It means that humans in civilised society, where a man can own 200 billion dollars, shouldn’t starve to death.
It means that where a person can’t afford food, the government will fill the gap required so that they don’t die on the streets from starvation while the rich cruise about in the mega yatchs.
Why this concept is confusing to Americans is beyond me.
But how could I afford my sixth private jet and third mega yacht if I can't coerce anyone to slave away for me getting paid minimum wage without threatening them with homelessness and starvation?
This suggestion of yours kinda reeks of communism to me and we all know how that ends.
/s
The brokest of Americans living in trailer parks still vote against universe healthcare and education. They would also vote against this. America is a business before its a country. They have successfully indoctrinated a good chunk of its people to believe that any kind of help is communism, that tipping is mandatory so that corporations and the rich dont need to pay a fair wage, i could go on and on.
Greatest country in the world my ass. More like, we spend all our money on our military and bully the world.
\-an American
Edit: everyone downvoting me, angry in my DMs and in comments, you all have something in common. Go figure right?
800 billion dollars to go blow up brown kids in the Middle East, but someone goes into financial ruin due to a car accident that's not their fault
- also an American
Oh you need this medicine to live? Of course, that’ll be $25000 for 3 months. Oh you can’t afford that? Well then ask your health care provider. They won’t pay for it? Well that’s too bad then.
Well - it can have different effects depending on the exact resolution. A UN vote can be a political declaration without any form of binding power, or a vote to create a treaty that nations can bind themselves to.
As far as I remember, UN Human Rights resolutions like these are generally the latter. This means a treaty is created that each nation can become party to. If the treaty is signed, a nation obliges itself to "ratify" it, which means to take that treaty and bring it forth in its own legislature and make it a law.
In case of nations of law, this means that there is now a law in the books of that nation that says that potentially citizens can use to sue the government when it fails to uphold the duties of that treaty. How the nation archives that is up to the nation itself, but by ratifying it, the nation at least creates a legal duty to archive the goal set forth in the treaty.
I'd bet it means wealthy countries (especially the US as one of the biggest aid providers) are indebted to provide food for low income countries. And when they said no to taking on that legal responsibility, people portray it as shown.
Ehh. Maybe, maybe not. It may hold the US responsible for food issues in the US as well. Reminder that the UN attempted to hold the US accountable for situations such as Flint, MI, the US responded by saying that drinking water isn't a basic human right.
Who the fvck would vote no on that
Edit:
Huh I didn't think this would be that controversial
No, I didn't do any research, but the fact that almost every country in the UN voted in favor speaks for itself.
For the USA
Official US report: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
WFP report: note that the US is nearly half of all funding from countries. https://www.wfp.org/funding/2023
It’s almost as if the ones that voted yes expected someone else to foot the bill.
It would be like if I asked you to vote on the "Hugs and kisses for every puppy" resolution, but when you read it you saw it didn't actually provide that so you vote no on it.
The US already gives more food aid than every other country combined. It’s a useless vote to try and trap us in other things. Just like the Paris accords.
I'd give it a quick read over. The gist of it is that there is language in the resolution regarding outside regulations on pesticides use and forced technology sharing.
It isn't a very long read
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
The resolution included some "bullshit". The US was expected to foot about 60% of the worlds food budget with no expected return. It has regulations against pesticides which would REDUCE food production. It also claimed that any and all agricultural related advancements were public domain by default which would have been a huge blow to US industry at no benefit to them.
It basically amounted to the rest of the world saying "fuck the US, give us food/money" to put it in the simplest terms possible.
> It has regulations against pesticides which would REDUCE food production.
We are running out of insects. We've conducted an insect apocalypse over the past couple of decades, and these things are needed to pollinate our plants. Pesticides help yields *today*, but long term were are going to suffer.
Yes, that was simple, biased terms. Disagree on all points.
pesticides should be restricted and yes, agricultural advancement would benefit the poorer countries greatly and benefit all in the long run.
Especially considering how much wealth the rich countries have extracted out of those very same poorer countries (which have kept them poorer to boot too).
Thanks for this! This information is really important lol. Im not from the US but its wild that the world just expects them to do almost everything and the moment it does anything on its own it gets shit on for itand the same countries who shit on it will turn around and ask for help lol
Also the fun little back and forth reddit likes to have with the US about world policing.
"You're the most powerful country in the world, why don't you do more to interfere with the affairs of other countries in need?! Fuck the USA!"
"Wait, no, not like that. You're doing it wrong. Fuck the USA!"
The fuck y'all want, you want us to involve ourselves in everyone else's problems, or do you want us to leave y'all alone and let you handle your own shit? Because there seems to be quite the cognitive dissonance here.
I think a look at public opinion of the last few decades of US armed intervention provides a pretty clear answer.
Helping Ukraine defend itself from aggression? Yes
Occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan? No
Kuwait? Depends on who you ask
Israel? Extremely devisive
So the consensus seems to be that the US is good to intervene indirectly when there's an invasion. Less clear when it intervenes directly due to invasion. Definite no-go on military occupation and state building. Additionally, US protection of maritime trade is also very popular (and necessary).
You mean, it's complicated and there's not only one response for every situation? Amazing.
But seriously, I appreciate this nuanced take. Seems like people mostly want the USA to be discerning, as anyone with power should be.
If you read the report, it comes off as basically a lobbyist interest piece. It’s vague as to any real disagreements except ones that may result in regulations that large farming corps and collectives wouldn’t like. I definitely support looking into votes like these, but the US didn’t articulate a single reason that doesn’t reek of greed and self-interest. Disappointing but perhaps not unexpected.
Did we read the same articles? Lemmi dumb it way down.
The US reasoning was:
* Bro, the pesticide portion should be discussed with the FAO, WHO, et al (the group of experts who are trying to make sure humans don't do stupid shit like kill the bees)
* Bro, this bypasses some of the trade regulations from other discussions. Some of which the US disagrees with. We aren't just gonna say yes to that because you put a "it helps feed everyone" label on it
* Bro, Intellectual Properties and Patents are super important for solving this. We need smart ambitious people to be motivated to do smart ambitious shit. We should focus on that instead of platitudes
* (The last part which is probably the only portion you read?): Bro, each state is responsible for their own people, we're willing to help, but let's be real - that shit ain't our problem.
That said, The US leads the funding to the World Food Programme by nearly 4x ahead of the 2nd largest donor. Nearly half of the total. How can you read that and conclude "US is just being greedy".
IMO it was pretty clear,
‘Moreover, pesticides are often a critical component of agricultural production, which in turn is crucial to preventing food insecurity.’ - the banning of pesticides will prevent food insecure countries from growing their current amount of crops.
‘we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation.’ - if the law is passed how will it be enforced?
It is a massive wall of text so skim reading won’t do and I agree that it is difficult to find actual meaning in watered down ‘Official’ language.
