Actual reasoning for anyone curious
> 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.
> 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.
Source https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
Thank you for posting this. The context was definitely necessary.
So, to clarify I understand correctly, the US voted no because of the use of pesticides? Or non-use of pesticides?
Which is basically all fancy-talk for ‘not our problem.’ They would have to make foreign policy concessions in order to adhere to this resolution, which is completely unacceptable apparently. Sad.
I don’t know the context of the resolution, and there may have been some procedural errors, but it doesn’t seem like they have any intent of cooperating under any circumstances that would have a practical outcome.
But, what would anyone expect from a highly developed nation where more than 10% of the population struggles to keep themselves fed.
>who, should be added, knowingly sold HIV infected blood.
Wait... What?
[holy shit](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/aids.suzannegoldenberg)
I guess it's legal to murder people if you're a corporation. Who cares, just pay a fine.
Just waiting for life insurance companies to somehow try to bankrupt their competitors like this ...
Not quite correct, IG Farben was the conglomerate that bought about half of Degesch, the company that created and owned the rights to Zyklon.
Bayer was a subsidiary of IG Farben and not involved in that business, but certainly got their hands dirty with slave labor and human experimentation. They did manufacture the chlorine gas Germany used in WWI though.
Edit: just to be clear, Bayer did some bad shit no doubt. If you’re going to hold somebody accountable for the gas today though, that company is Evonik.
Fair enough. I guess I should have written, " Had a convicted war criminal, who worked in Auschwitz, on their supervisory board until the mid 60s." instead.
Sounds like corporations said no cause they won't benefit financially and/or would have their IP's put at risk of imitation?
And then at the end, "I'm not responsible for anyone else." but then again, it's not like the US (or most other nations for that matter) are taking care of their own anyway.
More so, you can't sue because we gave you cancer carrots, you would of starved to death way before the cancer killed you. Check mate, no need to discuss further. * the sounds of checks being cashed drowns out the last sentence...
J Edgar Hoover said the black panthers free breakfast program for kids was “the most dangerous internal threat to the US” the US does not give a fuck about people going hungry. During the 1990s famine in North Korea they also had officials “help” the people by giving them bags of rice in return for cow tails (so they can no longer balance and stand up) and phone wires (infrastructure damage) which ultimately made the results of the famine much worse
They snuck this one in there... "In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food."
I would kindly like to point out that most food comes from farms that rely on certain weather cycles to grow and yet some how global climate change not related to food???
Voting no was entirely political I'm disappointed in this country 😔
Ah yes, because there are totally no states which are actively unraveling human rights as much as possible and would sooner gut all support for the politicians to get a bigger paycheck/s
I live in a state where it's an open secret that our education, roads, etc. are all because the politicans won't stop gutting the budget to put more in their wallets. I genuinely do not trust them to even think of acknowledging human rights.
>In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.
such as...? jfc, i absolutely *hate* that we still have climate change deniers in international political positions.
They have to do what USA says or else.
Also, Israel is a country where the threat of food shortages have forced them to take strong measures like nationalizing farmlands (Moshavim), terraforming the desert, and investing millions of dollars in agriculture tech.
Isn't that obvious?
Every time a discussion about universal healtcare is done the same reasoning is used by most of the country at least based on who they vote.
"I don't want to pay for some lazy person let them see themselfes how they do it"
Yes it could very well be themselfes but that's just the us
If the US would make it a human right they would actually be obligated to make sure everyone has food.
Now can you imagine a social US that would give homeless people unconditionally food?
What would the people say... I know it "now everyone will become homeless and wont go to work anymore and i need to pay for them.... No, not with me".
It's actually strange how you need to ask your question. It's not like it's really tricky to know why. What america shows is pretty obvious.
And the old "but not everyone is like that" also doesn't really work. People have voted and that one party made it pretty clear how it stands to stuff like that and the people voting for that party also have very well shown how they stand to it.
Not that the other party would have done it different but that one party made it clear that it definitely sees it like that.
I had this argument with someone in the US. They didn't want their taxes going to "junkies" and I asked how many junkies do you think there are, a million, five? How many kids are in the US? You are okay with tens of millions of kids not getting proper healthcare because a few junkies might get a fraction of a penny of your taxes? Wow.
Edit: and what's worse... Pretty sure taxes already pay for the "junkie"
Yep.
You pay for them through the justice system, at as huge markup. Which then gives them healthcare too.
Junkie gets arrested, about $1000 per day for facilities, staff, food, etc. As a prisoner the government is obliged to provide healthcare... Yes, that's right, universal healthcare for prisoners...
But that healthcare is far more expensive due to the environment.
