The UN Voted to Make Food A Human Right, Only Two Countries Voted No: Israel and USA
1mon 3d ago by lemmy.world/u/theHRguy in mildlyinfuriating from hrnews1.substack.com
I'm just waiting for the world leaders, one after another, to cut all ties with both these entities. Will they dare? Will they form a new alliance? Will the world unite against the true tyrants? Stay tuned.
They won't unite out of morality, but preservation.
Unfortunately, there may still be a long way to go, assuming the leadership doesn't deny reality up until the nuke launches start.
It depends what end game they all want for us.
The Israel's "anti-jew/antisemitic" rhetoric only works with the west, so it could take a very long time for leaders with bigger balls to just say "that's not gonna work anymore". USA is currently on the path to self isolation.
It's already happening, but it's in usually a slow disentangling of payment systems, software, tech, ... Just cut and run would be very damaging. And like many things in politics it's often two steps forward one step back.
Yes I know it takes time, but hopefully it's done while trump is still alive.
Unless! 🤞
I fear they might replace him with someone who's actually competent. Incompetence is currently limiting the evil.
Our EU leaders are sell-outs and still US bootlickers despite their act.
The ghoul VDL is blaming Iran for defending themselves.
Not that easy when you have an insane person with a lot of nukes.
If the idiots can't see the trend yet, will they ever?
To the idiots, the trend is that the US and Israel are the only great countries on earth.
"Best country with best president thats why we need to get him to run a third term"
Saw that yesterday. Holy f.....
It's really dumb. Something I have noticed most of the formerly loud and obnoxious Trump flags in my area have quietly disappeared lately...
Nice! Lol wonder if they feel betrayed or dumb.
Shithole countries
How to locate evil forces: start asking questions about human rights. Noted.
Oh the two war criminal nations? No shit? The two humanitarian violators? You don't say?
I'd like a list of all UN resolutions that (almost only) the USA & Israel vetoed, pretty please.
Israel doesn't have veto powers as they're not in the security council. They can only vote 'no'.
This is like saying Jim Henson wasn't really on the Muppet Show.
Well, a particularly jarring one is the USA's refusal to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Everyone else, including Israel, has ratified it, except them.
Because they want child labour, and to be able to keep executing children, and bombing schools, apparently.
Don't forget fucking children.
Cheesus. Puts all those school shootings in a new light.
Nestlé, claiming to be the country of Hydra, claimed a cultural and historic right to all the world's fresh water, stating that it was promised to them 3000 years ago.
Hail Hydra or something
ExSsSsSsScelsior
Yea, and the US "vote" is actually a veto. The US needs to lose its UN veto power because of shit like this.
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
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.
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?
The person I replied to said that the US vetoed the Resolution. I pointed out that it did not and cannot veto the Resolution. It passed.
"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.
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).
No, it's not. Your confusion probably stems from the fact that the US has veto power over UN Security Council Resolutions. It cannot veto Resolutions passed by the General Assembly. This was a General Assembly Resolution.
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.
Veto power is supposed to represent nuclear power. The logic is that it is way better for a country to veto a resolution than it bombing another country because they got pissy.
I always remind people that the UN's mission is not to solve all the world's problems, but to stop countries from tearing each other apart and avoiding all out nuclear mutual annihilation. So far, it has succeeded.
I also hate that it has no teeth against modern issues, like genocides of non nation state peoples. But genocide didn't even exist as a concept when it was created. The concept was coined by a Jewish legalist who scaped the holocaust.
BTW, same dude hated the guts of Zionist israel and warned that an ethnostate would lead to genocide eventually. He was 100% right.
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.
I'm starting to think that Israel is where most of the evil in the world comes from.
For some reason its always them somehow involved
Israel, Russia and the USA internationally, domestically they have more competition like NK, China, Belarus, some African States and a bit of South America
The US and Israel at this point are just the axis of evil to the rest of the world.
The USA is a shit hole country with a shit hole leader
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.
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.
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.
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..
Two vile countries.
That's not how you spell cuntries
I am shocked. Shocked!
Well not that shocked.
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/
https://web.archive.org/web/20211127052643/https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-of-the-third-committee-adoption-of-the-right-to-food-resolution/
The explanation given in this link is complete hogwash.
Bothsidesing idiocy is idiotic.
It's never "bothsidesing" if you take a position.
Responding to your opponent's strongest argument is steelmanning, and it's always good practice if you want to convince people instead of just get clicks.
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
A slave empire can't function without extreme deprivation.
Israel will be responsible for a second holocaust against them. And this time no one will help.
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.
A constitutional ethnostate being bigoted?!
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.
Zios will be responsible for a planetary nuclear holocaust first.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
- https://brilliantmaps.com/israels-nuclear-missiles/
I know at least one of those countries is way overfed.
Overfed with low nutrition and high subsidised fructose slop
We'll see how long that lasts with the upcoming fertilizer shortages, rising trucking fuel costs and the loss of immigrant farm workers...
I'm pretty sure that the privileged are well fed around the world.
Approximately 13.5 percent of U.S. households — more than 47 million Americans, including nearly 14 million children — struggle to put food on the table. Here the measure of hunger is “food insecurity” — an ongoing uncertainty of where the next meal will come from. More than 1 in 5 U.S. children are at risk of hunger (1 in 3 among Black and Latino(a) children). To the surprise of many, most Americans (51.4 percent) will live in poverty at some point before age 65.
https://www.bread.org/hunger-explained/hunger-in-the-u-s/
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.
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
There's nothing mild about the fury this inspires in me.
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.
For now*, until those get ruined too
Oh boy, where to start?
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.
The US is the most murderous country to other countries in history. North Korea is trying to be the most murderous to its own citizens but it's got a lot of work to do to catch up to Russia and China.
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.
This is FALSE! Israel and (Israel) is ONE Country!
Of course. Evil shits want everyone to starve to death so they can steal their lands
ok so WW3 is going to be 3 fronts now is it?? fitting if not definitely infuriating
US really trying its best to be the worst. Land of the expensive and unfree.
Please reply - what other things are a human right?
Access to information - Internet access should be made a human right
Most "human rights" are for corporations to buy politicians/media under state protection... and stuff like that.
life, privacy, information
The MAGA and Likud shit stains are sick and disgusting.
I wouldn't get to bent out of shape over a substack post
Ragebait. This happened five years ago, as stated in the article. Why is this being brought up again?
Because nothing has changed since then, except for the worse.
Today, I will remind them.
Based USA and Israel…
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.
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/genetically-modified-foods-other-novel-foods/approved-products/drought-tolerant-corn-87460.html
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.