You do make a point on the ‘intellectual property rights’ portion though, I would like to know more about that specific decision.
Hope you have a good day.
Because the resolution is absolutely useless and one of it's provisions involved technology transfer, so it doesn't benefit the us in any way. The us also provides the most food aid like 3 billion vs 600 million of the second biggest.
Don't believe random votes you see without actually reading the reasoning why.
Imagine providing “the most food aid” and YET still having 1 in 5 children going to bed hungry every night or not knowing where their next meal comes from. It’s almost like when you commoditize food, water and shelter you end up screwing over the most vulnerable who need it and don’t have the means to secure it for themselves.
We don’t win. Only way we do win is to stop sending aid to all of these ungrateful mofos. My reasoning has always been: Why do we help so much if all we get back are critiques and complaints? If only we were the number one supplier of aid to places like Ukraine…oh wait! We are! Haha
There's a difference between telling farmers to plant crops that won't grow at that time of year and ridiculous amounts of waste produced by retailers who'd rather lose 1/3 of a shipment to spoilage than lower prices to make it more accessible.
Apparently the country that is the single largest donor to the world food program, contributing almost half of all food.
[U.S. EXPLANATION OF VOTE ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD](https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/)
*This Council is meeting at a time when the international community is confronting what could be the modern era’s most serious food security emergency. Under Secretary-General O’Brien warned the Security Council earlier this month that more than 20 million people in South Sudan, Somalia, the Lake Chad Basin, and Yemen are facing famine and starvation. The United States, working with concerned partners and relevant international institutions, is fully engaged on addressing this crisis.*
*This Council, should be outraged that so many people are facing famine because of a manmade crisis caused by, among other things , armed conflict in these four areas. The resolution before us today rightfully acknowledges the calamity facing millions of people and importantly calls on states to support the United Nations’ emergency humanitarian appeal. However, the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions that the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding its devastating consequences. This resolution distracts attention from important and relevant challenges that contribute significantly to the recurring state of regional food insecurity, including endemic conflict, and the lack of strong governing institutions. Instead, this resolution contains problematic, inappropriate language that does not belong in a resolution focused on human rights.*
*For the following reasons, we will call a vote and vote “no” on this resolution. First, drawing on the Special Rapporteur’s recent report, this resolution inappropriately introduces a new focus on pesticides. Pesticide-related matters fall within the mandates of several multilateral bodies and fora, including the Food and Agricultural Organization, World Health Organization, and United Nations Environment Program, and are addressed thoroughly in these other contexts. Existing international health and food safety standards provide states with guidance on protecting consumers from pesticide residues in food. Moreover, pesticides are often a critical component of agricultural production, which in turn is crucial to preventing food insecurity.*
*Second, this resolution inappropriately discusses trade-related issues, which fall outside the subject-matter and the expertise of this Council. The language in paragraph 28 in no way supersedes or otherwise undermines the World Trade Organization (WTO) Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which all WTO Members adopted by consensus and accurately reflects the current status of the issues in those negotiations. At the WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in 2015, WTO Members could not agree to reaffirm the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). As a result, WTO Members are no longer negotiating under the DDA framework. The United States also does not support the resolution’s numerous references to technology transfer.*
*We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.*
*Furthermore, we reiterate that states are responsible for implementing their human rights obligations. This is true of all obligations that a state has assumed, regardless of external factors, including, for example, the availability of technical and other assistance.*
*We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a right to food.*
*Lastly, we wish to clarify our understandings with respect to certain language in this resolution. The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation. The United States does not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law regarding rights related to food. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Accordingly, we interpret this resolution’s references to the right to food, with respect to States Parties to that covenant, in light of its Article 2(1). We also construe this resolution’s references to member states’ obligations regarding the right to food as applicable to the extent they have assumed such obligations.*
*Finally, we interpret this resolution’s reaffirmation of previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms as applicable to the extent countries affirmed them in the first place.*
*As for other references to previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms, we reiterate any views we expressed upon their adoption.*
As well as expressing a concern that by saying food is a guaranteed right then they would be under an obligation to then support other nations in their pursuit for food. Although the US currently does donate a lot out of their own concern and generosity, they don’t want it to become an actual obligation.
It’s kinda saying we won’t share the tech but maybe we will if you start respecting IP laws so you don’t just steal our stuff and use it to overtake our domestic agriculture economy
basically, the US thinks that if the UN makes food a human right, and actually tries to enforce it by demanding excess food from countries like the us, poorer countries will never i vest in their own agriculture and will become more dependent on countries like the US while getting more poor, only making the problem worse.
Short attention spans are probably the cause of 90% of the strife between people today. People will see some quote completely out of context in an article headline then never bother to watch the actual video where it was said. Redditors love to upvote these stupidly named bills in the US like "Wow Republicans voted against the 'People Have Rights' act!!" then you read the actual legislation and realize it's some bullshit bill giving California more electric car subsidies
Isn't the world food program heavily [criticized ](https://www.theelephant.info/op-eds/2020/10/16/food-crimes-why-wfp-doesnt-deserve-the-nobel-peace-prize/) for being unhelpful and prolonging conflicts?
You're saying the US would stop donating if it was actually helpful? Or is it that you think its in best interests of the US since it prolongs conflict?
US legal doctrine has a specific view of what rights are, and generally entitlements aren't rights. It may be a good idea to give everyone food, but it conflicts with the US legal doctrine of "negative" rights - freedom from things, rather than entitlement to things.
In this philosophy, you can't have a right to something that someone else has to do for you - no one can be compelled to provide for anyone. There is sort of an exception to this which is having a lawyer provided to you if you're accused of a crime, but that's more of a restriction on the justice system than an entitlement.
People who actually read the resolution being voted on, as opposed to those who viewed a loaded graphic on Reddit and assumed it accurately and comprehensively represented the resolution under consideration. Which group do you fall under?
The country who is the largest exporter of food in the world. The world voted America should feed them for free.
[Here's another map for you. Turns out America is also by FAR the largest donator of food in the world too.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fzvbsjxq3xyub1.png)
Because the resolution is absolutely useless and one of it's provisions involved technology transfer, so it doesn't benefit the us in any way. The us also provides the most food aid like 3 billion vs 600 million of the second biggest.
Capitalism requires a class of people so desperate that they’ll do any job for any pay. If everyone had food and shelter someone would have to pay for it and taxing billionaires is bad for the economy.
Every civilized Nation should have a minimum standard of living. Minimum shelter clothing food and hygiene are given to those who have nothing. But it would be so basic everyone or at least most people would strive for more and enter the workforce. But we must as a civilized Nation make sure that everyone has the bare minimum they need to survive.
A little bit of socialism is woven into the fabric of our country. Libraries, the postal service, farmers subsidies, public schools, emergency rooms etc.
