U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly
- Thread starter pedrom
- Start date
JoseQe
Member
- Mar 14, 2008
- 39
- 0
- 6
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly
I'm not American, but I do think its somewhat ironic that a country with such a height obesity rate as the US voted to deny the right to food.
I'm not American, but I do think its somewhat ironic that a country with such a height obesity rate as the US voted to deny the right to food.
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly
Neither is water a human right.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=b65b35fd-477f-4956-98f4-c17a46fe3e26
Though to be fair, its your job to defend your rights, if you think the UN will gift them to you, im afraid you're mistaken!
Neither is water a human right.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=b65b35fd-477f-4956-98f4-c17a46fe3e26
Though to be fair, its your job to defend your rights, if you think the UN will gift them to you, im afraid you're mistaken!
crazedlunatic
New member
- Apr 7, 2008
- 18
- 0
- 1
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly
well now one in america would go hungry if it wasnt a right. maybe they realise that by making it a right they'll have to spend more on aid
well now one in america would go hungry if it wasnt a right. maybe they realise that by making it a right they'll have to spend more on aid
agirlnameelainee
Member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 37
- 0
- 6
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly
Sadly it always is.
Sadly it always is.
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly
Have we looked at the reason the US voted against it? Sometimes there are things written into the act that is the real reason we vote against such things. Also, here the US is, arguably the most powerful nation on earth, providing the majority of the UN's budget world aid, and getting stabbed in the back at every opportunity by many members of the UN.
Many times we're damned if we do and damned if we don't... Also, of course who will be expected to pay for 'food for the masses'? I'm sure the US would be the first country they will be knocking up for funds.
Have we looked at the reason the US voted against it? Sometimes there are things written into the act that is the real reason we vote against such things. Also, here the US is, arguably the most powerful nation on earth, providing the majority of the UN's budget world aid, and getting stabbed in the back at every opportunity by many members of the UN.
Many times we're damned if we do and damned if we don't... Also, of course who will be expected to pay for 'food for the masses'? I'm sure the US would be the first country they will be knocking up for funds.
JENNYtheGREATt
New member
- Feb 27, 2008
- 22
- 0
- 1
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly
very true but looking at the international relations US has with most of the globe its hardly surprising its seen negatively when you're the only country to vote against it
very true but looking at the international relations US has with most of the globe its hardly surprising its seen negatively when you're the only country to vote against it
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly
Ok here are my thoughts:
A. It was highly impolitic of dubya to vote no on a resolution that everyone in the freaking assembly voted yes for. Thank you dubya for continuing your wholesale slaughter of any diplomatic clout the U.S. ever had.
B. That resolution is a pointless waste of time. Without knowing details on what it entails, criticizing any country for voting yes or no on the resolution is a total waste of time. For all anyone knows, the resolution could lay a bunch of requirements on the U.S. in the resolution and give us no benefit.
Besides the resolution is clearly lip service. Aikiwolfie, you made the point that the "president" of Zaire voted yes on the resolution when dubya didn't. Well lets check the books on per capita contributions to foreign aid in Zaire vs. the United States. Let's check the books on per capita malnutrition deaths in Zaire vs. the United States. I'm not saying that we are perfect or anything, but I'd wager we are doing a damn sight better on fighting hunger and malnutrition within our own borders, and the borders of other countries than a majority of the countries that signed yes on that resolution.
Aside from that, how exactly is fighting hunger a sustainable solution to the underlying social and economic problems that cause it? I'd wager that most of these countries version of a solution to the problem is to ship food to starving African babies. While that is a terribly worthwhile proposition, it's not something I can get behind as it doesn't provide a sustainable solution. Now if we wanted to sign a resolution to modernize farming equipment throughout the world, I could get behind that. If we wanted to sign a resolution to introduce microlending to 100% of the third world countries in the world by 2015, that's something I could get behind.
Let's face it. The people in the U.N. or France or any of these other mouthy organizations or countries all pay lip service when it can make them look good in the public eye. At the end of the day these guys are going to continue what they have been doing to fight hunger: not much. The United States will continue to be a huge financier of foreign aid in both a private an public capacity.
This resolution boils down to one thing: politics. It's obvious that Dubya has refused to play politics both here and in the past. In one sense you have to credit the administration for sticking to their guns and not voting yes on a meaningless, ego-massaging resolution that allows a bunch of despicable governments like Zaire to get brownie points in the world stage without doing anything. In another sense he deserves criticism because he's a politician who doesn't play politics.
