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
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…
A slave empire can’t function without extreme deprivation.
Yea, and the US “vote” is actually a veto. The US needs to lose its UN veto power because of shit like this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Zios will be responsible for a planetary nuclear holocaust first.
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
How to locate evil forces: start asking questions about human rights. Noted.
Shithole countries
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 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?
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/
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
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.
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.
This is FALSE! Israel and (Israel) is ONE Country!
