Haven’t the EU, the UK and the US passed the UN Resolution “Against Racism”?

“The UN has introduced a bill Global action against racism and discrimination. (…) More than 100 countries voted ‘yes’. Guess who voted against? USA, UK, Australia, Canada, Israel, France, Germany, Netherlands. Great Europeans ‘no’. Other Europe, Ignore“, Stands alone in the message sent by thousands of people on the WhatsApp site over the past few weeks.

Is this information true or false?

The one who was in trouble Resolution Plan And not a bill Vote At the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on December 31, 2020, with the following headline: “For firm action on the global call. Eradication of racism, Racial discrimination, Racism and related tolerance And the Durban Declaration and the comprehensive implementation and follow-up of the project “(see Here)

Guyana put forward the proposal on behalf of A team of 77 people And China, was Passed with 106 votes in favor44 boycotts and 14 votes againstIn addition to the 29 non-voting UN member states.

“data-title =” Shouldn’t the EU, the UK and the US implement the UN “Against Racism” resolution? – Polygraph “>

The summary of the ballots corresponds to the data indicated in the message under analysis. You Votes against People from the following countries: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Germany, Guyana, Israel, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, the Netherlands, Slovenia, the United Kingdom and the United States (United States). Portugal did not vote In this referendum, the other member states of the European Union.

“As in previous years, we are very sorry This resolution cannot be supportedIt does not really focus on the fight against racism, racism, bigotry and related tolerance, “said David Cook, chief of The Christian Science Monitor’s Washington bureau. Explanatory note On the meaning of voting on this draft resolution which has already been voted on several times (under the same rationale the United States has always been against it).

“Our concerns include the endorsement of the Durban Declaration and Action Plan (DDPA) resolution, the outcome of the Durban Review Conference and its endorsement. Excessive restrictions on freedom of expression. We reject any attempt to advance the DDPA’s ‘full deployment’. We hope this resolution acts as a vehicle To prolong splitsInstead of providing an inclusive path for the international community to combat the scourge of racism and racism, “the US permanent mission is underlined.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MNE) contacts Polygraph Confirms neglectExcept “Agrees with concerns The resolution emphasizes that we are still far from achieving the goal of eliminating racial discrimination. “

“The above resolution, from its paragraphs 3 to 7, considers that the International Conference on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination does not respond effectively to contemporary manifestations of racism, particularly racism and the intolerance associated with it, and therefore recommends the development of a preferred protocol for the Convention.”

Now, “Portugal did not subscribe to this rating And has consistently revealed it Resistance For this optional protocol, along with other member states of the European Union. There is no consensus or evidence that there are legal gaps in the conference, nor does it fail to address contemporary forms of racism, Portugal considers it. It is important to focus on implementing existing tools“.

Furthermore, the MNE points out that Portugal’s abstention from voting on the draft resolution in question is part of a package. 21 abstained and five votes against Between EU countries (Cyprus did not participate in that referendum). In fact, the same draft resolution was tabled again in 2021, this time 17 EU countries, including Portugal, abstained and recorded 10 votes against.

In conclusion, the essence of the message spread on WhatsApp contains information True. However, it suffers from some errors, and from the beginning the “bill” was actually a draft resolution. Most, Not proposed or proposed by the UNBut by Guyana, representing the “Group of 77” and China.

On the other hand, it is important to take into account Justifications Countries that voted against or did not vote against. The United States points to “exaggerated restrictions on freedom of expression” while acknowledging that the International Conference on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in Portugal does not require an “optional protocol”. Among other examples.

________________________________________

Polygraph rating: