# Jimmy Carter and human rights abuse by the US. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2011, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037 "2011-04-28T15:36:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/41 "2011-04-29T07:47:14Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > No, it has not been [ratified by the US.](http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&lang=en) Yes, I realised my mistake on that shortly after posting. So the US is not bound by it, although it has signalled an intention to be bound (thereby accepting its contents). South Korea, however, is bound. > [@](#): > > No, the dimensions of various rights are set forth in the treaty, not in the comments. The treaty is a treaty. By its nature, it sets out the rights themselves in the broadest possible terms. The _dimensions_ of those rights are set out in the various interpretive mechanisms provided for under the treaty and Optional Protocol, including reports, recommendations and General Comments. While these do not themselves have binding effect, they serve as a very good indication as to how the Committee will determine complaints when the Protocol comes into effect. A country will not be internationally bound by those determinations unless and until it ratifies the Protocol, but it will not mean those rights - and the CESCR’s interpretation of them - are not, therefore, genuine human rights. It may say something about non-ratifying countries’ genuine commitment to those rights, but that’s another matter. The point of this all is that the OP and several further posters suggest that Carter was completely making something up out of thin air, when in fact his views reflect the view of the UN Committee charged with oversight of the application of an international covenant to which nearly all the states of the world have ratified, and more have signed but not yet ratified - including the countries in question. So the answer to the OP’s question of whether Carter has simply “lost it” is clearly “no”. ---
**Author:** ![Commissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@Commissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commissar)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/42 "2011-04-29T07:52:54Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Will giving food shipments to North Korea make them change their ways? Or simply lead to more suffering for the innocent North Koreans? Wait, food shipments are meant to influence the recipient nations’ domestic policies? Huh. And here I always assumed they were meant to feed hungry people. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/43 "2011-04-29T08:15:14Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > South Korea, however, is bound. South Korea is bound by the actual treaty and not the Optional Protocol, as SK has not only not ratified the OP, it hasn’t only not signed the OP, the OP aren’t in force currently. > [@ruadh](#): > > The treaty is a treaty. By its nature, it sets out the rights themselves in the broadest possible terms. The _dimensions_ of those rights are set out in the various interpretive mechanisms provided for under the treaty and Optional Protocol, including reports, recommendations and General Comments. The OP only applies to those nations that have ratified it, and only when it is in force (that requires several more nations to ratify it than already have). The GC’s are only the comments produced by the CESCR, and have absolutely no weight for anybody outside the context of the OP. You cannot sneak this in the back door. The CESCR’s opinions are simply words on a paper, they don’t become the “dimensions” of the actual treaty just because it would help your argument. And you seem to be misunderstanding what the CESCR’s role is, anyways. Even if the OP goes into effect at some point in the future, it still won’t be binding on those nations that haven’t ratified it. It is completely irrelevant to the current discussion we are having. Your argument is also strangely out of joint. If you’re going to argue that there are human rights regardless of international law, international customary law and international treaties (not an indefensible position, by any means) then whether or not the CESCR agrees with your opinion that certain things are right, is immaterial. If, however, you are basing your view of human rights on international law, international customary law and international treaties, then the CESCR’s decisions are certainly not universal, and do not create universal human rights. