[swrate]

Subject to meditation:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/042503_UN.cfm

UNITED NATIONS VOTES
ON RIGHT-TO-FOOD RESOLUTION

51 NATIONS APPROVE,
One disapproves;!?

JEAN ZEIGLER, UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD: In a resolution on the right to food (E/CN.4/2003/L.27), adopted in a roll-call vote of 51 in favor and one against, with one abstention, the Commission encouraged all States to take steps with a view to achieving progressively 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 enjoy fully the right to food, as well as to elaborate and adopt national plans to combat hunger; and took note with interest the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food.

The Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for a further three years; requested the High Commissioner to provide all necessary human and financial resources for the effective fulfilment of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur; requested the Special Rapporteur to submit a report to the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session and to report to the Commission at its sixtieth session on the implementation of the present resolution; and recommended that the Economic and Social Council endorse its decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for a further three years.

The results of the vote were as follows:
In favor (51): Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

Against (1): United States. Abstention (1): Australia.

A Representative of the United States said his delegation could not support the resolution on the right to food. His Government was the largest donor of food aid in the world. His Government's commitment to provide food and end hunger was unquestionable. His Government could not in any way endorse the work of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler. Instead, he should be reprimanded for his irresponsible statements and for abusing his mandate. His delegation would request for recorded vote and would vote against the text.

A Representative of Canada said it supported the progressive realization of the right to food and was therefore in a position to support the draft resolution. With regards to the right to water, the Government of Canada accepted that Governments had the responsibility to provide clean water, however, Canada did not accept the notion that there was a right to water, particularly between States.

[Uday's Carcass]

I didn't understand anything you were trying to say. I know English isn't your first language, so you're to be commended for trying so hard, even if it is just to piss on America.

on topic: there has to be a specific reason the US rejected this. It might have contained stupid, unrelated provisions that the General Assembly is very well known for slipping in, or the entire resolution might have been 'ate up' from the get-go.


[edit: the split infinitive didn't read well.]

[christ]

Food is not a right.

Especially not when someone else planted it, farmed it, reaped it and marketed it.

Food is a commodity.

No-one has the 'right' to eat someone else's food, unless they buy it, or have it given to them.

Charity is not a right. How could anyone think that it is?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by christ:
Charity is not a right. How could anyone think that it is?

Because there are a lot of people who think that if only they wish hard enough, the universe will somehow become inherently fair. And so they work toward it, not realizing that the final steps we could take towards that process can only end in the most unfair of all possibilities.

[Millennium]

That's what I've found about most liberals, anyway. Ask them what they want, at the core, and in the end, what they want is for life to be fair.

At least, that's what they say they want. And most of them believe that it's what they want, too. But unfortunately, that's not really true. Bad things happen to people, and as often as not the damage is either self-inflicted or well-deserved. In a truly fair universe, those who deserve good would always receive good, and those who deserve bad would always receive bad.

This is not the state that our universe currently exists in; nobody could possibly deny that. We live in an unfair universe. Where liberals and conservatives seem to differ on this is what they believe should be done about it.

Conservatives, it seems, have chosen to accept that bad things will sometimes happen to good people. Their proposed methods of dealing with that generally involve providing ways for those who fall on hard times with the means to get out of them, if they are willing to do what is necessary. The major problem conservatives have today is that they don't acknowledge the fact that on rare occasions, this will inevitably fail. People can and do slip through the cracks. The key defense mechanism that conservatives have towards this seems to be denial, which is a contradiction: if bad things only happened to people who deserved them, then their goals would have been achieved, and yet they don't believe that their goals have been achieved yet.

Liberals, on the other hand, seek to deny this, by stopping bad things from happenning to good people, thus making life fair. Their methods of doing this tend to center around the idea of stopping bad things from happenning to anyone, deserving or not, because that would be the only way to ensure that no good person fell through the cracks. The problem with this is that it denies the darker side of justice; rather than trying to make life inherently fair, they are trying to make it inherently good. Most don't understand the difference, mostly because most of them are fundamentally good people, and for them, there would be very little difference between fair and good. The problem is, many don't understand that this wouldn't be true for all people, and that those for whom fair doesn't equal good would ruthlessly take advantage of the unfairness of the system towards them, eventually dragging others with them. They also have an inherent contradiction: to ensure fairness requires total (or rather, totalitarian) control, but they balk at the idea of having such control over anything, because they know that such power would corrupt the one who held it. However, all too often they are willing to take the risk, which all too often gets them burned.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Because there are a lot of people who think that if only they wish hard enough, the universe will somehow become inherently fair. And so they work toward it, not realizing that the final steps we could take towards that process can only end in the most unfair of all possibilities.

Wishing and words are not enough, actions are needed also.
That is why the war in Iraq was started, right?

I believe one should think well enough and be sure before acting.
Often we dont see the whole of a situation, and ignore some of the parameters.
We look one decade or two ahead, rarely more.
I worry about the future generations having to deal with our mistakes.


Uday, thanks for your concern.
You are a trifle wrong in your assertions: my mother tongue is English, and 3/4 of my family is from the US, I lived myself in NY a few years, and loved being there.
Get it straight:
I love America -but don’t buy bushit

Having moved a lot around the planet, I don’t use English as much and as often as other languages.
Anyhow: if your concern is about the post above, it is a cut and paste from an article on the net.

Millenium, this may be contradictory, but I think that in a so called civilized world if charity is not a right, food at least should be one, especially for children.

[christ]

Originally posted by swrate:
...I think that ... food at least should be one [a right], especially for children.

It isn't. Understand this, and move on.

[AKcrab]

I wish children weren't a right.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by swrate:
I love America -but don’t buy bushit

Beware - there are a lot of salesmen on these boards.