The draft resolution was prepared by the Russian delegation in collaboration with delegations from 42 other countries. The document contains the concern that in some European countries, all of which are well known, and in a further submission obviously do not need it, continues to be expressed not only quixotic support of SS veterans, performing marches through the streets of European cities, and the apparent infringement of the rights of those in their while the cost of their own health or life fighting to protect the world from the Nazi plague. The resolution condemned the construction of monuments of the Nazi perpetrators.
Neo-Nazi rally. Photo by Kirill Simina — photosight.ru
Of course, the question, in particular, and erected in the Latvian town of Bauska monument to Latvian Waffen SS battalions (№ № 23, 319, 322). Recall that with the active support of the authorities Bauski in September 2012, the monument that was presented to the general public. The monument itself, according to the inscription on the Latvian language, dedicated to the events of 1944, when the young Latvians joined the fascist German units to counter the "second Russian occupation."
The resolution of the General Assembly condemned the desecration of monuments to soldiers with Nazi danger that in the 30-40s of last century, looms over the planet.
All items conviction, it would seem, are obvious, and therefore could be considered that the countries participating in the meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations unanimously support the resolution. But in fact, everything turned out more difficult than one might imagine.
Resolution although it was accepted, but not unanimously. It was found that, at a minimum, in 60 countries, which had the right to express their position on this issue, is there a world view that differ from the 120th held view of other countries, condemning the glorification of Nazism. Of these 60 countries, three countries voted against the resolution, triggering the obvious perplexity not only those who devised this resolution, and those for whom the very word "Nazism"Due to the catastrophic history. Opponents of the adoption of the anti-Nazi resolution were made by countries such as the Marshall Islands, Canada and the United States of America. We will not delve into the details of the positions of the Marshall Islands, the more so that this government with 60000th population is associated with the United States, and look at the position of the other voted "against."
But things get out of weird: South American representatives in almost all corners of the tube, which is specifically the United States is a major country in the world, winning in the second world war, but now, as it turned out, the "winners" do not behold the nothing wrong, to which were War in the 40s of the last century. But that is not open so contradictory positions Americans and their loyal to the core of Canada's northern neighbors have decided to draw a veil over his position of an old parable about human rights and freedom of speech. According to the views of representatives of the North American delegation, the condemnation of the glorification of Nazism in the modern world somehow infringes upon the freedom of speech. It turns out that in the United States and Canada are prepared to provide a platform for those who promote the idea of racial and religious intolerance, based on the chosen representatives of the country taken separately. If this is the respect for human rights, what about the rights of the people against whom oriented brutal Nazi attacks.
Under the guise of course imaginary thoughts about freedom of speech, Washington and Ottawa, in fact, vtavpyvayut gryazyuka in the memory of millions of victims of fascism (Nazism) during the second World War. And when you consider that in the U.S., and Canada are living veterans of that war, the authorities designated by the States, and spit on the award of these people. If the freedom of speech, according to the views of the American and Canadian delegations to the UN, so that you can shamelessly declare their own involvement in Nazi atrocities and worship monuments Nazi butchers, it becomes clear where these countries can slide in the end.
Of course, the vote on the resolution on the part of these countries, and the first United States — is obvious obmyslennaya share. It's no secret that Washington has the effect of the stimulus is not the text of the resolution, and that this resolution initiated by Russia. And in this case it works on a measured current scenario, which remains constant from the time of the brutal Cool war: "If the proposed Russian, we (Americans) will be against." Or, as in the famous phrase, Russian times, "Do not read it, but judging …"
Of course, that if Washington called for the resolution, it would offend their fixed Eastern European satellites — the Baltic countries, the whole existence of "independent" of the authorities which are based on the continuous declaration of Russo-phobia. The more words and actions, one way or another hurt the honor and dignity of, the more praise from across the ocean from the "Big Brother".
In other words, a vote "against" the provisions of the resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism, for the United States — is a litmus test that shows once again that this government to this day can not retreat from the stereotype of hostility on the part of Russia. It's like an invisible source control electorate, where the presence of the enemy boosts to certain actions. And what could be better support from the U.S. opponents of the Russian Federation, which are themselves fed themselves on the opposition to those who during the 10-s years regularly developed these areas, known for his own, I'm sorry, "a rotten" kind.
In general, the South American "against" — is a sign of uncured time stereotype that cool war is not over … By the way, it's not too far away the first vote on the matter, in which the United States expressed appropriately. So could the United States and Canada to support the resolution, when in their territories Nazism is alive and well to this day.
According to the 2010 census, the terrain of the North American population of more than 3 million indigenous inhabitants — the Redskins. With all of this up to a million Redskins have to live in the area of special areas — reserves (typical ghetto). If the average in the United States under the poverty line is 12% of the population, the figure in the middle of the Redskins up by more than a factor of 2 — 25%. With all of this Indian family did not just leave the reservation, even if it (the family) to lust. A if take into account that some reservations unemployment simply limitless (above 80%), then nothing else as an infringement of the rights and freedoms of the people by ethnicity such a situation will not name. Referred to as the Redskins one American political scientist — "strangers in their own country." So where, then, human rights, freedom of speech, thought, movement and other democratic pillars? ..
But if the Americans, Canadians and "marshal islanders" have expressed their clear point of view, it's another 57 UN member countries have decided not to read either yes or no. Say, we like and advocate "for", but at the same time look back
at those who stand behind us. And those who stand behind him, as discussed above. And this speech is not about the Marshall Islands …
On the one hand strikes, and with another — lies in the general outline of the position of the Ukrainian delegation, who decided to abstain. Can be long to reflect on how it could government, on the ground that at the time of stateliness Russian people suffered a severe test in the face of the fascist plague, not to support the resolution. Can be a long debate on the question of how the country's delegation, which survived Babi Yar Nazi ideologues and delivered to the stream extermination of the indigenous population could avoid a direct answer.
But all thoughts and discussions will be superfluous, because now the official authorities in Kiev, it seems, she can not determine which way it continue to lead the country. Nationalist attacks in the West, the pro-Russian east and south, declaring European Integration Center … flailing president, the parliament continued political fever … That forward then back, then to the right, then to the left, then head in the sand — just vote "neither one nor the other "- the choice of modern Ukrainian authorities which reverence obviously does not. Come and vote the delegation of Ukraine "for", the authorities would have had to suppress the activity of far-right in the western regions and the central government obviously does not possess the power and authority to be able to solve problems so severe. In the end, Kiev and had to sign of weakness …
In the same group "doubters" were EU countries, as Moldova, Georgia and certain other countries.
Well, here, too, everything is clear. Brussels could also vote against their own "chicks" who still tightly covered his wing, and therefore have the opportunity to at least establish the SS monuments, though sprinkled with sand streets during marches of veterans of the Nazi battalions … And Georgia and Moldova are aimed at European integration, and therefore voted as well as "European brothers."
Cheers the fact that the vast majority of countries in the world have supported the resolution, which reads as an adequate assessment of the global atrocities of Nazism, which can not be concealed or fables about freedom of speech, nor the principles of tolerance, or other imaginary screens.