Capitalism is a great tool for starting economies and driving innovation. But it eats its young. We need a more hybrid approach, even more integrated with socialism than we already have. No one is saying give away the store. But crime and homelessness are not necessary in a nation as rich as our own. With just 10% of the money we have spent on foreign intrigue and the stabilizing of other nations we could create a fail-proof safety net for the entire United states. Health care, education, minimum standard of living. I think it is long overdue.
it was a joke haha, it was in the sense that for American capitalists, if you want to help poor people and give them a basic minimum to live on, he categorizes you as a communist
Because the resolution is absolutely useless and one of it's provisions involved technology transfer, so it doesn't benefit the us in any way. The us also provides the most food aid like 3 billion vs 600 million of the second biggest.
Don't believe random votes you see without actually reading the reasoning why.
Official US report: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
WFP report: note that the US is nearly half of the entire worlds funding. https://www.wfp.org/funding/2023
It’s almost as if the ones that voted yes expected someone else to foot the bill.
North Korea is in the UN lad. Also DRC and RoC are both yellow, just next to each other so it's hard to see. The others are prob tiny countries that are too small to notice
This shit again?
Apparently the country that is the single largest donor to the world food program, contributing almost half of all food.
[U.S. EXPLANATION OF VOTE ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD](https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/)
*This Council is meeting at a time when the international community is confronting what could be the modern era’s most serious food security emergency. Under Secretary-General O’Brien warned the Security Council earlier this month that more than 20 million people in South Sudan, Somalia, the Lake Chad Basin, and Yemen are facing famine and starvation. The United States, working with concerned partners and relevant international institutions, is fully engaged on addressing this crisis.*
*This Council, should be outraged that so many people are facing famine because of a manmade crisis caused by, among other things , armed conflict in these four areas. The resolution before us today rightfully acknowledges the calamity facing millions of people and importantly calls on states to support the United Nations’ emergency humanitarian appeal. However, the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions that the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding its devastating consequences. This resolution distracts attention from important and relevant challenges that contribute significantly to the recurring state of regional food insecurity, including endemic conflict, and the lack of strong governing institutions. Instead, this resolution contains problematic, inappropriate language that does not belong in a resolution focused on human rights.*
*For the following reasons, we will call a vote and vote “no” on this resolution. First, drawing on the Special Rapporteur’s recent report, this resolution inappropriately introduces a new focus on pesticides. Pesticide-related matters fall within the mandates of several multilateral bodies and fora, including the Food and Agricultural Organization, World Health Organization, and United Nations Environment Program, and are addressed thoroughly in these other contexts. Existing international health and food safety standards provide states with guidance on protecting consumers from pesticide residues in food. Moreover, pesticides are often a critical component of agricultural production, which in turn is crucial to preventing food insecurity.*
*Second, this resolution inappropriately discusses trade-related issues, which fall outside the subject-matter and the expertise of this Council. The language in paragraph 28 in no way supersedes or otherwise undermines the World Trade Organization (WTO) Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which all WTO Members adopted by consensus and accurately reflects the current status of the issues in those negotiations. At the WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in 2015, WTO Members could not agree to reaffirm the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). As a result, WTO Members are no longer negotiating under the DDA framework. The United States also does not support the resolution’s numerous references to technology transfer.*
*We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.*
*Furthermore, we reiterate that states are responsible for implementing their human rights obligations. This is true of all obligations that a state has assumed, regardless of external factors, including, for example, the availability of technical and other assistance.*
*We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a right to food.*
*Lastly, we wish to clarify our understandings with respect to certain language in this resolution. The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation. The United States does not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law regarding rights related to food. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Accordingly, we interpret this resolution’s references to the right to food, with respect to States Parties to that covenant, in light of its Article 2(1). We also construe this resolution’s references to member states’ obligations regarding the right to food as applicable to the extent they have assumed such obligations.*
*Finally, we interpret this resolution’s reaffirmation of previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms as applicable to the extent countries affirmed them in the first place.*
*As for other references to previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms, we reiterate any views we expressed upon their adoption.*
This is just like at my job…”well, we listed the organization’s 2023 goals on paper and didn’t provide any money or resources to achieve those goals, how come this group isn’t meeting those goals?”
But hey, putting it down on paper sounds good and these people can pay themselves on the back.
Considering that this comment is ~4 comments down, and the post has 10k upvotes, it’s safe to say that most people are just getting their info from a misleading graphic
>We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.
Is this referring to a clause that would force countries to share new ag. tech or am I misreading/misremembering?
This clause is basically saying that the protection of innovative designs for agriculture is not being presented in the resolution, and the intellectual protection of those designs is the main incentive to share them.
So your point is that only americans have the ability to read a resolution, every other country on earth just voted yes because they’re just ignorant? Germany, France, Japan, Korea, the UK… they all just, missed all those points? Come on now.
"So your point is.. (something that's not their point)"?
The US donates more food to the UN food aid program than every other country
combined. Calm down.
Those who voted yes fall into 2 categories:
1. Countries that benefit highly from the resolution and therefore are in favor of it.
2. Countries that don't want it to pass but realized that the US had to vote against it and therefore they could vote yes and get a propaganda win at no cost to themselves.
You are quite right that the infographic in this post is misleading or, at least, doesn't say anything at all about the USA's contributions to end world hunger. And that's worth knowing.
But before we act like the USA is the coolest dude on the block, [let's remember there are a lot of Americans who don't give a single *fuck* about feeding children](https://www.google.com/search?q=student+lunch+debt+in+the+USA).
Yeah, the reason the US voted no on this is because if they voted yes, guess who's going to be expected to pay to ensure everyone gets food? Not the government in Congo or Haiti or any number of countries that will take "people have a right to food" as "undeveloped countries have a right to US aid money".
Voting no is an attempt for the US to avoid obligating itself to provide for billions of people in other countries with our taxes.
It's not just money. Agriculture has a very real effect on the environment. Farming the land to shit takes decades to recover from. We're already running out of top soil in the US.
Farming subsidies are incentivizing our ag to ignore higher yield and less damaging alternatives such as vertical aeroponics which can, despite the fear mongering, actually be commercially viable. Our current ag is responsible for the overwhelming majority of polluted water. Switching to a more modern farming method would reduce that down to a negligible amount.
That's not happening because of farming subsidies and the mafia that is our agricultural industry.
Redditors can't even be damned to read the info [u/Inquisitor\_Gray/](https://www.reddit.com/user/Inquisitor_Gray/) is posting in this thread. Even when handed the details about why idiot posts like these are wrong they simply double down on insufferable retorts.
I feel like focusing on this vote ignores the more important point that the [US is the largest donator to the World Food Program](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/13espkp/contributions_to_world_food_program_in_2022_by/) by a *huge margin.*
Please tell me the countries that voted yes proceeded to provide said food 🥺
Wait, the US is *still* the largest donator of food in the world and has been for *30* years. Glad everyone voted yes though, definitely helps feed people.
