so i know that this is not a political blog....but i was reading the ottawa citizen at work today, and a headline announced:
"reluctant canada agrees to ‘right to food’ resolution".
Umm....what?!
reluctant? for a country that prides itself on its peace-keeping missions and as being a general philanthropic country among many unstable nations in our world today - this is appalling.
according to the article, canada believes that the united nations’ council’s ideas for ensuring everyone gets food (as set out in the resolution) should be more focused on telling individual governments that it’s mainly their job. how’s that for a compassionate leader on the world stage?
they do, however, go on to say that they (canada) dislike the resolution’s failure to call upon countries to "ensure safe and unhindered humanitarian access" during times of crisis *cough, burma, cough*.
so if i understand this correctly, our leaders believe that each singular country should be responsible for the appropriate nutrition for their people...but if they cannot (or choose not) to adequately feed their population, then humanitarian aid should swoop in?
contradiction in terms? i think so.
if countries can’t feed their nations, ‘the right to food’ should not be exercised, but it is the responsibility of their leaders to ensure a way that they can? until....they can’t again?
unacceptable mr. harper... and confusing.
- hayley
No comments:
Post a Comment