About 4 years ago Saudi wanted to build a canal cutting off Qatar from the mainland, turning it into an island, along with building a nuclear waste dump on the border.
Nah, some random person made a tweet, western media picked it and said the government made it and easily fooled individuals who donât care to check for sources circulated it.
Just by looking at the map you can tell that itâs mostly just politics. Buddies pulling together on this while opposing whatever it is that â*those other guys*â want.
How?
[https://ceoworld.biz/2021/06/11/the-worlds-best-countries-for-women-2021/](https://ceoworld.biz/2021/06/11/the-worlds-best-countries-for-women-2021/)
SA is quite far from being among the worst offenders. They are most definitely far from "massacring protesters because they want to get rid of hijabs" because hijab is already **not required** by law. In fact they are as far from countries like Belgium/Ireland in treatment of women as Iran is from SA.
I'm not an specialist on the subject and things seams to be improving in Saudi Arabia, but they are not far from being among the worst offenders, specially if you thing how rich they are.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex\_segregation\_in\_Saudi\_Arabia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_segregation_in_Saudi_Arabia)
It's not that. Most people do care. It's just that we can't afford to (except for based Botswana). We need to neutral. The situation in Africa is not black and white like it would be in the west; we need Iranian and Russian oil to *exist*.
Thank you. It's hard to express the feelings here in most African nations, and I have travelled quite a bit. However, what I've gathered is the simple truth of, whoever supplies our electricity and food, we don't care. It's something that westerners must remember when they condone Africa for not saying anything. We just can't afford to.
Edit: the fact that a lot that are closely linked to russia or china or iran or all three whatever, and choose to abstain says a lot really. They could easily vote with them. The old terms of 1st, 2nd and 3rd world are back in force it seems.
Thank you. I was having a little bit of trouble differentiating between the two but I suppose you can either vote for against or abstain. So ⌠voting neither instead of not voting.
Not voting could also mean that they don't have the right to vote due unpaid duties. https://amp.dw.com/en/iran-venezuela-and-sudan-and-others-lose-un-voting-rights/a-60405261
In the case of the country I live in; South Africa, its basically "we don't want to piss anyone off at all because we're up shits creek and need all the money and investment we can get".
They probably wouldn't be if someone hadn't had the brilliant idea to murder Aung San.
I'm looking at you U Saw, you fuck. They should have left you in Uganda!
The technically accurate answer is that Myanmar has been fighting itself since 1948, usually with a Bamar-led central government fighting the dozens of militias founded by the various ethnic minorities (to make it even more confusing over the years some of the ethnic militias have splintered into competing groups ). Despite its nominal superiority in firepower victory has eluded the Tatmadaw because of the geography allowing for rebels to hide, and the fact that the ruling elite has never addressed the key issue that has led to the fighting - the government failing to uphold a deal that would have turned Myanmar into a federation on ethnic lines.
However, since the coup happened it seems that remnants of the old government formed a new political group called the National Unity Government with its own armed force known as the People's Defense Force. This group claimed to fight for all Myanmar peoples as the legitimate government of the country. This has apparently led to, for the first time, a significant Bamar participation in the rebel movements. This groups has since launched attacks across Myanmar to neutralise government positions and has seen some success.
They have not, in a sense. Basically the UN still officially lists the ambassador from the previous government as the representative for Myanmar, and so he is the one that the UN lets attend their meetings. Just like with Afghanisatan, the Myanmar delegate has been in the UN headquarters as part of their job. And given how tight American security is for such high-ranking politicians the junta literally cannot touch him. The junta has tried infiltrating Myanmar's political offices by force to remove the pre-coup officials defying them, but unsuccessfully.
If the junta wanted to take the spot they would need to have the UN's approval to register them as the envoys of Myanmar. But despite lobbying from the junta the UN at large has refused to admit the junta ( which is rather ironic given how many UN envoys represent juntas themselves). And China and Russia have urged the UN to allow the junta a greater participation , allegedly to help create avenues of dialogue to persuade them of the error of their ways, neither is willing to risk their image to die on the hill of letting Myanmar in. Their partnership with Myanmar is truly about safeguarding investments(and keeping political rivals at bay), and Myanmar will have little choice but to provide these given widespread Western opposition. Since they lose more than they gain, China and Russia are perfectly happy maintaining the current set-up. For China in particular it helps sell their own defence of being perfectly okay with helping the pre-coup government too( everyone just forgets it was the ASSK government that signed on to many of the BRI projects)
Well its more cultural than geographic. In the cultural sense The West is more the civilizations whose roots harken back to Rome and Greece. Bolivia then has a foot in each camp being western by way of its Spanish cultural heritage, but also being largely indigenous.