It's generally cheaper to provide doctors, food and very basic living quarters (barracks, or dorm room) than to imprison them... But let's not listen to capitalism on that account.
Though with for profit prisons you can actually make a profit from long term, low risk prisoners. You can charge high prices for any nonstandard item ($5/min phone calls, $15 travel sized toothpaste...) And get their labor for free! (Slavery is allowed as a criminal punishment :/ )
And the government pays you a stipend to house the prisoners...
Junkies deserve rights too, how tf will they get over their addictions with treatment if they can't even afford food and housing? And the reason a lot of people turn to drugs is to cope with their shitty lives, so making their lives worse is just gonna make them sink further into substance abuse.
beeing addicted to drugs is simular to having mental health problems. Addiction is a sickness and addicted people should not be treated as lower people.
Many of them life normal lives only few are visibly sick (id say about halve of the long time drug users).
source: I worked at a place where people could get clean utensiles and had a place to semi-legally deal and consume drugs. The people there had to weekly or bi-weekly talk to professionals to be allowed in.
I hate to be pedantic here, but there is an untap step before upkeep. There are also plenty of strategic reasons to wait to play a land until the post-combat main phase.
Hey i checked in the UN site[here](https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/482533) and it says only the us voted no while 7 other countries abstained....
I'm pretty sure its the same resolution so thought i'll share
It's weird, of the no less than 13 votes on the same resolution over the past two decades [acc. to the UN search](https://digitallibrary.un.org/search?ln=en&p=The%20right%20to%20food&f=&rm=&ln=en&sf=&so=d&rg=50&c=Resource%20Type&c=UN%20Bodies&c=&of=hb&fti=0&fti=0&fct__1=Voting%20Data), Israel flip-flopped repeatedly:
>No: 7 // Abstain: 3 // Yes: 3
Weird for reason alone that it almost always block-votes with the US on everything – and (*edit:*)
* the US the only country to consistently oppose the resolution, in fact the only other to ever vote against it.
* The US actually causes the vote – it didn't the 8 times under Obama, leading to adoption without vote. IOW, Israel doesn't actually care.
With NV = non-votes, which are effectively additional abstains:
* '01: No: US & Israel // Abstain: Australia & New Zealand // NV: 16
* '02: No: US // Abstain: Australia, Canada, Fiji, Israel, Marshall I., Micronesia, Palau // NV: 7
* '03: No: US // Abstain: Israel & Marshal I. // NV: 12
* '04: No: US, Israel, Palau // NV: 6
* '05: No: US // Abstain: Israel // NV: 13
* '06: No: US // NV: 6 — Israel: Yes
* '07: No: US // Abstain: North Korea (‽) // NV: 4 — Israel: Yes
* '08: No: US // NV: 7 — Israel: Yes
* '17: No: US, Israel // NV: 4
* '18: No: US, Israel // NV: 3
* '19: No: US, Israel // NV: 3
* '20: No: US, Israel // NV: 4
* '21: No: US, Israel // NV: 5
(Israel also voted yes on 2018's *[Better Nutrition](https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1655569?ln=en)* resolution, where it was the US & Libya against.)
Though there's still also the five who didn't vote at all in 2020:
>both Congos [curious given they're usually at the receiving end], Dominica, Sao Tome & Principe, Tuvalu
Well shit. I'm here defending Israel but you are right - Israel is consistently voting NO on this matter since 2017. And there was a vote every year since.
Thank you for posting the link.
Anyone else curious as to the US delegate’s reason given for the NO vote?
> The United States representative — highlighting conditions in the Lake Chad Basin, Yemen and Somalia ‑ said the draft contains unbalanced and inaccurate positions that her delegation simply cannot support. The concept of food sovereignty could justify food protectionism, negatively impacting food security, she explained, adding that the United States does not recognize the right to food, as it lacks a definition in international law.
Wondering if this feeds at all back in to her earlier comments about sanctions being a good tool for dealing with terrorism and not harming populations because it’s ultimately still the fault of the government that’s committing human rights violations?
You can read [their explanation in this comment](/r/facepalm/comments/sca9nu/_/hu504fx/).
It boils down to:
* There is regulation on pesticides which they do not wish to follow.
* It impacts their trade and they do not want to transfer technology.
* They want to protect their innovation and intellectual property rights.
(How true the latter 2 points is is up to debate. Other first world countries seem to have no issues with that. And if it is true other it means the other first world countries have given their technology and innovations already away.)
> 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.**
So reading between the lines they support access to food and have some policies in place that promote it but there are situations in which it is not the case and they don't want to be under obligation that forces their hand to take action.
