This seems a bit too convenient a spread to be as simple as that. The resolution very likely was phrased in a loaded way or had some bit that was dubious. Seeing as the second red one is Ukraine and all of the west is yellow, while Russia, Iran, China, India etc are green, there very likely is context that isn’t being given to us, either intentionally or by accident.
Edit: With Russia, China, India, especially, I mean their adventures with oppression of minorities and unequality in general between cultural groups or heritages. I’m not saying the West is without fault or anything, but clearly the ones voting green are neither. They probably wouldn’t vote against their own alignments here unless it’s just word salad without meaning or responsibilities. Which is something I’m confident would lead a lot of Europe at least not accept it because it’s just a watered down version of something actually desirable.
OP made Crimea green. There’s definitely an agenda here And they gave away their country of origin with that little switch.
Was gonna say this, although not the part about their “country of origin” (Russian does not automatically mean gullible).
Russia, India, and China don’t have a “nazi” or “neo-nazi” problem. It looks like the resolution was specifically against that, so stop "whatabout"ing this shit and acknowledge the western countries have fucked up on this vote.
This is a quote from the resolution:
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
It’s not specifically against nazis. It’s against things like putting minorities into labour camps, jails, etc. You know, the kind of thing a lot of the places that voted green actively do this very moment.
But let’s not let that bring our great ideals down. Surely they truly are against the very thing they do, they just can’t help themselves and need the rest of the world to make them stop. Or something?
Now do one about dictatorship and judicial independence. See how the map looks. These are just bullshit virtue signaling resolutions that have no impact on anything.
The resolution very likely was phrased in a loaded way or had some bit that was dubious
These resolutions are publicly available on the UN website, are typically quite short, and actually quite easy to read in general. This one in particular is only 11 pages long, which includes skippable boilerplate. So this assertion is relatively easy to back up and doesn’t need to rely on assumptions, and it can actually be quite fun to read one of these resolutions; you get to feel like a proper journalist or scholar or something. So I would suggest you give it a read and seek out the bit that you find most objectionable.
Personally, based on not much more than gut feelings and historical precedent on similar distributions in votes, am a bit more uncertain than you about the reason behind this distribution. If we take the Palestine cease fire vote in the UN of December 2023, for example, you have a very similar distribution. And I know for a fact that that was an earnest, unobjectionable resolution, that was only voted down by the US because it was in their material interest to do so, and voted down by US client states (or abstention) because they’re client states. But on the other hand, we also have the obvious context of Russia using this exact language as an excuse for their illegal invasion of Ukraine, so it’s entirely conceivable that there’s a section in there that says sth like “and thus, Russia shall invade Ukraine, and we’re all cool with that”. As such, I’m on the fence, and I’ll read the resolution later. But do give it a go yourself! It’s a very satisfying exercise
Do let me know if you have the time to read it. I’ll do the same if I find some myself.
Precisely the Russian rhetoric on and around the Ukrainian war was what got me suspicious.
It could be that western countries just generally are not against nazis or neo-nazis and actively shoot down resolutions against negative things about nazis. That is not however my experience at all, or the de facto state of the law in many countries, such as Germany, that very strongly condemn any nazi associations or symbolism as unlawful. Do note that they also abstained for this one. There’s a reason for that, and while I could be entirely off base, I’m pretty sure it’s not that the western democracies just like nazis and Russia for example is just so nice and honorful to dare go against the western consensus on liking nazis.
I’ve read the resolution, and I don’t see anything in the document that I disagree with. There are some references to the Durban conference in there that I don’t fully understand, but from a cursory reading of the Wikipedia article it seems that people’s main gripe with it is its anti-zionist position (a position I vehemently agree with, Zionism is colonialism and genocide). That, to me, seems like a reasonable enough explanation as to why the US would vote against this resolution (I hope I don’t need to, but I’m happy to elaborate), and that, in turn, explains why client states voted against (or abstained).
I do acknowledge that the rhetoric closely mirrors Russia’s anti-Ukrainian propaganda, but just because a bad person misuses “nazis bad” for nefarious purposes does not make “nazis bad” any less true.
It’s a bit ironic on some level when talking about an anti-nazi resolution, but having looked into it, I’ve arrived at the position that the votes are the way they are because the US tends to vote in favor of Zionism.
