Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malignant_Tribes" data-source="post: 3139924" data-attributes="member: 103248">U.S. votes against &quot;right to food&quot; in UN General AssemblyYes that is a problem. It&#039;s also one that could be easily fixed if for example British troops distributed British food aid directly to the people that need it.Some people on the thread are approaching the issue from the perspective that the US would have to guarantee food aid for Africans for example. The way I see it is that the ruling government of a nation should be the ones held responsible and this should be a basic human right implemented in law at a national level.So while the &quot;US government&quot; would have a legal obligation to provide for US citizens living in the USA. The US government would be obliged to provide for Africa. African governments would take up that mantle.This works in principle on both the national and international levels because at the national level the government has a legal obligation to provide. So when international aid is being given out, food security should automatically be at the top of the list as opposed to new tanks and bombs and guns.It also means rich countries like the US and the UK can&#039;t ignore their own poor in favour of build a new weapons platform.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malignant_Tribes, post: 3139924, member: 103248"] [b]U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly[/b] Yes that is a problem. It's also one that could be easily fixed if for example British troops distributed British food aid directly to the people that need it. Some people on the thread are approaching the issue from the perspective that the US would have to guarantee food aid for Africans for example. The way I see it is that the ruling government of a nation should be the ones held responsible and this should be a basic human right implemented in law at a national level. So while the "US government" would have a legal obligation to provide for US citizens living in the USA. The US government would be obliged to provide for Africa. African governments would take up that mantle. This works in principle on both the national and international levels because at the national level the government has a legal obligation to provide. So when international aid is being given out, food security should automatically be at the top of the list as opposed to new tanks and bombs and guns. It also means rich countries like the US and the UK can't ignore their own poor in favour of build a new weapons platform. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Loading…