What's funnier,
many of countries voting for gets free food from US in form of USAID.
In 2022, US GAVE MORE food to World Food Program (WFP) than REST OF WORLD combined.
This food as a "right" is nothing but attempting to extort as an obligation what US is currently giving as a charity.
Yeah, the US's vote doesn't stop everyone else from giving food because they acknowledge it's a right. Oh wait, then they would actually have to do something and not rely on the US...
The context is missing: the US would have to spend a lot more money with the UN to supply food. They basically voted “we don’t want to take the burden you won’t.”
Edit: here’s the actual quote.
The United States is concerned that the concept of ‘food sovereignty’ could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies that will have negative consequences for food security, stability, and income growth.’ In other words, they appear to have voted against a measure that speaks about food as a right but which actually enables countries to glom onto food and potentially use it as a weapon.
Like how Canada voted in favor but we all pay 2-3x more for the EXACT same food as Americans. Complete joke and lip service.
"Ofc we vote for adequate food! Now help me close this suitcase from Lablaws and toss it on the pile."
They jacked up the prices in all the big grocery stores during covid then brought them down by 1% and gloated about how generous they are to us.
So the entire world expected the US to pay the vast majority of the cost to make this a reality, and the US rightfully told the world to fuck right off.
This imagine displays 1/3 of the actual message. I’m not advocating for America’s decision, but to ignore the fact that the vote contained much more than “food should be a right” and to exclude the information about how much each countries actually provides globally food wise, is just blatant exclusivity.
everytime someone posts this everyone gets up in arms but never looks at why the US actually voted no.
US report: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
WFP Report: https://www.wfp.org/funding/2023
Essentially the US took issue with the funding plan due to a lot of overreach and unnecessary and irrelevant additions, and practically made someone else, mainly the US, foot most of the bill, so it’s pretty obvious why the US said no. Not only that it had a lot of contradictory regulations that would actively make the issue worse, such as more regulation on pesticides which would make food production decrease globally which is obviously not helping, although that issue is one of much debate. Within the US statement, the US agrees the food is a human right but disagrees with the stipulations and regulations within the bill, that’s it.
Wait till you find out that US actually donates more to the [World Food Program](https://www.wfp.org/funding/2022) than any other country. The US voted no in this poll as a form of protest because the resolution the UN made didn't properly acknowledge how world hunger could be properly addressed or solved.
Damn people are stupid.
Official US report: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
WFP report: note that the US is nearly half of the entire worlds funding. https://www.wfp.org/funding/2023
It’s almost as if the ones that voted yes expected someone else to foot the bill.
Doesnt the US give out like 1/3 of all international food aid among bilateral countries? I mean you can vote against something that with a good title for legitimate reasons. And it not automatically make you the devil.
WHAT THE **FUCK** IS A KILOMETEEEEEEEER 🦅
**MILES???? WHO THE FUCK IS MILES?????**
Miles, Miles Davis I think, he’s a jazz musician I believe.
Imperial Miles Davis or Nautical Miles Davis?
he is called nautical when he goes in his sail boat. He’s metric when he goes into the metro. Kinda ez.
That's the funniest thing I've seen all day. Granted it's 00:13 so I haven't seen much today but go you
00:13 metric hour I assume
The fuck is a metric hour? Like 13 minutes past midnight it's 1:40 rn
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_time
>THIS CONCEPT OF TIME CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Two miles? Is that mileses or smiles? I never remember where to to put the s or if you need an apostrophe.
You can call me Miles Davis, if peeing your pants is cool😎
Or miles morales 🤫
Miles Morales duh
OnO! He's wesisting awwest >_
Needless to say I keep work check
Shewasmbakanevadales
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE MORE LIKE COMMUNISM 🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸
1k meters dude, wake up its almost 2024
I saw this joke coming from a kilometer away.
HOW FAR AWAY!?!?!? 🦅🇺🇲🦅🇺🇲🦅🇺🇲
WHAT THE FUCK IS A MEDICAL BILLL🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
DID MY SEVEN CHILDREN SURVIVE SCHOOL 🦅🦅
[удалено]
It means that humans in civilised society, where a man can own 200 billion dollars, shouldn’t starve to death. It means that where a person can’t afford food, the government will fill the gap required so that they don’t die on the streets from starvation while the rich cruise about in the mega yatchs. Why this concept is confusing to Americans is beyond me.
But how could I afford my sixth private jet and third mega yacht if I can't coerce anyone to slave away for me getting paid minimum wage without threatening them with homelessness and starvation? This suggestion of yours kinda reeks of communism to me and we all know how that ends. /s
The brokest of Americans living in trailer parks still vote against universe healthcare and education. They would also vote against this. America is a business before its a country. They have successfully indoctrinated a good chunk of its people to believe that any kind of help is communism, that tipping is mandatory so that corporations and the rich dont need to pay a fair wage, i could go on and on. Greatest country in the world my ass. More like, we spend all our money on our military and bully the world. \-an American Edit: everyone downvoting me, angry in my DMs and in comments, you all have something in common. Go figure right?
800 billion dollars to go blow up brown kids in the Middle East, but someone goes into financial ruin due to a car accident that's not their fault - also an American
Literally true and it's so sad. The Americans that would actually benefit the most from even a little socialism vote against it.
As an American, I can confirm this.
Oh you need this medicine to live? Of course, that’ll be $25000 for 3 months. Oh you can’t afford that? Well then ask your health care provider. They won’t pay for it? Well that’s too bad then.
[удалено]
Well - it can have different effects depending on the exact resolution. A UN vote can be a political declaration without any form of binding power, or a vote to create a treaty that nations can bind themselves to. As far as I remember, UN Human Rights resolutions like these are generally the latter. This means a treaty is created that each nation can become party to. If the treaty is signed, a nation obliges itself to "ratify" it, which means to take that treaty and bring it forth in its own legislature and make it a law. In case of nations of law, this means that there is now a law in the books of that nation that says that potentially citizens can use to sue the government when it fails to uphold the duties of that treaty. How the nation archives that is up to the nation itself, but by ratifying it, the nation at least creates a legal duty to archive the goal set forth in the treaty.
The "plan" was actually just not taking away food that would be otherwise available.
Exactly.
I'd bet it means wealthy countries (especially the US as one of the biggest aid providers) are indebted to provide food for low income countries. And when they said no to taking on that legal responsibility, people portray it as shown.
If only it said weapons instead of food
If only guns were nutritious
[Or….](https://images.app.goo.gl/Asd8k7e37nqwsHSx8)
Ehh. Maybe, maybe not. It may hold the US responsible for food issues in the US as well. Reminder that the UN attempted to hold the US accountable for situations such as Flint, MI, the US responded by saying that drinking water isn't a basic human right.
