> you're saying that US usually says one thing, and does another thing entirely, you're right
No. I am saying you said "social justice is an objective of US as a whole" and hence "not a political view." Then you said "social justice is political only in USA." Those are opposing views you've flip flopped on.
> signed a document that stated that social justice is not political, it's a human right
No, it did not.
> like the ratification of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1994?
You're launching off solely titles. Read the text [1]. Article 5 enumerates rights. The rest is condemnations and the establishment of a commission. China, Saudi Arabia and Israel are also a signatories [2]. None of them give Article 14 jurisdiction, the U.S. included, which made it a toothless ratification.
No. I am saying you said "social justice is an objective of US as a whole" and hence "not a political view." Then you said "social justice is political only in USA." Those are opposing views you've flip flopped on.
> signed a document that stated that social justice is not political, it's a human right
No, it did not.
> like the ratification of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1994?
You're launching off solely titles. Read the text [1]. Article 5 enumerates rights. The rest is condemnations and the establishment of a commission. China, Saudi Arabia and Israel are also a signatories [2]. None of them give Article 14 jurisdiction, the U.S. included, which made it a toothless ratification.
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...
[2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...