriation of land and water resources, the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory and to the exacerbation of the policy of aggression, repression, oppression, torture, deportation, destruction of homes, and the like. That massive support had run counter to international law and the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. It was important that the countries of Europe restore a balance of interests. Although that goal had been pursued for a number of years, much remained to be done to rectify all the injustice committed by the State of Israel.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 28.\t<\/span>Europe's position on the question of Palestine could be recalled by referring to various declarations on the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially the Venice declaration of 1980, the Brussels declarations of 1983 and 1987, the final declaration of the meeting of the Arab Committee of 7 with the European presidency in March 1988 and the 1989 declaration of Madrid. However, the ambiguity of the European position must be emphasized, particularly in terms of the discrepancy between what was said and what was done, and especially between what was said before and what was being said now. The European Community had played an important role in the search for a solution to the Palestinian problem, based on the various international resolutions. However, that role and those efforts by Europe had encountered a number of obstacles, internal and external, inter alia<\/u>, in the development of mechanisms to implement the various European initiatives based on international law. After a long process of disengagement, Europe had become the passive spectator of a tragedy which it largely helped to create. The ethical dimension of the European contribution to the search for a peace in the Middle East remained largely inadequate in view of the issues at stake: Europe and its neighbours on the southern shore of the Mediterranean had an interest in peace in the Middle East.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 29.\t<\/span>Europe's rapid disengagement in response to United States pressure after the Gulf war, was an evasion of its responsibilities. Europe's role was the extension of its historic responsibility since, as a party to the establishment of the State of Israel, Europe had made the creation of that State an intra-European matter before it became a Middle Eastern question. It was only right that the Palestinian people, which had suffered the most from that convergence of the interests of Europe with those of zionism, should demand that those who acted in the past take responsibility for the consequences of their actions by working for a just peace.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Panel II<\/strong>:\t<\/span>"International protection of the Palestinian people:<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n \t\t\t<\/span>the respons<\/u>ibilities of European States as co-signatories<\/u><\/p><\/div>\n \t\t\t<\/span>of the Fourth Geneva Convention<\/u>"<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 30.\t<\/span>Mr. Bernard Mills<\/u>, Director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said that at a time when the possibility of convening meaningful peace talks on the Middle East hung in the balance, it was more important that the Symposium addressed its responsibilities to ensure that the Palestinians had a proper and significant place at those talks.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 31.\t<\/span>There had been much talk about a two-track peace negotiation, the original idea coming from Israel with talks between Israel and Arab countries running in parallel with discussions between Israel and the Palestinians. In reality, there was also a third track, as Israel was also negotiating with the European Community for a special relationship and status for itself after 1992. Therein, European NGOs may find positive methods to protect the Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory and at the same time advance the cause of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. While Israel did not recognize the de jure<\/u> applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied Palestinian territories, the European Community along with the vast majority of all the world's States, including the United States, held that the Fourth Geneva Convention was applicable to the Israeli-occupied territories of East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and had voted in favour of United Nations resolutions calling on Israel to recognize that de jure<\/u> applicability and to desist from practices which violated the terms of the Convention.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 32.\t<\/span>The Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Conventions and regulations set forth mandatory rules governing the conduct of the Israeli State as an occupying power. Adequately observed and enforced, they offered an important degree of protection of the most basic human rights of the civilian population of the occupied territories putting an absolute ban on the deportation or transfer of protected persons, on the transfer of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, as well as on collective punishment, pillage and reprisal against protected persons or their property. \t<\/span>Although the European Community had tried to secure Israeli compliance with its international legal obligation through various condemnations, démarches<\/u> and individual protests, none of those efforts had had the desired effect.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 33.\t<\/span>It was time for European countries to fulfil their obligations, and NGOs could play a role by working in parallel on both their respective national Governments and parliamentarians and on the European Commission and the European Parliament. At the national level, NGOs should demand that their Governments press for the meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention called for by Security Council resolution 681 (1990), that they put pressure directly on Israel to respect the Convention called for in that resolution, and that they make their stance on Israel's post-1992 status with the community conditional on its observance of the Convention and its cooperation in the peace process. At the community level, NGOs should lobby the President of the Commission and the Commissioner for Mediterranean Policy to make any post-1992 concessions to Israel conditional on its strict observance of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and lobby their European members of Parliament not to ratify this year the new Financial Protocol with Israel unless it observed the Convention and not to ratify any future special status for Israel unless it had cooperated fully in a peace conference based on land for peace and self-determination for the Palestinian people.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 34.\t<\/span>Mr. Khaled Muhammad Batrawi<\/u>, Field Work Coordinator for Al Haq in Ramallah, West Bank, said that a report published by Al Haq Foundation showed that human rights violations had not begun with the intifadah<\/u> but with the Israeli occupation. The intifadah<\/u> had only made the situation more serious: there was a total disrespect for human rights in the occupied territories and the international community had not been able to secure human rights there. Al Haq had set up an action committee and was working on a project on how the rights of the civilian population were to be respected in the territories.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 35.\t<\/span>The member States of the European Community had reiterated their commitment to achieve a just peace in the region, including the right to self-determination of the Palestinians. The Community had the political weight, he said, and a lot of room for action. It was the legal obligation of each State party to the Fourth Geneva Convention to ensure that all the other States parties implemented the measures set out in the Convention. Al Haq had organized meetings in London and in the Netherlands and would soon convene another meeting in Ireland on the implementation of the Convention.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 36.\t<\/span>If the international community would ensure the implementation of the rights secured by the Convention, Palestinians could benefit directly. Organizations like Al Haq, Amnesty International and the Red Cross could bring their great experience to NGOs, to point out to politicians the dangers of sitting back and not doing anything.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n 37.
\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n<\/p><\/div>\n