Yes, France voted against a resolution condemning Nazism

“On the one hand, Macron and the government say they are horrified by the” racism “of a RN deputy who is asking for illegal immigrants to return home. On the other hand, for the first time they are voting at the UN against the resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism in Ukraine “, François Asselineau, founder of the UPR, announced on Twitter.

In support of his point, a screenshot of the results of a vote held on Friday 4 November within the United Nations (UN), around a draft resolution on “the fight against the glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and others. practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance “.

In reaction to this publication, many Internet users say they are outraged. “So the French government has forgotten the Second World War? Or they would have wanted collaboration… ”, one of them throws out. “Macron is worse than the National Rally for Discrimination after all,” wrote another. If this vote surprises many people, did it really happen? And if so, under what conditions? 20 minutes make the point.


To begin with, it should be noted that the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly are texts that concern only the declaration of intent. They are in no way legally or diplomatically binding texts. However, and as interpreted by internet users, each state’s vote has a strong symbolic value.

The vote took place on 4 November in the Third Committee, which is responsible for social, humanitarian and cultural issues. “On the basis of this draft resolution presented by the Russian Federation and adopted with 105 votes in favor, 52 against and 15 abstentions, the General Assembly would express its deep concern for the glorification, in any form, of the Nazi movement, neo-Nazism and former members of the Waffen-SS organization, “summarize the United Nations on their website. If this resolution is first wanted by Russia, it is also supported by many of its allies such as Cuba, Pakistan or Venezuela.

A text that covers new human rights violations?

Among the 52 votes against are those of France, like the other 26 member countries of the European Union, but also of the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States and even Japan. The delegation representing the European Union issued a press release to explain the reasons justifying the opposition of its member states to this resolution.

“Today, under the pretext of fighting Nazism, Russia has brought the horrors of war back to Europe, reminding us that peace cannot be taken for granted. We strongly condemn the misuse of the argument against Nazism, and we reject Russia’s imprecise and inappropriate use of the term “denazification” to justify its war of inhuman, cruel and illegal aggression against Ukraine “, contextualizes the communiqué. And to add that the position of the EU, which “for years has argued that the fight against extremism and the condemnation of the despicable ideology of Nazism must not be diverted and co-opted for political purposes that seek to justify new violations and abuses of human rights ”, obliges him to vote against.

A hypocritical text for Ukraine

The debates of the Third Committee were broadcast on the United Nations Web TV and the representatives were able to justify their choice of vote. Listening to diplomats, some votes take on their full meaning, particularly on what led some countries to vote against the Russian draft resolution. The Ukrainian delegation to the United Nations saw it as “the pinnacle of hypocrisy”, believing “that this draft text has nothing to do with the title of the resolution, but is, on the contrary, a pretext used by Russia. to justify his brutal war against his country and the heinous crimes committed against humanity ”.

The United Nations website notes: “Canada and the United States have, for their part, expressed their opposition to this draft resolution which, according to them, aims to legitimize a discourse based on disinformation. They have been supported by Japan and the UK, the latter seeing that the “Putin regime” is carrying out the most devastating acts, similar to those of some of the worst regimes of the 20th century. In turn, Slovenia expressed its rejection of the approach defended by the text, as did Iceland, which rejected an “exploitation intended to justify aggression against a sovereign country”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *