The U.N. is mostly powerless; they have the power to create recommendations and suggestions, but their ability to force countries to conform to international standards is quite limited. They have relatively limited funds and enacted measures must be approved by an overwhelming majority. At this point, the average American is beaming ear-to-ear because their view of the U.N. has been corroborated. But there is a logical fallacy to the inevitably-drawn conclusion that all international institutions are therefore useless---and are bound to be so. The U.N. in particular is especially crippled by the Security Council, in which four nations have veto power over all measures brought before the general assembly. The nation that has wielded this veto power overwhelmingly more often than any other is the United States. Why is there no official condemnation of Israel's subjugation of millions of its own citizens? Because the United States vetoes it every time---dozens of times over the last forty years. It is fascinating to read through the voting records and note how often the record shows every other attending nation voting for a seeming no-brainer of a ruling and the U.S.---amazingly for a purportedly moral, Christian-valued nation---voting against. The latest votes are cataloged in the minutes of the <a href="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gashc3941.doc.htm">Sixty-third General Assembly -- Third Committee -- 46th & 47th Meetings (AM & PM)</a>. The two votes of interest are in support of a <iq>right to development [and] a right to food</iq> for all nations of the world. In both cases, the votes were 177 to 1 and 180 to 1, respectively. In both cases, the U.S. was the solitary dissenting vote. Again, at this point, U.N.-haters may be silently cheering the votes, thanking whatever god they pray to that the U.S.---alone of all nations on the planet---has the cojones to stand up and stop the creeping socialism and entitlement at the heart of the U.N. When you're done cheering, consider that you've just agreed that the rest of the countries of the world are either stupid or guilt-ridden patsies willing to squander their wealth in open-ended support of third-world countries. Whenever you're in a 0.5% minority, its best to take a few minutes to reconsider whether or not you might be missing something that the overwhelming majority has understood. In this case, the supposition that first-world guilt has any influence on international matters or that third-world countries exercise some form of extortionist control lacks any form of supporting evidence whatsoever. The <a href="http://www.righttofood.org/new/html/WhatRighttofood.html">Right to Food</a> movement is quite clear about its positions, so it's probably not a matter of misunderstanding. In the case of the U.S., it's deliberate: once they've granted rights to development or food, some avenues for subjugation and exploitation become much more difficult. Contrary to the U.S. position, the language explicitly states that the "right" in question reflects a general attitude wherein the U.N. agrees to focus on measures that: <bq><b>promote</b> effective partnerships with developing countries, particularly the least developed countries; and <b>strive</b> for greater acceptance of the right to development at the international level, while <b>urging</b> all States to undertake the necessary policy formulation at the national level. [...] <b>encourage</b> all States to take action to address gender inequality and discrimination against women, including through measures to ensure that women had equal access to resources, including income, land and water, so as to enable them to feed themselves and their families. <i>(emphasis added)</i></bq> On the one hand, there are no requirements imposed on countries, so that one could say the measure is toothless, but, on the other, it establishes an acknowledgement of the development problem and provides a framework within which nations can approach the problem. The U.S. saw fit to disagree, arguing that "positive rights" on physical resources are impossible to impose in a world they see as dominated by an extraordinarly cruel, harsh version of the free market. That is, it's purely dog-eat-dog with those at the bottom forced to claw their way out of starvation against the best efforts of those at the top, who continue to press them down in order not to lose a speck of the wealth. Whereas this succinct description suffices for today's world, the rest of the world is in agreement that it should not continue in this barbaric fasion, with the U.S. as lone dissenting voice. Without even addressing whether or not those gains are ill-gotten or not, where is the basic humanity in our representation? The American people evince far more compassion than this and, if asked point-blank, most would agree that people shouldn't just starve to death and should have a right to develop their countries to the point where there is a viable economy. The U.S. government is unhappy with the formulation because they feel that the word "right" implies that they are required to help should a society not have that right satisfied. There is no language of this sort present in the measure. Instead of spending money on directly helping a country improve their level of development, the U.S. would much rather pump dozens of times as much into its military (massively enriching its military-industrial complex), then attack the country, impose its own government, steal its resources, then lament that the people seem unwilling to help themselves. The U.S. seems to think we can only have rights to abstract things, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Naturally, absent certain other niceties, like food, shelter or education, those wonderful sentiments also remain a pipe-dream. The U.N. is actually being far more realistic than the U.S.---contrary to U.S. protestations---in that it recognizes that, without the basics of survival, a culture cannot become a useful part of the world culture or economy. The basic problem is that the U.S. seems to see every other country---strike that, even its own citizens---as resources to be plundered and converted into wealth; if others are unable to defend themselves against this, then it's their own fault for not having tried hard enough. Never mind that it's a completely unfair situation, with one participant starting far ahead of the other. Never mind that one of the participants is unable to decide not to play the game at all. Never mind that the U.S. tries again and again to dress up its colonialism and empire in some moralistic twaddle that seeks to justify its rapacious, primitive goals as serving a higher purpose. So, it seems that the U.S. alone has voted against the rights to food and development for all nations. U.S. claims that the language is too laden with entitlements are utter hogwash. The U.S. does not know something that the other nations do not, nor is it more strident in adhering to the principles of the free market.<fn> It is simply that, as the most powerful nation on the planet, it is unwilling to make any concessions to countries that it considers to be its subjects. Morality, as usual, doesn't enter into it. Whereas the U.S. is perfectly willing to spend trillions on the richest strata of its own society, spending on the non-important members of society is deemed filthy, untenable welfare. This is no different than any other empire in history, but, please stop dressing up the whole process in fancy phrases espousing a higher morality; it's both insulting and tiresome. <hr> <ft>One need only look to the last few months of fiscal policy in the U.S. to put the lie to that: welfare is fine as long as it benefits the ruling class.</ft>