These high-minded treaties don’t actually mean anything - there’s no enforcement mechanism and countries with a much worse human-rights record than the USA have signed them without consequences. IMO it’s better not to sign them than it is to pretend that signing does any good and lend unearned legitimacy to those other countries.
The US is a member of the International Court of Justice - every country in the United Nations is. Are you thinking of the International Criminal Court?
Other than that, my answer is “yes but that’s not a bad thing”.
The actions of an international court will inevitably be political.
The countries that are the worst human rights violators will never voluntary accept the authority of the court.
In that context, why should the USA give other, potentially hostile countries power over itself? It might have been worthwhile if it meant everyone had to follow the rules but in practice it would just give countries opposed to US foreign policy a tool for interfering without giving the US anything useful.
(My general view is that the US has made many very harmful mistakes but the era of American hegemony has still been one of remarkable global peace and prosperity. Like democracy, it’s the worst system except for everything else that has been tried. Now we’re seeing serious challenges to this hegemony and if they succeed, the world will get worse for almost everyone, not just for Americans. So if you think the US does more harm than good, we’re unlikely to come to an agreement.)
The problem is that we need to for many reasons transition to an international order of democratic cooperation instead of economic and military domination. And if the US can never accept this kind of shared and cooperative approach foreign policy of everyone is going to be forever dragged towards this kind of zero sum bullshit we have at the moment. Even though it’s obvious that foreign policy doesn’t have to be zero sum.
Even if other countries are potentially less honest with their implementation of global treaties, even a relatively slow movement there and maybe a more thorough movement in the US makes everyone better off.
The only way to actually foster a cooperative relationship is to make yourself vulnerable, otherwise it’s just coercion and power not cooperation. And yes if you get hurt too much maybe you’ll have to leave again, but this pessimistic outlook from the get go is certainly never going to lead to the changes we obviously need.
How do we solve things that require global attentio and accountability, like climate change, with an increasingly hostile and isolationist country calling the shots on decisions about global economic matters.
Simply put if I want to live in a world somewhat resembling the current one in 60 years, American collapse or integration into global democracy is a necessity.
Also calling a country that has been at war for 80+% of it’s history a protector of global peace seems a bit questionable. Similarly I don’t think anyone can conclusively say that the US has done more or less harm than good. But by that same nebulous metric shouldn’t China hold that same title, as well as the Soviets, the British empire, the Spanish empire,the Romans ?
I would expect almost everyone to feel more ambiguously about the later list than the US, but both the US and empires of the past are exactly what they’ve always been, a tool for those inside, especially the ones in power to increase their quality of life, while everyone outside gets to be exploited, integrated, subjected to rules that do harm, and be attacked, regime changed and so on. It’s not actually the US that is a problem it’s the US being a modern empire that’s the problem.
That the US tries to be a liberal democracy doesn’t really lessen it’s status as an empire, especially if the powers at be largely prevent it’s people to decide against the status quo of domination.
Almost by necessity the most powerful are the most harmful if there are no systems to prevent their harm, diffuse their power etc.
The treaty itself does not have any enforcement mechanism; however the US does. US courts recognize ratified treaties as having equal weight to laws passed the normal way Ratifying the Treaty would immediately make it federal law. The US has a robust enough legal system that the courts would the (over years of building up case law) determine exactly what that means.
American opposition to the convention stems primarily from political and religious conservatives. For example, The Heritage Foundation considers that “a civil society in which moral authority is exercised by religious congregations, family, and other private associations is fundamental to the American order”
I go to Italy often just to eat real Italian food. I understand that for Italians, the hawainana pizza is an aberration, like many other things if not cooked as they traditionally do. And I respect it, because it’s a key part of their culture. Still, I have a right to eat and like whatever I want, so I also expect respect on that sense. Some people will do this and some others won’t. I think it’s a personal choice to decide respecting others opinions.
I get that shit ALL the time. I have 34 wing flavours, a number of them address the sweet n savoury/sour thing I personally detest. I don’t carry the disgusting bulk sweet n sour sugar sauce common to this region and continually get people staring at the 34 flavours and and ask “do you have honey mustard or sweet n sour”? No. I don’t. That’s not what I’m doing here, if I had that, it would be listed. Literally every other place has that, I’m fucking trying to impart some taste to the region no matter how miniscule.
In the states they never add Jalapenos because of all the WASPS who say things like “this food has too much flavor” so I thought I hated Hawaiian pizza, def will try with Jalapeno.
I have lived in several states and I feel like jalapenos are a very common pizza topping in all of them. I have mostly lived in areas with large Hispanic populations though.
In Greece, eating feta cheese with watermelon(or melon) is somewhat common. You combine the sweetness of the watermelon with the saltiness of feta. And both things are cold.
Here in the south, and maybe elsewhere, we sometimes add a nice hunk of extra sharp cheddar on top of our apple pie for the same reason. Heck, any number of fruit plates will be served with cheeses, and vice versa.
Once you get into the sweet, salt, fat, acid combo, it really doesn’t matter what you use to get them.
To quote a great American show, “pork chops and applesauce”. “Hawaiian” pizza is just a different version of the same basic idea
Whats even crazier is the ethnobotanical path to GET those ingredients together.
Tomatoes had to be brought from south america. Bred to grow at lower altitudes. Peasants had to be persuaded to eat them (they were formally animal feed because they were from the nightshade family and peasants didn't trust the fruit not to be poisonous since the leaves are) and then enough time (100 years) had to pass for them to develop cuisine around them.
It really depends on the quality of the pineapple to me. Sometimes it is dry and it sucks. Sometimes it is kinda melted, which gives a sweet to the pizza without making the texture weird.
Yup. You can get it in the USA at Asian grocery stores, and even in some American stores located in areas with large Asian populations. And it’s fucking delicious.
Honesty that’d probably be better. Ham is so bland on pizza; it can’t compete with the sauce. I always do pineapple and pepperoni. The spice from the pepperoni cuts through the sweetness really nicely.
Whats a Canadian from Greece? Was the guy Greek living in Canada? Doesn’t that just make him Greek? Or was it a person born in Canada with Greek ancestry? That would not make him from Greece.
Just think, if you open your mind and let other cultures be your inspiration, you too could invent something as reviled and divisive as Hawaiian pizza.
en.wikipedia.org
Active