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You are also ignoring the context of the CESR’s opinion itself, which was that food embargoes are a violation. There is a marked difference between an embargo and simply refusing to provide charity. Even if their position was law (it’s not), it would still deal with embargoes and would not be a demand that nations give each other charitable food aid whether they want to or not, lest they face charges. That’s extortion under the color of human rights. Additionally there is a difference between a negative obligation not to prosecute an embargo of food, and a positive obligation to give food to a foreign country regardless of your relationship with it. > [@ruadh](#): > > The point of this all is that the OP and several further posters suggest that Carter was completely making something up out of thin air He was. There is neither legal, nor customary, nor logical support for the claim that other nations _must_ supply charitable aid, let alone for the notion that they must provide charitable aid under pentalty of law. > [@ruadh](#): > > his views reflect the view of the UN Committee charged with oversight of the application of an international covenant to which nearly all the states of the world have ratified, and more have signed but not yet ratified - including the countries in question. Out of the entire world’s populace, three nations have ratified the OP. Pointing out the number of states that have signed/ratified the original treaty is immaterial to the views of the CESCR. Especially since there is no indication that OP will come into force any time in the foreseeable future. Carter’s views diverge from the CESCR’s as this isn’t a food embargo, they diverge from international law as the CESCR has no authority at all, they diverge from common sense as no nation has an obligation to provide food to another, let alone a nation like North Korea, and Carter claimed that the situation _is_ a human rights violation, not that it hypothetically _would be one at some future date if the US and South Korea ratified the OP_. He, and you, are simply wrong on the facts and the logic. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/44 "2011-04-29T09:20:52Z")
**FinnAgain** , I said that South Korea was bound by the treaty (not the Optional Protocol), and I acknowledged that the only states that will be bound by the Protocol are those that have ratified it, and I also acknowledged that the CESCR’s views do not have binding effect per se. Please don’t make up things I haven’t said in order to argue with what I have said. My point was a very simple one, that Carter’s statement that a human right is being breached is quite justifiable by reference to international human rights law. I will concede that the last sentence in my original post should have said “arguably” if I appeared to suggest that the US was bound in the way that, say, US states are bound not to prohibit abortion. If I had meant to suggest that I would have said it that way, instead of the roundabout way I thought I was making my point. I disagree, however, that the Committee’s words are merely “words on a paper” or that they are irrelevant. We are in the realms of international law, where there is an inherent difficulty with enforcement. In a sense the Covenant itself is only just “words on a paper”. The Protocol - and thereby the Committee - were established in order to try to make the Covenant’s rights real and effective. How the Committee intends to do so, when it is able, is _extremely_ relevant to the development of international human rights law - whether or not it is presently binding in a formal sense. Why else would it put out General Comments at all? > [@](#): > > You are also ignoring the context of the CESR’s opinion itself, which was that food embargoes are a violation. There is a marked difference between an embargo and simply refusing to provide charity. Even if their position was law (it’s not), it would still deal with embargoes and would not be a demand that nations give each other charitable food aid whether they want to or not, lest they face charges. That’s extortion under the color of human rights. > Additionally there is a difference between a negative obligation not to prosecute an embargo of food, and a positive obligation to give food to a foreign country regardless of your relationship with it. I won’t get into a semantic debate over the meaning of “embargo”. But since you’re now arguing the content rather than the relevance of the General Comments, there are three points worth mentioning. The first is that they see retrogressive measures, where a right has been provided for and then taken away, as presumptively invalid. The second is that they do not hold to a positive/negative distinction. The third is that the GC on food _does_ refer to states’ obligations to provide aid to people in foreign countries who need it. I see little ground for the belief that the Committee would disagree with Carter on this. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/45 "2011-04-29T09:43:44Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > It would take quite a bit of naivety to believed that if we gave large amounts of food to Kim Jong Il, he would then distribute to North Korean people in need. Naivety is the virtual definition of Jimmy Carter. