I overruled the forum vote for a variety of reasons, which I explained on Discord. That wasn't satisfactory for a couple of loud voices, so here's a more detailed explanation.
First, our allies requested assistance because the vote was extremely close and our participation could be decisive. We have a long-standing working relationship with them on World Assembly matters, built on consistent cooperation and mutual reliability. A central part of this partnership is that, in nearly all cases, key resolutions we care about are protected from repeal efforts, and we are able to secure authorship or co-authorship for TNP members on important legislation. Beyond immediate stakes, we also believe in supporting our allies even when the outcome is not critical, as a show of good faith. That good faith has historically been returned to us, and maintaining it is a strategic priority.
At the same time, we do not blindly follow allied positions. There are situations where our interests do not align, where our regional vote differs, or where the status of the author and the substance of the resolution lead us to oppose. In most of those cases, we prioritise our own interests. However, when a vote is close enough that our participation can meaningfully alter the outcome, and the issue is important to our allies, we are willing to lend support with the understanding that this reciprocity will be honoured when we find ourselves in a similar position in the future.
As the vote progressed, its closeness began to take on a broader geopolitical significance. Several of our rivals and enemies have clearly treated this vote as an opportunity to strike back at us, turning the resolution into a symbol that goes beyond its textual merits. While this dynamic was not immediately obvious and initially remained speculative, it has since become clear. Our allies are seeking a show of unity and resolve in response. We have previously taken positions on resolutions with similar strategic considerations in mind, particularly where they intersect, directly or indirectly, with our broader war effort.
Finally, it is important to stress that opposition to this resolution is not merely tactical or rooted in bad faith. The topic is understandably charged, and many people are naturally inclined to support it. However, several of us believe the resolution contains substantive flaws that justify opposition on the merits.
The proposal relies heavily on an exception allowing affirmative action only when it is intended to support racial groups facing “significant present inequalities.” This exception is the entire foundation of the proposal, and we do not believe it is sufficiently defined or robust. A racial group may face meaningful present-day inequalities as a result of significant historical injustice without those inequalities necessarily meeting an ambiguous threshold of being “significant.” Under this framework, affirmative action programs could be abruptly terminated the moment such inequalities are deemed no longer significant, regardless of whether underlying disparities or structural disadvantages persist.
Moreover, governments and organisations have legitimate interests in considering race beyond narrowly addressing present inequality. Universities may seek to build diverse student bodies for educational and social reasons, and employers may have an interest in maintaining diverse workforces for institutional, cultural, or economic reasons. The proposal unnecessarily constrains these considerations by tying affirmative action almost exclusively to a vague and unstable standard.
For these reasons, opposing the resolution should not be characterised as gamesmanship or as an attempt to enable discrimination. It is a position grounded in foreign affairs realities and concerns about the resolution’s design.