The problem is likely the many references to the Durban Conference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_against_Racism_2001
From the article:
NGO repudiations of the NGO Forum’s Declaration
Several NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, disassociated themselves from the language of the NGO Forum’s Declaration that dealt with Israel and with Jews.[5][26] The Palestinian Solidarity Committee of South Africa reportedly distributed copies of the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[27]
I think it’s referring to this:
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1651317?ln=en&v=pdf
… but I don’t have time to dig any deeper
Why the hell did Russia vote better than Europe? We need some better people in office.
Check the map closely, certain parts of Ukraine are green. This is Russian propaganda.
You’re really not beating the Nazi allegations.
Either the map is wrong, or the header is wrong, because that is not Germany.
Equal shame for all the countries that abstained. There is not a damn chance any country is genuinely unsure how they want to vote so an abstain vote in this case is just “I want to vote against but am too embarrassed to.”
Which happens to be the entire West, not a single country commonly considered “Western” voted in favour. Surprise surprise
We had a shitstorm in Poland over this, it’s extremely shameful that a country that suffered so much from nazism did voted like that, but government just responded “EU decided this”
7·13 小时前Absolutely, the only country that might have suffered more at the hands of the Nazis is the Soviet Union. In raw numbers Poland has the 3rd largest number of deaths in WW2, in % of 1939 population it is first.
It’s not a surprise, really. The proposal was sponsored by the Russian Federation and includes several talking point that they have since actively used to justify their fucking invasion of Ukraine (I.e. Nazis working to disrupt democracies cross-border).
Tell me about it. NZ has the most right-wing neo-liberal pro-American-politicking cabinet we’ve had in a long long time. (The PM is also so incompetent he’s polling the lowest approval we’ve had for a long time, possibly ever). They got in power off the backs of post-Covid economic hardship, despite having no proposed solutions other than funding landlords and cutting environmental policy.
If it had been put to the citizens, I believe we would’ve been for it. But the current cabinet doesn’t want to piss off American partners no doubt, hoping abstaining let’s them sit on the fence a little longer while pretending we’re ultimately n9t the bad guy. That will be the reason for most of those abstaining.
I’m disgusted.
I’m guessing, based purely on the countries highlighted, that this is a Russian sponsored resolution.
There are plenty of more genuine resolutions you could’ve picked, but they wouldn’t have fit your narrative as well. Please don’t launder Russia’s lies just to embellish your point.
You would be correct: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1654458?ln=en&v=pdf
At the 44th meeting, on 6 November, the representative of the Russian
Federation, on behalf of Algeria, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia
(Plurinational State of), Burundi, China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Eritrea, Kazakhstan, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mali, Myanmar,
Nicaragua, the Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, the Sudan, the Syrian
Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam
and Zimbabwe, introduced a draft resolution […]At the [48th] meeting, the representative of the Russian Federation made a statement.
Also at the same meeting, statements were made by the representatives of Kyrgyzstan (on behalf of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, composed of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), Belarus, the Russian Federation and South Africa.
“If Russia says Nazis are bad, than Nazis must be good!”
Liberal politics is just reaction.
I said the resolution is bad, not the principle. You’re again misrepresenting something to further your own narrative.
Removed by mod
“The resolution is bad because it condemns people who fought alongside the Nazis to genocide the USSR.”
Not beating the Nazi allegations.
“People who fought for freedom from the USSR were genociding it.”
This is just the European equivelant of defending the confederates, except the confederates weren’t allied with the literal Nazis.
So the content is the resolution is good, but its nonetheless contacted some kind of metaphysical badness unrelated to it’s content due to it being proposed by a bad guy and not a good guy.
Maybe we can get it proposed by Israel instead, then it would be a good guy presenting it because they only invade non-white countries
Russia wrote it for a reason. Think for a few seconds on why that might be.
And please stop lumping me in with the imperialist crowd. I’m anti-imperialism, but unlike some of y’all I (rhetorically) oppose all imperialism not just western imperialism.
So the content is the resolution is good, but its nonetheless contacted some kind of metaphysical badness unrelated to it’s content due to it being proposed by a bad guy and not a good guy.
I’m anti-imperialism, but unlike some of y’all I (rhetorically) oppose all imperialism not just western imperialism.
