U.S. votes against "right to food" in UN General Assembly.

Ryno

Ryno

Active member
Staff member
UN General Assembly press release: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10801.doc.htm

Draft resolution XX on the right to food, approved on 24 November by a recorded vote of 180 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions, would have the Assembly reaffirm that hunger constitutes an outrage and a violation of human dignity, requiring the adoption of urgent measures at the national, regional and international level, for its elimination.

**Vote on Right to Food

The draft resolution on the right to food (document A/63/430/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 184 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: United States.

Abstain: None.

Absent: Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles, Uganda.

--------------------------------------

The U.S votes against one of the most basic human needs...disgusting.
 
this is just another firm reminder of how dumb our country can be.

we were the only country not to sign the Kyoto Protocol to, so yeah

fuck us
 
The UN is the biggest pile of shit since the League of Nations. For those of you that failed history class, the LON was formed after WWI with the goal to prevent future wars. Most of you know that WWII did happen, and consequently the LON said "whoops" and disbanded.

The UN has done a great job preventing genocide across the globe. Oh wait, nope. Passing resolutions does not do shit when you do not have teeth. Bush I was about to level Iraq when the UN stepped in, saved Saddam's bacon only if he agreed to a set of resolutions. His inability to follow the agreement for the next ten years led hardheaded Bush II to try to demonstrate that the UN is worthless and dragged the US into the current boondoggle in Iraq.

And China's on the UN Human Rights Council. Webster's Dictionary replaced the definition of "irony" with that fact.

With the Right to Food vote. Look at those 180 countries. The vast majority of them do not allow the basic human rights that Americans enjoy under the Constitution. What good is the Right to Food going to do when you can't use the Right to Free Speech to say you're not actually getting food? Or the Right to Not Get The Shit Beat Out of You Daily? So do not say its an outrage that the US voted against it while outstanding countries such as North Korea did. Whats the UN going to do when its discovered that most North Koreans live on a half kernel of rice a day? Write them a letter saying "you are bad?". Plus how would anyone in those countries tell the UN they have no food? This resolution is another example of how the UN is just a group of global politicians pushing paper around instead of solving problems.

Another great example would be Somalia voting for it. Remember what happened when the UN was there in the early 1990s? Somalia does not even have a functioning government right now. And 80% of that country is in a famine. The other 20% are pirates attacking ships in international waters.
 
its a load of bullfucken shit and it pisses me off its much easier to say oh lets take more action and feed the fucken hungry people of the world there are sooooooooooo many people to feed and we dont need to be helping other places to that high of importance when our own country is going down the shitter
 
The UN is shit because countries like ours arent willing to sacrifice some of their power and influence for the betterment of others. I think in principle, a body like the UN could work effectively, but if we, as one of the leading countries in the world, boycott and act unilaterally, then we'll never see that. Us doing repeated dick moves is stupid.
 
You can argue all you want about the UN's effectiveness in general, but seriously, voting against a right to eat? That's pretty damned awful. Of course it passes anyway, so one wonders what the point of that little showing was to begin with.
 
a need doesnt make it a right.
UN doesnt do shit anyway so who really gives a fuck. good for the US though.
everyone born is not entitled to have food delivered to them
 
the only reason this is passed is to give nations the ability and right to go into countries like dafur and somalia on the premise that they are providing food.and then the other half signed it because they want more money to pour into their country that they can pretend to use to give their citizens food.
 
Good post.

Does this mean Somalia is a better place to live than the US? Sudan? China? North Korea?

Damn, I'm going to dip out of here and move to Ethiopa as soon as I can, now that I have the RIGHT TO FOOD! FUCK YES!
 
I lost all faith in the U.S. government a while back... this is just sad. And people who are all anti-U.N., what else do you propose? It's fine slagging something off but it's just hot air when you don't suggest an alternative.
 
wow...wow, I cant believe the shit I just heard from some of you guys. Seriously, you guys are on the same level of Bush.

You argue that the UN is a bunch of bull. In fact its not, its a way for all countries in the world to have a say based on beliefs. Decisions are taken democratically. Something the US should represent and stand behind. The blame is placed SOLELY on the United States in refusing to help the poorest countries in the world. But who makes the decision? The people making above 100,000$ a year. Do they care if others cant get food? I dont think so because they have the money to pay for some.

Then I read the poor people should make their food. That is the worst thing ever, those countries are poor because of environmental and social problems. The poorest countries are socially unstable and the weather does not permit them to grow food. Its NOT because they are lazy.

I remember reading the US has the highest donation in the world. but their donation percentage of GDP is lower than Canada's. Its not very Christian of them, help the poor and avoid selfishness. Come on...

Sorry for the rant

 
It's not very Christian of the United States? Are all citizens of the United States Christians?
 
there's no doubt in my mind that we have too many obese people in america and starving people elsewhere. but its not 100% america's fault that north korea spent all of its money on military and dear leader forgot to leave some budget to grow rice.

but seriously, think about it. "the right to food". whats next "the right to air". of course you need food to survive, its science. maybe if the UN had an actual proposal on how it plans to go about solving world hunger, then the stubborn and gluteunous USA would vote yes. classic political move to declare something "bad" and not offer a single solution.

i guess for some countries its just more earth shattering to realize you are allowed to have clean water, food, shelter, free speech, religious freedom, and a slightly representative government?

and does the "urgent measures" clause of this resolution mean we must force

food into muslims' mouths during daylight hours of ramadan?
 
"but its not 100% america's fault that north korea spent all of its

money on military and dear leader forgot to leave some budget to grow

rice."

That's true, verry true.

Still a dickmove to vote "no" though.

 
not to sound like a monster but....

The world can only support (long term) 500m - 1.5 billion people at a standard of living acceptable to those who live in the developed world.