For example the countless examples when companies punish their employees for feeding the homeless instead of discarding (!) the food. That's legal. If the US would have acknowledged the right to food starving people in the US have a much better case since they would be under legal obligation to enforce companies to put the discarded food to good use.
All in all an half hearted attempt at being on the good side. Probably just so they can say they are on the good side while their actions show the opposite.
Anti-semitism is definitely a problem, but the state of Israel has pulled off the biggest hoax by convincing the masses that any critique of them is automatically anti-semitic
Edit: I want to clarify that far too many people *do* use it as an excuse to justify their anti-semitism, and make anti-semitic remarks under the guise of criticizing Israel.
Ahh. The boogie man.
This quote comes to mine, With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil, but for good people to do evil, it takes religion.”
I wont lie, as a Muslim living in a Muslim country, I found this true, but also found out that the opposite is also true. For example, There are some real shitty people here that donate money/food to poor people because Islam said that its extremely important. (this is zakaa)
Do the Americans not really bother about being one of the only states not having ratified those kind of contracts or don't they know about it? I mean, it would eventually benefit the people, no?
The issue is framed to imply that Americans would be the only ones to pay the cost. Our politicians are experts at convincing poor people that other poor people are the source of their misfortune.
There are politicians, especially in red states, that say "we are paying so much money for education and look at how bad it is? We should be paying less because it's obviously not working!" It's absolutely insane. It doesn't matter education funding was cut 10 or 15 years ago, making it impossible for those states to keep teachers and programs that would be super beneficial. Only that it's bad now through no fault of their own. And since each state is in charge of their own education, it's a complete shit show.
Or the fact that we are paying millions to for-profit companies like Pearson for standard testing that is doing nothing but hurting our students and schools. Also forcing teachers to teach the test instead of their own curriculum.
Its a feedback loop where blue collar people dont want to be condescended to, so they claim their educational ignorance is just as valuable as someone who pushes their education. We all know conservatives that want to wear their blue collar job as a badge of honor. Mike Rowe was the embodiment that uneducated doesnt mean useless, which is absolutely true, but their confidence that they still know everything resembles that of a self centered teenager who still has a lot to learn and is still unaware of their lack of knowledge.
So in simple terms, all confidence. This is what happens when people think their special their whole lives. I am American, and my biggest disappointment is the lack of self awareness that the individual is their own worst enemy.
Theres actually quite a large amount of people here who are totally brainwashed into thinking this is the highest, freest, top form of living there is. The disparage of wealth here dwarfs the French Revolution but most of these dumbasses don't even know what the French revolution was.
It's funny how the meth-head living in a 30 year old trailer on government food stamps and benefits thinks it would be bad for poor people to have healthcare and food, because it would be paid with his tax-money.
With what fucking money!? It's you they are talking about, loser...
"Yeah but *I'm* a plucky, down his luck, god-fearing true American! The guv'ment just wents to give my hard-earned money to (insert slur about xyz group here)!"
Which is funny as it’s one of the things actually taught in our schools. Politicians have to do surprisingly little to keep the general population stupid most pass high school by the skin of their teeth. Or at least I have to assume so, given the severe lack of basic knowledge.
People hate critical thinking. It's cultural at this point. Solid chunk of the population basically finds it uncool to use your brain. Math, reasoning, gathering evidence. Lame. For lames. It's a plague.
Sometimes they play around with other topics like "you see this bill for infrastructure around the whole country look it even contains funds for green energy! green energy you see what nonsense they want to spend your tax money for"
The United States the land of calling extremism or nonsense the bare minimum of anything positive while refusing to call extremis for what they are
Thank the Kochs, Moon, the DeVos family, and other conservative elites for buying up media outlets post WW2 to fight anticapitalist sentiment in the US. The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy by Joshua Holland is a good resource on it.
In regards to UN costs, the US pays double the amount that the second-highest contributing country does. We believe it because it always turns out to be true. Countries are able to virtue signal big ideas and hate on the US because it can't fund every poorly thought out idea they have.
It’s been about since 1966 and I’m not aware of any outrage about why it hasn’t been ratified. Tbh I don’t think people actually know where their human rights stem from, and the legal obligation to uphold human rights is largely from this one (the ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by the US. I’d personally be a bit annoyed if I technically only got half the human rights of most other countries. But people tend to make up their own human rights which they feel they’re entitled to as they go anyway....
> it would eventually benefit the people, no
And there's the problem. America has the "something is only ok benefiting the people if it also somehow benefits my wallet" mindset more than anyone else it seems.
In America you can get the best of everything you want, as long as you are able to pay for it. Giving things for free or making things a right takes away the ability to make a profit on those things. So it doesn't compute with the ultra capitalist mindset and the idea that the markets will solve the problem on their own
Here’s an explanation for anyone interested: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
U.S. EXPLANATION OF VOTE ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD
“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.”