“Unlike you, I believe that all lives matter, not just black ones”
I never said the content of the resolution is good. I haven’t read it. I’m just assuming it isn’t since Russia sponsored it. And even if it is actually good, the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
Just because a country is anti-American doesn’t mean it’s anti-evil. I shouldn’t need to explain this. I don’t know why I even tried. This isn’t worth it. You’re not acting in good faith. Drawing a false equivalency between “all lives matter” and “all colonialism is bad”. Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine is bad. Israel’s genocide of Palestinians is bad. America is bad. All three things can be true at once, the world isn’t black and white. Seriously what level of Reddit-brain must you have to try to say stuff like this.
I should really just mute this whole conversation. I’m gonna look for the button.
I’m just assuming it isn’t since Russia sponsored it.
Ok, I’m just going to not read your comments and assume they’re bad because your a westerner.
the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
What a disgusting thing to say.
You’re not acting in good faith.
Can I ask a serious question? Who is it that told you idiots that any disagreement is “bad faith”? Because you all deploy this exact phrase, word for word, any time anyone disagrees with you. It’s your favourite thought terminating cliche.
Drawing a false equivalency between “all lives matter” and “all colonialism is bad”.
It’s a completely apt equivalence, you just don’t want it to be.
Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine is bad. Israel’s genocide of Palestinians is bad. America is bad. All three things can be true at once, the world isn’t black and white. Seriously what level of Reddit-brain must you have to try to say stuff like this.
What the fuck is this complete non-sequitor? Not to mention it runs counter to your position up to know (“if Russia says Nazis bad, then Nazis good”)
the world isn’t black and white.
Your whole argument is that Russia is bad, so anything they do is bad! That’s the most black and white argument imaginable!
I should really just mute this whole conversation. I’m gonna look for the button.
Google Satre’s quote about anti-Semites
It is funny because tankie thought is literal positive reaction to anything Russia and China does. Your comment shows it is also pure projection.
“it’s funny because I’ve strawmanned you”
Yes, that is exactly what you did. Repeating it does also make it funnier.
I was paraphrasing you. Given that you were the one strawmanning, that should have been obvious.
Not at all, Marxists are quite critical of Russia, for example, for being deeply socially reactionary, or China for engaging with trade with Israel, rather than sanctioning it. Marxists don’t accept prevailing western narratives surrounding enemies of the US Empire, which anti-Marxists try to simplify into simple reaction against the US Empire, rather than actually engage with the reasoning for supporting, say, China overall fronted by Marxists.
Not at all, Marxists are quite critical of Russia
That remains to be seen. Hasn’t happened yet. But perhaps some day?
This is deliberate ignorance. Marxists see the modern Russian Federation as a right-wing, Nationalist Capitalist country that is socially reactionary. Marxists tend to support Russia’s movements against the US Empire, which is seen as a much greater evil, and appreciate ties to countries like China that may have a positive influence on Russia reverting to Socialism, but there is much to be critical of in Russia. When you have to make up your opponent’s position, you’re deliberately lying to others, and frequently yourself as well.
Turns out when you refuse to open your eyes, you don’t see things. What a shock.
I think its more likely that the abstaining countries rely on America for trade or military in some way and don’t want to aggravate them politically but clearly aren’t willing to vote alongside them.
Or, as the other (better informed) guy said. This resolution equates tearing down soviet monuments to be Nazism.
That by extension means it equates Ukraine (the country partially occupied and fraudulently annexed by Russia) with Nazism. Countries which respect Ukraine’s sovereignty (and have enough skepticism of Russia to read more than the title) wouldn’t want to vote against (because of the title) but also wouldn’t want to vote in favor.
Tearing down monuments to WW2 veterans who fought against the Nazis certainly suggests a certain affinity with the Nazis.
It doesn’t. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Monuments that glorify Soviets might be torn down for a plethora of reasons that don’t have anything to do with nazism and have a lot to do with Soviet atrocities.
I’m comfortable to say people tearing down memorials to the soldiers who faught against the Nazis to replace them with memorials to the people who fought for the Nazis makes you a Nazi.
Feddit continuing not to beat the charges.
Keep spreading Russian propaganda if it makes you happy. Still doesn’t mean you’re right.
“Russian propaganda!” is the BlueMAGA equivalent of “fake news!”
I’m guessing, based purely on the countries highlighted, that this is a Russian sponsored resolution.
Pretty funny how you saw that all of Latin America, Africa, and Asia voted against genocide, and your first reaction is to call them russian bots.