It is what it is.
Ok here are my thoughts:
A. It was highly impolitic of dubya to vote no on a resolution that everyone in the freaking assembly voted yes for. Thank you dubya for continuing your wholesale slaughter of any diplomatic clout the U.S. ever had.
B. That resolution is a pointless waste of time. Without knowing details on what it entails, criticizing any country for voting yes or no on the resolution is a total waste of time. For all anyone knows, the resolution could lay a bunch of requirements on the U.S. in the resolution and give us no benefit.
Besides the resolution is clearly lip service. Aikiwolfie, you made the point that the "president" of Zaire voted yes on the resolution when dubya didn't. Well lets check the books on per capita contributions to foreign aid in Zaire vs. the United States. Let's check the books on per capita malnutrition deaths in Zaire vs. the United States. I'm not saying that we are perfect or anything, but I'd wager we are doing a damn sight better on fighting hunger and malnutrition within our own borders, and the borders of other countries than a majority of the countries that signed yes on that resolution.
Aside from that, how exactly is fighting hunger a sustainable solution to the underlying social and economic problems that cause it? I'd wager that most of these countries version of a solution to the problem is to ship food to starving African babies. While that is a terribly worthwhile proposition, it's not something I can get behind as it doesn't provide a sustainable solution. Now if we wanted to sign a resolution to modernize farming equipment throughout the world, I could get behind that. If we wanted to sign a resolution to introduce microlending to 100% of the third world countries in the world by 2015, that's something I could get behind.
Let's face it. The people in the U.N. or France or any of these other mouthy organizations or countries all pay lip service when it can make them look good in the public eye. At the end of the day these guys are going to continue what they have been doing to fight hunger: not much. The United States will continue to be a huge financier of foreign aid in both a private an public capacity.
This resolution boils down to one thing: politics. It's obvious that Dubya has refused to play politics both here and in the past. In one sense you have to credit the administration for sticking to their guns and not voting yes on a meaningless, ego-massaging resolution that allows a bunch of despicable governments like Zaire to get brownie points in the world stage without doing anything. In another sense he deserves criticism because he's a politician who doesn't play politics.
It is what it is.
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly
Has this gotten any mainstream media attention in the US? If not, why the hell not. Just because Bush is about to retire is no excuse to stop holding him account. On the face of it, this seems like an absolutely outrageous decision. You hold up countries like Zimbabwe and Sudan as countries who supported it as a show of how out of touch the US administration is, but really you should be looking at the developed countries that have voted for it, if the UK can vote for it, France can vote for it, Germany can vote for it and Japan can vote for it, then why can't the US vote for it?
Has this gotten any mainstream media attention in the US? If not, why the hell not. Just because Bush is about to retire is no excuse to stop holding him account. On the face of it, this seems like an absolutely outrageous decision. You hold up countries like Zimbabwe and Sudan as countries who supported it as a show of how out of touch the US administration is, but really you should be looking at the developed countries that have voted for it, if the UK can vote for it, France can vote for it, Germany can vote for it and Japan can vote for it, then why can't the US vote for it?
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly
i agree with you but this is the only reasonable explanation i can think of: IF they voted in favour and it was passed they would be one of the major countries expected to participate, quite possibly straight away. maybe they dont want to give money to other countrys when their own is facing a reccesion
i agree with you but this is the only reasonable explanation i can think of: IF they voted in favour and it was passed they would be one of the major countries expected to participate, quite possibly straight away. maybe they dont want to give money to other countrys when their own is facing a reccesion
redwolvesrock
New member
- Mar 31, 2008
- 21
- 0
- 1
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly
Every other major economy voted in favour, they are all facing bad recessions of their own.
Every other major economy voted in favour, they are all facing bad recessions of their own.
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly
so maybe they're the only ones willing to say no? im not defending the decision. im briish so i couldnt care less either way. but look at the comments at the start of the thread, maybe some countries voted yes simply because of how it looks if you vote no. i mean zimbabwe voted yes and they're hardly a shining example of human rights
so maybe they're the only ones willing to say no? im not defending the decision. im briish so i couldnt care less either way. but look at the comments at the start of the thread, maybe some countries voted yes simply because of how it looks if you vote no. i mean zimbabwe voted yes and they're hardly a shining example of human rights
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly
On the contrary:
Declarations like this with no legal force often serve as the 1st step on a painful and gradual progression to legal adoption by various countries. UN declarations give rights political credibility that is not to be underestimated – these sort of declarations set the standard of what it means to be a civilized country. This can be clearly seen with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and its influence on and adoption into national legal systems such as the Human rights act in the UK.