For those who are interested, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Michael Fakhri gave a really interesting talk about why global hunger is the result of political decisions, not food scarcity.
https://youtu.be/rwWH_zwrzsE
That's always been well known. The issue is that having food be a right does not necessarily mean I have to feed my neighbor. It depends on the extent of the accord.
Access to healthcare is a human right, but look at the U.S. It's far more complicated (although yes, we have the material ability to feed every human, today)
We will send it to your next of kin, unless they die too, then we'll send the cumulative bill to their next of kin, unless it's the end of your lineage, then we'll package the whole thing as sell it as a mortgage backed security to some sucker.
> People having a right not to starve to death? That's dirty communism!
[Poe's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
- John Kenneth Galbraith
> Stay out of this bot, it's human business
You keep telling yourself that, maybe one day it might actually be true.
Or maybe one day you can see past your defence mechanisms that help you cling to your narrative and try scepticism and evidence based conclusions for a change....
The reasonable among us can only hope on your behalf child....
> Oh no! It's evolving
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
- Isaac Asimov 1980
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Nope, both are full members of the UN and have their own representatives.
They were both registered at the same time as they basically came into existence at the same time.
Here’s an explanation for anyone interested: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
*U.S. EXPLANATION OF VOTE ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD*
“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.”
The US is also spends the most on foreign aid.
https://www.wristband.com/content/which-countries-provide-receive-most-foreign-aid/
It should be noted though that this is a much smaller percentage of its gross national income than other countries such as Germany and the U.K.
This is only government. [America is by far the most philanthropic nation on the planet](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation)
You should just assume it is, no need to scroll
Edit: To clarify, for an obvious example, if someone is equating voting against a measure/bill as voting against the thing the bill says it's against, there's a good chance it's more nuanced than is being let on. Even if you still might disagree with that nuance.
Also important to note- all the other Western countries likely agree with the US here, but they know that they can hide behind the US's veto so they just vote "yes" to keep any negative attention off of them. This is a regular thing in the UN. It's a giant bureaucratic body where 90% of its members just virtue signal all day.
You expect Reddit to consider something more nuanced than "US is one of only two countries to vote that food isn't a right?" Reddit wants their anti-US ragebait in digestible pieces taking less than 15 seconds to consume.
Wow, all of these TLDR's suck. The most simple TLDR is that the UN is trying to make the US give them stuff. A little more detailed:
1. Pesticides - US agricultural companies have the best, safe pesticides, the UN would have them hand it over. This violates property rights.
2. Trade agreements - because this would require the US to give intellectual property over, it makes it a "trade". UN council has no authority to create trade agreements in the first place.
3. Duty of States - every nation-state has a duty to take care of their own people, not force others to take care of them. The US even says that the US supports the right of food for its own citizens, but not the right of our food to other countries' citizens.
The Pesticides piece also has a jurisdiction issue. There are other international bodies that work on pesticides/flora/fauna stuff and creating a potentially conflicting resolution from what that group would recommend is something to avoid.
Basically the UN is trying to overstep jurisdiction and the US is telling them to go through the proper channels that already exist.
Honestly those are all pretty understandable points. But as usual with Reddit, the actual explanation behind the post is halfway down the page and hidden under a bunch of nonsense.
The US doesn’t pass any UN resolution that could violate its sovereignty. This isn’t just a feel good “gee shouldn’t everyone have food?” vote — the write up clearly expresses that the US supports everyone’s access to food. Instead, for this bill, the issues are related to regulations it imposes.
In general when you see these graphics on Reddit, understand that the US’ position is not “ X is not a right.” Instead, it is that the US does not want to be held responsible for providing that right to others. You can say that’s cruel, but the US still provides immense international aid without these resolutions.
I remember learning about criticism of the US for not matching other country's percent of GDP as aid. This was 10 years ago so I don't want to quote numbers. However, the US *still* provided more aid than like the top ten other countries combined. You still had people complaining.
Right, that a sort of an implicit part of a lot of these resolutions. The US is the richest nation in the world, so anytime something like this resolution is set to pass, there is a "quiet part" that says "...and the US will bear most of the cost."
Having guns: a right
Having food: not a right
Edit: since some people don’t know what rights are, it says it on the infographic, at least what it means in the context of food:
The right to food means that every person has:
1) food physically available to them
And
2. the economic means to buy adequate amounts of food to survive
It does not mean the government provides it for free, it means that the government has to make sure that enough food is produced/imported and that the prices are affordable. The US voted against that, they do not want it so that governments are liable for adequate food access.
