Una de las virtudes del trabajo parlamentario del Grupo Verde en el Parlamento Europeo es su defensa incondicional de los derechos humanos en el mundo, sin hipotecas ideológicas de ningún tipo. Hemos sido igual de implacables frente a Bush con Guantánamo que con los presos políticos de Fidel Castro en Cuba, contra la opresión de la ocupación en Palestina, o contra la represión de libertades en China, ya sea en Chechenya como en Guatemala, en Peru, en Irán o  en Zimbabwe.

Consideramos que la política de la Unión Europea debe priorizar la defensa del los derechos de las personas por encima de intereses comerciales o de ventajas estratégicas sobre el control de recursos energéticos o mineros. Sin embargo, la Unión Eurpea se inhibe con el país totalitario más grande. Los líderes europeos fracasan estrepitosamente cuando se trata de China, un gigante económico y también un colosal violador de los derechos fundamentales de las personas. Ni siquiera conseguimos que hubiera un boicot simbólico a la ceremonia de apertura de las Olimpiadas del pasado verano del 2008. Para la mayoría de europarlamentari@s, resulta más fácil y menos comprometido el protestar ante países pequeños, como es Zimbabwe o Cuba, que enfrentarse a una superpotencia económica.

 

Con los países árabes sucede algo similar, debido a que están en juego los grandes yacimientos de petróleo y el gas  en el Golfo y en el Norte de África, y también incide la política europea del "mal menor" al apoyar a régimenes autoritarios y dictatoriales árabes por el miedo de unas alternativas que consideran peores. La Unión Europea tampoco presiona más a favor de los derechos humanos en los países árabes por miedo al islamismo radical, y a menudo se razona macabramente que es mejor un estado autoritario que el riesgo de un gobierno que pudiera favorecer el terrorismo islámico. El resultado paradójico de todo ello, es una política europea contradictoria y cínica, con un doble rasero de medir que acaba desacreditando a los países europeos y afianzando en razones a los mismos fundamentalistas que se quiere combatir. Una cosa son las grandes proclamas y otra es la realidad del realpolitik europea y de los gobiernos estatales. China es un caso ejemplar, donde se expresan estas contradicciones en toda su intensidad. 

Ideas posed by the UN Conference on Palestine Geneva 22-24 of July

  There is a growing consensus that "business as usual" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is coming to an end and that Israel´s "free lunch"  might soon have a price on it. 

 There are a number of new elements. Strengthened by a stronger US position, the Palestinian Authority seems determined not to renew negotiations unless there is a real freeze on settlement building.  The EU´s High Representative Javier Solana has suggested that the UN Security Council set a mandatory deadline for the establishment of a Palestinian State, whether there is a negotiated settlement or not, placing on the table the ultimate threat to impose a solution to the conflict with International forcese. The Quartet is pressuring heavily on Israel to ease the blockade and accept the entrance of construction material (11.5 million euros) for the completion of public works projects in Gaza that have been pending for years and there is growing pressure to start reconstruction work in Gaza as well.

   The  loud and frequent calls for war crimes trials against Isrrael will probably not go anywhere but for the first time the UN is pressing Israel seriously to pay reparations for the UN property and material destroyed during the Cast Lead operation. The EU is not vocal on this issue.  At the same time there seems to be growing criciticism among European Commission Officials that the present massive expenditure paid by taxpayers for maintaining Palestinian life under the occupation cannot continue indefinitely and without any costs for Israel.  The present status quo is not  successful "state building", with no final agreement in sight,  and it is not creating political progress on the ground. Instead, dependency on EU aide is creating a vast "occupation business" with vested lucrative interests while Israel pays little or nothing for the endless occupation. It was suggested in my presentation that the EU and the International Community should condition this form of indirect  aide to Israel (who should legally pay as the occupier) to concrete improvement in the situation on the ground, lifting the seige in Gaza and  the opening up a political perspective for peace. Obviously this threat of withdrawal o change in EU aide does not mean harming the well-being of the Palestinian civilian population nor cutting humanitarian aide but it does mean making Israel understand that the present situation is unsustainable both economically and politically.

   At the conference, there was an interesting presentation by Israeli and Palestinian journalists that showed the monolithic self-censorship of the Israeli press that covered up everything that went on in Gaza during the war and became uncritical spokesmen of the IDF.  They also spoke of the dehumanization and the invisibility of the Palestinians  in Israeli press and society. 

   The Palestinian Ambassador closed the conference  outlining  the concrete initiatives to start the reconstruction of Gaza, with or without an agreement with Hamas,  the procedures for seeking reparation for the Gaza operation and many diplomatic fronts to accelerate the process ot the creation of a Palestinian state. He was very clear that the ANP would not go back to an endless peace process while settlement building continues and the seige of Gaza was in place. 

 THE ISRAELI - PALESTINIAN 
CONFLICT IN THE WAKE OF THE GAZA OPERATION 

How to break the status quo through international accountability, public pressure and the application of International Law.

THE GAZA CAST LEAD OPERATION:

 It should be noted that the operation against the civilian population continues.  The present humanitarian siege is an illegal form a warfare that denies fundamental rights to civilians.  I will not go into great detail because the impact of the Cast Lead operation and the violation of International Humanitarian Law is well documented in the Amnesty International report recently published and I coincide with its recommendations and demands toward Israel, Hamas and the International Community that include an arms embargo, reparations, a criminal investigation and international protection of civilians. 

WHAT WE SAW ON THE 10TH OF JANUARY IN GAZA:

We saw a helpless population totally dependent on international organisations, mainly UNRWA, for all basic necessities.  We saw the destruction of all public buildings that often affected the homes adjacent to them. There was no electricity nor potable running water. There was no rubbish collection No cars were in the street. There were no signs of armed people. We only saw military aircraft and other  aerial Israeli equipment. The bombing continued a few hundred metres from where we were. We picked up off the ground the leaflets launched by the Israelis warning the population of heavy bombing and to seek safe refuge.  Mothers with babies in their arms pulled on our arms asking for help to stop the bombing. We were the only European representatives to visit Gaza during the Cast Lead operation.  It is important to point out that the prohibition of the presence of international press and witnesses was one of the keys of impunity during this conflict that resulted in so many deaths of innocent civilians. 

POSITION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

The European Parliament has repeatedly supported the following positions over the last 5 years in different resolutions adopted by a wide majority:

-Lifting of the siege of Gaza and the end of collective punishment of the civilian population.

- The end to the use of disproportionate force, illegal weapons or indiscriminate victimisation of the civilian population on the part of Israel.

- The end to the firing of rockets by Palestinians from Gaza on the civilian population of Southern Israel.

- In favour of a unity agreement of Hamas and Fatah as a necessary step for international peacemaking measures in Gaza and the West Bank.

- A total suspension of the settlement building.

- The free movement of people and goods both in Gaza and the West Bank.

-  The conditioning of future EU policy to concrete progress on the ground.

- The investigation of possible war crimes committed by Israel and by Hamas in the Gaza conflict.

- The deployment of international forces in and around Gaza.

- The building of a large solar plant for electricity and desalinisation in or near Gaza for energy and water autonomy.

- Against the upgrading of relations with Israel under the present circumstances.

Note:  The Parliament has no foreign policy co-decision but can influence policy through its opinions and through the control of budgetary control.

 

What needs to be done:

UPHOLDING INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW NEEDS GREATER INTERNATIONAL SUPERVISION AND INVOLVEMENT

BREAK THE POLITICAL DEADLOCK: SET A DEADLINE BY UN SECURITY COUNCIL FOR THE "TWO STATE SOLUTION" WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF PALESTINE IN THE UN

The European Union's top foreign policy representative Javier Solana has recently called for the United Nations Security Council to recognise a Palestinian State and the two-state solution by a certain deadline even if Israel and others do not.  This initiative should be considered for support by the international community.

We find ourselves in a dangerous stalemate and only the short-term interests of the Israeli Government and the most radical elements on both sides, not the long-term well-being of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, are benefited by the perpetuation of status quo. The Palestinian Authority leadership currently refuses to enter negotiations with Israel until it stops construction of illegal West Bank settlements, recognises past agreements, and agrees to the creation of a sovereign Palestinian State. At the same time the uncompromising positions of Netanyahu on settlements, Jerusalem and Gaza are far from being a basis for any fruitful negotiations with any Palestinian counterparts. The Arab League Plan for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East is being ignored while the lack of Palestinian unity between Fatah and Hamas is a serious barrier to a serious political peace process.  After more that forty years of occupation the international community should take the initiative. 

