Justification of absence – CNN Portugal
Anyone will have to have passed from absence, in the secondary, by the situation already previous something of the lack, in what would be called limit of absence, it was convenient that the justification was plausible. Or else, not being so, it was qb, as in cooking recipes, so that the teacher would pretend to believe.
I remembered when, on Wednesday, I remembered later, the General Assembly of a resolution – few and a half days of common intervention, after the representatives of the States. In this document, the validity of the usual wording, that of the main decisions, knowledge, territorial knowledge, the main document, cessation of business, the report of the State u nations of the unlawful reestablished and the report of the State u nations of the unlawful reestablished.
Yes, it was already on Wednesday (in the prehistory of it all, that is, more than eighty-odd hours ago!), but, even so, it’s worth stopping and thinking about it all a little.
Well then, it was like that. Long debate and interventions, some valuable speeches, Portugal, but, just between us, what counted, or what really counted, was the result. How many do we win, most wondered?
141/35/5. This was the result, in a universe of 193 voters.
141 votes in favour, is very good; 35 abstentions, looks good; 5 votes against, it’s excellent.
Doing the autopsy of the vote is even more interesting. Close to all the votes in favor is, from any perspective, a remarkable result of a text that, when treated, can be like in relation to the addressee (Russia). 35 abstentions sounds good, but it’s quite a lot more than that. We will see why, now we have the easiest accounts, the votes against.
In a formal sense, four states sided with Russia: North Korea (it would even be taken aback if the vote had been different), Syria (it was obvious), Belarus (what a surprise) and Eritrea. (which I still can’t explain). That is, more or less 2% of the members of the United Nations.
In abstentions and votes in favor of Russia’s decision, invoking resolution 3314 and everything (the one that defines aggression), even surprising decisions. Serbia voted in favor, and many mouths married with surprise. Among the abstentions – which in some cases are a “I really can’t vote in favor” – Cuba, India, Iran (Iran?), and China stand out.
Then there are the absentees, those who did not vote. On the list, in Venezuela. Soon there were those who this was a sign, not even Nicolas Maduro’s regime supported Russia, highlighted the World to end and other such things. Quite the reason why it was not voted on, with pride of the United Nations, with great relevance, with the exception of the United Nations, voted, with great relevance, which is not really relevant. It did not vote for any ideological or repositioning leap. No. he didn’t vote for punishment, for debts. For modesty, and because there is nothing to add, the lack of
Maybe it’s not related, it’s almost certainly not. But at that moment the result of equality will be unique, imagined the representative of the Russian Federation, unique, with the friends who most separated more or less, with others not even appearing, humming the immortal song and poem by Jacques Brel (my translation):
Don’t leave me / It’s necessary / Everything can be / You can already forget to move away / Forgetting time / From misunderstandings / And forgetting wasted time / Trying to know how / Forgetting kills hours / Which sometimes killed / The blows of why / The heart of happiness / Don’t leave me (4x)
Unlike the song, however, it is not even conceivable to forget the iron and fire that fell on Ukraine from February 24th. We are obliged to document, to gather testimonies, to register.
It is not a collective organization. The idea that if a community is injured by an aggressor is detestable, all those who are part of the collectivity from which the aggressor is branded with the brand of guilt and will have to be punished, one by one, until the atonement is consummated.
It is a matter of civilization: centuries ago, after the letters of reprisal passed by the monarch, which authorized the subject who had been harmed by another subject, provided that document, using any means to obtain resources. Also, it has been several centuries since criminal law expelled the collective responsibility of peoples from its walls. But then what? How to make?
It will seem strange, or obvious access, but the truth is that everything that has been said about the war in Ukraine always has, as a mirror effect, a topical reflection in international law. But it is no less worrying than feeling in a very minimal way, we are, since the beginning of the Russian aggression, the fetid odor of the hypothesis of a scenario of global confrontation.
One of the biggest slapsticks in the history of cinema was perhaps something from the 1980s, “The Day After”, at a time when Europe still had before it the probability of not being absurd of a nuclear war. Today, for reasons of sanity, we can pretend that we have a console in our hands, in any war game in which, in the worst case, we press “new game” and move on. But we are not, there are no consoles available, but it is not unreasonable alarmism either. It is about having this in mind, accepting that if we oppose and fail to take reasonable actions and age erratically, we will have to be the fearless revolt. But multiplying reasonableness and sensation by two. Or three, or four.
My favorite version of Jacques Brel, Don’t quit me:
From “The Day After”, just a very brief excerpt (these days are enough!):