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.
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.