cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/18629062

According to the debate, they had their reasons. But still – when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Which is actually why the US voted against it basically it was to lodge a complaint against wasting UN resources on unenforceable feel good actions that don’t actually change anything.

    Everyone being pissy and suggesting this is some moral reflection against America are basically the equivalent of people calling the one guy who voted against everyone getting free unicorns a party pooper because “even if we can’t actually do it why do ya gotta go against the vibe man‽”

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I have news for you: The United States, with its trillions of dollars of economic power at its disposal, could vote for such a “feel good action” and then, on the other side of it, propose a UN resolution against North Korea for abusing it’s citizens.

      Food scarcity is not a production problem. It is a political one. We can, in fact, completely secure everyone a full belly but we don’t because of $madeUpReason.

      The US (and Israel) not backing the decision because it’s a “free unicorn” is absolutely absurd.

      Hell the US distributes food throughout the world in the most remote places. Of all the countries that could do this by themselves is the US.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Or maybe it’s because of all that food aid distribution that the US knows in particular why this is such a “free unicorn” move?

        Where’s China’s matching contributions to food aid with all that just as good farm land that they’re able to harvest twice a year?

        That’s the political bullshit getting in the way of this being anything but a free unicorn, the only country that gives as much to food aid as America is Ireland, and that’s because of a national trauma they’re still recovering from.

        Right now major world powers are doing more to block food aid or even just regular food commerce, because that means Ukraine gets to have working ports and Russia no likey.

        Get the fuck off your high horse about the one country that is already doing a lot because you don’t like them being a dick about calling out how everyone else either isn’t doing anything at all or actively making the problem worse for geopolitical goals.

    • courgette@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The comparison is faulty : we are actually able to produce enough food to feed everyone on earth. The issue is the shitty economical paradigm. If this vote can lead to a change in the paradigm, then it’s free unicorns for everybody! But this probably won’t happen, sadly.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        In the US response to the vote, the argument was essentially “this cannot lead to any substantial change and only serves to reafirm statements already agreed upon previously and notably in the universal declaration of human rights”.

        Agree with the assertion or not, or think there’s some other motivation, but that’s the argument being made.

        The UN doesn’t vote on single statements. If I have the right document, because there are several times the UN has voted in “everyone has a right to food”, it’s 53 statements.

        Encourages all States to take steps, with a view to progressively achieving the full realization of the right to food, including steps to promote the conditions for everyone to be free from hunger and, as soon as possible, to enjoy fully the right to food, and to create and adopt national plans to combat hunger;

        Isn’t quite the same as the title of the map, which is closer to what’s in the universal declaration of human rights which the US did sign.

        Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.