Excerpt from the statement on why the US votes no:
While we share concerns over the troubling rise in antisemitic and other vile expression around the globe in recent years, this resolution inappropriately focuses on criminalizing speech. This resolution’s recommendations to limit freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to peaceful assembly contravene the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and must be opposed. Rather than bans, censorship, or criminal punishments, the United States has established robust legal mechanisms that protect individual liberties and defend against discrimination and violence.
Lol @ the last bit especially, but reading the text it is quite authoritarian; and how often do we see henious legislation titled something like the “officially declaring bad things are bad and puppies are good” bill as a tool to lambast those that vote against it. But all that said, there’s not much question about the reason ultimately being “because it’s a russian initiative” – especially for the 2018 mid-trump-term vote.
First, a version of this resolution was first introduced in 2005 (A/RES/60/143 ) when the US was one of only four countries to vote against it, which it has done consistently every time it’s been reintroduced. Acting like it’s opportunistic regarding the war in Ukraine, or that that’s the reason the US voted against it, is completely false.
Second, the best way to avoid it being used to advance the narrative that the US and Ukraine are pro-Nazi would be to just vote for the resolution! Voting for it, and they have nothing, vote against it, and they have this perfect map they can point to where the US and Ukraine are completely alone in refusing to condemn Nazism. This logic is completely and utterly backwards.
Third, if the US was willing to condemn Nazism, and only objects to it being a Russian initiative (or the supposedly “authoritarian language”), then, why have never put out their own resolution condemning Nazism?
This vote was four years before the war in ukraine kicked off in earnest, what does it have to do with this?
Related further excerpt:
[…] Every year since this resolution was first introduced in 2005, the United States has expressed our concerns about the resolution’s politicized roots as well as its restrictions on fundamental freedoms.
Like idk, the motivation for voting no seems pretty clearly to be because Russia put the resolution forward. It’s creepy and authoritarian, but the us (and the us under trump especially) love that shit so IDK why else they would have voted no.
You say that it was a political move by Russia to make the US and Ukraine look like Nazis. Even if this is true, then it makes no sense for the US and Ukraine to vote against it, because that plays directly into that narrative.
Even if there was some kind of bizarre political calculus of voting not to condemn Nazis to prove you’re not Nazis, because the US has voted the same way since 2005, it can’t be the case that the US vote is a response to the war in Ukraine. The US had no particular reason to be contrary to every resolution Russia put forward at that time.
Even if the US could see into the future and knew that Russia was going to invade, and even if they followed this insane political calculus just because Russia put the motion forward, why wouldn’t the US make it’s own resolution?
Nothing you said seems to answer any part of the many, many broken links in your explanation.
You say that it was a political move by Russia to make the US and Ukraine look like Nazis.
What? No, I didn’t. I said that it’s common to see that kind of bombastic title for a bill used as a political tool - voting against something that says “puppies are good” is not the same thing as saying “puppies bad”, but it’s easy to interpret it that way. As in this thread, the decision to vote no is being implied to be US (and to a lesser extent by abstention, european) support for nazism. As you yourself point out, it plays directly into that narrative to vote against the resolution.
it can’t be the case that the US vote is a response to the war in Ukraine
Even if the US could see into the future and knew that Russia was going to invade
I have never said anything about this being linked to the war in Ukraine. I do not know why you keep bringing up the war in Ukraine. I agree with you that this has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine which, apart from the annexation of Crimea six four* years before (and that even at the time the US barely cared about), had not happened yet. Are you replying to the correct person?
The US had no particular reason to be contrary to every resolution Russia put forward at that time.
You’re absolutely right, the US had always been very level headed towards the Russian Republic and it’s precursor states, right up until 2022. Prior to that there has never been any major ideological disagreement between the two power blocs, and certainly never any attempts to do something absurd like “portray Russia as the ‘specter of communism’” in popular US media. No indeed, the US has a long and robust history of rational behavior towards the russophone world.
many, many broken links in your explanation
I’m so confused. My explanation is “The US hates Russia so much it would willingly lend itself to the implication of being a nazi state just to spite them”. I truly don’t see how that’s a controversial explanation.