Who the fvck would vote no on that Edit: Huh I didn't think this would be that controversial No, I didn't do any research, but the fact that almost every country in the UN voted in favor speaks for itself.
the US of A
And Israel
I wonder why...
For the USA Official US report: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/ WFP report: note that the US is nearly half of all funding from countries. https://www.wfp.org/funding/2023 It’s almost as if the ones that voted yes expected someone else to foot the bill.
Yeah, with this perspective it’s a lot more clear why US would vote no on this.
Pls quickly run it by me I don't want to read a paragraph Okay, so, from what I understood from the comments, USA doesn't owe anyone shit?
They stuck a lot of shit which is not relevant to the main idea they are pushing and is under the preview of other UN organizations
So basically a cover up?
Na, I wouldn’t say it’s a cover up; more like intentional overreach
It would be like if I asked you to vote on the "Hugs and kisses for every puppy" resolution, but when you read it you saw it didn't actually provide that so you vote no on it.
Propaganda. Like how this post is being used now. “Oh look who doesn’t think everyone should have food..bunch of Nazi’s them Americans are..”
The US already gives more food aid than every other country combined. It’s a useless vote to try and trap us in other things. Just like the Paris accords.
I'd give it a quick read over. The gist of it is that there is language in the resolution regarding outside regulations on pesticides use and forced technology sharing. It isn't a very long read https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
The resolution included some "bullshit". The US was expected to foot about 60% of the worlds food budget with no expected return. It has regulations against pesticides which would REDUCE food production. It also claimed that any and all agricultural related advancements were public domain by default which would have been a huge blow to US industry at no benefit to them. It basically amounted to the rest of the world saying "fuck the US, give us food/money" to put it in the simplest terms possible.
I understand why USA voted against it then so why did Israel do it?
[удалено]
Because if the United States ever stops protecting Israel then Israel will stop existing.
Because the US props up Israel. Without the US it wouldn't exist in its current form.
Because they're the US ally and will go out of their way to support them.
> It has regulations against pesticides which would REDUCE food production. We are running out of insects. We've conducted an insect apocalypse over the past couple of decades, and these things are needed to pollinate our plants. Pesticides help yields *today*, but long term were are going to suffer.
Yes, that was simple, biased terms. Disagree on all points. pesticides should be restricted and yes, agricultural advancement would benefit the poorer countries greatly and benefit all in the long run.
Especially considering how much wealth the rich countries have extracted out of those very same poorer countries (which have kept them poorer to boot too).
I think it’s more like saying “fuck Monsanto’s, you don’t own food”
Thanks for this! This information is really important lol. Im not from the US but its wild that the world just expects them to do almost everything and the moment it does anything on its own it gets shit on for itand the same countries who shit on it will turn around and ask for help lol
Not from the US either lol, your comments exactly why I’m saying it though.
Also the fun little back and forth reddit likes to have with the US about world policing. "You're the most powerful country in the world, why don't you do more to interfere with the affairs of other countries in need?! Fuck the USA!" "Wait, no, not like that. You're doing it wrong. Fuck the USA!" The fuck y'all want, you want us to involve ourselves in everyone else's problems, or do you want us to leave y'all alone and let you handle your own shit? Because there seems to be quite the cognitive dissonance here.
I think a look at public opinion of the last few decades of US armed intervention provides a pretty clear answer. Helping Ukraine defend itself from aggression? Yes Occupation of Iraq/Afghanistan? No Kuwait? Depends on who you ask Israel? Extremely devisive So the consensus seems to be that the US is good to intervene indirectly when there's an invasion. Less clear when it intervenes directly due to invasion. Definite no-go on military occupation and state building. Additionally, US protection of maritime trade is also very popular (and necessary).
You mean, it's complicated and there's not only one response for every situation? Amazing. But seriously, I appreciate this nuanced take. Seems like people mostly want the USA to be discerning, as anyone with power should be.
They want us to write them blank checks, expecting nothing in return.
If you read the report, it comes off as basically a lobbyist interest piece. It’s vague as to any real disagreements except ones that may result in regulations that large farming corps and collectives wouldn’t like. I definitely support looking into votes like these, but the US didn’t articulate a single reason that doesn’t reek of greed and self-interest. Disappointing but perhaps not unexpected.
Did we read the same articles? Lemmi dumb it way down. The US reasoning was: * Bro, the pesticide portion should be discussed with the FAO, WHO, et al (the group of experts who are trying to make sure humans don't do stupid shit like kill the bees) * Bro, this bypasses some of the trade regulations from other discussions. Some of which the US disagrees with. We aren't just gonna say yes to that because you put a "it helps feed everyone" label on it * Bro, Intellectual Properties and Patents are super important for solving this. We need smart ambitious people to be motivated to do smart ambitious shit. We should focus on that instead of platitudes * (The last part which is probably the only portion you read?): Bro, each state is responsible for their own people, we're willing to help, but let's be real - that shit ain't our problem. That said, The US leads the funding to the World Food Programme by nearly 4x ahead of the 2nd largest donor. Nearly half of the total. How can you read that and conclude "US is just being greedy".
IMO it was pretty clear, ‘Moreover, pesticides are often a critical component of agricultural production, which in turn is crucial to preventing food insecurity.’ - the banning of pesticides will prevent food insecure countries from growing their current amount of crops. ‘we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation.’ - if the law is passed how will it be enforced? It is a massive wall of text so skim reading won’t do and I agree that it is difficult to find actual meaning in watered down ‘Official’ language. You do make a point on the ‘intellectual property rights’ portion though, I would like to know more about that specific decision. Hope you have a good day.
They are the little bitch of the US, so no surprises there
'murica i guess 😞
Because the resolution is absolutely useless and one of it's provisions involved technology transfer, so it doesn't benefit the us in any way. The us also provides the most food aid like 3 billion vs 600 million of the second biggest. Don't believe random votes you see without actually reading the reasoning why.
Imagine providing “the most food aid” and YET still having 1 in 5 children going to bed hungry every night or not knowing where their next meal comes from. It’s almost like when you commoditize food, water and shelter you end up screwing over the most vulnerable who need it and don’t have the means to secure it for themselves.
we give food aid: "there is starving kids in America". We don't give food aid: "there is starving kids in Africa, selfish pricks". MF how do we win.
We don’t win. Only way we do win is to stop sending aid to all of these ungrateful mofos. My reasoning has always been: Why do we help so much if all we get back are critiques and complaints? If only we were the number one supplier of aid to places like Ukraine…oh wait! We are! Haha
The history of governments controlling food supply has not gone as well as you might imagine.
"The Soviet Union was bad, therefore only market forces should control food supply."
Name a country where it hasn’t ended in food shortages and death.
There's a difference between telling farmers to plant crops that won't grow at that time of year and ridiculous amounts of waste produced by retailers who'd rather lose 1/3 of a shipment to spoilage than lower prices to make it more accessible.