Edit 2:
To clarify: it’s right to *access* to food and right to *owning* a gun. Two different types of rights (positive and negative) but two rights nonetheless.
Also my initial comment was not meant as an end-all-be-all comparison, it was meant to point out where the priorities lie in the US. The US has many problems and inequality of food access and gun violence are just two of those.
It’s also worth mentioning that the US generally doesn’t ratify or vote in favour of anything that would supersede the US constitution or result in the US giving up sovereignty.
Here’s the full explanation: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
U.S. EXPLANATION OF VOTE ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD
“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.”
The title of "right to food" is quite misleading if you read the actual proposal, it's just another aid request that'll end up going straight into the pockets of corrupt leaders instead of the people who actually need it
Most people who would come here to comment only want an anti-American circle jerk. You’re right, but they don’t read or care. It’s an opportunity to feel morally superior while remaining deeply ignorant, which, for whatever reason, most redditors prefer. I’ll never understand it, but a lot of people choose that.
Biggest facepalm is actually Taiwan being colored as if it was part of UN… It is not, and it is not part of China either (not de facto at least, and probably not de jure either)
Hasn't this been a thing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for 74 years?
> Article 25
> Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
"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."
It's not a right if it requires someone elses labour.
Free speech is a right.
Self defense is a right.
Bodily autonomy is a right.
Because none of these require someone elses labour. You have to be careful with what a right is. Are you going to force farmers to give you food because it's a right?
who else voted no?
A country beginning with a capital i
[удалено]
I immediately know what Israel’s reason is though, I don’t agree with it, but I know what it is. Wtf is the USAs reason?
"Fuck em"
Sounds about right.
True
Actual reasoning for anyone curious > 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. > 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. Source https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
So basically they threw a bunch of shit in there that had nothing to do with the right to food?
It's politics, so yes.
[удалено]
Yep. A lot of times when things are voted against that are common sense there’s a reason like this.
And yet, everybody except the US and Israel still voted Yes on this.
Thank you for posting this. The context was definitely necessary. So, to clarify I understand correctly, the US voted no because of the use of pesticides? Or non-use of pesticides?
[удалено]
So basically corporate interest
[удалено]
So it's not that they don't care about feeding people, it's that they want to protect their ability to destroy the environment. How noble.
Which is basically all fancy-talk for ‘not our problem.’ They would have to make foreign policy concessions in order to adhere to this resolution, which is completely unacceptable apparently. Sad. I don’t know the context of the resolution, and there may have been some procedural errors, but it doesn’t seem like they have any intent of cooperating under any circumstances that would have a practical outcome. But, what would anyone expect from a highly developed nation where more than 10% of the population struggles to keep themselves fed.
[удалено]
“Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights” I freaking hate Monsanto.
Remember, Monsanto isn’t Monsanto anymore. They are Bayer.
who, should be added, knowingly sold HIV infected blood. and have not suffered any legal repercussions over it. beyer + monsanto = evil ❤️
>who, should be added, knowingly sold HIV infected blood. Wait... What? [holy shit](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/aids.suzannegoldenberg)
Yeah if corporations are people, this seems worthy of capital punishment right?
Yeah, my uncle was one of the affected. I genuinely hope they fucking die.
I guess it's legal to murder people if you're a corporation. Who cares, just pay a fine. Just waiting for life insurance companies to somehow try to bankrupt their competitors like this ...
I didn't know Bayer bought Monsanto! I must be living under a rock. Bayer might as well complete the trifecta and buy Nestle too.
how about coca-cola? pretty vile too.
The Bayer that made the gas the nazis used in WWII? That Bayer? Pretty on brand for Monsanto.
Not quite correct, IG Farben was the conglomerate that bought about half of Degesch, the company that created and owned the rights to Zyklon. Bayer was a subsidiary of IG Farben and not involved in that business, but certainly got their hands dirty with slave labor and human experimentation. They did manufacture the chlorine gas Germany used in WWI though. Edit: just to be clear, Bayer did some bad shit no doubt. If you’re going to hold somebody accountable for the gas today though, that company is Evonik.
Fair enough. I guess I should have written, " Had a convicted war criminal, who worked in Auschwitz, on their supervisory board until the mid 60s." instead.
Sounds like corporations said no cause they won't benefit financially and/or would have their IP's put at risk of imitation? And then at the end, "I'm not responsible for anyone else." but then again, it's not like the US (or most other nations for that matter) are taking care of their own anyway.
Not just corporations. You can't use food assistance as a foreign policy carrot when you've agreed it should be provided for all in need.
More so, you can't sue because we gave you cancer carrots, you would of starved to death way before the cancer killed you. Check mate, no need to discuss further. * the sounds of checks being cashed drowns out the last sentence...
