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.
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
What's the rationale from the US? Where's the ruling?
The resolution said some stuff about pesticides the US didn't like.
The resolution encroached on other trade agreements the US would rather pursue.
The US doesn't want to transfer technology and wants to keep its own IP rights.
The US doesn't want extraterritorial obligations that the language of the resolution suggests. It thinks all countries should manage their own shit internally.
The US claimed that it domestically supports the right to food and promotes policies to further that goal but doesn't want it to be an enforceable obligation. (Pretty language that basically says the US doesn't think food should actually be an international right.)
Now see, that's all more reasonable.
The US is evil and wrong here, don't get me wrong, but it's much more understandable than some cartoon villain esque reason people were speculating on.
That is only "more reasonable" when you ignore the reality that "disliking some parts" of a resolution usually is followed by not voting, but they explicitly voted against thus made any argument why they did not vote 'for' that right a clearly undenieable lie.
maybe the world should follow their vote to the point, those countries voting against should be prevented from receiving food from other countries for free, especially fishing industry that rips off resources on the open seas or near other countries should be physically stopped with force if they come from or go to the countries that voted against a right for food for everyone. That would only be reasonable as they explicitly wanted such a right to not exist, thus it should be explicitly removed in practice from them too. The countries who voted for a right for food then just put a freely increaseable tax on every gram(!) of food exported to those countries that don't want food to be a right for everyone. And then the against voters can have what their wish they explicitly voted for. i like that idea: those who don't want food as a right, shouldn't have that right then. period.
+1