U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

SiAz-

Put down the conspiracy theory websites and try something by a Noble prize winning economist:

Like anything by Joseph Stiglitz:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=stiglitz&x=0&y=0

or Development as freedom:

Development as Freedom: Amartya Sen: Amazon.co.uk: Books

Also try some guilds to critical thinking:
Critical Thinking for Students: Learn the Skills of Critical Assessment and Effective Argument (How to books): Roy van den Brink-Budgen: Amazon.co.uk: Books
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

I have globalization and its discontents, not a bad book by any rate. Better than that john perkins one (confessions of an economic hitman), mainly because there are less false solutions. Thanks for the condescension but I'm probably a bit more clued up than you think.

You should read The Trap by James Goldsmith, he was years ahead of people like stiglitz. If you think you're really clever, you should read "The Next Million Years", that's an eye opener!


You will find the pdf on scribd, the book on amazon (at a cost, its in high demand)

Book Review Part 1

Basically, food is a weapon and it will be used to reduce the human population to levels more desirable to the dominant minority. Anyone who doubts the existence of such a minority should listen to huxleys speech at berkeley from 1963. A google search should turn itup, I think its on the berkeley website archives actually.
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

Perhaps implicitly but not directly. My explicit point was even the despotic regime of Zimbabwe voted "yes". I never even mentioned Zaire or the Democratic Republic of the Congo as it is now called. Which by the way didn't even vote as its' representatives were absent.

I'm really not sure what your tactic is there Yohan. Maybe you were simply mistaken.

Now why does it stand out that the US voted "no". Well for a good long while now the US has been storming around the world lecturing all the dictatorships and bad governments about basic human rights. Surely a basic human right is the right to food?

Now if you want to read up on the actual resolution you can do it here. You can also read up on other resolutions here.
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

Only if it's food that you've grown or purchased. Otherwise one is claiming a right to someone else's property.
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

No it isn't. It establishes the moral principle people have the right to food and good world governance demands that we do something about food security. Morality is the foundation of the law.


Most of the wars fought in poor regions of the world are about basic resources. Food is a basic resource. Establishing food security allows nations to develop further. Development is what poor nations need to become independent of foreign aid.

It's simple logic.


The US already does this. It also ships food aid to Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korean. In addition the US provides Pakistan with monetary aid. Most of which has been spent on their military. The US also provides military support in Brazil in the form of running military operations against farms growing opium.

Breaking old models of aid provision is part of what this resolution is about.


Why single out France? The UN General Assembly is based in New York.


The whole point of the UN is to settle the worlds problems with politics and diplomacy instead of war. So yes it does boil down to politics. That's what the UN is for.


Refusing to engage with the political process is one reason why the US comes in for such heavy criticism around the world yes. But to call this resolution an exercise in ego massaging is extremely short sighted. Politicians of all races and creeds aren't above having their egos massaged. But in the process some goods things happen.

Of course if it's instant public approval you're after you can always declare war on a country that has no where near your military capability and demonise an entire ethnic group of people while at the same time killing hundreds if not thousands of innocent people.

As slow as politics and democracy are. It's better than an illegal war.
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

Well speaking of other peoples property. Didn't European settlers drive the native Americans off their lands? And wasn't this still happening even after the US was founded as an independent nation? If you want to take that route in the debate it can open a whole can of worms.

By establishing food as a basic human right in international or domestic law, governments will be required to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves.
 
‘The Next Million Years’.

Let me explain why I am not going to read this book:

I read the review and read quotes that had too may episodes of wooly thinking, leaps of faith and unsubstantiated assertions.
I’m not going to spend my time going through a point by point debunking of this nonsense. Content aside, the reasoning displayed in the passages from the review stinks of poorly grasped concepts and non-sequiturs. It is unfortunately very very obvious that the author has not studied evolutionary biology in any serious formal capacity, but probably feels his heritage make up for this lack of knowledge. In other words it has a strong smell of ‘expert out side their field’ syndrome. ‘The Selfish Gene’ would be a good read to counteract the pseudo-biology in this book.

I can see why Stiglitz gets the Noble prize and this nonsense is relegated to reviews on conspiracy theory websites.
The validity of a book’s claim depends on the processes by which its conclusion has been derived. A book that starts off making so many errors in reasoning is not worth reading.

I reiterate by advice in the value of studying critical thinking: http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=4294

As for Huxley’s lecture check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

I might check out Goldman’s the trap later, although from the blurb it doesn’t look like anything new.

Also check out a series of lectures by Sachs (another Noble prize winning economist) http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2007/
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

That link tells you nothing about what it would have done.

What if by passing it all countries of the UN would be required to feed other countries? Well, lets look at that. When we say ALL countries in the UN are required to do anything...who ends up doing EVERYTHING??? Oh, that's right...the USA. Anyone else? Lets see....Britain will throw in what they can (which isn't as much, but that's just cause they are smaller, at least they help), who else????? Anyone????

So: maybe we voted no on it because we would be committing ourselves, and only us, to supporting THE ENTIRE FREAKING WORLD!!!!!

Don't you think that the US population is TIRED of being the ONLY country to help everyone else??? And then being hated for it????