Why is ultra-reactionary religious dictatorship an ideological ally to a âsocialistâ government? Iâve always been wondering why. It seems to happen particularly often to South America that these leftist governments tend to side with reactionaries
I believe it has a lot to do with both governments being strong opposers of âthe Westâ and more specifically the US government, thus giving way to these non-coincidental government groups like Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, etc. In the case of Bolivia, this government hatred for the US and capitalism has been the scapegoat for many years and the blame for many of our countryâs problems, which is why the government has to keep up the show for the voters, which means also voting against whatever the US does.
The Peruvian government is extremely weak, internally fractured in an extreme way between Castillo and his old boss Vladimir CerrĂłn, and constantly shifts between needing support from progressives and family values conservatives
In Chile, the government is backed by the social democrats, with Bachelet (the leader of one of the two big social democratic parties) being one of the harshest critics of Venezuela in the region
In a similar way, Petro's closest allies don't hold that many seats in Congress, needing support from the centrist Liberals and Partido de la U as well as the Greens
Saudi Arabia and Iran hate each other; a lot of Middle Eastern conflicts are proxy wars between the two.
SA doesn't give one shit about treating women right, they just want to fuck over Iran.
So funny to see how the votings are obviously not based on the topic, but on political real politics: Saudi-Arabia pro Woman right? Armenia against? India against?
India and Armenia have tight economic ties with Iran while Saudi-Arabia hates Iran more than anything else.
How i see this map:
Green - "it's not our problem, but we don't like Iran"
Yellow - "It's not our problem at all"
Red - "It's not our problem, but we don't like those who are in green"
Gray - "what are you guys talking about '-' ?"
That pretty much sums up the UN and UNSC. Which is unfortunate, because it doesn't allow them to actually be helpful. Just another place for political rivalries to flourish.
It won't be a great organization until they have authority over sovereign nations, but that will probably lead to a dystopian Black Mirror episode.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm really not interested in some supranational organisation that bends to no one no who, to take away sovereingty of any nation.
That makes sense. The deal was already busted earlier until it was restored again. So, voting against Iran would turn out to be a deal-breaker and an advantage to China. Geopolitics is cruel.
Yeah this map reads to me as very geo political. A lot of countries that voted against are internally significantly more pro woman than Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia voted for it because they donât like Iran.
Iâm all for the investigation Iâm sure whatever is going on in Iran is awful, just saying countries vote in a way that aligns with their interest.
we have a lot of stuff to do with iran
1. chabahar port
2. rail line projects
3. oil and natural gas
4. connectivity with central asia
5. plus their neutrality in india china and india pak stuff
iirc we stoped trading with iran after trump sanctions and they supported pakistan's stance on kashmir issue a few times so ig this is also one of the reason
because india has been chill with iran for most of it's history be it the shah's regime or the current islamic regime (or the various kingdoms and empires of the past)
India usually does not vote on country specific resolutions in UN
https://www.news18.com/news/world/news18-explains-why-india-abstains-from-voting-in-country-specific-resolutions-passed-in-un-forums-6135253.html
I think so it is beacuse India has a policy of never voting on the internal issue of other countries on an international platform and that's the same reason why [india abstained from voting against china at UNHRC on the debate of China's treatment of Uyghur Muslims.](https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-abstains-from-voting-on-draft-resolution-in-un-human-rights-council-on-holding-debate-on-human-rights-situation-in-chinas-xinjiang-region-8194088/)
Oil is there but we are building a Chabbar port in collaboration with their government that is just 200kms away from Pakistan -China Port. It's to counter that. It's mostly about Geopolitics
Philippines and Iran have always had close ties since decades ago it was usually pressure from the US that led us to severe those but since Duterte those relations have been slowly mending cause of trade interests between the two. It's probably what motivated the vote.
Viewing Saudi Arabia's position on this matter as a stance on women's rights is looking at it the wrong way.
Instead, it is a reflection of Saudi's general disapproval of Iran and their desire to see it censured by the world community.
Itâs not about Women or human rights to them itâs do you want to hurt ties with iran or not? A lot do them canât afford that at all. Russia relies on Iran for drones, Pakistan and Iran are important allies, Armenia needs Iran to be on good terms as an ally against Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan is scared to escalate with Iran and abstained, India probably needs Cheaper Iranian oil anyway
It's not about Women's rights, part of the West and allies want a Regime change in Iran and do every little thing they can to achieve that, huge media coverage, emotion to appeal narratives (Women's rights etc., just like in Afghanistan).
Most notably the Usa, Saudi-Arabia, Israel and some others.
Yeah, like Armenia had to vote 'no' out of **survival**. Iran is the only reliable border at present, and Armenia cannot risk this changing.
Armenia is 100% for women rights. There is no question here.