After a fixed deadline, a UN Security Council resolution should proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution and the declaration should include the borders of the Palestinian State, the fate of Palestinian refugees, control over Jerusalem and security arrangements and international guarantees. 

It would accept the Palestinian State as a full member of the UN, and set a calendar for implementation. It would mandate the resolution of other remaining territorial disputes and legitimise the end of claims," 

The UN Security Council should mandate a return to Israel's borders before the 1967 war in which it occupied the West Bank and Gaza, except for agreed upon land swaps and mediators should set a timetable for a final peace agreement. If the parties are not able to stick to it (the timetable), then a solution backed by the international community should be put on the table. It is a time of action not a time for words but for deeds.  This conference should support Solana´s proposal that is basically in line with the proposals of the Arab Peace Initiative and other similiar proposals. 

EU Political Policy on the Mid-East does not really exist; it usually echoes US policy or plays the role of a "Sherpa" for Obama´s new policies

   It should be noted that Foreign Policy is competence of the Council of Ministers that must act with unanimity and the reality is that a number of countries have very different views on the Middle East. Italy and some Eastern European countries hold very uncritical positions toward present Israeli policy. 

IS THE EU  FINANCING THE "OCCUPATION BUSINESS" THROUGH ITS FINANCIAL AIDE? IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE? If tHe EU pays it should also play. 

The EU greatest allotment of aide per capita is for the Palestinian authority. If this is added to money donated by member states the amount is staggering.  Teachers, nurses, civil servants, police and others all receive their monthly salaries from the EU. As well, tens of thousands of Palestinians depend on EU humanitarian aide.  Nevertheless, we should evaluate if this policy is a positive one that contributes to the building of institutions for peace or if it simply is a massive subsidy of the Israeli occupation that eliminates Israel´s legal responsibility of providing services to the occupied population. In other words, are we helping to make the occupation economically bearable and not costly for Israel, basically letting the occupier off the hook.  Another question is if decades of massive "occupation business" made possible mainly by the EU is actually creating vested interests and dependency on both sides, both economical and political, for the indefinite continuation of the occupation. Where is the incentive for reaching a two-state solution? What would happen if the EU decided to cut off all but humanitarian aide unless Israel took a number of measures to  make life more bearable for Palestinians with regard to the siege of Gaza, movement and settlements.  Israel would dread the threat of withdrawal of aide and the possible collapse of institutions. It is evident that the present status quo cannot continue. Since the EU pays it must play as well. 

A MORE POLITICAL EU POLICY ON MID-EAST PEACE?
 

    The EU should condition the continuation of its substantial economic aide to substantial improvement of conditions on the ground for Palestinian life in the occupied territories and concrete benchmarks with consequences for Israel concerning settlements, freedom of movement and changes in the status quo in Jerusalem.   The issues of rights for the Palestinian minority in Israel, the rule of law under the PA and Hamas,  freedom and equality of religion and non-discrimination in land laws, demolitions and building should shape economic relations and the participation in EU programmes.

  The EU is not a humanitarian NGO. It cannot continue to be a big payer but a very small player.  The lack of clear and effective EU policy reflects the absence of ambition and the great weakness of the present procedures of decision making in EU institutions.  To a great extent the outcome of the present conflict of the Obama Administration with the Israeli Government over settlement building and especially Jerusalem will express the possibilities of success of both US  and EU policy. 

  Only strong political and public pressure can bring EU leaders and member states to act more forcefully and in accordance with International law.

The alternative is to face the relentless pedagogy of catastrophe.  

  It is not a question of being pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli.  It is in the interest of all to take steps toward the negotiated end of the conflict and to place strong international guarantees against violence and suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis. 