You’re absolutely right, the US had always been very level headed towards the Russian Republic and it’s precursor states, right up until 2022. Prior to that there has never been any major ideological disagreement between the two power blocs, and certainly never any attempts to do something absurd like “portray Russia as the ‘specter of communism’” in popular US media. No indeed, the US has a long and robust history of rational behavior towards the russophone world.
In 2005?? Who was saying any of that? That’s complete nonsense.
In 2005? It’s not unsurprising that there would be US xenophobia to a bill jointly authored by Cuba and Russia. At the time, Russia had spent the prior two years blaming the US for inciting the color revolutions, particularly in Georgia and Ukraine. There were diplomatic overtures between Bush and Putin in an attempt to introduce stability, perhaps the most famous example being Russia not using it’s veto for the invasion of Iraq (a complicated issue, yes), but they were already tenuous at that time and fell apart to the end of Bush’s term in office.
There are other aspects to that comment that are also salient, I welcome similar commentary on them.
And those little spats are supposed to be enough for the US to vote against condemning Nazism out of spite? That’s nonsense. Unless the US was already relatively predisposed to vote against it.
Feel free to address any of the other aspects in that comment though, I’m not sure why you’ve dropped them.
I understand the impulse to trivialize them, but in case you’re unaware of the utterly irrational behavior of the US towards cuba here is a decent, if oft-accused-of-western-bias summary. In particular relations with Cuba were at a low point during the Bush presidency, a marked (and characteristically amoral) shift in the US approach from even the prior year. The spats with Russia as well are not exactly trivial.
Further though, I invite you to read the full text - the 2005 (and later) resolutions call for a reaffirmation of article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which (in part) reads :
[All states] Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred
which with regards to the US would be an outright violation of the 1st amendment, and likely is the reason for the 63 abstentions on the vote for the 2005 resolution (an aside, I do think it’s pretty ‘chicken-shit’ for of most of Europe not to actually commit to voting no on this resolution, instead choosing to hide behind the US’s skirts. I do hope that behavior doesn’t portend the next two decades of european geopoli-- oh look at that what a shock). Given that, it’s a fatalistic conclusion that the US would vote no, even aside from the petty geopolitical reasons they would have for it.
What other parts would you like me to address?
If you’re comfortable considering the broken links adequately settled I happily will as well, I just wanted to clarify that I am in no way opposed to criticism on those points.
Well, it was certainly weaponized after they made the insane decision to vote against it. I’m not sure how on earth it would’ve been weaponized if they’d just voted for it.
Lol. This is not the only time Ukraine has voted with the US. Of course it’s going to vote the way the US tells it to when the US is literally its main weapons supplier. Also, Ukraine has tons of monuments and streets named after literal nazis and have folded nazi paramilitary organizations into their own military. So there’s a lot more reasons for them to vote no on this than just it being a russian introduced measure.
Excerpt from the statement on why the US votes no:
Lol @ the last bit especially, but reading the text it is quite authoritarian; and how often do we see henious legislation titled something like the “officially declaring bad things are bad and puppies are good” bill as a tool to lambast those that vote against it. But all that said, there’s not much question about the reason ultimately being “because it’s a russian initiative” – especially for the 2018 mid-trump-term vote.
Y’all will believe anything.
First, a version of this resolution was first introduced in 2005 (A/RES/60/143 ) when the US was one of only four countries to vote against it, which it has done consistently every time it’s been reintroduced. Acting like it’s opportunistic regarding the war in Ukraine, or that that’s the reason the US voted against it, is completely false.
Second, the best way to avoid it being used to advance the narrative that the US and Ukraine are pro-Nazi would be to just vote for the resolution! Voting for it, and they have nothing, vote against it, and they have this perfect map they can point to where the US and Ukraine are completely alone in refusing to condemn Nazism. This logic is completely and utterly backwards.
Third, if the US was willing to condemn Nazism, and only objects to it being a Russian initiative (or the supposedly “authoritarian language”), then, why have never put out their own resolution condemning Nazism?
(edit: note that the referenced vote was about A/RES/72/156, not A/RES/60/143)
This vote was four years before the war in ukraine kicked off in earnest, what does it have to do with this?
Related further excerpt:
Like idk, the motivation for voting no seems pretty clearly to be because Russia put the resolution forward. It’s creepy and authoritarian, but the us (and the us under trump especially) love that shit so IDK why else they would have voted no.