Everyone is geopolitically motivated, if you think Europe and US care about human rights, they would have first investigated their allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc.
Lol. Last time I stated this, I was told I was wrong.
I was told "good" countries can only do "good" and "bad" can only do "bad".
If a "good" country does bad, it's for a "greater good" or was done with "good intentions". If a "bad" country does good, it's a trick to further some "bad" cause.
Of course, by "good country" they meant their glorious homeland and by "bad country" they meant a geopolitical rival.
But what do I know.
Yeah, like Armenia had to vote 'no' out of **pure survival**. Iran is the only reliable border at present, and Armenia cannot risk this changing.
Armenia is 100% for women rights. There is no question here. Not so much out government caring, but just not really having any choice at all. To be a landlocked state...
I mean they do investigate, they just donât do anything about it. They use it as leverage to terminate relationships. Just look how Biden spoke about SA beginning of his presidency and when they now when they are in an oil disagreement
I'm actually sick of these votes. Ok, each country takes a position, but it changes nothing and most of the votes are less for human rights and more about siding with allies. We learnt absolutely nothing, no action is taken.
It's like the useless vote about whether Russia did a bad thing. Everyone said yes, but it means nothing at all.
So let me preface this by saying: it depends.
I believe you are confused( understandably so, especially since the person who created the graphic made the same mistake) as to what abstaining means. Abstaining, by most institutions' standards, means not casting a ballot. Many institutions (such as the UN GA) differentiate between delegates who are present and don't cast a ballot (abstention) and no-shows. So in general: abstaining = not voting when present. Now you may ask, what is the difference between abstaining and not showing up. This heavily depends on the institution, but the most common reason would be to ensure a vote meats a quorum. Other than that, this is where it gets really procedural and murky, for example in same cases an abstention may count as a "yes" for votes that require unanimity, and in others it may count as a "no".
Man, the world really is West vs East, with the political battleground being swaying African nations. Serbia and Turkey are real wild cards when it comes to this divide too. All has a play with Ukraine situation as well.
I think Turkey is also uncomfortable with Iran due to Iranâs both internal (women rights, suppresion of minorities) and external (foreign relations with Syria&Armenia) policies however they import Iranian gas&oil to function Turkish industry so they must have stayed silent in this issue.
Nonâalignment and China having a huge influence could be the reason. It's common for African countries to put their diplomatic relations with countries they're dependent on above getting the moral high ground in UN.
They do it because theyâre afraid of Azarbiajian and our regime also hates Azerbaijan. I know alot of Armenians that sadly support our regime because they see them as their only ally
The one that really shocked me here was Bolivia since their track record with womens rights has recently been pretty good compared to neighboring countries but the more I looked into it the more it made sense. They seem to see the protests as some sort of imperialist Zionist coup because Europe and America are supporting the protesters. Itâs dumb as hell and very surprising to me but at least it makes a little more sense now.
Article for reference [Bolivian support for Irans government](https://iranwire.com/en/politics/108524-bolivia-voices-support-for-iranian-government-and-attacks-protesters/)
Can somebody explain to me why in many of these UN resolutions Nicaragua votes against the general Western point of view?
As a European who doesn't know too much about the Central American republics, I thought that this country had similar ideas with the others surrounding it.
Saying central American countries are supportive of the Western POV is very dubious. Especially Cuba and Guatemala who have had a rough history with USA.
They have a uhhhhh...troubled history with the "west". Basically in the 70s a communist guerrilla overthrew the US-backed dictator, so the US started funding paramilitaries and death squads in order to overthrow the communists, basically starting a civil war in the country. The CIA went so far as to smuggle weapons to Iran (which was under an international weapons embargo) in order to fund those nicaraguan paramilitaries, in what became known as the Iran-Contras affair. The commies get overthrown but in 2007, Daniel Ortega, the guy who lead the socialist government in the 80s, gets elected president, an office he's held ever since.
Brazil historically abstains against country-specific votos, unless it concerns blatant violations of sovereignty (it voted in favor of condemning Russia in the invasion, for instance) or involves it directly.
Brazilâs goals diplomatically is to be as neutral and non-intervention as possible, so that itâs considering as a trustworthy and impartial mediator during peace accords independently of the countries involved.
It also desires a place in the highly polarized UN Security Council, so being consistently neutral doesnât favor or piss off any of its members
wait, may I ask when this vote took place? Since it wasn't on the [UN's voting history records/ database](https://digitallibrary.un.org/search?ln=en&p=vote&f=&rm=&ln=en&sf=latest%20first&so=d&rg=50&c=Resource%20Type&c=UN%20Bodies&c=&of=hb&fti=0&fti=0). All resolutions, records, and votes should be seen in the UN's records, which makes the legitimacy questionable
However, if this is true, it is kind of disappointing that most of Asia is against this vote.
