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.
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?
Sadly, I would bet that it's the jewish lobby that pushed a lot of countries to oppose this. They have this need to make the holocaust be the worst thing that has ever happened to any people in the history of time.
The holocaust certainly bad, it's among the worst mass killings of all time, and the fact that it happened in relatively modern times makes it worse because the world generally isn't as brutal as it once was. Is it worse than the Mongol invasions, which may have killed more than 10% of the entire world's population at the time? Worse than historical wars in China which killed tens of millions at a time when the entire world's population was under 200 million? Where would you rank African slavery in that? Is it less bad because fewer people died, or worse because there are things worth than death? I don't really think it should be something you rank at all. And, I'd also oppose any attempt to rank any of them as "the gravest crime against humanity", because what's the point of that?
Your comment is a bit weird. The second section describes exactly why it makes no sense to be ranking crimes against humanity, which would include this resolution picking one winner.
Why then lead with the first section?
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
Bullshit excuse
Bullshit counterargument
The transatlantic slavery trade lasted 400 years there was definitely more death caused by it than the Holocust .
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."
Cries quietly in Indigenous slaughter
I hope your time will come too, it's crazy how overshadowed this topic is
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
So this one is interesting to me because of the rhetoric used by the Ruzzianz during the early days of the Ukraine "Special Military Operation".
Lots of talk about going into Ukraine and de-nazifying.
Curious if that played into this vote in any way, considering this vote occurred right in the middle of that. Poor form not to bring up this VERY important context.
Of fucking course you nazi lovers would have problems with combating the glorification of the nazism and justify this with the fact that you do support nazis.
dude you just took this from zero to one hundred, this is a legitimate point of discussion on the topic at hand especially when you consider the date of the vote. If you think based on anything I have written that I am a nazi or nazi supporter I have several bridges for sale that might interest you.
Chill out.
You immediately throw yourself to add the vErY iMpOrTaNt cOnTexT that the countries voting against combating the glorification of nazism voted as such not only because they happen to currently support country where glorification of nazism is officially supported, but they also did it because they are being so petty to vote just because they oppose the country presenting the resolution.
Especially completely shameful for country like Poland which lost 6 million people to nazi murderers.
Right so maybe those countries had a legitimate reason for voting against, beyond being "nazi lovers".
I don't support the "Gravest Crime against Humanity" wording in the resolution, so I have no problems with the way my country voted.
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.
"against :3" they're using that emote in UN votes now?
What does this vote achieve?
It's meant to help get reparations for imperialized people
Ah cool. I get Canadas vote then, kinda support it but poor wording. Among the gravest or something similar, Holocaust and Palestine should be up there.
Which is fucked, it's like generational violence but an entire people instead of a family
It is four centuries of colonial violence, being kidnapped, stripped of your language, culture and humanity, tortured and raped and forced you and your descendants for hundreds of years to work to death just so that your owners could afford to not do anything productive. I can see how it's the gravest. If people are gonna use this as an excuse not to care for other crimes against humanity they're sadistic fools and should be called out as such.
For! And would you look at that... Practically all of europe abstaining, color me shocked (¬_¬)
Also... Argentina? YUCK! Sadly not a surprise either.
Abstention might as well be an against vote
South Korea voting in favor of the resolution is surprising. They are team America and they were enslaved, but are not included in the resolution because they were not shipped to the Americas. Seeing one's own enslavement as not as grave as the African one is a statement.
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~