Right, and the dumb part now is that nobody in the world expects this to mean shit. Even if it would have been unanimous.
You don’t solve world hunger with UN votes. You solve it with technological and economical advancement, by advancing women’s rights and with better access to contraceptives.
Gee I wonder what would it take to solve world hunger. Maybe a comprehensive strategic plan that changes minds of decision makers and pressures them through diplomacy and negotiations. Perhaps we could pool resources at the same time to distribute food to the countries most affected by sitemic historical injustice. Someone should manage that complex of a problem. Maybe a neutral governing body that ensures it’s well managed and countries pay something up front towards this problem. We should call it the league of countries against hunger, or the coalition of groups of people. I don’t know, I’m bad at naming things.
I tried to find a definite source, unfortunately there’s no immediate discoverability or reference. Gemini claims “The Standard Format: [Yes] - [No] - [Abstentions]”.
“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.”
I imagine this is the part they really object to. Real “Fuck you, I’ve got mine.” energy.
Yes, but the US no vote was an automatic veto. They had to remove anything that affected the US and then get all the other UN members to vote on it just to get it to pass. Any P5 nation with veto power can pull the teeth out of a UN resolution.
A “no” vote from a P5 is always a veto.
When any of the P5 vote “no” in the Council, a resolution cannot move forward. Council members can, however, resolve their differences and propose new drafts for a vote by the Council. They can also call on a vote from the wider UN membership – the 193 Member States that make up the General Assembly (GA).
Honestly, the UN has been a farce for a long time because of this exact issue. If a handful of countries have veto power then the whole point of the group was moot from the beginning.
Veto power is supposed to represent nuclear power. The logic is that it is way better for a country to veto a resolution than it bombing another country because they got pissy.
I always remind people that the UN’s mission is not to solve all the world’s problems, but to stop countries from tearing each other apart and avoiding all out nuclear mutual annihilation. So far, it has succeeded.
I also hate that it has no teeth against modern issues, like genocides of non nation state peoples. But genocide didn’t even exist as a concept when it was created. The concept was coined by a Jewish legalist who scaped the holocaust.
BTW, same dude hated the guts of Zionist israel and warned that an ethnostate would lead to genocide eventually. He was 100% right.
The whole point was to get people sitting at the same table to reduce risks of conflicts… Without veto power, some countries would never have joined, which is unfortunate.
The problem with this is that it’s either veto through vote or veto through force. The US can easily flip the table and walk out to try to enforce whatever it wants but that’s obviously bad for world peace so this is its ineffective but less destructive compromise.
Yea, and the US “vote” is actually a veto. The US needs to lose its UN veto power because of shit like this.
No, it’s not. This resolution was adopted with a vote of 186-2-0. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf
Right, and the dumb part now is that nobody in the world expects this to mean shit. Even if it would have been unanimous.
You don’t solve world hunger with UN votes. You solve it with technological and economical advancement, by advancing women’s rights and with better access to contraceptives.
Gee I wonder what would it take to solve world hunger. Maybe a comprehensive strategic plan that changes minds of decision makers and pressures them through diplomacy and negotiations. Perhaps we could pool resources at the same time to distribute food to the countries most affected by sitemic historical injustice. Someone should manage that complex of a problem. Maybe a neutral governing body that ensures it’s well managed and countries pay something up front towards this problem. We should call it the league of countries against hunger, or the coalition of groups of people. I don’t know, I’m bad at naming things.
What makes you think the second number is not a no vote?
In 2021 they published reasoning with they will vote no.
I tried to find a definite source, unfortunately there’s no immediate discoverability or reference. Gemini claims “The Standard Format: [Yes] - [No] - [Abstentions]”.
“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.”
I imagine this is the part they really object to. Real “Fuck you, I’ve got mine.” energy.
They didn’t say it wasn’t a no vote, they said it wasn’t a veto
Yes, but the US no vote was an automatic veto. They had to remove anything that affected the US and then get all the other UN members to vote on it just to get it to pass. Any P5 nation with veto power can pull the teeth out of a UN resolution.
A “no” vote from a P5 is always a veto. When any of the P5 vote “no” in the Council, a resolution cannot move forward. Council members can, however, resolve their differences and propose new drafts for a vote by the Council. They can also call on a vote from the wider UN membership – the 193 Member States that make up the General Assembly (GA).
Honestly, the UN has been a farce for a long time because of this exact issue. If a handful of countries have veto power then the whole point of the group was moot from the beginning.
Veto power is supposed to represent nuclear power. The logic is that it is way better for a country to veto a resolution than it bombing another country because they got pissy.
I always remind people that the UN’s mission is not to solve all the world’s problems, but to stop countries from tearing each other apart and avoiding all out nuclear mutual annihilation. So far, it has succeeded.
I also hate that it has no teeth against modern issues, like genocides of non nation state peoples. But genocide didn’t even exist as a concept when it was created. The concept was coined by a Jewish legalist who scaped the holocaust.
BTW, same dude hated the guts of Zionist israel and warned that an ethnostate would lead to genocide eventually. He was 100% right.
The whole point was to get people sitting at the same table to reduce risks of conflicts… Without veto power, some countries would never have joined, which is unfortunate.
No single country should have veto power in the first place.
The problem with this is that it’s either veto through vote or veto through force. The US can easily flip the table and walk out to try to enforce whatever it wants but that’s obviously bad for world peace so this is its ineffective but less destructive compromise.