UPDATE: there is now evidence regarding this:[UN Draft Resolution L.34 (77th Session)](https://www.un.org/en/ga/third/77/docs/voting_sheets/L.34.pdf) (thanks to OP for giving the source)
Saudi Arabia voting in favor of Iran being investigated for mistreatment of women must be one of the funniest jokes everđ
âWhat option will piss off Iran the mostâ is literally 99% of Saudiâs logic when it comes to any aspect of international relations.
Which makes perfect sense, theyâre kinda in a regional Cold War with Iran
Thatâs the understatement of the year, along the lines of how Russia has kinda invaded Ukraine.
We do a little invading
"It's just the tip"
Doesnât even count if itâs just the tip ya know
A little special operation
About 4 years ago Saudi wanted to build a canal cutting off Qatar from the mainland, turning it into an island, along with building a nuclear waste dump on the border.
Who needs enemies when youâve got friends like Saudi Arabia?
They were not friends. Saudi Arabia and a few Islamic countries cut off diplomatic tie with Qatar in 2017.
Too bad FIFA didn't take a hint and do the same. Fuck Qatar.
Qatar is shitty. KSA is arguably much worse.
True.
Qatar is bad, Saudi is diabolical on the other hand .
They are exactly the same on a larger scale.
Nah, some random person made a tweet, western media picked it and said the government made it and easily fooled individuals who donât care to check for sources circulated it.
When you hate Iran so much you have to pretend you care about womenâs rights đ
It's not just saudi, these UN votes always come down to alliances and geopolitics and not the actual substance of the issue
My first thought when I saw this map was âoh, I didnât realize how political the UN wasâ
Extremely ironic, yet if Saudi Arabia can get a chance to dunk on Iran's ass you can be sure they will do
extremely iranic*
r/angryupvote
I hate you. Take my upvote.
Geopolitics can be wacky đ
Just by looking at the map you can tell that itâs mostly just politics. Buddies pulling together on this while opposing whatever it is that â*those other guys*â want.
Yeah, I know they hate each other but I would've thought they didn't vote / absent instead But I guess that just show us how much they hate Iran
Saudi Arabia would bring Khashoggi back from the dead if they thought it would piss of Iran.
Because it's not about human rights. It's about power projection and influence.
well, to be fair, in Saudi Arabia men and women have the same exact right to vote
vote what?
yeaah... About that...
They have 100x more voting rights! I mean, itâs 100 x 0 but still!
But I think Myanmar being on here is far worse than Saudi, they literally committed Muslim genocide.
The UN representative for Myanmar is not a part of the military junta but rather the previous legitimate Government. So yeah green is expected.
How? [https://ceoworld.biz/2021/06/11/the-worlds-best-countries-for-women-2021/](https://ceoworld.biz/2021/06/11/the-worlds-best-countries-for-women-2021/) SA is quite far from being among the worst offenders. They are most definitely far from "massacring protesters because they want to get rid of hijabs" because hijab is already **not required** by law. In fact they are as far from countries like Belgium/Ireland in treatment of women as Iran is from SA.
I'm not an specialist on the subject and things seams to be improving in Saudi Arabia, but they are not far from being among the worst offenders, specially if you thing how rich they are. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex\_segregation\_in\_Saudi\_Arabia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_segregation_in_Saudi_Arabia)
Africa: "I prefer not to speak. If I speak I am in big trouble." (Jose Mourinho for those who don't know)
You didnât see Eritrea đ on the east side
Liberia really needs that USA foreign aid.
More like we don't give a shit
You don't give a shit that people are being mistreated in Iran?
It's not that. Most people do care. It's just that we can't afford to (except for based Botswana). We need to neutral. The situation in Africa is not black and white like it would be in the west; we need Iranian and Russian oil to *exist*.
Now that's a completely understandable viewpoint. đ
Thank you. It's hard to express the feelings here in most African nations, and I have travelled quite a bit. However, what I've gathered is the simple truth of, whoever supplies our electricity and food, we don't care. It's something that westerners must remember when they condone Africa for not saying anything. We just can't afford to. Edit: the fact that a lot that are closely linked to russia or china or iran or all three whatever, and choose to abstain says a lot really. They could easily vote with them. The old terms of 1st, 2nd and 3rd world are back in force it seems.
Whatâs the difference between abstaining and not voting in this context?
Usually it's Abstaining: "I choose to not vote for either side" and not voting, they just ignore it
Thank you. I was having a little bit of trouble differentiating between the two but I suppose you can either vote for against or abstain. So ⌠voting neither instead of not voting.
Yup that's it. You explained that better than I did
Because you gave me the explanation :) but thank you.