More that Ukraine voted against it and every single Western country abstained. Was I wrong though?
Removed by mod
We can’t condemn the Nazis because if we condemn the Nazis people will think we’re Nazis. When people see that we won’t condemn the Nazis, that’s how they’ll know we aren’t Nazis.
Note that Crimea is not counted as Ukrainian in this map. Makes you wonder.
Lol stay stupid patriot
oh democracy my failed god
- Expresses deep concern about increased frequency of attempts and activities intended to desecrate or demolish monuments erected in remembrance of those who fought against Nazism during the Second World War, as well as to unlawfully exhume or remove the remains of such persons, and in this regard urges States to fully comply with their relevant obligations, inter alia, under article 34 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 194
Clearly designed to enforce Russian rethoric and force the glorification of USSR. Not surprised it’s voted against by Ukraine.
Based if true.
Yeah, how dare they celebrate fighting against the Nazis
You sound like MAGA. Create your imaginary “Trannies” and fight against it. Grow up
Fyi accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being the same isn’t an effective rhetorical strategy, it just makes it seem like you’re too stupid to differentiate between them
And you sound like MAGA: supporting Nazis.
Description mentions Germany but it’s not highlighted like the others?
The map seems to be rage bait. Israel is green, the UK and Germany are yellow, and Ukraine went red.
The image contains the date “November 15, 2018”, which doesn’t match up with anything in the UN Digital Library about that resolution. But if I assume it is the 2018 vote, we should look at A/RES/73/157 voting data, which does seem to line up.
The same name resolution came up for another vote on December 16, 2021. It seems like the vote went more or less the same way.
Here is the report of 3rd Committee.
The copy of resolution.
The same resolution comes up for vote each year, since it was introduced back in 2013
So…. Anyone want to sponsor me for a work visa outside the USA? This ship is sinking and I’m surrounded by racist assholes apparently, and I want out!! Seriously….
Getting a TEFL/TESOL certification is probably easiest way to go about it. Most countries require a bachelor’s degree to be there on a work visa outside of some circumstances. It still wont be “easy” but itll be easier than trying to sell a skillset thats redundant in a EFL country. Beware of scams and look for accreditation
Statement of the Spanish public TV RTVE in Eurovision
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child
Which Country is the Greatest Threat to Peace? (Gallup, 2018)
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Fun fact: The US votes against that one because it prohibits giving the death penalty to minors.
Yeah.
Hey hey, it’s not JUST about that!
It’s also because it classifies child marriage as abuse. You can still get married to or marry off your child as young as 12 in some states.
I mean it’s not surprising in the least, well maybe that they do go into such technicalities while killing millions of children around the world.
Pakistan pulling a “I don’t think about you at all”
Italy beefing with Afghanistan in 2018, smh even America had moved on
Is that an Egyptian flag on France ?
Whoops, thanks, that makes more sense
UN General Assembly resolution on “combatting the glorificarion of Nazism, neo-Nazism […] Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and memes made with mematic”
The end says 'related intolerance." ’
As someone from the U.S., given the history we know about the Trail of Tears and trying to erase Native Americans from existence, this isn’t surprising in the least. Sad, yes, but not surprising.
Just like all the colonial powers voting “I don’t know about this one dawg” because they know their history
Yep we boned it, learn from us and be better.
I hate to tell you this, but basically every country has the same story, except the very young. They don’t need to learn from our history; they should learn from their own.
“everyone else does it to!” Is always the favourite defence of abusers
…wait, you thought this was a defense? I’m sorry, perhaps I worded it poorly then.
If you weren’t defending it, in would say you definitely worded it poorly
shit amerikkkans say
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples
What makes you think it’s not true? A gander through the history of genocide shows how horrifyingly common it is
It’s horrifyingly common among European countries. That’s not “every country” unless you think only westerners are civilized.
Somali, Chile, Argentina, south Africa, Japan, Korea, China. It’s horrifyingly common no matter what area.
Also, what part of genocide do you think is about being civilized…?
South African apartheid was a Dutch colonial project. There’s been no genocide in China and the one in Korea was perpetrated by the US.
Also, what part of genocide do you think is about being civilized…?
Either you have the shittiest reading comprehension or you’re deliberately misrepresenting the argument to twist it into such a comical interpretation. You’re the one that said “every country” and proceeded to link to a NATOpedia page that fails to list a whole bunch of European/US genocides and even then is short, oh, about 96% of countries on earth.