Secondly, and this is no small thing, it helps set the international political climate. Again examples of what this means can be seen with the international declaration of human rights; for example, the declaration of human rights played a part in forming the character of the ANC. As South Africa was in the midst of forming apartheid, the declaration helped steer progressive movements to appealing to the outside world, to the conscience of the world, for the idea that all humans are born free and equal had been formally subscribed too by major world powers, even if they fell short of satisfying them at home.
Never underestimate the value for an oppressed people of knowing that in principle they are not alone, and that the wrongs done to them are acknowledged as wrongs by every civilized country. – if intervention is impossible or unlikely, these sort of declarations are the very least any civilized country can do.
As the feminists always say, awareness that discrimination (and other rights abuses) is unnatural and/or morally wrong is the 1st step to changing established attitudes and making it unacceptable.
You mean it could force the rich to give to provide food for the starving and the rich not get anything in return? How terrible.
You seem to be ranting about a country that no longer exists- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaire
However the irony of getting Zimbabwe and Zaire mixed up is worth mentioning – former Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) is a place suffering from a terrible vacuum of power with a government too weak even to control the warlords it previously absorbed into it’s national army, whereas Zimbabwe is a truly horrifying situation of the executive being afforded far far to much power.
On the contrary:
Declarations like this with no legal force often serve as the 1st step on a painful and gradual progression to legal adoption by various countries. UN declarations give rights political credibility that is not to be underestimated – these sort of declarations set the standard of what it means to be a civilized country. This can be clearly seen with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and its influence on and adoption into national legal systems such as the Human rights act in the UK.
Secondly, and this is no small thing, it helps set the international political climate. Again examples of what this means can be seen with the international declaration of human rights; for example, the declaration of human rights played a part in forming the character of the ANC. As South Africa was in the midst of forming apartheid, the declaration helped steer progressive movements to appealing to the outside world, to the conscience of the world, for the idea that all humans are born free and equal had been formally subscribed too by major world powers, even if they fell short of satisfying them at home.
Never underestimate the value for an oppressed people of knowing that in principle they are not alone, and that the wrongs done to them are acknowledged as wrongs by every civilized country. – if intervention is impossible or unlikely, these sort of declarations are the very least any civilized country can do.
As the feminists always say, awareness that discrimination (and other rights abuses) is unnatural and/or morally wrong is the 1st step to changing established attitudes and making it unacceptable.
You mean it could force the rich to give to provide food for the starving and the rich not get anything in return? How terrible.
You seem to be ranting about a country that no longer exists- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaire
However the irony of getting Zimbabwe and Zaire mixed up is worth mentioning – former Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) is a place suffering from a terrible vacuum of power with a government too weak even to control the warlords it previously absorbed into it’s national army, whereas Zimbabwe is a truly horrifying situation of the executive being afforded far far to much power.
personeunknown22
Member
- Apr 4, 2008
- 36
- 0
- 6
In absence of any real knowledge of what things are going on behind the scenes:
I agree with statements that the current US admin (Bush’s lot) are probably scared of any additional obligations voting yes might put on them.
However I wouldn’t be surprised if the no vote had its roots in the atmosphere of anti UN feeling and free trade fundamentalism that the Bush administration has shown. The appointees of ambassador to the UN have been people one step away from American isolationists.
I wouldn’t be surprised that if voting yes contradicted the ideology or constituted an admission of defeat for whoever made the ‘no’ decision, then they used the credit crunch as an excuse.
I agree with statements that the current US admin (Bush’s lot) are probably scared of any additional obligations voting yes might put on them.
However I wouldn’t be surprised if the no vote had its roots in the atmosphere of anti UN feeling and free trade fundamentalism that the Bush administration has shown. The appointees of ambassador to the UN have been people one step away from American isolationists.
I wouldn’t be surprised that if voting yes contradicted the ideology or constituted an admission of defeat for whoever made the ‘no’ decision, then they used the credit crunch as an excuse.