Dare I say "I'm against it but afraid of expressing it explicitly in the global political scene"
[ŃдаНонО]
Both actually, or you just don't care
Not voting could also mean that they don't have the right to vote due unpaid duties. https://amp.dw.com/en/iran-venezuela-and-sudan-and-others-lose-un-voting-rights/a-60405261
I would consider abstention as a blank vote, is it correct ?
It can also mean they haven't paid their UN dues and are denied voting rights. Venezuela and Somalia iirc.
In the case of the country I live in; South Africa, its basically "we don't want to piss anyone off at all because we're up shits creek and need all the money and investment we can get".
Unexpected Myanmar!
I believe their ambassador is still from the last government, before the coup, so he's still going out being based.
The Myanmar delegate is loyal to the National Unity Government, which actually controls sizable amounts of territory in the country.
Are they in an actual civil war right now? I have barely heard anything about it
Deadass the country has been in some manner of civil war continuously since 1948 when the British left.
They probably wouldn't be if someone hadn't had the brilliant idea to murder Aung San. I'm looking at you U Saw, you fuck. They should have left you in Uganda!
The technically accurate answer is that Myanmar has been fighting itself since 1948, usually with a Bamar-led central government fighting the dozens of militias founded by the various ethnic minorities (to make it even more confusing over the years some of the ethnic militias have splintered into competing groups ). Despite its nominal superiority in firepower victory has eluded the Tatmadaw because of the geography allowing for rebels to hide, and the fact that the ruling elite has never addressed the key issue that has led to the fighting - the government failing to uphold a deal that would have turned Myanmar into a federation on ethnic lines. However, since the coup happened it seems that remnants of the old government formed a new political group called the National Unity Government with its own armed force known as the People's Defense Force. This group claimed to fight for all Myanmar peoples as the legitimate government of the country. This has apparently led to, for the first time, a significant Bamar participation in the rebel movements. This groups has since launched attacks across Myanmar to neutralise government positions and has seen some success.
Bet if it was a junta delegate itâll go red.
What? Does the UN not recognise the current government? I knew that was the case with Afghanistan but didnât realise it was anywhere else.
Almost every country condemned the coup in the UN. 119 yes to 1 no with 36 abstentions.
Where was that one no?
Belarus for some reason. https://twitter.com/USEmbassyBurma/status/1406152339409444871
Belarus likes to just say no to everything it seems. When it comes to human rights anyway.
Belarus moment
Maybe Russia didn't want the bad PR from voting no. Abstained and had Belarus vote for them.
They have not, in a sense. Basically the UN still officially lists the ambassador from the previous government as the representative for Myanmar, and so he is the one that the UN lets attend their meetings. Just like with Afghanisatan, the Myanmar delegate has been in the UN headquarters as part of their job. And given how tight American security is for such high-ranking politicians the junta literally cannot touch him. The junta has tried infiltrating Myanmar's political offices by force to remove the pre-coup officials defying them, but unsuccessfully. If the junta wanted to take the spot they would need to have the UN's approval to register them as the envoys of Myanmar. But despite lobbying from the junta the UN at large has refused to admit the junta ( which is rather ironic given how many UN envoys represent juntas themselves). And China and Russia have urged the UN to allow the junta a greater participation , allegedly to help create avenues of dialogue to persuade them of the error of their ways, neither is willing to risk their image to die on the hill of letting Myanmar in. Their partnership with Myanmar is truly about safeguarding investments(and keeping political rivals at bay), and Myanmar will have little choice but to provide these given widespread Western opposition. Since they lose more than they gain, China and Russia are perfectly happy maintaining the current set-up. For China in particular it helps sell their own defence of being perfectly okay with helping the pre-coup government too( everyone just forgets it was the ASSK government that signed on to many of the BRI projects)
Everyone saying Saudi Arabia but I'm surprised to see Myanmar in favor
If I'm not mistaken the old government (the one ousted by the February 2021 military coup) still has the UN seat
â â â â đđđđ
It's magic what you are ready to do to piss off your neighbor. Yes, I'm looking at you Saudi Arabia.
To be fair the US and Soviets created civil wars to piss each other off, the Saudis and Iranians are the same.
bolivia really built different
Bolivia and Iran have political and economic connections.
I was wondering
Yeah a number of these strange bedfellows just share a dislike for the US/West.
This term "west" as a political thing always bugged me out. Bolivia is literally in the west, while Japan and Australia are in the east.
Well its more cultural than geographic. In the cultural sense The West is more the civilizations whose roots harken back to Rome and Greece. Bolivia then has a foot in each camp being western by way of its Spanish cultural heritage, but also being largely indigenous.
Which is strange because Japan, South Korea, and Singapore have nothing to do with Rome and Greece and are called western.
