UN vote on Palestine latest of errors ex chancellor
Jorge Eduardo Ritter, former Foreign Minister and former president of the Panama Canal board, has joined a growing number of critics of Panama’s vote against the recognition of the Palestinian National Authority as a non-member observer at the United Nations (UN).
In his view, the decision will set an ominous precedent in international relations of Panama.
“The vote is consistent with the current government’s approach which is always to vote with their eyes closed, in favor of Israel and the United States,” Ritter told La Prensa.
“When a country decides not to consider the content of the resolutions, but always vote as another decided it is is because it has waived its ability to discern and opted to delegate decisions to others. It has ceased to be a deliberative body but has become a dependent state.” Said Ritter.
He added: “Officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Panama’s diplomatic representatives worldwide, I mean those with sensitivity to international affairs and not occupying positions just for profit, are embarrassed by Panama's vote at the UN.No country in Latin America, Europe and Africa voted against giving Palestine the status of non-member observer state. Only Panama …
“And the worst is that neither the U.S. nor Israel appreciate a vote like that, rather begin to despise and disrespect a country they do not even have to convince, because their votes at the UN are just an appendage of them.
“Panama was also the only country to vote against the admission of Palestine to UNESCO, the only one who has supported Japan in its dispute with China (understood as both China and Taiwan) on Diayou islands, and also the only country outside the euro zone with irresponsible superficiality announcing that it intends to take the euro as legal tender.
“In the latter two cases, Panama believed it could ingratiate itself with a host. The first as an expression of a humiliating subordination to another state.
“Panama does not need to get involved in disputes ancient and dangerous, especially because it is committed to maintaining its neutral Canal. But it does so in such sensitive issues as Jerusalem, and now giving back to the community by voting against the admission of Palestine.
Panama does not need to meddle in lawsuits that way, what it needs is a statesman to manage its foreign policy.
Panama's vote is unexplained. Above all, nothing can justify going against the majority decision of the international community. A country like ours should refrain from taking sides, and especially so in a sectarian and radical issue..
The opposition Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) called the vote a "grave error" A press release highlights statements by PRD secretary, Javier Martinez Acha, who said that Panama should have abstained before voting against, because it breaks with the country’s tradition of neutrality..
Teresita de Arias of the Popular Party, calledthe position unfortunate, but found that the Israeli-Palestinian issue has to contain a solution to be negotiated through diplomatic channels and not through war that has cost so many lives.
The Panamenista Party, through its President Juan Carlos Varela, said that if Panama was not ready to support a resolution supported by a large majority, it would have been better to abstain.
Juan Jované independent presidential candidate, said it is no coincidence that Panama has voted just as the U.S. did. This shows who runs Panama's foreign policy, he said.
The government, through the Foreign Ministry, said that Israel, like Palestine, is entitled to a life in peace and harmonious coexistence. There will be no better way than direct negotiations, the statement said.