You say that it was a political move by Russia to make the US and Ukraine look like Nazis. Even if this is true, then it makes no sense for the US and Ukraine to vote against it, because that plays directly into that narrative.
Even if there was some kind of bizarre political calculus of voting not to condemn Nazis to prove you’re not Nazis, because the US has voted the same way since 2005, it can’t be the case that the US vote is a response to the war in Ukraine. The US had no particular reason to be contrary to every resolution Russia put forward at that time.
Even if the US could see into the future and knew that Russia was going to invade, and even if they followed this insane political calculus just because Russia put the motion forward, why wouldn’t the US make it’s own resolution?
Nothing you said seems to answer any part of the many, many broken links in your explanation.
What? No, I didn’t. I said that it’s common to see that kind of bombastic title for a bill used as a political tool - voting against something that says “puppies are good” is not the same thing as saying “puppies bad”, but it’s easy to interpret it that way. As in this thread, the decision to vote no is being implied to be US (and to a lesser extent by abstention, european) support for nazism. As you yourself point out, it plays directly into that narrative to vote against the resolution.
I have never said anything about this being linked to the war in Ukraine. I do not know why you keep bringing up the war in Ukraine. I agree with you that this has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine which, apart from the annexation of Crimea
sixfour* years before (and that even at the time the US barely cared about), had not happened yet. Are you replying to the correct person?You’re absolutely right, the US had always been very level headed towards the Russian Republic and it’s precursor states, right up until 2022. Prior to that there has never been any major ideological disagreement between the two power blocs, and certainly never any attempts to do something absurd like “portray Russia as the ‘specter of communism’” in popular US media. No indeed, the US has a long and robust history of rational behavior towards the russophone world.
I’m so confused. My explanation is “The US hates Russia so much it would willingly lend itself to the implication of being a nazi state just to spite them”. I truly don’t see how that’s a controversial explanation.
In 2005?? Who was saying any of that? That’s complete nonsense.
In 2005? It’s not unsurprising that there would be US xenophobia to a bill jointly authored by Cuba and Russia. At the time, Russia had spent the prior two years blaming the US for inciting the color revolutions, particularly in Georgia and Ukraine. There were diplomatic overtures between Bush and Putin in an attempt to introduce stability, perhaps the most famous example being Russia not using it’s veto for the invasion of Iraq (a complicated issue, yes), but they were already tenuous at that time and fell apart to the end of Bush’s term in office.
There are other aspects to that comment that are also salient, I welcome similar commentary on them.
And those little spats are supposed to be enough for the US to vote against condemning Nazism out of spite? That’s nonsense. Unless the US was already relatively predisposed to vote against it.
What other parts would you like me to address?
I understand the impulse to trivialize them, but in case you’re unaware of the utterly irrational behavior of the US towards cuba here is a decent, if oft-accused-of-western-bias summary. In particular relations with Cuba were at a low point during the Bush presidency, a marked (and characteristically amoral) shift in the US approach from even the prior year. The spats with Russia as well are not exactly trivial.
Further though, I invite you to read the full text - the 2005 (and later) resolutions call for a reaffirmation of article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which (in part) reads :
which with regards to the US would be an outright violation of the 1st amendment, and likely is the reason for the 63 abstentions on the vote for the 2005 resolution (an aside, I do think it’s pretty ‘chicken-shit’ for of most of Europe not to actually commit to voting no on this resolution, instead choosing to hide behind the US’s skirts. I do hope that behavior doesn’t portend the next two decades of european geopoli-- oh look at that what a shock). Given that, it’s a fatalistic conclusion that the US would vote no, even aside from the petty geopolitical reasons they would have for it.
If you’re comfortable considering the broken links adequately settled I happily will as well, I just wanted to clarify that I am in no way opposed to criticism on those points.
Oh… That explains the red Ukraine vote too. No doubt the resolution was going to be weaponized on that front
Well, it was certainly weaponized after they made the insane decision to vote against it. I’m not sure how on earth it would’ve been weaponized if they’d just voted for it.
Lol. This is not the only time Ukraine has voted with the US. Of course it’s going to vote the way the US tells it to when the US is literally its main weapons supplier. Also, Ukraine has tons of monuments and streets named after literal nazis and have folded nazi paramilitary organizations into their own military. So there’s a lot more reasons for them to vote no on this than just it being a russian introduced measure.