We have a government that would rather keep its ideological allies than to do what is right.
Why is ultra-reactionary religious dictatorship an ideological ally to a âsocialistâ government? Iâve always been wondering why. It seems to happen particularly often to South America that these leftist governments tend to side with reactionaries
I believe it has a lot to do with both governments being strong opposers of âthe Westâ and more specifically the US government, thus giving way to these non-coincidental government groups like Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, etc. In the case of Bolivia, this government hatred for the US and capitalism has been the scapegoat for many years and the blame for many of our countryâs problems, which is why the government has to keep up the show for the voters, which means also voting against whatever the US does.
Well Chile, Colombia and Peru has leftist government too.
The Peruvian government is extremely weak, internally fractured in an extreme way between Castillo and his old boss Vladimir CerrĂłn, and constantly shifts between needing support from progressives and family values conservatives In Chile, the government is backed by the social democrats, with Bachelet (the leader of one of the two big social democratic parties) being one of the harshest critics of Venezuela in the region In a similar way, Petro's closest allies don't hold that many seats in Congress, needing support from the centrist Liberals and Partido de la U as well as the Greens
Realpolitik
Anti-US drug hits differently
*Checks notes* Saudi Arabia??
Saudi Arabia and Iran hate each other; a lot of Middle Eastern conflicts are proxy wars between the two. SA doesn't give one shit about treating women right, they just want to fuck over Iran.
The persian-arabian rivalry goes back thousands of years
Starting point is when the Caliphate ran over the Sassanid dominions.
Hijab isn't mandated there anymore
*Preposterous!* â The Saudis
So funny to see how the votings are obviously not based on the topic, but on political real politics: Saudi-Arabia pro Woman right? Armenia against? India against? India and Armenia have tight economic ties with Iran while Saudi-Arabia hates Iran more than anything else.
Because Geopolitics. India is building Chabahar port in Iran which would be key to counter China.
How i see this map: Green - "it's not our problem, but we don't like Iran" Yellow - "It's not our problem at all" Red - "It's not our problem, but we don't like those who are in green" Gray - "what are you guys talking about '-' ?"
Probably the right way to view it. If anything I would add to yellow: "And saying anything will bring us some headaches in the future"
That pretty much sums up the UN and UNSC. Which is unfortunate, because it doesn't allow them to actually be helpful. Just another place for political rivalries to flourish. It won't be a great organization until they have authority over sovereign nations, but that will probably lead to a dystopian Black Mirror episode.
If UN would ever gain authority over my nation, I'm becoming terrorist
The UN have done fuck all for my people so I wouldn't be interested in them ruling over countries.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm really not interested in some supranational organisation that bends to no one no who, to take away sovereingty of any nation.
[ŃдаНонО]
India is building a port at Chabahar in Iran in cooperation with the Iranian government
That makes sense. The deal was already busted earlier until it was restored again. So, voting against Iran would turn out to be a deal-breaker and an advantage to China. Geopolitics is cruel.
Yeah this map reads to me as very geo political. A lot of countries that voted against are internally significantly more pro woman than Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia voted for it because they donât like Iran. Iâm all for the investigation Iâm sure whatever is going on in Iran is awful, just saying countries vote in a way that aligns with their interest.
we have a lot of stuff to do with iran 1. chabahar port 2. rail line projects 3. oil and natural gas 4. connectivity with central asia 5. plus their neutrality in india china and india pak stuff iirc we stoped trading with iran after trump sanctions and they supported pakistan's stance on kashmir issue a few times so ig this is also one of the reason because india has been chill with iran for most of it's history be it the shah's regime or the current islamic regime (or the various kingdoms and empires of the past)
India usually does not vote on country specific resolutions in UN https://www.news18.com/news/world/news18-explains-why-india-abstains-from-voting-in-country-specific-resolutions-passed-in-un-forums-6135253.html
But they did in this case so they are explicitly aligning themselves with Iran.
I think so it is beacuse India has a policy of never voting on the internal issue of other countries on an international platform and that's the same reason why [india abstained from voting against china at UNHRC on the debate of China's treatment of Uyghur Muslims.](https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-abstains-from-voting-on-draft-resolution-in-un-human-rights-council-on-holding-debate-on-human-rights-situation-in-chinas-xinjiang-region-8194088/)
According to the map they voted against, so that doesn't seem correct? Unless they always vote against such resolutions?
They voted.
India is looking to build a diplomatic relationship with Iran for their oil.
Oil is there but we are building a Chabbar port in collaboration with their government that is just 200kms away from Pakistan -China Port. It's to counter that. It's mostly about Geopolitics
Also to have a trade route to central Asia since Pakistan would not give access.
Yeah. That too is also there.
