But the resolution passed anyway, which is why world hunger has disappeared.
These resolutions are designed to make some countries look bad. Somewhere in the small print there’s a point unacceptable for the US and Israel, so they vote against and newspapers world-wide can report on how US and Israel alone blocked the end of famine.
Isn’t also North Korea in the UN? Imagine North Korea does something better than the US lol.
The US has done things far worse than what North Korea has done. Every ten years your “democracy” bombs another country.
A slave empire can’t function without extreme deprivation.
The USA is a shit hole country with a shit hole leader
The fuck is wrong with US???
I think it would actually be easier to list what is NOT wrong with the US lol, cos that woulld make for a very short list lol
- Some pretty natural landmarks
Yeah, that was easy.
Oh boy, where to start?
Israel will be responsible for a second holocaust against them. And this time no one will help.
Zios will be responsible for a planetary nuclear holocaust first.
I always thought it rather odd the country that gained its (unofficial) statehood because of a genocide of its own people have actively participated in committing one themselves. All by playing an oppressed victim.
This is what nationalism always leads to - exclusion and genocide. Even if it’s founding myth was resistance against those things.
The nation state is the greatest tool of oppression known to man.
A constitutional ethnostate being bigoted?!
And when that fertilizer shortage and soybean bullshit causes farmers to have a terrible harvest, and the U.S. asks for help from the world, I hope the world will reference this vote when they tell us no.
Please reply - what other things are a human right?
Most “human rights” are for corporations to buy politicians/media under state protection… and stuff like that.
Access to information - Internet access should be made a human right
Yea, and the US “vote” is actually a veto. The US needs to lose its UN veto power because of shit like this.
Honestly, the UN has been a farce for a long time because of this exact issue. If a handful of countries have veto power then the whole point of the group was moot from the beginning.
The whole point was to get people sitting at the same table to reduce risks of conflicts… Without veto power, some countries would never have joined, which is unfortunate.
No, it’s not. This resolution was adopted with a vote of 186-2-0. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf
Right, and the dumb part now is that nobody in the world expects this to mean shit. Even if it would have been unanimous.
You don’t solve world hunger with UN votes. You solve it with technological and economical advancement, by advancing women’s rights and with better access to contraceptives.
Yes, but the US no vote was an automatic veto. They had to remove anything that affected the US and then get all the other UN members to vote on it just to get it to pass. Any P5 nation with veto power can pull the teeth out of a UN resolution.
A “no” vote from a P5 is always a veto. When any of the P5 vote “no” in the Council, a resolution cannot move forward. Council members can, however, resolve their differences and propose new drafts for a vote by the Council. They can also call on a vote from the wider UN membership – the 193 Member States that make up the General Assembly (GA).
What makes you think the second number is not a no vote?
In 2021 they published reasoning with they will vote no.
I tried to find a definite source, unfortunately there’s no immediate discoverability or reference. Gemini claims “The Standard Format: [Yes] - [No] - [Abstentions]”.
“We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a “right to food,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.”
I imagine this is the part they really object to. Real “Fuck you, I’ve got mine.” energy.
They didn’t say it wasn’t a no vote, they said it wasn’t a veto
No single country should have veto power in the first place.
The problem with this is that it’s either veto through vote or veto through force. The US can easily flip the table and walk out to try to enforce whatever it wants but that’s obviously bad for world peace so this is its ineffective but less destructive compromise.
The article would be better if it linked to the reasons for the no votes and critiqued them. Otherwise, it’s just low effort outrage bait. To be clear, I don’t think the no votes were justified. I just don’t like low effort outrage bait.
Edit: Not https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
Bothsidesing idiocy is idiotic.
The explanation given in this link is complete hogwash.
There will always be nitpicks whenever the resolution is not completely meaningless and devoid of any actionable steps. If the vote was started again just stating that nations are generally against starvation, then I’m sure the US would vote yes.
But maybe not!
If the vote was started again just stating that nations are generally against starvation, then I’m sure the US would vote yes.
lmao
Israel: we disagree because we don’t believe our enemies deserve human rights.
USA: yeah, and can’t profit off of people or oppress foreigners if you guarantee people food, either.
I’m starting to think that Israel is where most of the evil in the world comes from.
Israel, Russia and the USA internationally, domestically they have more competition like NK, China, Belarus, some African States and a bit of South America
For some reason its always them somehow involved
Living in the US as somebody who pays attention to the world and cares about people and stuff is absolutely surreal sometimes.
It’s especially so when you’re one of the last people to have had an analog childhood (The Oregon Trail generation represent) so all the adults you knew as a child grew up in the post-ww2 prosperity and genuinely believed all the American exceptionalism stuff.
The only thing it seems we are best at is striking the perfect evil balance where I can’t decide if it feels more Black Mirror or more Hunger Games.
Do you mean Gen X, Millennials, or Xennials when you say last to have analog?
I’m sure my anecdote applies to people from all three, and even to some of the boomers that didn’t ingest as much lead and have kept their head on straight.
When I mentioned The Oregon Trail generation though, that’s usually an Xennial label.
How to locate evil forces: start asking questions about human rights. Noted.
Shithole countries