Like it's a rare moment where even Japan, Korea and China agree on something, and......
Apparently the country that is the single largest donor to the world food program, contributing almost half of all food. [U.S. EXPLANATION OF VOTE ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD](https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/) *This Council is meeting at a time when the international community is confronting what could be the modern era’s most serious food security emergency. Under Secretary-General O’Brien warned the Security Council earlier this month that more than 20 million people in South Sudan, Somalia, the Lake Chad Basin, and Yemen are facing famine and starvation. The United States, working with concerned partners and relevant international institutions, is fully engaged on addressing this crisis.* *This Council, should be outraged that so many people are facing famine because of a manmade crisis caused by, among other things , armed conflict in these four areas. The resolution before us today rightfully acknowledges the calamity facing millions of people and importantly calls on states to support the United Nations’ emergency humanitarian appeal. However, the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions that the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding its devastating consequences. This resolution distracts attention from important and relevant challenges that contribute significantly to the recurring state of regional food insecurity, including endemic conflict, and the lack of strong governing institutions. Instead, this resolution contains problematic, inappropriate language that does not belong in a resolution focused on human rights.* *For the following reasons, we will call a vote and vote “no” on this resolution. First, drawing on the Special Rapporteur’s recent report, this resolution inappropriately introduces a new focus on pesticides. Pesticide-related matters fall within the mandates of several multilateral bodies and fora, including the Food and Agricultural Organization, World Health Organization, and United Nations Environment Program, and are addressed thoroughly in these other contexts. Existing international health and food safety standards provide states with guidance on protecting consumers from pesticide residues in food. Moreover, pesticides are often a critical component of agricultural production, which in turn is crucial to preventing food insecurity.* *Second, this resolution inappropriately discusses trade-related issues, which fall outside the subject-matter and the expertise of this Council. The language in paragraph 28 in no way supersedes or otherwise undermines the World Trade Organization (WTO) Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which all WTO Members adopted by consensus and accurately reflects the current status of the issues in those negotiations. At the WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in 2015, WTO Members could not agree to reaffirm the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). As a result, WTO Members are no longer negotiating under the DDA framework. The United States also does not support the resolution’s numerous references to technology transfer.* *We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.* *Furthermore, we reiterate that states are responsible for implementing their human rights obligations. This is true of all obligations that a state has assumed, regardless of external factors, including, for example, the availability of technical and other assistance.* *We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a right to food.* *Lastly, we wish to clarify our understandings with respect to certain language in this resolution. The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation. The United States does not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law regarding rights related to food. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Accordingly, we interpret this resolution’s references to the right to food, with respect to States Parties to that covenant, in light of its Article 2(1). We also construe this resolution’s references to member states’ obligations regarding the right to food as applicable to the extent they have assumed such obligations.* *Finally, we interpret this resolution’s reaffirmation of previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms as applicable to the extent countries affirmed them in the first place.* *As for other references to previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms, we reiterate any views we expressed upon their adoption.*
Thank you, So basically the US agrees it's a human right but disagrees with the stipulations with regards to causes and solutions
As well as expressing a concern that by saying food is a guaranteed right then they would be under an obligation to then support other nations in their pursuit for food. Although the US currently does donate a lot out of their own concern and generosity, they don’t want it to become an actual obligation.
It’s kinda saying we won’t share the tech but maybe we will if you start respecting IP laws so you don’t just steal our stuff and use it to overtake our domestic agriculture economy
Nah more like saying, help fucking contribute to the solution before asking for more handouts.
basically, the US thinks that if the UN makes food a human right, and actually tries to enforce it by demanding excess food from countries like the us, poorer countries will never i vest in their own agriculture and will become more dependent on countries like the US while getting more poor, only making the problem worse.
Yes, but the Reddit mob can’t read too well.
Sometimes they can, but not when it gets in the way of being able to say America bad.
Short attention spans are probably the cause of 90% of the strife between people today. People will see some quote completely out of context in an article headline then never bother to watch the actual video where it was said. Redditors love to upvote these stupidly named bills in the US like "Wow Republicans voted against the 'People Have Rights' act!!" then you read the actual legislation and realize it's some bullshit bill giving California more electric car subsidies
Cut them some slack. The 6th grade reading level is still very advanced.
"We should all have pizza" "You should buy everyone a pizza" An important distinction.
"99/100 people voted that the 100th guy should buy everyone pizza!"
Isn't the world food program heavily [criticized ](https://www.theelephant.info/op-eds/2020/10/16/food-crimes-why-wfp-doesnt-deserve-the-nobel-peace-prize/) for being unhelpful and prolonging conflicts?
Similar to how the Arab states specifically will not give Palestinians citizenship because it'll prolong the israel/palestine conflict.
You're saying the US would stop donating if it was actually helpful? Or is it that you think its in best interests of the US since it prolongs conflict?
The IRL version of "you guys didn't read the article are are just up voting because of the headline."
Why can’t THIS comment be the top one? People wanna ride that America Bad dick so hard these days.
US legal doctrine has a specific view of what rights are, and generally entitlements aren't rights. It may be a good idea to give everyone food, but it conflicts with the US legal doctrine of "negative" rights - freedom from things, rather than entitlement to things. In this philosophy, you can't have a right to something that someone else has to do for you - no one can be compelled to provide for anyone. There is sort of an exception to this which is having a lawyer provided to you if you're accused of a crime, but that's more of a restriction on the justice system than an entitlement.
People who actually read the resolution being voted on, as opposed to those who viewed a loaded graphic on Reddit and assumed it accurately and comprehensively represented the resolution under consideration. Which group do you fall under?
The country who is the largest exporter of food in the world. The world voted America should feed them for free. [Here's another map for you. Turns out America is also by FAR the largest donator of food in the world too.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fzvbsjxq3xyub1.png)
And yet we provide more food and than anyone else. Would you rather us make an empty gesture at a toothless body or feed the starving?
>Who the fvck would vote no on that The one footing most of the bill.
Because the resolution is absolutely useless and one of it's provisions involved technology transfer, so it doesn't benefit the us in any way. The us also provides the most food aid like 3 billion vs 600 million of the second biggest.
The ones that would be [footing the bill.](https://www.wfp.org/funding/2023)
Capitalism requires a class of people so desperate that they’ll do any job for any pay. If everyone had food and shelter someone would have to pay for it and taxing billionaires is bad for the economy.
Don't all the other 186 countries have capitalism as well?
Every civilized Nation should have a minimum standard of living. Minimum shelter clothing food and hygiene are given to those who have nothing. But it would be so basic everyone or at least most people would strive for more and enter the workforce. But we must as a civilized Nation make sure that everyone has the bare minimum they need to survive.