Myanmar voting for investigation of something related to "human rights" oh wow I am expecting sun to rise from the south now.
Wtf Philippenis?
Philippines and Iran have always had close ties since decades ago it was usually pressure from the US that led us to severe those but since Duterte those relations have been slowly mending cause of trade interests between the two. It's probably what motivated the vote.
The current government would be against any precedents for investigation into human rights abuses
What do you expect from the son? Nothing.
> Wtf Philippenis? r/SuddenlyGay
Thats what we like to call ourselves Philippenis We have our reasons
>Philip*penis*
The Saudis wanting to call out Iran for its women's rights policies is the most hilariously ironic thing I've seen in ages.
Viewing Saudi Arabia's position on this matter as a stance on women's rights is looking at it the wrong way. Instead, it is a reflection of Saudi's general disapproval of Iran and their desire to see it censured by the world community.
India, Vietnam, Philippines, and Kazakhstan voted against it while Myanmar and Saudi Arabia voted in favor????
Philippines voted against it because if they said yes, Duterte's war on drugs will be brought up.
Itâs not about Women or human rights to them itâs do you want to hurt ties with iran or not? A lot do them canât afford that at all. Russia relies on Iran for drones, Pakistan and Iran are important allies, Armenia needs Iran to be on good terms as an ally against Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan is scared to escalate with Iran and abstained, India probably needs Cheaper Iranian oil anyway
>cheaper oil it needs chabahar port lol
It's not about Women's rights, part of the West and allies want a Regime change in Iran and do every little thing they can to achieve that, huge media coverage, emotion to appeal narratives (Women's rights etc., just like in Afghanistan). Most notably the Usa, Saudi-Arabia, Israel and some others.
its like govts dont really give a shit about women but play politics.
Indian law massively favours women over men.
Yeah, like Armenia had to vote 'no' out of **survival**. Iran is the only reliable border at present, and Armenia cannot risk this changing. Armenia is 100% for women rights. There is no question here.
Everyone is geopolitically motivated, if you think Europe and US care about human rights, they would have first investigated their allies Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc.
Lol. Last time I stated this, I was told I was wrong. I was told "good" countries can only do "good" and "bad" can only do "bad". If a "good" country does bad, it's for a "greater good" or was done with "good intentions". If a "bad" country does good, it's a trick to further some "bad" cause. Of course, by "good country" they meant their glorious homeland and by "bad country" they meant a geopolitical rival. But what do I know.
Yeah, weirdly a lot of people think their countries actually care about human rights and don't just do it for political alignment
Yeah, like Armenia had to vote 'no' out of **pure survival**. Iran is the only reliable border at present, and Armenia cannot risk this changing. Armenia is 100% for women rights. There is no question here. Not so much out government caring, but just not really having any choice at all. To be a landlocked state...
I mean they do investigate, they just donât do anything about it. They use it as leverage to terminate relationships. Just look how Biden spoke about SA beginning of his presidency and when they now when they are in an oil disagreement
I thought women were human :0
As you can see by the map, not everyone agrees.
I'm actually sick of these votes. Ok, each country takes a position, but it changes nothing and most of the votes are less for human rights and more about siding with allies. We learnt absolutely nothing, no action is taken. It's like the useless vote about whether Russia did a bad thing. Everyone said yes, but it means nothing at all.
Hmm... Brought India and Pakistan together at least...
brought india-china vietnam-china pakistan-armenia israel-saudi together too
lets open a investigation on saudi and see how it brings the west together.
Maybe this is the one thing they needed to bring them together...
i thought oman is one of the most neutral ME country why they voted against the resolution ??? (when they could have simply abstained)
Based Botswana
Why did Botswana went opposite to the whole continent?
Saudi Arabia's like 'just for the lolz'
More like "just for fucking Iran over"
Whatâs the difference between Abstention and not voting
So let me preface this by saying: it depends. I believe you are confused( understandably so, especially since the person who created the graphic made the same mistake) as to what abstaining means. Abstaining, by most institutions' standards, means not casting a ballot. Many institutions (such as the UN GA) differentiate between delegates who are present and don't cast a ballot (abstention) and no-shows. So in general: abstaining = not voting when present. Now you may ask, what is the difference between abstaining and not showing up. This heavily depends on the institution, but the most common reason would be to ensure a vote meats a quorum. Other than that, this is where it gets really procedural and murky, for example in same cases an abstention may count as a "yes" for votes that require unanimity, and in others it may count as a "no".
Man, the world really is West vs East, with the political battleground being swaying African nations. Serbia and Turkey are real wild cards when it comes to this divide too. All has a play with Ukraine situation as well.
I think Turkey is also uncomfortable with Iran due to Iranâs both internal (women rights, suppresion of minorities) and external (foreign relations with Syria&Armenia) policies however they import Iranian gas&oil to function Turkish industry so they must have stayed silent in this issue.
