|Vote on resolution to negotiate a ban on nuclear weapons in 2017 (L-41)|
Green - Yes (123, 76%)
Red - No (38, 24%)
Beige - Abstained
(Via @ILPIwmd - share on Twitter)
"What do you notice . . . ?"
If I were lucky enough to be a high school or college teacher, I would seize the opportunity to invite my students to investigate a real life moment in global politics.
Last Thursday, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to proceed with negotiations in 2017on global nuclear disarmament - a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons.
It is a stunning lesson in global civics to observe who voted "YES" and who voted "NO" (and also who abstained) on L.41 - "taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations."
|ROLL CALL: votes on "taking forward multilateral|
nuclear disarmament negotiations"
The assignment is simple: Pick a country ... guess how you might expect them to vote, giving reasons for your answer ... then look at how they really voted. Next, try to think about additional reasons that might explain their actual vote. Final step: go online and see what others are saying about why the country voted the way they did.
This will prove to be a very illuminating exercise for anyone -- young or old -- who thinks they know which countries are working for the peace and safety of the world.
More information at on Common Dreams: "US Votes 'No' As UN Adopts Landmark Resolution Calling to Ban Nuclear Weapons"
For instance, see . . .
Tlatelolco 50: A Gift to the World
SCIENCE MARCHES: Are All These Countries In the Dark About Nuclear Weapons?
VIETNAM and the NUCLEAR BAN: Out From Under the Shadow of US Nuclear Terror
Why People Want a Pacific (and World) Free of Nuclear Weapons
"Standing With the Nonwhite World to Ban Nuclear Weapons" by Vincent J. Intondi : "It is no surprise that this current attempt to eliminate nuclear weapons is being led by many nonwhite nations. In 1955, ten years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, twenty-nine nations of Asia and Africa gathered in Bandung, Indonesia . . . "
. . . and links to more helpful explanations on the "Full voting result on UN resolution L.41" page on the ICAN website.
More related posts
How do you formulate a statement that can somehow convince the United States to eliminate its threatening nuclear weapons? How do you formulate the 10th request? Or the 100th? Knowing all the time that the United States is in the position -- will always be in the position -- to say, "No" ? At what point does it dawn on you that the United States will never give up its nuclear weapons, because it has the power and the rest of the world doesn't?
(See 360 Degree Feedback in New York (2014 NPT Prepcom and How the World Views the United States))
Hibakusha is a word that has traditionally been used to refer to people affected by the nuclear blasts in Hiroshima and Nagaski. It is now being broadened to recognize the many additional victims of acute affects of nuclear radiation (including fallout from tests and radioactivity from mining and processing). In fact, we are all subject to the impact and threat of nuclear radiation spread indiscriminately by nations and corporations.
(See HIROSHIMA: What does it mean to say, "We are ALL 'hibakusha'?")
"It's not enough to remember this just once a year; it's not enough that we make a single book -- Hiroshima -- required reading, and never go beyond that. There should be a whole canon that people study progressively, year by year, to grasp and retain the horror of this."
(See FIRE AND BLAST: A Curriculum that Confronts Nuclear Danger?)