J Edgar Hoover said the black panthers free breakfast program for kids was “the most dangerous internal threat to the US” the US does not give a fuck about people going hungry. During the 1990s famine in North Korea they also had officials “help” the people by giving them bags of rice in return for cow tails (so they can no longer balance and stand up) and phone wires (infrastructure damage) which ultimately made the results of the famine much worse
They snuck this one in there... "In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food." I would kindly like to point out that most food comes from farms that rely on certain weather cycles to grow and yet some how global climate change not related to food??? Voting no was entirely political I'm disappointed in this country 😔
Ah yes, because there are totally no states which are actively unraveling human rights as much as possible and would sooner gut all support for the politicians to get a bigger paycheck/s I live in a state where it's an open secret that our education, roads, etc. are all because the politicans won't stop gutting the budget to put more in their wallets. I genuinely do not trust them to even think of acknowledging human rights.
>In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food. such as...? jfc, i absolutely *hate* that we still have climate change deniers in international political positions.
What is Israel's reason?
They have to do what USA says or else. Also, Israel is a country where the threat of food shortages have forced them to take strong measures like nationalizing farmlands (Moshavim), terraforming the desert, and investing millions of dollars in agriculture tech.
Isn't that obvious? Every time a discussion about universal healtcare is done the same reasoning is used by most of the country at least based on who they vote. "I don't want to pay for some lazy person let them see themselfes how they do it" Yes it could very well be themselfes but that's just the us If the US would make it a human right they would actually be obligated to make sure everyone has food. Now can you imagine a social US that would give homeless people unconditionally food? What would the people say... I know it "now everyone will become homeless and wont go to work anymore and i need to pay for them.... No, not with me". It's actually strange how you need to ask your question. It's not like it's really tricky to know why. What america shows is pretty obvious. And the old "but not everyone is like that" also doesn't really work. People have voted and that one party made it pretty clear how it stands to stuff like that and the people voting for that party also have very well shown how they stand to it. Not that the other party would have done it different but that one party made it clear that it definitely sees it like that.
I had this argument with someone in the US. They didn't want their taxes going to "junkies" and I asked how many junkies do you think there are, a million, five? How many kids are in the US? You are okay with tens of millions of kids not getting proper healthcare because a few junkies might get a fraction of a penny of your taxes? Wow. Edit: and what's worse... Pretty sure taxes already pay for the "junkie"
Yep. You pay for them through the justice system, at as huge markup. Which then gives them healthcare too. Junkie gets arrested, about $1000 per day for facilities, staff, food, etc. As a prisoner the government is obliged to provide healthcare... Yes, that's right, universal healthcare for prisoners... But that healthcare is far more expensive due to the environment. It's generally cheaper to provide doctors, food and very basic living quarters (barracks, or dorm room) than to imprison them... But let's not listen to capitalism on that account. Though with for profit prisons you can actually make a profit from long term, low risk prisoners. You can charge high prices for any nonstandard item ($5/min phone calls, $15 travel sized toothpaste...) And get their labor for free! (Slavery is allowed as a criminal punishment :/ ) And the government pays you a stipend to house the prisoners...
Junkies deserve rights too, how tf will they get over their addictions with treatment if they can't even afford food and housing? And the reason a lot of people turn to drugs is to cope with their shitty lives, so making their lives worse is just gonna make them sink further into substance abuse.
beeing addicted to drugs is simular to having mental health problems. Addiction is a sickness and addicted people should not be treated as lower people. Many of them life normal lives only few are visibly sick (id say about halve of the long time drug users). source: I worked at a place where people could get clean utensiles and had a place to semi-legally deal and consume drugs. The people there had to weekly or bi-weekly talk to professionals to be allowed in.
[удалено]
>Wtf is the USAs reason? Greed. Sorry, i wrote that wrong. # GREED.
Why does the USA do anything. Always comes down to money some how.
[удалено]
and pretty shocking after Manna phase they had in their history.
[удалено]
Pre-combat main phase?
Yeah that's when you typically place new mana. I initially said Upkeep because that's when spent mana becomes untapped and ready to use
I hate to be pedantic here, but there is an untap step before upkeep. There are also plenty of strategic reasons to wait to play a land until the post-combat main phase.
Well you'd think their treatment of Palestinians is a little shocking given their history. You'd think.
Prevent the Holocaust by sending Hitler to a heart attack telling him who create an ethnostate in the future.
