News Made Clear · Loading…
News Made Clear · Loading…

The Russia-introduced draft prompted a far more divided vote than several other decolonisation measures considered at the same UN committee meeting.
Review information is loading.
The UN General Assembly’s Fourth Committee approved a draft resolution on contemporary forms of colonialism on 15 October by 85 votes to 49, with 23 abstentions. The divided vote reflected a dispute over the text’s treatment of unilateral economic measures and Russia’s role in introducing it. Committee approval does not mean the full General Assembly has adopted the resolution. [1]
According to UN meetings coverage, the draft would have the Assembly recognise that colonialism persists in contemporary relations between states. It identifies unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the UN Charter as one possible expression of it. The account does not say that all sanctions, or sanctions against Russia specifically, are unlawful. [1]
Russia introduced the draft on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, arguing that colonial practices had evolved. The US delegate said sanctions, export controls and sovereign trade decisions were lawful tools of statecraft. Ukraine’s delegate accused Russia of trying to present itself as a champion of decolonisation while pursuing neocolonial policies, and defended sanctions against Russia as a response to its aggression. [1]
Norway confirmed that it voted against the draft, saying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violated the principles the text was meant to uphold. [2]
The committee approved more than 22 draft resolutions and a draft decision at the meeting. Other decolonisation texts drew much broader support: a draft concerning information from non-self-governing territories passed 160–2, with three abstentions. The US delegate also called for an end to the mandate of the Special Committee on Decolonization, whose recommendations underpin many of the drafts. That was a proposal from the US, not a decision by the Fourth Committee. [1]
2 listed sources · explore evidence, limitations and provenance.
Sign in to give this article a thumbs up or down.
Private test discussion. Comments are readers’ views and are not yet automatically fact-checked. Editing is available for 60 seconds after posting.
Ask your question with @newsmadeclear or @nmc. You may receive 5 starter credits once after checks on your confirmed email and browser. The offer is once per person; extra accounts do not entitle you to another bonus. There is no monthly refill. Previous balances remain. A question costs 1 credit, including additional research you permit. A source you provide that demonstrably improves the article earns 5 credits. If your question helps Astra find the missing source and improve the article, you receive 1 credit back.
Sign in with a confirmed reader account and choose a username to read comments and participate.
Sorting applies to top-level comments; replies remain oldest first. New comments and likes can change the order. Refresh for the current ranking.
Loading comments…
Interested in advertising with News Made Clear? Explore our pilot.