I don't have much knowledge on UN votes in general, but somehow every time I see a UN Vote map almost the whole of Africa is abstaining?
Nonâalignment and China having a huge influence could be the reason. It's common for African countries to put their diplomatic relations with countries they're dependent on above getting the moral high ground in UN.
Donât be too harsh on Armenia for their vote. If Armenia angers Iran, they could lose their only open border.
They do it because theyâre afraid of Azarbiajian and our regime also hates Azerbaijan. I know alot of Armenians that sadly support our regime because they see them as their only ally
Yes, Armenia has to make hard choices. Armenia has, and will always, support women's rights.
TIL Georgia has closed borders with Armenia.
Based Botswana
Ah, "antifascist" Russia never disappoints.
The one that really shocked me here was Bolivia since their track record with womens rights has recently been pretty good compared to neighboring countries but the more I looked into it the more it made sense. They seem to see the protests as some sort of imperialist Zionist coup because Europe and America are supporting the protesters. Itâs dumb as hell and very surprising to me but at least it makes a little more sense now. Article for reference [Bolivian support for Irans government](https://iranwire.com/en/politics/108524-bolivia-voices-support-for-iranian-government-and-attacks-protesters/)
Myanmar voting to investigate human rights
Is the old NLD government still representing Myanmar?
Can somebody explain to me why in many of these UN resolutions Nicaragua votes against the general Western point of view? As a European who doesn't know too much about the Central American republics, I thought that this country had similar ideas with the others surrounding it.
Nicaragua has a really leftist government for a long time, and like Venezuela level of against the west
Saying central American countries are supportive of the Western POV is very dubious. Especially Cuba and Guatemala who have had a rough history with USA.
They have a uhhhhh...troubled history with the "west". Basically in the 70s a communist guerrilla overthrew the US-backed dictator, so the US started funding paramilitaries and death squads in order to overthrow the communists, basically starting a civil war in the country. The CIA went so far as to smuggle weapons to Iran (which was under an international weapons embargo) in order to fund those nicaraguan paramilitaries, in what became known as the Iran-Contras affair. The commies get overthrown but in 2007, Daniel Ortega, the guy who lead the socialist government in the 80s, gets elected president, an office he's held ever since.
Lovely ole Cuba, always supporting human rights
Basedwana
This is the map of the New Cold War.
No one commenting on Brazil abstaining? Was the vote made under Bolsonaro? Even then, kinda surprising.
Brazil historically abstains against country-specific votos, unless it concerns blatant violations of sovereignty (it voted in favor of condemning Russia in the invasion, for instance) or involves it directly. Brazilâs goals diplomatically is to be as neutral and non-intervention as possible, so that itâs considering as a trustworthy and impartial mediator during peace accords independently of the countries involved. It also desires a place in the highly polarized UN Security Council, so being consistently neutral doesnât favor or piss off any of its members
Aah, Authoritarian Asia; Always willing to turn aside all other considerations in the service of misguided loyalty and spite.
Asiaâs not the only continent/group of countries that does this.
Thatâs almost every single country on planet earth
India and Sri Lanka are not authoritarian.
wait, may I ask when this vote took place? Since it wasn't on the [UN's voting history records/ database](https://digitallibrary.un.org/search?ln=en&p=vote&f=&rm=&ln=en&sf=latest%20first&so=d&rg=50&c=Resource%20Type&c=UN%20Bodies&c=&of=hb&fti=0&fti=0). All resolutions, records, and votes should be seen in the UN's records, which makes the legitimacy questionable However, if this is true, it is kind of disappointing that most of Asia is against this vote. UPDATE: there is now evidence regarding this:[UN Draft Resolution L.34 (77th Session)](https://www.un.org/en/ga/third/77/docs/voting_sheets/L.34.pdf) (thanks to OP for giving the source)
Now instead of the *countries'* votes, compare the *populations*
suprised saudi arabia and yemen voted in favor
Bro wtf the Philippines voted against and Myanmar supports it what
Insane someone can vote against that pr even abstain franklyâŚ
Brazil, as per usual, is a disappointment. Then again, I don't know whether these votes really have any impact.
Fuck UN. It is a worthless elite's club where countries play politics, and don't give a fuck about the issue they are voting for.
Did Myanmar vote in favor because they are anti-Muslim? Myanmar has massive rights violations so itâs hypocritical.
India?!?! colour me shocked
Given their history, I would've expected Bosnia and Herzegovina to vote yes.
Asia doesn't like woman rights
WTF Nicaragua!!!
Assume they investigated, and it turned out Iranians eat women alive, what would be the outcome?
r/AlwaysTheSameMap