POSDATA: NO ME VOY A NINGUNA PARTE Y SIGO EN LA BRECHA 

      

  A mii despedida como europarlamentario le sigue mi renacimiento como ecolgista.  Mi blog sigue funcionando, y mi web también, y mantengo el diálogo y todas las líneas abiertas con los contactos y correos que me llegan. ¡Que no haya malentendidos!. No, no voy a decepcionar a mis amigos y amigas. Tampoco voy a dar una gran alegría a mis enemigos. El final de mi mandato como eurodiputado no significa en absoluto el abandono de mi actividad y activismo en defensa de principios y objetivos verdes. Continuaré apoyando a las plataformas sociales en pie de guerra contra los proyectos destructivos de maldesarrollo, tramitando en las instituciones europeas preguntas y quejas, analizando el quehacer europeo y mundial, y haciendo redes con actores sociales colectivos ante el Parlamento Europeo y ante otras instituciones. Por tanto, esto no es una despedida como ecologista, sino que solo es un "hasta luego" como eurodiputado. Se trata de un final y también de un nuevo comienzo de actividad desde otros lugares y papeles. Las hibridaciones verdes pueden tener muchas caras, y ahora estoy en proceso de mutación para poder adaptarme a un nuevo contexto. 

Sigo creyendo que es posible y viable una opción nueva verde en España, y al margen de las viejas formaciones de izquierda o nacionalistas que suelen coincidir en el productivismo que esquilma nuestra casa planetaria. Por supuesto, estaré al servicio y prestaré mi ayuda a cualquier "big bang" verde serio e integrador que pudiera resurgir. Pero hay que tener cuidado con el peligro de reducir la necesaria y urgente integración y renovación del espacio verde en España con las ofertas de retiros espirituales para hablar en abstracto del programa y la ideología verde, y nunca de la acción política concreta a tomar. 

En el terreno de la llamada unidad y renovación verde puede aparecer por ahí mucha charlatanería malintencionada y con indecente agenda oculta. Porque en política funciona una ley newtoniana irrebatible: las buenas ideas a favor de la unidad pero sin piernas, no sirven. No andan ni llevan a ninguna parte, y solo nos hacen perder un tiempo precioso, y además refuerzan la crónica parálisis política y el inmovilismo que hoy atrapa al espacio verde. 

Los falsos "renacimientos desde las cenizas y desde las ideas", pero con escaso capital humano y sin estrategia concreta de actuacción, y basados en ingenuas "tabulas rasas desde cero", solo pueden significar un humo retórico que se niega a separar el polvo de la paja. Nada puede construirse así de forma creíble, con solo las ideas y los principios verdes, ya que en política además han de acompañarse de personas y de organización con legalidad, con capacidad y credibilidad pública, lo que obliga a rentabilizar y aprovechar al máximo los pocos recursos construidos a lo largo de nuestra historia verde. El capital político del que se parte es central para cualquier organización, y también en política ocurre esto, y la simple idea de arrasar con todo lo antiguo es simplemente peligrosa, irrealista, o infantil, cuando lo cierto es que no somos masa ni ejército.

También sería inútil volver a la supuesta unidad de una flora y fauna de siglas verdes y legalidades, con un reino de taifas ya ensayado en el actual modelo organizativo de la confederal de Los Verdes, y donde cada parte ejerce al máximo sus particulares poderes de veto y de demanda al conjunto, y bajo la amenaza de irse, y llevarse bajo el brazo la propia legalidad verde con la que se incrementa más el fraccionamiento electoral, y con ello la confusión ciudadana. Este camino sería como volver a coger un viejo tren que no tiene estación de llegada y que históricamente ya se ha cogido y malogrado. Esta tentación de vuelta regresiva hacia atrás crearía más problemas que ventajas para avanzar pasos en la consolidación del espacio verde en España, y la repetida unidad sería solo un simple esperpento retórico para encubrir el inmovilismo actual.

  Claro que hay que trabajar con buen rollo y sumando con tranquilidad, pero sin una ingenuidad fácilmente manipulable (Take it easy, but take it). Donde yo de seguro que no estaré, es con grupos o personas que no tengan claro lo que es el espacio verde ni tengan el interés de crear un fuerte actor político, propio y diferenciado de fuerzas anacrónicas que poco tienen que ver con el proyecto verde europeo.