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/46 "2011-04-29T09:53:10Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > Please don’t make up things I haven’t said in order to argue with what I have said. Okay. Please don’t imagine me making up things I haven’t said in order to make up things you haven’t said in order to argue with what you have said. Fair’s fair. > [@ruadh](#): > > My point was a very simple one, that Carter’s statement that a human right is being breached is quite justifiable by reference to international human rights law. Yes, it’s simple and also quite wrong. There is no such international human rights law that backs up the claim. The only thing you have been able to find is a protocol, that is not in effect, and would not even apply to South Korea or the United States even if it was in effect or had any relevance. > [@ruadh](#): > > I disagree, however, that the Committee’s words are merely “words on a paper” or that they are irrelevant. Yes, and you are thoroughly wrong. You’re dealing with a committee that has no legal authority at all due to being created by a protocol that is not even in force, a committee that would only have legal authority over those states which agreed to have it be relevant to them (of which neither the US nor SK are counted), and as such a committee that is _irrelevant_ to our current discussion. The issue is _not_ enforcement. It is _relevance_. The Optional Protocols are not in force. Even if they were, they would not have any relevance for nations that did not ratify them. The opinions of a committee created by the non-operational Optional Protocols, which would not be relevant for the US or SK as they have neither signed nor ratified the OP’s in the first place, \*are not relevant. They are a rabbit trail. You have not made a cogent case for mentioning them, let alone for using them as a guide for coming to a conclusion on this matter. \* ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/47 "2011-04-29T10:01:25Z")
Food is not supposed to be used as a weapon, so yes in a larger sense it is an abuse of rights. Back as far as WWI the Rome Convention as listed using food as a method for war as a “war crime” The UN Security Council has decried the deliberate impeding of food and medical supplies as a violation of humanitarian law. Since there is no real enforceable “international law,” countries do what they want and sanctions, as others have said, don’t really do much as they only hurt the people who can’t change anything anyway ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/48 "2011-04-29T10:15:27Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > Food is not supposed to be used as a weapon, so yes in a larger sense it is an abuse of rights. Except it’s not being used as a weapon. Two countries have decided not to provide aid to North Korea. The options are not “provide aid to NK, or war crimes”. In point of fact, [the US’s objection seems to largely be that NK cannot be trusted to properly disperse the food to its citizens.](http://thejournal.eu/2011/03/us-lawmakers-voice-concern-over-north-korea-food-aid/) SK, rather obviously, should not be forced to provide for the nourishment of the forces who would launch an attack at them should the north go a bit crazy (again). Human rights are not a suicide pact. The states of the world are under absolutely no obligation to feed North Korea’s population. Refusing to engage in charitable aid is not using food as a weapon. It is a truly Orwellian level of rhetorical gaming to claim that when NK makes demands of us for aid and we don’t submit, that we are violating human rights or actually committing war crimes. To further highlight the absurdity of your position, I’d note that [NK currently spends about 10 billion in its military program](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm). Wheat is[about $320.00 per metric ton.](http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=wheat) Rather than alleging that we’re committing war crimes, how about we demand that NK feed its own people before investing money into its military, rather than forcing others to subsidize its military while it lets its citizens starve? > [@Markxxx](#): > > the Rome Convention The Rome Convention? > [@Markxxx](#): > > The UN Security Council has decried the deliberate impeding of food and medical supplies as a violation of humanitarian law. Yes, but we’ve been over this. Embargoes are not the same thing as refusing to provide aid. Not giving someone your property is quite different from impeding them from getting someone else’s property. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/49 "2011-04-29T10:31:05Z")
And again, we are not flat out refusing to provide food to the NK people; we are refusing to provide it unless we can ascertain that it’s getting to the people it’s supposed to reach. Everyone on the Carter side of this issue seems to be ignoring the fact that NK’s dictatorship will appropriate the food for its own benefit and the country’s people will still starve. Why on Earth should we knowingly strengthen NK’s ruling class and military, knowing it will only make them more powerful while at the same time doing nothing to alleviate the suffering of NK’s starving population? ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/50 "2011-04-29T10:56:39Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yes, it’s simple and also quite wrong. There is no such international human rights law that backs up the claim. The only thing you have been able to find is a protocol, that is not in effect, and would not even apply to South Korea or the United States even if it was in effect or had any relevance. Again, you’re missing my point. I was not pointing to the GC as evidence that there is a particular law in force which prohibits food embargoes and which the US and South Korea were bound to uphold but have breached - since that wasn’t what Carter said in the first place. I was pointing to the GC as evidence that the body whose role it is to interpret an international human rights law which the US and South Korea have signed up to (and here I erred initially in the extent to which the US has signed up) has stated that food embargoes are a violation of that law, which in turn justifies the contention that a human right has been breached. That the CESCR considers food embargoes to be a breach of the Covenant does not mean _at present_ that the US and South Korea have breached the Covenant, and I didn’t say that it did. But, given the CESCR’s role in this area of international human rights law, it does give force to Carter’s argument that the embargoes are a breach of human rights. Only if you take a strictly positivist few of human rights is there anything “wrong” about that. As for the US’s claim that the reason for its embargo is that it doesn’t trust the North Koreans to get the food to the starving, well, believe that if you want to. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/51 "2011-04-29T11:22:54Z")
> [@ruadh](#): > > I was not pointing to the GC as evidence that there is a particular law in force which prohibits food embargoes and which the US and South Korea were bound to uphold but have breached - since that wasn’t what Carter said in the first place That is exactly what Carter said in the first place. Carter claimed that the US was violating human rights. It was quoted in the first post of this thread. > [@ruadh](#): > > I was pointing to the GC as evidence that the body whose role it is to interpret an international human rights law which the US and South Korea have signed up to There is no “extent” to which a nation has signed up. The US has not ratified the treaty, so it has no force of law for the US. Additionally, as I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring, the CESCR is not a body that has any role, at all, let alone official interpretation. It is a body that, if the OP was in force, would then only have the role to interpret policy for those nations that had ratified the OP. It still would not determine international law or custom, but only treaty law for those nations which had ratified it. But as only three have ratified the OP in any case, and the OP is not in force in any case,\* it is completely irrelevant as are the opinions of the CESCR. \* > [@ruadh](#): > > given the CESCR’s role in this area of international human rights law, it does give force to Carter’s argument that the embargoes are a breach of human rights. Yet again, the CESCR’s role is currently to be completely irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, it wouldn’t be relevant to the US or SK, as neither have signed let alone ratified the OP. Even if it wasn’t irrelevant, your claims (or Carter’s, although he wasn’t talking about embargoes) about embargoes are completely irrelevant, as we don’t have an embargo set up against North Korean food shipments. You are literally wrong on every single particular, it is not a minor point of divergence. > [@ruadh](#): > > As for the US’s claim that the reason for its embargo is that it doesn’t trust the North Koreans to get the food to the starving, well, believe that if you want to. We have the public statements that aid was suspended because WFP members were expelled and there was no way to verify proper delivery of food. Do you have anything to gainsay this other than a Conspiracy Theory? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/52 "2011-04-29T11:30:17Z")
I’m not familiar with US law on this issue, but in suspending food aid, the US has not prohibited all shipment of American food to NK, has it? In other words, the NK government remains able to buy food from US sources? I don’t know the legal meaning of “embargo” in international law, but using its common parlance, my sense is that the current situation would not qualify if the facts are as I’ve suggested above. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/53 "2011-04-29T11:33:21Z")
North Korea is still free to buy food on the open market. The sanctions against NK have specifically included clauses making aid of that sort excluded from the embargo against NK. In international law, IIRC, an embargo is when you prohibit the passage of goods and/or services to a nation. Neither SK nor the US are doing that though, they’re just not providing the goods themselves. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/54 "2011-04-29T12:05:27Z")