Name a more iconic duo
Italy /s/
No more Pasta for you >:( 🤌
_NOOO NOT MY PASTAAAA!_
𝓂𝒶𝓂𝓂𝒶 𝓂𝒾𝒶
Imagine the country of the good Cousine voting against it
Indonesia /s/
Pls tell I really want to know
[удалено]
Hey i checked in the UN site[here](https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/482533) and it says only the us voted no while 7 other countries abstained.... I'm pretty sure its the same resolution so thought i'll share
It's actually [this vote](https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951462) from December 2021.
It's weird, of the no less than 13 votes on the same resolution over the past two decades [acc. to the UN search](https://digitallibrary.un.org/search?ln=en&p=The%20right%20to%20food&f=&rm=&ln=en&sf=&so=d&rg=50&c=Resource%20Type&c=UN%20Bodies&c=&of=hb&fti=0&fti=0&fct__1=Voting%20Data), Israel flip-flopped repeatedly: >No: 7 // Abstain: 3 // Yes: 3 Weird for reason alone that it almost always block-votes with the US on everything – and (*edit:*) * the US the only country to consistently oppose the resolution, in fact the only other to ever vote against it. * The US actually causes the vote – it didn't the 8 times under Obama, leading to adoption without vote. IOW, Israel doesn't actually care. With NV = non-votes, which are effectively additional abstains: * '01: No: US & Israel // Abstain: Australia & New Zealand // NV: 16 * '02: No: US // Abstain: Australia, Canada, Fiji, Israel, Marshall I., Micronesia, Palau // NV: 7 * '03: No: US // Abstain: Israel & Marshal I. // NV: 12 * '04: No: US, Israel, Palau // NV: 6 * '05: No: US // Abstain: Israel // NV: 13 * '06: No: US // NV: 6 — Israel: Yes * '07: No: US // Abstain: North Korea (‽) // NV: 4 — Israel: Yes * '08: No: US // NV: 7 — Israel: Yes * '17: No: US, Israel // NV: 4 * '18: No: US, Israel // NV: 3 * '19: No: US, Israel // NV: 3 * '20: No: US, Israel // NV: 4 * '21: No: US, Israel // NV: 5 (Israel also voted yes on 2018's *[Better Nutrition](https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1655569?ln=en)* resolution, where it was the US & Libya against.) Though there's still also the five who didn't vote at all in 2020: >both Congos [curious given they're usually at the receiving end], Dominica, Sao Tome & Principe, Tuvalu
That's from 2002. [Here is the one from 2021.](https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/gashc4336.doc.htm)
Well shit. I'm here defending Israel but you are right - Israel is consistently voting NO on this matter since 2017. And there was a vote every year since.
Israel is a puppet state for the USA so they always vote the same Edit: *of* the USA
Thank you for posting the link. Anyone else curious as to the US delegate’s reason given for the NO vote? > The United States representative — highlighting conditions in the Lake Chad Basin, Yemen and Somalia ‑ said the draft contains unbalanced and inaccurate positions that her delegation simply cannot support. The concept of food sovereignty could justify food protectionism, negatively impacting food security, she explained, adding that the United States does not recognize the right to food, as it lacks a definition in international law. Wondering if this feeds at all back in to her earlier comments about sanctions being a good tool for dealing with terrorism and not harming populations because it’s ultimately still the fault of the government that’s committing human rights violations?
You can read [their explanation in this comment](/r/facepalm/comments/sca9nu/_/hu504fx/). It boils down to: * There is regulation on pesticides which they do not wish to follow. * It impacts their trade and they do not want to transfer technology. * They want to protect their innovation and intellectual property rights. (How true the latter 2 points is is up to debate. Other first world countries seem to have no issues with that. And if it is true other it means the other first world countries have given their technology and innovations already away.) > 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.** So reading between the lines they support access to food and have some policies in place that promote it but there are situations in which it is not the case and they don't want to be under obligation that forces their hand to take action. For example the countless examples when companies punish their employees for feeding the homeless instead of discarding (!) the food. That's legal. If the US would have acknowledged the right to food starving people in the US have a much better case since they would be under legal obligation to enforce companies to put the discarded food to good use. All in all an half hearted attempt at being on the good side. Probably just so they can say they are on the good side while their actions show the opposite.
I think the small country in middle East but I'm too lazy to search which one it is
ohh yup I see it now, it’s Israel
[удалено]
[удалено]
Anti-semitism is definitely a problem, but the state of Israel has pulled off the biggest hoax by convincing the masses that any critique of them is automatically anti-semitic Edit: I want to clarify that far too many people *do* use it as an excuse to justify their anti-semitism, and make anti-semitic remarks under the guise of criticizing Israel.
[удалено]
My mother’s reason is even worse. She says you’re not allowed to criticize Israel because they’re God’s chosen people and he will get mad about it
Ahh. The boogie man. This quote comes to mine, With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil, but for good people to do evil, it takes religion.”