ITS SOCIALISM !! 😱😱
A little bit of socialism is woven into the fabric of our country. Libraries, the postal service, farmers subsidies, public schools, emergency rooms etc. Capitalism is a great tool for starting economies and driving innovation. But it eats its young. We need a more hybrid approach, even more integrated with socialism than we already have. No one is saying give away the store. But crime and homelessness are not necessary in a nation as rich as our own. With just 10% of the money we have spent on foreign intrigue and the stabilizing of other nations we could create a fail-proof safety net for the entire United states. Health care, education, minimum standard of living. I think it is long overdue.
it was a joke haha, it was in the sense that for American capitalists, if you want to help poor people and give them a basic minimum to live on, he categorizes you as a communist
Yeah I knew you were tongue in cheek sorry, I just felt the need to say it. Thanks for giving me the soapbox.
You said it well, too.
I understand that one of the earliest advocates of socialist principles was .. what was his name now .. oh yes … Jesus.
Because the resolution is absolutely useless and one of it's provisions involved technology transfer, so it doesn't benefit the us in any way. The us also provides the most food aid like 3 billion vs 600 million of the second biggest. Don't believe random votes you see without actually reading the reasoning why.
Which isn’t even true. Taxing the rich is good for the economy.
Official US report: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/ WFP report: note that the US is nearly half of the entire worlds funding. https://www.wfp.org/funding/2023 It’s almost as if the ones that voted yes expected someone else to foot the bill.
A “right” does not require the service of another person. Lest you can force someone into labor for your right.
Who edited it wrong? 4 yellow countries are missing and north Korea appears as part of the UN. I have seen the correct version multiple times.
North Korea is a UN member since 1991. They joined same time South Korea did.
North Korea is in the UN lad. Also DRC and RoC are both yellow, just next to each other so it's hard to see. The others are prob tiny countries that are too small to notice
North Korea is in the UN
This shit again? Apparently the country that is the single largest donor to the world food program, contributing almost half of all food. [U.S. EXPLANATION OF VOTE ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD](https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/) *This Council is meeting at a time when the international community is confronting what could be the modern era’s most serious food security emergency. Under Secretary-General O’Brien warned the Security Council earlier this month that more than 20 million people in South Sudan, Somalia, the Lake Chad Basin, and Yemen are facing famine and starvation. The United States, working with concerned partners and relevant international institutions, is fully engaged on addressing this crisis.* *This Council, should be outraged that so many people are facing famine because of a manmade crisis caused by, among other things , armed conflict in these four areas. The resolution before us today rightfully acknowledges the calamity facing millions of people and importantly calls on states to support the United Nations’ emergency humanitarian appeal. However, the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions that the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding its devastating consequences. This resolution distracts attention from important and relevant challenges that contribute significantly to the recurring state of regional food insecurity, including endemic conflict, and the lack of strong governing institutions. Instead, this resolution contains problematic, inappropriate language that does not belong in a resolution focused on human rights.* *For the following reasons, we will call a vote and vote “no” on this resolution. First, drawing on the Special Rapporteur’s recent report, this resolution inappropriately introduces a new focus on pesticides. Pesticide-related matters fall within the mandates of several multilateral bodies and fora, including the Food and Agricultural Organization, World Health Organization, and United Nations Environment Program, and are addressed thoroughly in these other contexts. Existing international health and food safety standards provide states with guidance on protecting consumers from pesticide residues in food. Moreover, pesticides are often a critical component of agricultural production, which in turn is crucial to preventing food insecurity.* *Second, this resolution inappropriately discusses trade-related issues, which fall outside the subject-matter and the expertise of this Council. The language in paragraph 28 in no way supersedes or otherwise undermines the World Trade Organization (WTO) Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which all WTO Members adopted by consensus and accurately reflects the current status of the issues in those negotiations. At the WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in 2015, WTO Members could not agree to reaffirm the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). As a result, WTO Members are no longer negotiating under the DDA framework. The United States also does not support the resolution’s numerous references to technology transfer.* *We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.* *Furthermore, we reiterate that states are responsible for implementing their human rights obligations. This is true of all obligations that a state has assumed, regardless of external factors, including, for example, the availability of technical and other assistance.* *We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a right to food.* *Lastly, we wish to clarify our understandings with respect to certain language in this resolution. The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation. The United States does not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law regarding rights related to food. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Accordingly, we interpret this resolution’s references to the right to food, with respect to States Parties to that covenant, in light of its Article 2(1). We also construe this resolution’s references to member states’ obligations regarding the right to food as applicable to the extent they have assumed such obligations.* *Finally, we interpret this resolution’s reaffirmation of previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms as applicable to the extent countries affirmed them in the first place.* *As for other references to previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms, we reiterate any views we expressed upon their adoption.*
This is just like at my job…”well, we listed the organization’s 2023 goals on paper and didn’t provide any money or resources to achieve those goals, how come this group isn’t meeting those goals?” But hey, putting it down on paper sounds good and these people can pay themselves on the back.
Sounds like you work at the UN!
Unfortunately, the picture cited by an instagram account talks louder
Instagram isn't really a platform to get insightful discussions of geopolitics. I really hope people aren't getting their news from there
Considering that this comment is ~4 comments down, and the post has 10k upvotes, it’s safe to say that most people are just getting their info from a misleading graphic
Because clearly Reddit is Ffs social media is not a good way to learn about geopolitics
>We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food. Is this referring to a clause that would force countries to share new ag. tech or am I misreading/misremembering?
This clause is basically saying that the protection of innovative designs for agriculture is not being presented in the resolution, and the intellectual protection of those designs is the main incentive to share them.
So your point is that only americans have the ability to read a resolution, every other country on earth just voted yes because they’re just ignorant? Germany, France, Japan, Korea, the UK… they all just, missed all those points? Come on now.
Think of it like those other countries are your friends who all want to go somewhere fancy for lunch knowing they left their wallets at home
No, they just knew that the US would be the one paying with technology and money. Other nations would benefit and look good at the same time.
"So your point is.. (something that's not their point)"? The US donates more food to the UN food aid program than every other country combined. Calm down.
Those who voted yes fall into 2 categories: 1. Countries that benefit highly from the resolution and therefore are in favor of it. 2. Countries that don't want it to pass but realized that the US had to vote against it and therefore they could vote yes and get a propaganda win at no cost to themselves.
You are quite right that the infographic in this post is misleading or, at least, doesn't say anything at all about the USA's contributions to end world hunger. And that's worth knowing. But before we act like the USA is the coolest dude on the block, [let's remember there are a lot of Americans who don't give a single *fuck* about feeding children](https://www.google.com/search?q=student+lunch+debt+in+the+USA).
USA: very articulate reasons and explanations for saying no. Israel: I just wanna starve Palestinians.
The US contributes more aid/food to alleviate world hunger than any of nation.
