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.
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.
It all sounds like some very reasonable language, and yet no other countries raised the same objection, including not only countries we are not allied with and don’t generally seem to respect, but also countries we are allied with and do generally seem to respect.
I read it as “hey guys let’s all agree to do this thing, and then we can figure out the details” and US is the singular guy in the meeting who is like “nope, we can’t agree to do it until we’ve split every hair about exactly how it will be done.”
It doesn’t sound reasonable. Its argument is neoliberal economics at its worst:“we don’t want countries to be able to control their own domestic food markets because we want them to be forced to take our exports”, only counched in paternalistic We Know What’s Best For You rhetoric.
Oh I completely agree with that. I was essentially saying “it’s bad things presented with nice words” - I was just trying to be nice about how I said it. Sorry if that didn’t come across. 🙂
Sorry I misinterpreted you! :-)
All good!