[ad_1]
It was believed that this text, precisely because it fully responded to the vision of the UN Charter, that of global cooperation in the event of major disasters, it was normal for it to run smoothly and contribute – politically – to support the actions of the international actors. the increasingly desperate and urgent search for a global solution technically accepted by the WHO.
It seemed to be just a matter of course, and because of this, what happened next was a confirmation that things were degenerating badly. No matter how terrible the tragedy caused by COVID-19 is in the world, some countries (themselves badly affected by a large number of infections and deaths) will not bring the humanitarian issue to the fore, even in their own populations, but they will act. strictly for political reasons.
Before the draft resolution was put to the vote, participants were able to agree to a truly tragic appeal sent to Geneva by Olivier De Schutter, the independent expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council as Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and rights. humans. Warned that The worst consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic are just around the corner and the measures taken by governments so far have proven insufficient.: „Existing safety nets are full of holes … current measures are generally short-lived, funds are insufficient and it is inevitable that many people will escape the safety nets. ” Here is the text of the report that was circulated among the delegations to the General Assembly and it was normal to be very sensitive to the enumerated arguments and, above all, they understood the terrible implications for global security of the declaration on the possibility of the most important immediate effect. the pandemic product is that an additional number of more than 176 million people enter the poverty line very quickly, that is, with a daily income of around $ 3.20, the statistical limit of poverty.
This is the context in which, pending the vote, the proposed text circulated to be voted as a Resolution by the UN General Assembly, calling for the pandemic “one of the greatest challenges in the history of the United Nations … demanding intensified international cooperation and solidarity to halt and overcome the pandemic and its consequences. ” Emphasizing that the Resolution is not binding, so it did not impose a specific legal framework and obligations on the states. Its text asks the Member States “Provide all countries with unlimited access to quality, safe, efficient and affordable diagnostics, therapies, medicines and vaccines … as well as equipment to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.“. There is also talk of”the special role of excessive immunization against COVID-19 as «good global public health» in preventing, combating and stopping transmission to end the pandemic when safe, quality, effective, accessible and available vaccines are available. “
The vote on the text of the Resolution “Global and coordinated response to the COVID-19 pandemic “ which, as we say, indicates with “deep concern“The impact of the pandemic on human health, the extraordinary number of deaths, on the mental health and well-being of people, as well as the negative effects of humanitarian needs throughout the world, the full exercise of human rights in all spheres of society, including livelihoods, food security, education, on the exacerbation of poverty and hunger, the disruption of economies, trade, societies, the environment and the exacerbation of social inequalities.
The resolution received support for the idea of humanity, which can still unite in desperate cases: 169 votes were in favor of the proposed text, but there were also two states (the United States and Israel) that voted “against”, and two other countries were. they abstained (Hungary and Ukraine).
What motivated the negative vote? It is an amendment presented by Cuba on the issue of international sanctions, which asks “the urgent removal of international barriers to universal, permanent and equitable access and the equitable distribution of essential health technologies and quality products that are safe, efficient and affordable, including the components necessary to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic ”.
There was another amendment to the Resolution that the United States and Israel disagreed with: Member States must “refrain from promulgating and implementing any financial or commercial measure that is not in accordance with the UN Charter and that prevents full economic and social development, especially in developing countries ”.
But the most serious objection of the Americans is that the Resolution commits an unforgivable political sin in the middle of the electoral campaign of the United States, as it proclaims “the crucial role of the World Health Organization and the fundamental role of the United Nations system in mobilizing and coordinating global action against the pandemic. ” Representatives of the Trump administration were unable to accept this paragraph, a direct affront to the United States’ decision this spring to secede from the WHO accused of unsatisfactory handling of the COVID-19 crisis and unduly delaying the launch of the global alert.
Finally, the United States representatives opposed two other paragraphs of the resolution on the protection of women in sexual and reproductive health. Along with the United States, which has reiterated its opposition to abortion, Libya and Iraq have also voted in favor of eliminating the paragraph, with similar objections to the United States, although with other religious arguments other than Protestant and Evangelical, but equivalent. And in this case, the vote was against the Americans, the paragraph was supported by 120 votes “in favor” and 20 “against.”
In essence, that was what it was all about and it is strange and ominous that this text, negotiated with extreme harshness since May, very complicated because it has more than 60 articles (hence it is called “omnibus” because it tries to cover all the aspects affected by the pandemic ), could not benefit from a global agreement and, in the first place, received a negative vote from the United States, a permanent member of the Security Council.
A very sad reality that casts an additional black cloud over any kind of projection for the immediate future: if it will be necessary, when the final formulation of a vaccine is found, that a joint decision is needed on the authorization of the WHO as general operator in the Security Council. monitor the production and distribution of this vaccine as „common good of humanity ”, in the current conditions, in light of the vote in the UN General Assembly, it is clear that the Americans will maintain their position now, this time using their veto.
What will happen next?