Is it the average Americans fault that we are viewed negatively??? Some will say yes based on who our President is and that we voted for him. Take a look at the last two elections. He didn't exactly win by a huge majority...

Maybe the resolution WAS just a toothless document...in that case...the US now looks like real jerks. Oops.

My opinion is that we need to take some time to fix OURSELVES before we worry about anyone else for a bit. That probably would help in the way the world views us also. Maybe we can undo a bit of what Bush has done. Maybe we wouldn't be seen as butting our heads in where it 'doesn't belong' even though people are dying.

So if it was gonna cost financial support from our country: tough. Maybe it's time for people to fix their own problems.

If it would have cost nothing (probably): then we should have voted for it.
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

i agree Custom it seems to be the US and britian doing everything and also like you said that basically comes to the US doing everyithng.
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

Actually that is a load of bull. The USA and the UK aren't the only nations around the world doing stuff and giving Aid to the worlds poor. Here's what happened in the wake of the Tsunami disaster in Asia.

You'll notice that even some of the poorest nations on the planet donated something.




The fact of the matter is there are actually very few countries around the world that are actually wealthy enough to provide significant sustained aid to the worlds poor. Something that might come as a surprise to a few folk is that Africa actually supplies the UN with a lot of man power. Particularly peace keeping troops.

Other countries do give. The US and UK simply tend to hog the lime light.
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

UH...no....it's not a load of bull. Look at who gives the most PERCENTAGE wise. Of course we give the most due to our size and wealth...but look at who gives the largest percentage also. We don't have to give as much as we do. But we do. And we are still hated.

Let the world burn while we take care of ourselves. Once the USA is back on good footing, we will step back to taking care of everyone else.
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

The amount given by America to the tsunami appeal pales in comparison to what America gives to Israel so it can buy weapons. Most from America. Apparently Israel gets something on the order of $2.4 billion in aid. Virtually all of which is to buy weapons? And beginning this year the US will give Israel $30 billion over 10 years.

When America can hand out that sort of money to "rich" allies it begs the question why won't it guarantee the provision of food as a basic human right at the very least for it's own citizens? Israel is after all not exactly a poor struggling third world stone age country.

Think about it. $30 billion goes to Israel over the next 10 years while American families are being tossed out on the streets because they lost their jobs and can't pay the mortgage.

A further $1.7 billion goes to Egypt. $1.3 billion of which is to buy weapons. Only $74 million is allocated to health care. Why do weapons take precedence over health care?

To say that America pays for everything is bull. It might give the most. It certainly pays for a lot of things. But it doesn't pay for everything. In total something like 150 countries get aid from the US.

http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/who-gets-us-foreign-aid.html
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

and that's 150 too many.

And you can't tell me I'm wrong because that's my OPINION

If you can't feed yourself...tough. There is nothing that says I have to feed you.
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

And oh yeah: I know other countries give.....I was exaggerating...but the fact remains that America gives the most (both in numbers AND percentage) and is HATED the most.
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

A lot of the aid America hands out is either going to countries America destabilised in the 70s and 80s or is currently courting for strategic alliances.

For example. Even though Poland is a relatively poor country in Europe, it still managed to send troops to Iraq. Interestingly the US is providing the EU with funds to help fight the war on terrorism. The US also just happens to be courting Poland to allow it to install a new missile defence platform. To which Russia has raised very strong objections.

Russia is also receiving US aid.

You can call me cynical if you like but I don't think that's a coincidence. That sort of aid used to be called a bribe or black mail or extortion. If you were being polite it would be a tribute.

Basically America is hated because of the way it interferes with the governments of other nations at the expense of the ordinary people in the streets for it's own gain.
 
This is a little off topic as the possibilities/impossibilities of providing aid are not relevant to the principle of right to food but:

It’s very rare that 100% of food aid gets stolen. It can often be a high percentage but that brings up some very difficult questions.

If some of the food is going to save the lives of people who would otherwise starve, and some of it is going to feed an unsavory military, where does one draw the threshold of when aid should be stopped, if indeed it should?

Personally I wouldn’t set a threshold, mainly because I couldn’t face anyone and tell them that they where going to be left without food for some reason they had no part in.
 
U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly

I certainly understand your position. Both sides must be extremely frustrated by all of this happening....
 
It comes down to what a yes vote would obligate the USA to.
Would it mean that any country that felt like it was not getting it’s share of the food it wanted for free could sue in world court. Then try and force to get what ever it wants through sanctions. I would need to have more information on why we voted no.
A yes vote on this could have stirred up a big crap storm in the end. It’s not like the US doesn’t send plenty of aid as it is.
Aid should never be an obligation it should be given because we want to.
As far as giving more to friends, why not? That make cense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
The best live TV streaming services to cut cable in 2024
Replies
0
Views
17
Geek
G
M
Bluetti SwapSolar review: power and chill with swappable batteries
Replies
0
Views
31
M_Smith
M
A
Spain Deaths Jump 32%; U.S. Tightens Restrictions: Virus Update
Replies
0
Views
90
admin
A
A
The Latest: Germany expects 5M vaccine doses in next 3 weeks
Replies
0
Views
89
admin
A
A
Geoff Ward has Flames playing in tune in wake of Bill Peters's departure
Replies
0
Views
108
admin
A
Back
Top