In any case, near 7 billion and growing is a completely unacceptable situation.

we need more people dying faster, and fewer people procreating.

watch BBC The World.
 
its not like this resolution would have put food in over 2 billion peoples stomachs for the rest of their lives anyways. its a farce.

 
im not necessarily calling bullshit but where do these stats come from? do you mean the world can only support that many people while we live like we do?
 
I have tried to write a post just expressing my disagreement with the US, but soon as I start writing it just issue over issue over dumb shit time and time again. All I can ask as a fellow human being is will you Americans please just open your fucking eyes for once and realize that there is something seriously wrong with your country and would you a) acknowledge that and b) do something about it, for all our sakes.

Peace.
 
my point exactly, being christian is about following shown values, which the heads of the US arent doing, or the people who still support them.
 
This is the big question, how does anyone have a right to food? For food to be consumed it either has to be grown or killed. Someone has to grow or kill that food, that someone can be you or that someone can be a different person. Assuming you cannot grow or hunt your own food because of something like a drought or over hunting/fishing than that means that someone else has to grow/hunt your food. So for someone else to do this requires their time labor and capital, a lot of it. That is why we pay for our food when we buy it from a farmer because he has used time labor and capital to produce it.

So here is the situation you can't get food for yourself for some extenuating reason and you don't have any money to pay for someone else's time labor and capital to get food they have produced. Saying you have a right to food is saying that you have a right to get the food that someone else produced without reimbursing them for their time labor or capital. So in the end saying that everyone has a right to food is saying that people are entitled to take someones labor from them for nothing, unless someone willingly gives someone something for nothing (which is charity), i would call that theft.

No one has a right to food, or health care, or welfare. What we do have a right to however is our own personal property be that our freedom of speech or religion or the freedom to bear arms and fight against tyranny, or the freedom to do what we wish with our body's and private property.

 
And I am proud that the US would stand up against such an assault on personal rights from the international leviathan of the UN, this sort of thing won't happen once Obama and his team have taken office, they fully support ludicrous socialist ideas like this and will further tarnish the bill of rights and the constitution much like George Bush and Bill Clinton before him.

For all you kids that think it's an outrage that we voted against this, why? Is it because Americans have such a surplus of food?
 
And one last thing, if feeding the hungry is so important to you NS'ers why don't you stop spending thousands of dollars on skiing, return the christmas gifts you got and donate all of the money to the World Food Program. Or just help fight hunger in your own town, get your ass off NS and volunteer at a rescue mission or salvation army, go collect cans or get a job and donate some of the money you make to food pantry's in your area.

UN resolutions will never end hunger only free people helping other free people will.
 
Myanmar (Burma) voted yes. That is an absolute joke and a perfect example of why this is a crock of shit. Take a look at how the UN has acted towards that country (especially recently). The U.N. should have acted a long time ago with basically the entire world in an outrage at the suffering after the typhoon and the Government's lack of action, including the U.S. with ships ready to provide aid at a moments notice.

 
The fundamental stupidity of the U.N. disgusts me.

The fact that the U.N. voted on the "the right to food" in the first place amazes me. To think that voting for this is going to change anything is over the top. If the Governments of these nations cannot sustain a steady flow of goods into there country than that is there fault, not the worlds job. Do you think North Korea is going to feed there people just because the U.N. tells them they now (for some reason) have the right to food? of course not.

and for the record, did anybody else look at the link that was posted on the thread?

I counted 22 different heading topics with multiple, multiple sub-sections.

This one vote was probably the least important vote of all.

 
well, if the U.N. wants all of their member nations to rank food supply for all people in the world higher, i really cant say anything bad about it.

of course it might not change the world, but you have to make a formal statement about anything in these days. for example, if the U.N. would allow attacking wars again, would just one country start a war tomorrow? no, but this is not giving anyone the right to allow attacking wars in first place.

and if someone out of the U.S. is talking about something "not being a world job", i want to kil myself
 
Why is it greedy to be reimbursed for your labor? I'm not saying that people can't be charitable (in fact i mentioned that briefly) if you want to help feed hungry people than by all means do it, but to have someone assume that they have a right to the food that you have produced (the key word being "right") without properly reimbursing you for it then that is lunacy. That would be like me saying I have a right to own gold, just because it exists and you need it doesn't mean you have a "right" to have it. You do however have the "right" of free thought and action to obtain food by working with other people and helping to provide for their needs so they can provide for yours.

Food doesn't just go from a seed to your mouth magically the process of farming is long and complicated and takes an immense amount of labor.
 
Hi, this is nature speaking, i wanted to inform you of the magical process of eating seeds as food. See plants and animals exist, and they are eaten all the time by other animals. This process of feeding magically changes seeds into food. Now it wasn't until recently (read 10,000 years ago) that food began to be grown by farmers.

It doesn't necessarily take an immense amount of labor to get food -- for example: my friend here isn't capable of doing immense amounts of labor, he's really slow, and just likes hanging out most of the time.

three-toed-sloth.jpg


if you decided to farm your food which means you've got to go out and break your back every day, that's your fault -- but it never was necessary.
 
+10 Intarwebz for you sir. Thank you for bringing the light of common sense to this otherwise very dim-lit room we call a thread.
 
that doesnt even make any sense...fundamental greediness? and instead of telling everyone else how greedy they are and saying we need a right to food, give your own fucking money you greedy asshole your fucking rediculous. if you voted that everyone has a RIGHT to food, then that right shuld obviously go before you enjoying the fresh powder. do something instead of bitch that we didnt want to buy the world rice. how bout you lend a hand jerkoff
 
Your absolutely right, today's society could definitely survive through the use of hunting and gathering. Wtf are farmers thinking? Who needs agriculture and pastoralism to sustain billions of people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top