Personally, I don’t believe anyone has human rights. It is the wolves right to hunt the gazelle for food, and it’s the gazelle’s right to evade him. Although I am not against uplifting poorer countries, I feel like they would just become more wolves if they got their shit together.
People are not predators and prey. A species that hunts its own kind is monstrous. Lions don’t eat other lions. Neither wolves, or tigers or any other mammal predators hunt and eat their own. To sort people into predators and prey is flawed on a fundamental Epstein-style level. Such people exist, and the vast majority of humans consider them abominations. As they should.
This message brought to you by someone whom almost certainly would shit themselves and die if they ever encountered a wolf IRL.
There’s nothing mild about the fury this inspires in me.
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.
I wouldn’t get to bent out of shape over a substack post
Insert the smuggie of “Any UN vote ever”
“Insert good thing here” Everyone else: Yes US and Israel: No
God we are the worst fucking countries
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.
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
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
Bothsidesing idiocy is idiotic.
The explanation given in this link is complete hogwash.
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.
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.
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
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]”.
They didn’t say it wasn’t a no vote, they said it wasn’t a veto
Could the US have vetoed the whole process, and no vote would have taken place? Or what does this differentiation mean?
“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.
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.
Gee I wonder what would it take to solve world hunger. Maybe a comprehensive strategic plan that changes minds of decision makers and pressures them through diplomacy and negotiations. Perhaps we could pool resources at the same time to distribute food to the countries most affected by sitemic historical injustice. Someone should manage that complex of a problem. Maybe a neutral governing body that ensures it’s well managed and countries pay something up front towards this problem. We should call it the league of countries against hunger, or the coalition of groups of people. I don’t know, I’m bad at naming things.
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).
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.
To steel man their argument, dont agriculture companies like Monsanto develop resistance and things that get around real problems?
If they cant patent their seed then how would those solutions come into being. Surely life saving pharmaceuticals could be classified the same, or shelter, yet we still allow private ownership of those things.
The solutions should come into being by governments funding the research instead of funding wars.
Same goes for pharmaceuticals (which the US does contribute a lot of money to)
Ah of course. Everything should be communist.
I wish there was a label on peoples comments.
You might want to look up what communism actually is, because what I described isn’t it.
dont agriculture companies like Monsanto develop resistance and things that get around real problems?
No, they don’t.
ok so WW3 is going to be 3 fronts now is it?? fitting if not definitely infuriating
The US and Israel at this point are just the axis of evil to the rest of the world.
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.
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.
Ok where is it here exactly I’ll wait
[…] the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding their devastating consequences.
The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies […]
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.
tl;dr:
- The USA doesn’t think the resolution actually does anything useful, even if it supports the intention
- The USA, the largest exporter of food, is concerned how the resolution might impact food exports
- The USA doesn’t recognize the imposition of legal obligations to act outside of its own territory
What obligation it can’t both do nothing and create obligation which is it
“Not do anything useful” would be more accurate than “do nothing”. But that’s just my tl;dr.
Keep waiting, reading useless and pointless UN resolutions is not a hobby I have. I’m not against the UN, I think it’s a needed organization, but this kind of pointless resolutions only makes it look bad and only feeds anti-UN positions within its biggest sponsor and host: the US.
So good luck with pointless resolutions aimed at the guy paying for the circus…
I think i ahould preface the following because it sounds more neutral than I meant it to. TBC I condone neither of these positions, nor do I mean this to be argumentative with your possition, but rather collaborative:
I suspect the objection is to the calling out of / reminder that destruction of water facilities as a war crime, which seems to be something both sides have done/ been threatening in the Iran war, as well as the call out to allow UN/ other humanitarian aid groups unfettered access in warzones. Which seems like it conflicts with Israel’s contentions with UNRWA.
A slave empire can’t function without extreme deprivation.
Based USA and Israel…