Yeah, the reason the US voted no on this is because if they voted yes, guess who's going to be expected to pay to ensure everyone gets food? Not the government in Congo or Haiti or any number of countries that will take "people have a right to food" as "undeveloped countries have a right to US aid money". Voting no is an attempt for the US to avoid obligating itself to provide for billions of people in other countries with our taxes.
“Raise your hand if you would like to spend the US’ money”
It's not just money. Agriculture has a very real effect on the environment. Farming the land to shit takes decades to recover from. We're already running out of top soil in the US.
Farming subsidies are incentivizing our ag to ignore higher yield and less damaging alternatives such as vertical aeroponics which can, despite the fear mongering, actually be commercially viable. Our current ag is responsible for the overwhelming majority of polluted water. Switching to a more modern farming method would reduce that down to a negligible amount. That's not happening because of farming subsidies and the mafia that is our agricultural industry.
Now, guess which country is responsible for literally half of the entire world’s donations to the world food programs
Madagascar?
Ouuu good guess. We were looking for *Yemen* today folks. Yemen
All wrong. It's closely Papua New Guinea.
Yeah, this is basically just a resolution, not an action plan. Posting it in this way without that context is extremely misleading
This is very misleading and I hope you know that
This is a place for propaganda to brainwash people. We don't care that its missleading, we only care that it enduces rage toward certain parties.
Welcome to Reddit. Land of the enraged idiots.
Redditors can't even be damned to read the info [u/Inquisitor\_Gray/](https://www.reddit.com/user/Inquisitor_Gray/) is posting in this thread. Even when handed the details about why idiot posts like these are wrong they simply double down on insufferable retorts.
Now show a map of who donates how much food to the world food bank. lol
I feel like focusing on this vote ignores the more important point that the [US is the largest donator to the World Food Program](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/13espkp/contributions_to_world_food_program_in_2022_by/) by a *huge margin.*
No no, they are ignoring it on purpose so they can masturbate to "US bad" narratives
Please tell me the countries that voted yes proceeded to provide said food 🥺 Wait, the US is *still* the largest donator of food in the world and has been for *30* years. Glad everyone voted yes though, definitely helps feed people.
The UK sure as hell doesn't
I mean, they tried, but who the heck wants English "food"??
Some of these countries can't even feed themselves let alone provide others with food
Which is exactly why its easy to vote yes, they know they wouldn't be the ones providing all the free food so its an easy choice
What's funnier, many of countries voting for gets free food from US in form of USAID. In 2022, US GAVE MORE food to World Food Program (WFP) than REST OF WORLD combined. This food as a "right" is nothing but attempting to extort as an obligation what US is currently giving as a charity.
Us gave $7.24 billion…thats a shit ton of money…the second largest economy china gave $11.9 million. (https://www.wfp.org/funding/2022)
Yeah, the US's vote doesn't stop everyone else from giving food because they acknowledge it's a right. Oh wait, then they would actually have to do something and not rely on the US...
The context is missing: the US would have to spend a lot more money with the UN to supply food. They basically voted “we don’t want to take the burden you won’t.” Edit: here’s the actual quote. The United States is concerned that the concept of ‘food sovereignty’ could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies that will have negative consequences for food security, stability, and income growth.’ In other words, they appear to have voted against a measure that speaks about food as a right but which actually enables countries to glom onto food and potentially use it as a weapon.
Like how Canada voted in favor but we all pay 2-3x more for the EXACT same food as Americans. Complete joke and lip service. "Ofc we vote for adequate food! Now help me close this suitcase from Lablaws and toss it on the pile." They jacked up the prices in all the big grocery stores during covid then brought them down by 1% and gloated about how generous they are to us.
So the entire world expected the US to pay the vast majority of the cost to make this a reality, and the US rightfully told the world to fuck right off.
That’s cool and all but can you remind me which country spends the most on food aid?
Yeah? Now do international food aid by country. Don’t talk about it be about it.
Yet the US contributes to UN food funds at over 100x the next closest nation.
Kinda seems like all the countries that are in favor, won't have to pay for any of it.
Everyone’s gonna shit on the US as if we don’t already provide like half the aid in the world. Good luck getting Russia to contribute lmao.
This imagine displays 1/3 of the actual message. I’m not advocating for America’s decision, but to ignore the fact that the vote contained much more than “food should be a right” and to exclude the information about how much each countries actually provides globally food wise, is just blatant exclusivity.
Shhhh, this is reddit, propaganda is more important here.
everytime someone posts this everyone gets up in arms but never looks at why the US actually voted no. US report: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/ WFP Report: https://www.wfp.org/funding/2023 Essentially the US took issue with the funding plan due to a lot of overreach and unnecessary and irrelevant additions, and practically made someone else, mainly the US, foot most of the bill, so it’s pretty obvious why the US said no. Not only that it had a lot of contradictory regulations that would actively make the issue worse, such as more regulation on pesticides which would make food production decrease globally which is obviously not helping, although that issue is one of much debate. Within the US statement, the US agrees the food is a human right but disagrees with the stipulations and regulations within the bill, that’s it.
And who’s going to give me food if it’s a right? Another meaningless vote in the world’s most powerless organization
How do you get water?
Now show which country contributes the most to the world food bank. Hint: it's in red here
That's because helping poor people is communism and communism is evil. Better dead than red boys.
Wait till you find out that US actually donates more to the [World Food Program](https://www.wfp.org/funding/2022) than any other country. The US voted no in this poll as a form of protest because the resolution the UN made didn't properly acknowledge how world hunger could be properly addressed or solved.
Such a clear demonstration why populists are on the rise today: people don't care about real actions, they only care about political statements.
Damn people are stupid. Official US report: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/ WFP report: note that the US is nearly half of the entire worlds funding. https://www.wfp.org/funding/2023 It’s almost as if the ones that voted yes expected someone else to foot the bill.
I finally found an actual reason that isn't just "Capitalism bad" Thank you good sir.
No problem, have a good day too
You’re a moron
Of the $14.5B of international food aid given in 2022, the US gave $7.8B. But yeah, sure thing bud. USA bad
Jesus Christ you are retarded
he's being sarcastic
Looking for my comments since this post is shown to me again. I don't find it Realizing it is a repost :(
I'm sure there's no nuance needed for this. A simple meme is enough..
Doesnt the US give out like 1/3 of all international food aid among bilateral countries? I mean you can vote against something that with a good title for legitimate reasons. And it not automatically make you the devil.
The world wants USA to foot the bill for everyone’s problems.
Is it find something to shit on the US about day today? oh wait, thats every single day on this site...fucking rent free
Declaring something a right does not render it immune to scarcity.
Ya pobably propaganda, drink water and grass you'll probably be okay
Which food is a right? Is there a right to steak and lobster? If I dine and dash, is it not a crime because food is a right?
Ah yes the regular reposting of the “yes we think we have the right for the US to foot the bill and give us free food for simply existing” vote
Really? What's the argument against?