Yesterday, a Declaration of the trafficking of enslaved Africans and Racialized Chattel Enslavement of Africans as the Gravest Crime against Humanity was voted at UNO. As usual, Israel and the USA voted against. How did your country vote? Any thoughts about it?
wtf ireland, sweden, ukraine, united kingdom, canada, japan, iceland, hungary?
Abstaining feels like it is just as bad as voting no.
Europe in general just abstaining. Mostly.
Everyone should have voted no. The African enslavement was really fucked up, but "the worst human attrocity in history, ever"? The world has done some really, really, fucked up things. I don't really even know why this particular slavery would be picked out from the other slaves over thousands of years except that is was pretty recent and large scale. Why is the world even voting on this shit while on the verge of world war three, while it seems that half the rich elites running the governments are pedophiles?
You only posted half of the title.
Declaration of the Trafficking of Enslaved Africans and Racialized Chattel Enslavement of Africans as the Gravest Crime against Humanity
The "Gravest Crime against Humanity" part honestly explains why so many countries abstained.
The slave trade was an absolute atrocity and certainly one of the gravest crimes against humanity but should we label it as the gravest crime? Do we really need to introduce a ranking between slavery, the holocaust and dozens of other genocides instead of agreeing that they are/were all bad without picking one as the worst?
The abstaining countries mostly has a Problem with "the gravest crime against humanity", because there should be no ranking in crimes against humanity.
Where do you place the Holocaust, the holodomor, the crusades? The conquest of the americas?
Yeah, sure, it was a semantic problem. Not a reperations problem. /s
Here's the map of the vote to really drive the point home.
Why am I even surprised by the US being the US anymore.
"Hey you know this thing thats super bad?"
"Of course we've known it's bad for many years now"
"Well we should officially condemn it."
"Whoa whoa let's hold up and think about that for a second."
It's the Same Map As Always, USA + vassals Vs Rest of the World.
Is it? It's not really subtle.
The yearly vote about blockade on Cuba is kind of an exception, even EU and the Oceanian Plankton usually vote "for".
My favourite is the voting about combating the glorification of nazism, really says all
Cries quietly in Indigenous slaughter
I hope your time will come too, it's crazy how overshadowed this topic is
Fuck Argentina.
I'm from there, all I can say is... President Xi, my country yearns for freedom
I'm from Buenos Aires and I say kill us all
As someone who isn't from Buenos Aires that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make /hj
We've always been a colony of 
and 
Now the government doesn't care to hide it at all, quite the contrary the president is very explicit about his love affair with yankizionists.
And let's not pretend that the opposition is any different. Except for some small trotskyist parties with no real political weight.
Liberal idealism plagues us, we need more political education yesterday
So the US voted against so it didn't pass, yet again, I presume?
Fuck veto voting
"against :3" they're using that emote in UN votes now?
Part of the EU explanation:
We were prepared to support a text that emphasises the scale of the atrocity of the transatlantic slave trade, the importance of remembrance, and the need to continue combating slavery in its contemporary forms. Instead, the text before us raises a number of legal and factual concerns that we cannot overlook.
3 arguments
First, the use of superlatives in the context of crimes against humanity is not legally accurate, such as the use of "gravest" in the title and throughout the text, which implies a hierarchy among atrocity crimes, when no legal hierarchy between crimes against humanity exists. It risks undermining the harm suffered by all victims of these crimes and lacks legal clarity crucial for ensuring accountability. We firmly reject introducing ambiguity in this respect.
Second, the selective inclusion of lengthy, historical, and contentious references to regional jurisprudence and selective and unbalanced interpretation of historical events - such as in Preambular Paragraphs 21 and 23 - is at odds with accepted UN practice, as well as the stated universal and forward looking objective of this initiative. It risks creating divisions when unity is both necessary and achievable. The role of the General Assembly is not to substitute itself to the academic debate amongst historians.
Third, we are also concerned by certain legal references and assertions that are either inaccurate or inconsistent with international law. This includes suggestions of a retroactive application of international rules which was non-existent at the time and claims for reparations, which is incompatible with established principles of international law. The principle of non-retroactivity, a fundamental cornerstone of the international legal order, must be strictly upheld. References to claims for reparations also lack a sound legal basis. Any framework for reparatory justice must be grounded in existing multilateral instruments.
I fucking hate it here. Every god damn report is just like "USA is dystopian fascist hellhole" and I wish I could do something.
Then I remember my card declined for groceries this week and I get one step closer to being radicalized into political violence
For! And would you look at that... Practically all of europe abstaining, color me shocked (¬_¬)
Also... Argentina? YUCK! Sadly not a surprise either.
Wrong
What does this vote achieve?
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~