I would say, for example, the G-77. I mean, there are the developing countries, the Third World; Africa, more broadly.
It's not because these countries necessarily stand up in support of Iran's human rights abuses. It's because they see the west, and in particular the permanent members of the Security Council, as kind of having favourite whipping children. So that often gets turned into a debate over the powerful versus the powerless. It's standing in solidarity.
I look at a country like South Africa as an illustration, which has a tremendous recent history of having stood up and achieved reconciliation after apartheid, and yet their record in supporting other oppressed people since becoming free from apartheid has frankly been pretty terrible. They have stood in support of the Burmese junta, in Burma. They've stood in support of Mugabe, in Zimbabwe. And this is because of this alliage. I understand the reasoning, but frankly I don't understand the approach.
The argument is that the west has unfairly singled out particular countries for negative treatment and this is part of a kind of a colonialist-oppressor past that needs to be stood up to, not necessarily because of support for the particular abuses of the regime in question but because the whole system itself is flawed and cannot be supported.
I think that is what has happened with many of the countries. I have spoken to ambassadors from many of the countries that vote against the Iran resolution. They recognize that the situation in Iran is atrocious from a human rights perspective, but they're not going to support the west in going up against Iran because, frankly, they feel that they're not as powerful in the UN and this is not a reasonable approach that is being taken.