Well that was predictable
Well that was predictable
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
When North Korea votes for something like this, it's almost as if it's just meaningless bullshit.
North Korea's famine during the 90s was due to western sanctions after everyone they used to buy food from left their economic bloc, not because they don't believe people should have food.
Maybe they should start spending their missile program money on developing their nation's agriculture rather than relying on food imports.
What and get invaded by the guys who fly nuclear-capable bombers right along their border and practice invading them every year?
Last time they got caught lacking, 20% of their population died, many of them burned alive in their apartments by napalm.
You mean that time when North Korea invaded South Korea? They weren't "caught lacking" they started the war.
The US had been making preparations for war since the late 40s, including dividing the country in the first place and telling the Japanese in the south to stay in place until the US could replace them, massacring villages likely to side with the communists, and getting South Korea recognized as the sole government of all of Korea at the UN.
War was inevitable, they struck when it looked like they'd have their best shot.
If that happens they'll probably have all food imports halted. If they can't support themselves during peace time they sure can't in war.
If Kim would like for people to stop practicing to take down his regime maybe he should be more quiet about attempting to develop ICBMs.
We’re talking about the same North Korea who regularly threatens to nuke their neighbor and has gone as far as shooting a missile over Japan? Something tells me they are the instigators.
Japan and South Korea are puppet states of America, America literally takes over South Korea's army if the war starts again and is technically able to do so at will.
Even putting aside the puppet state argument, does that suddenly make it okay to threaten innocents with nukes?
Of course it doesn't, that's why it's fucked up that the US has flown nuclear-capable planes directly along North Korea's border most years for the last 40 or so.
Hope you realize there’s a big difference between “can carry nukes” and “actually is carrying nukes”. You could drop one from a civilian airliner if you felt so inclined, doesn’t mean civilian planes are a danger to us all.
Besides, when the North has a military over twice the size of the south and is constantly saber rattling, it makes sense to keep an eye on the border. Wonder why they are spending so much on their military and not on, you know, their citizens.
Hope you realize there’s a big difference between “can carry nukes” and “actually is carrying nukes”.
Correct. The missiles were not actually carrying nukes, but they were capable of carrying nukes. North Korea fired missiles that were capable of carrying nukes in response to the US flying bombers capable of carrying nukes along their border to express "If you nuke us, we can at least do some damage"; mutually assured destruction.
Besides, when the North has a military over twice the size of the south and is constantly saber rattling
The North is not just up against the South, but against the entire US military.
Wonder why they are spending so much on their military and not on, you know, their citizens.
Because if they didn't, the US would make an example out of them the way they did Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and Libya and Yugoslavia.
And why was North Korea being sanctioned? The dictator didn't prefer to have his subjects starve (that's pretty rare for pragmatic reasons, although not unheard of) but he certainly didn't prioritize feeding them.
why was North Korea being sanctioned
Do you want me to explain the entire Korean war to you?
Here, best I can do is a podcast. It's very well sourced though
The dictator didn’t prefer to have his subjects starve
This was the 90s, North Korea had just watched Russia experience a famine after the west had their way with them. The only thing the US would have accepted to lift sanctions would have been opening up North Korea to be eviscerated the same way the USSR was.
he certainly didn’t prioritize feeding them.
Sure, that's why they stabilized the situation by increasing imports and building massive irrigation projects.
And now they eat poop fruit. Starvation sanctions are such monstrous means to an end; people should not have to resort to night soil because your government has beef with theirs.
I'm not sure how credible that is since any story about NK needs to be taken with a massive grain of salt. They stabilized their food situation in the 2000s so it's unlikely they'd be eating poo.
Never mind the fact that food isn’t part of the sanctions and they are able to freely import it as needed
We've never actually restricted sale or transfer of food or agricultural products to north Korea. We've given them food assistance in the past and only stopped when they requested we do so.
The sanctions definitely have wide and severe negative consequences, but in general to food impact of sanctions is that cargo inspections and paperwork make it take longer to arrive.
Which is actually why the US voted against it basically it was to lodge a complaint against wasting UN resources on unenforceable feel good actions that don't actually change anything.
Everyone being pissy and suggesting this is some moral reflection against America are basically the equivalent of people calling the one guy who voted against everyone getting free unicorns a party pooper because "even if we can't actually do it why do ya gotta go against the vibe man‽"
I have news for you: The United States, with its trillions of dollars of economic power at its disposal, could vote for such a "feel good action" and then, on the other side of it, propose a UN resolution against North Korea for abusing it's citizens.
Food scarcity is not a production problem. It is a political one. We can, in fact, completely secure everyone a full belly but we don't because of $madeUpReason.
The US (and Israel) not backing the decision because it's a "free unicorn" is absolutely absurd.
Hell the US distributes food throughout the world in the most remote places. Of all the countries that could do this by themselves is the US.
Food scarcity is not a production problem. It is a political one.
It's not a production problem it's a logistics problem. It's the ultimate last mile problem. Distributing food across the globe to even remote villages shouldn't be the goal, self sufficiency trumps reliance. Environmental impacts aside, if the US has a problem halting transport for weeks that would result in global starvation of all who rely on the deliveries.
Or maybe it's because of all that food aid distribution that the US knows in particular why this is such a "free unicorn" move?
Where's China's matching contributions to food aid with all that just as good farm land that they're able to harvest twice a year?
That's the political bullshit getting in the way of this being anything but a free unicorn, the only country that gives as much to food aid as America is Ireland, and that's because of a national trauma they're still recovering from.
Right now major world powers are doing more to block food aid or even just regular food commerce, because that means Ukraine gets to have working ports and Russia no likey.
Get the fuck off your high horse about the one country that is already doing a lot because you don't like them being a dick about calling out how everyone else either isn't doing anything at all or actively making the problem worse for geopolitical goals.
The comparison is faulty : we are actually able to produce enough food to feed everyone on earth. The issue is the shitty economical paradigm. If this vote can lead to a change in the paradigm, then it's free unicorns for everybody! But this probably won't happen, sadly.
In the US response to the vote, the argument was essentially "this cannot lead to any substantial change and only serves to reafirm statements already agreed upon previously and notably in the universal declaration of human rights".
Agree with the assertion or not, or think there's some other motivation, but that's the argument being made.
The UN doesn't vote on single statements. If I have the right document, because there are several times the UN has voted in "everyone has a right to food", it's 53 statements.
Encourages all States to take steps, with a view to progressively achieving 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, to enjoy fully the right to food, and to create and adopt national plans to combat hunger;
Isn't quite the same as the title of the map, which is closer to what's in the universal declaration of human rights which the US did sign.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.