Exactly. The ethics of an embargo on food supplies to a general population are questionable at best, however often used as a diplomatic tool. Ironically Carter used that tool himself in 1980 - when the USSR invaded Afghanistan he imposed a grain embargo on them. (To be fair, the the Soviets had enough that no one expected it would make its citizens starve to death, just get a bit hungrier.) And of course the UN and the US have used embargos on other occasions as well. But what is happening with NK is not an embargo; it is merely no longer giving a gift. It is akin this: you have given food to a family down the street because you knew they are having hard times and then the abusive meth-head Dad of that family, who the food has to go through, slugs you, says he may shoot you, has guns and has been trying to get an assault rifle, and you say well I’m not helping you and your family out anymore until you say you are sorry and tell me you won’t slug me anymore. Now sure, there is a point to be made that it isn’t the kids’ fault that Dad is an abusive meth-head. But you have no obligation to give this family anything and it is not abuse on your part to direct your charity elsewhere. Yes, it would be great to find a way to help the kids anyway, but the best way to help the kids is help get Dad into treatment, and you think maybe doing this will help convince him to get help. Okay … he’s a meth-head; probably it won’t. Probably he’ll just beat one of the kids up again. But are _you_ being abusive? If in that analogy Carter is the visiting caseworker, is the fair response to say, well the Dad’s a meth-head and we can’t do anything about that, so if you won’t help what happens to these kids is on your head and you are the abuser? No. It isn’t. Carter’s just a doofus. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/55 "2011-04-29T12:13:29Z")
To take my analogy one step further - the meth-head has another neighbor who has recently been doing really well in his business and who has prevented every effort to try to force the guy into treatment. Everyone know that really this neighbor is the only one with any influence over our meth-head. We aren’t stopping him from stepping up to the plate and giving the family food. If China wants to provide the food aid they are welcome to. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/56 "2011-04-29T12:40:32Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > And again, we are not flat out refusing to provide food to the NK people; we are refusing to provide it unless we can ascertain that it’s getting to the people it’s supposed to reach. Everyone on the Carter side of this issue seems to be ignoring the fact that NK’s dictatorship will appropriate the food for its own benefit and the country’s people will still starve. Plus one of the major pillars of North Korea’s political philosophy (such as it is) is [juche](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche), or independence from the great powers like the US. How do Kim or Carter square that with begging for food? And giving them the food isn’t going to help, as SA points out - > [@](#): > > [North Korea has been using food as an instrument of political and economic control, says a major new report by Amnesty International. > > While the country has been unable to produce enough food for all of its citizens since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than 10 years ago, food supplies - both from domestic sources and from foreign aid - have been distributed primarily according to citizens’ membership in three “classes”, apparently based on loyalty to the state.]([http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FA22Dg01.html](http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FA22Dg01.html)) I don’t recall Jimmy pitching a fit over that. He had to wait until he had a chance to blame shit on South Korea and his own country. Housing is a human right too - is Jimmy violating the rights of Habitat for Humanity folks by flying off to Pyongyang to shoot his silly mouth off instead of hanging drywall? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/57 "2011-04-29T12:54:34Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > It would take quite a bit of naivety to believed that if we gave large amounts of food to Kim Jong Il, he would then distribute to North Korean people in need. I entirely agree with Carter that there’s a moral obligation for wealthy countries to help deal with famine when the situation allows them to do so. The current political situation in North Korea prevents outside do-gooders from actually doing any good. The problem with helping poor countries with famine is that it gets to be a habit. Countries that cannot feed themselves need to reduce their birth rates. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/58 "2011-04-29T12:55:49Z")
I voted for Jimmy Carter twice, and I love the guy, but he can be an embarrassment. :o ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/59 "2011-04-29T12:57:17Z")
If we were to draw Carter’s principle (and I use that word loosely) to its logical conclusion, then if NK screwed up its agriculture even more and marched every single farmer into factories to make ammunition, we’d have to make up that shortfall, too, or else we’d be “abusing human rights”. I stand by my initial statement: Carter is either senile or dishonest, and it’s rapidly approaching the point where it really doesn’t matter which it is. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037/60 "2011-04-29T13:01:50Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The problem with helping poor countries with famine is that it gets to be a habit. Countries that cannot feed themselves need to reduce their birth rates. Or stop spending all their money on building nuclear weapons. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-and-human-rights-abuse-by-the-us/580037.md?page=4)