This resolution is at best useless. Zimbabwe signed it. North Korea signed it. Ethiopia and Sudan signed it. There's something a little bit obscene in governments that consciously use mass starvation as a tool of political repression suddenly insisting that it's a human right. I think that alone would be a good reason to vote no. This is a farce and a travesty and there's no reason for us to lend it the dignity of our vote.
The US supplies a great deal of food aid, and technical agricultural assistance to the rest of the world. We do a great deal to limit hunger. We do more to limit world hunger than almost every country on that list. We don't need to prove anything to the likes of Robert Mugabe about our moral stature.
While I don't agree that evaluating the resolution based on who voted for it is a good defense for the US's vote, you do make an interesting point to consider
( ... )
No prob, though my purpose to incite emotion outshone that to inform. No thanks needed. My position stands that it is very useful as a agreement, because it holds the UN to practices in word alone, which can effect the field of politics through national character. If we agree with the terms we should have signed, and I didn't read anything in the resolution before I posted that seemed disagreeable. We have agreed to not only an awful national image, but a character of non comunico on an important issue. You have to have resolutions like these to get a sleeping people to begin to consider the moral issues they must act upon.
Really? You need UN RESOLUTIONS to convince people that STARVATION is bad? You think people didn't know that before the UN told them? You think this actually changes anybody's actual view about how bad starvation is?
I often find that the people who feel this way are poorly educated about American History, having never heard of the school of the americas or other such programs.
As for this, the US has a long history of voting against UN resolutions that are, in one way or another, embarrassing. Although I don't know the specific wording of this resolution, in the past the US has voted against seemingly benign resolutions that had riders they didn't like. Granted, sometimes this takes the form of voting against the "Rights of the Child" resolution because they don't like the land mine ban.
Comments 10
The US supplies a great deal of food aid, and technical agricultural assistance to the rest of the world. We do a great deal to limit hunger. We do more to limit world hunger than almost every country on that list. We don't need to prove anything to the likes of Robert Mugabe about our moral stature.
Reply
Reply
My position stands that it is very useful as a agreement, because it holds the UN to practices in word alone, which can effect the field of politics through national character.
If we agree with the terms we should have signed, and I didn't read anything in the resolution before I posted that seemed disagreeable. We have agreed to not only an awful national image, but a character of non comunico on an important issue.
You have to have resolutions like these to get a sleeping people to begin to consider the moral issues they must act upon.
Reply
Reply
As for this, the US has a long history of voting against UN resolutions that are, in one way or another, embarrassing. Although I don't know the specific wording of this resolution, in the past the US has voted against seemingly benign resolutions that had riders they didn't like. Granted, sometimes this takes the form of voting against the "Rights of the Child" resolution because they don't like the land mine ban.
Reply
Leave a comment