Despite numerous instances of racial discrimination in many Latin American countries (most often at the hands of CIA backed organizations like Pinochet’s government or the Brazilian junta) the fact is that none of these countries were founded on a war in favor of maintaining slavery and expanding into indigenous lands. In fact, most were founded by the descendants of indigenous peoples casting off the their colonial masters.
To say that every country has been founded via genocide is to imply this is just a normal, unavoidable thing, which is genocide apologia. I wish westerners would stop whitewashing their Nazi ass societies like smearing the rest of us is a good alternative to doing something about the legacy of violence you were raised by.
deleted by creator
Lots of countries committed colonialism, not many countries committed genocide on the native population and stole their land to create and expand their nation. The U.S. and Israel are members of a short list.
I was more referring to general genocide than specifically native populations–but even that there is no shortage of countries like Australia, Canada, and japan that have done as such.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples
There is a depressingly high number.
Ok? Those are the ones we were talking about on this map, youre moving the goalposts from “every” to “yeah the whole international community” which was the point to begin with. These countries get on their high horse when they have an exceptionally genocidal history.
These countries get on their high horse when they have an exceptionally genocidal history.
My point was meant to point out how countries with genocidal histories like to point out others as the ones to avoid repeating examples of rather than their own history.
You’re being straight up racist assuming it’s only white western countries commit genocides.
Lmao and there it is. Racism against the whites.
Lots of countries committed colonialism, not many countries committed genocide on the native population and stole their land to create and expand their nation. The U.S. and Israel are members of a short list.
For a decade, Russia has submitted a text denouncing the ‘glorification of Nazism’
In the context of the war in Ukraine – and with Russia justifying its invasion, which began on 24 February, by the desire to “denazify” the country – many states that had previously abstained decided to vote against the resolution
In its explanation of the vote, the European Union recalled that it had been advocating “for years that the fight against extremism and the condemnation of the despicable ideology of Nazism must not be misused and co-opted for politically motivated purposes that seek to excuse new violations and abuses of human rights.”
According to the press release published on the UN website, Ukraine called this text hypocritical believing that, contrary to its title, it was a pretext used by Russia to justify its brutal war against its country and the despicable crimes committed against humanity.
The countries opposing the resolution emphasize at every turn that they do not in any way condone the Third Reich. “We reaffirm our strongest condemnation of all forms of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” Ukraine insisted in 2019, while recalling that 8 million Ukrainians died in the Nazi offensive.
Before the vote, Australia managed to get an amendment to the draft resolution adopted (63 votes in favor, 23 against and 65 abstentions) inserting a new paragraph in which the General Assembly “notes with alarm that the Russian Federation has sought to justify its territorial aggression against Ukraine on the purported basis of eliminating neo-Nazism, and underlines that the pretextual use of neo-Nazism to justify territorial aggression seriously undermines genuine attempts to combat neo-Nazism.”
Hmm…
Thanks for the context.
Given Russia submitted the text, and given how european countries voted, I suspect this is mostly about Russia looking for justifications for attacking a neighbour and grabbing land.
Defending Nazism or showing Nazi symbols is illegal in Germany. Holocaust denial is illegal in several european countries. Yet they abstained.
They’d probably vote for such a text if it came from another country that doesn’t “undermine genuine attempts to combat neo-Nazism”
Seems like refusing to condemn Nazism would vindicate Russia’s accusations
Seached and found that the European Union published an explanation for its vote on a similar draft submitted by 2022 by Russia.
EU Explanation of Vote – UN General Assembly: Draft Resolution on Combating glorification of Nazism
This both explain the EU’s rationale for not voting Russia’s draft, and explicitly condemn Niazism
The European Union is unequivocal in its commitment to the global fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, anti-semitism and related intolerance. Our joint fight against contemporary forms of all extremist and totalitarian ideologies, including neo-Nazism, must be a joint priority for the whole international community.
France: Imperializing and committing atrocities in Vietnam, Algeria, and much of Africa for decades. Has strong relationship with the US and Israel. Votes with US and goes along with all its wars.
Algeria: No relationship with Israel. Votes against genocide.
Wrong on this one. France did show it can say no! (and then France had another limp president who ran back to US with its tail between its legs… Anyway.)
