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.

  • Th4tGuyII@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    91
    ·
    4 months ago

    When even the most reviled dictatorships in the world are voting in favour of the UN recognising food as a right, it sure does make the US look uniquely scummy.

  • Snot Flickerman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.

    Especially when those two are consistently on the wrong side of such votes.


    UN resolution A/RES/75/169: Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

    • US and Turkey are only votes against, Israel didn’t vote. (You’d think Israel might care more about Nazis but I guess not)

    UN resolution A/78/L.5: Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba

    • US and Israel are the only votes against ending the embargo.

    I could go on, but this pattern holds across numerous issues. USA and Israel’s governments are fucking monsters.

      • LwL@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s A/76/460, which the person you’re replying to did not mention, and which had the abstains and votes against because of the political context, aka being proposed by russia while they were leading an offensive war under the pretense of denazification. You know that’s public information too, right?

    • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      (You’d think Israel might care more about Nazis but I guess not)

      I think they care a lot about keeping the “other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      (You’d think Israel might care more about Nazis but I guess not)

      Birds of a feather… and all that.

    • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      But you can to imgur, grab the direct image URL and then embed it as such:

      ![alt text - optional](URL)
      

      And to make a button:

      [![alt text - optional](image URL)](on-click destination URL)
      

      Example:
      FMHY

      In this case the image is just 0.9kB, so to save an unnecessary request to Imgur, I used data URI with base64. You can’t do this with larger images due to comment size limitations. Just imagine a normal URL in there.

    • Snot Flickerman
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      The whole images database debacle with Lemmy is kind of a big deal, and I have never seen an announcement about it, but I’m on team turning it off on a small instance like blahaj.zone. It’s too much data and this instance is too small to afford that kind of server space. Plus, unless things have changed, there is basically no real server panel for controlling the image database and admins basically have to manage it manually. Which is something that is pretty daunting for some admins.

      So yeah, fuck the image support, use imgur, if you’re a blahaj user.

  • Bosht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    4 months ago

    Fucking hell this is the strongest argument I’ve seen thus far that I need to get out of the US. What the hell.

    • Doorbook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      The only issue is to where. I think better to stay but position yourself in a situation were you can make an impact even if a small one.

        • tacticalsugar
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          No problem! That UN site was a nightmare to navigate, it took me an hour just to find the 2021 voting record, and I only knew it existed because someone else mentioned it in another thread.

  • FireTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    This Committee is meeting at a time when the international community is confronting one of the most serious food-security emergencies in modern history. Hunger is on the rise for the third year in a row, after a decade of progress. And now, for communities already experiencing poverty and hunger, the COVID-19 pandemic is disproportionately affecting lives by harming how people provide for themselves and feed their families – both today and long after the pandemic subsides. More than 35 million people in South Sudan, Somalia, the Lake Chad Basin, and Yemen are facing severe food insecurity exacerbated by the global pandemic, and in the case of Yemen, potential famine. The United States remains fully engaged and committed to addressing these complex crises.

    This resolution rightfully acknowledges the hardships millions of people are facing, and importantly calls on States to support the emergency humanitarian appeals of the UN. However, 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 that will have negative consequences for food security, sustainability, and income growth. Improved access to local, regional, and global markets helps ensure food is available to the people who need it most and smooths price volatility. Food security depends on appropriate domestic action by governments, including regulatory and market reforms, that is consistent with international commitments.

    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.

    For these reasons, we request a vote and we will vote against this resolution.

    https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-on-a-resolution-on-the-right-to-food/

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      4 months ago

      It all sounds like some very reasonable language, and yet no other countries raised the same objection, including not only countries we are not allied with and don’t generally seem to respect, but also countries we are allied with and do generally seem to respect.

      I read it as “hey guys let’s all agree to do this thing, and then we can figure out the details” and US is the singular guy in the meeting who is like “nope, we can’t agree to do it until we’ve split every hair about exactly how it will be done.”

      • JacksonLamb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        It doesn’t sound reasonable. Its argument is neoliberal economics at its worst:“we don’t want countries to be able to control their own domestic food markets because we want them to be forced to take our exports”, only counched in paternalistic We Know What’s Best For You rhetoric.

  • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    correction to what I wrote below: turns out there was a new vote, in a meeting with a bunch of things voted on. The 2021 vote is on page 15 of the English pdf. You can find it using a PDF search: “right to food”.

    The usa and Israel voted against, no members abstained.

    the meeting with votes in the doc from 2021:

    https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3984859

    I just looked up the vote on the un website. This post is bs, only one country voted against.

    https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/482533