How the Nations Voted

The voting pattern on the Defamation Resolution reveals that a clear majority of states in the world supports the value of combating defamation of religions. In 2006, 58% member states of the United Nations (192 states) voted for the Resolution, 28% opposed it, and 14% were non-committed.

1. Supportive States: In 2005, 101 states voted for the Defamation Resolution. In 2006, the Resolution gained ten more states, bringing the total to 111. All Middle Eastern states except Israel, an overwhelming majority of states from Asia, Africa, and South America voted for the Resolution. Russia and China, the two permanent members of the UN Security Council also voted for the Resolution.

2. Opposition States: In 2005, 53 states voted against the Defamation Resolution. In 2006, the opposition gained one more state, South Korea, bringing the total to 54. The opposition consists of predominantly Western states, including all members of the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. Except for Japan and South Korea, no other Asian state opposes the Resolution. So far, not a single state from Africa or South America has voted against the Defamation Resolution.

3. Non-Committed States: In 2005, 37 states from Asia, Africa, and South America did not commit themselves to or against the Defamation Resolution. Some of these states abstained from voting, the others did not show up. In 2006, 10 of these states switched to supporting the Resolution and only one, South Korea, crossed over to the opposition bloc. There are still 27 non-committed states. A few of these states are members of the Organization of Islamic Conference, and they are most likely to support the Resolution in the coming years. The most important state still not committed to the Defamation Resolution is India, which has the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia.

Geopolitical Background

The voting pattern on the Defamation Resolution, discussed above, rejects the thesis that Islam and Christianity have locked horns for the domination of the world. The overwhelming support for the Defamation Resolution among scores of Christian states, including the Latin American States, Russia, and the Philippines, belies any such thesis. It is also remarkable that most Catholic states in the world supported the Defamation Resolution, notwithstanding German Pope Benedict’s unfortunate (and hopefully unintended) comments that associated Islam with evil and violence.

If the Defamation Resolution is symptomatic of any grand struggle in the world, it appears to be between the West and the rest of the world, a struggle that may be explained in several distinct ways.

For example, it might be argued that the voting pattern has little to do with particulars of the Defamation Resolution and everything to do with a broader and deeper geopolitical and economic struggle between the West and the non-West. The non-Western world is loosely organized through a group called the Non- Aligned Movement (NAM).7 Most members of the NAM supported the Defamation Resolution; and, perhaps as importantly, not a single NAM member opposed it. This voting pattern emerges from a shared understanding in the NAM world that the West uses the law of human rights as a political tool to single out countries for condemnation and that its commitment to human rights is at best duplicitous.8 China and Russia voted for the Defamation Resolution as part of a strategic interest in the grand struggle. These two permanent members of the Security Council often vote for NAM initiatives to cultivate better ties with the NAM and to expose, and perhaps even to promote, the West’s increasing moral alienation from the rest of the world.

From a Western viewpoint, the grand struggle might also be explained in terms of a fundamental rift between liberal and non-liberal worlds. According to this viewpoint, the West and the Western-leaning states, such as Japan and South Korea, represent a liberal world in which property rights, free markets, democratic accountability, and individual freedoms are cherished and protected. By contrast, the non-liberal world pays lip service to democracy and human rights but it is fundamentally inclined toward authoritarian controls of markets and
citizens.

There is an element of truth in the Western viewpoint, at least to the extent that many NAM countries, and Russia and China that support the NAM, are not liberal, democratic states. The human rights records of numerous NAM states are tainted. This viewpoint, however, must be taken with a grain of doubt since India and the post-apartheid South Africa, both vibrant democracies, are active members and leaders of the NAM.