Under the Clinton administration, in 1996, a United Nations-sponsored World Food Summit affirmed the “right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food”. The United States took issue with this, insisting that it does not recognize a “right to food”. Washington instead championed free trade as the key to ending the poverty at the root of hunger, and expressed fears that recognition of a “right to food” could lead to lawsuits from poor nations seeking aid and special trade provisions.
I do not understand in a day and age where we are supposedly against tyranny that large scale powerhouses that have socio-economic power and political influence and cataclysmic catalysts will pose so serenely at the prospects of hurting others.
My own country utilizes a similar pattern of events. It prefers to oust other religions, besides Hinduism and Islam and some minor Christianity, into peripheral contacts hoping that their absent portrayal will soon drive them to a form of hibernation. The indigenous people here may not have conquered fully by force. My country was a popular trade center throughout history so many people and cultures meshed together so a homogeneity is a no-no. People may, unknowingly, have both Asiatic, indigenous, Middle Eastern and European blood flowing through them. Yet our select appropriation of “people” shows that we are not comforted by indigenous populations. Their negligence is somehow a platter of matters taken into consideration.
My country is more of an internal colonizer. To heavy built colonizers it is a satellite and its entire “liberation propaganda” also is satellite like. It may have gotten rid of one power but it accepted many other colonizers in its “liberation” — not to mention its veterans/freedom fighters are also responsible for war crimes but made to be valorised so easily. And those fighters who probably questioned the legitimacy of the heinous war effects and aftereffects were made to be poverty-stricken people. Funny, that our internal enemy, the so-called collaborators, were given much amnesty, much profit and allowed free mobility in the country though at one point they are a greater crux of the nation problem.
So-called First World countries and Third World/Developing countries have much in common. In fact their situations are so twined, twin-like and identical that add some economic weight no one could possibly tell the difference except probably geographical location and colour of skin.