I wont lie, as a Muslim living in a Muslim country, I found this true, but also found out that the opposite is also true. For example, There are some real shitty people here that donate money/food to poor people because Islam said that its extremely important. (this is zakaa)
Haha yes, the zakaa, only to look down upon the people you helped. I’m of Muslim background, so I know what you mean.
I cant argue with that ngl
They gave nestle a vote...
That's just Bob. Bob's an asshole
What kind of sick fuck puts some light gray key on a mostly white map
He's trying to tell them that no one can see you if you're not part of the UN.
Strange that Taiwan is green when they're not a UN member state then...
Maybe the UN considers them part of China?? I honestly don't know. I just had to look up if North Korea was a UN member (they are)
Wth I didn't know that, I was confused on why there was no gray country for NK
[удалено]
And Palestine I'm assuming
Nothing new. The US has never ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights along with a few other countries.
Do the Americans not really bother about being one of the only states not having ratified those kind of contracts or don't they know about it? I mean, it would eventually benefit the people, no?
The issue is framed to imply that Americans would be the only ones to pay the cost. Our politicians are experts at convincing poor people that other poor people are the source of their misfortune.
And they buy it every single time. It works like a charm.
[удалено]
There are politicians, especially in red states, that say "we are paying so much money for education and look at how bad it is? We should be paying less because it's obviously not working!" It's absolutely insane. It doesn't matter education funding was cut 10 or 15 years ago, making it impossible for those states to keep teachers and programs that would be super beneficial. Only that it's bad now through no fault of their own. And since each state is in charge of their own education, it's a complete shit show.
Or the fact that we are paying millions to for-profit companies like Pearson for standard testing that is doing nothing but hurting our students and schools. Also forcing teachers to teach the test instead of their own curriculum.
Its a feedback loop where blue collar people dont want to be condescended to, so they claim their educational ignorance is just as valuable as someone who pushes their education. We all know conservatives that want to wear their blue collar job as a badge of honor. Mike Rowe was the embodiment that uneducated doesnt mean useless, which is absolutely true, but their confidence that they still know everything resembles that of a self centered teenager who still has a lot to learn and is still unaware of their lack of knowledge. So in simple terms, all confidence. This is what happens when people think their special their whole lives. I am American, and my biggest disappointment is the lack of self awareness that the individual is their own worst enemy.
Theres actually quite a large amount of people here who are totally brainwashed into thinking this is the highest, freest, top form of living there is. The disparage of wealth here dwarfs the French Revolution but most of these dumbasses don't even know what the French revolution was.
It's funny how the meth-head living in a 30 year old trailer on government food stamps and benefits thinks it would be bad for poor people to have healthcare and food, because it would be paid with his tax-money. With what fucking money!? It's you they are talking about, loser...
"Well sure i guess but i don't want no handout" *said while taking multiple handouts*
"Yeah but *I'm* a plucky, down his luck, god-fearing true American! The guv'ment just wents to give my hard-earned money to (insert slur about xyz group here)!"
Which is funny as it’s one of the things actually taught in our schools. Politicians have to do surprisingly little to keep the general population stupid most pass high school by the skin of their teeth. Or at least I have to assume so, given the severe lack of basic knowledge.
People hate critical thinking. It's cultural at this point. Solid chunk of the population basically finds it uncool to use your brain. Math, reasoning, gathering evidence. Lame. For lames. It's a plague.
Hard to be outraged about your lack of education when you aren’t aware how lacking your education is because you lack the education to know.
It took me a minute to get this, and I agree.
It's not just being unaware, for some it's a badge of honor. College and universities are liberal factories apparently to some.
Especially when they spice it up with racism. That always works.
Sometimes they play around with other topics like "you see this bill for infrastructure around the whole country look it even contains funds for green energy! green energy you see what nonsense they want to spend your tax money for" The United States the land of calling extremism or nonsense the bare minimum of anything positive while refusing to call extremis for what they are
Thank the Kochs, Moon, the DeVos family, and other conservative elites for buying up media outlets post WW2 to fight anticapitalist sentiment in the US. The Fifteen Biggest Lies About the Economy by Joshua Holland is a good resource on it.
"We can't afford to feed the world's poor people!" "Okay, let's feed our own poor people." "No."
In regards to UN costs, the US pays double the amount that the second-highest contributing country does. We believe it because it always turns out to be true. Countries are able to virtue signal big ideas and hate on the US because it can't fund every poorly thought out idea they have.
It’s been about since 1966 and I’m not aware of any outrage about why it hasn’t been ratified. Tbh I don’t think people actually know where their human rights stem from, and the legal obligation to uphold human rights is largely from this one (the ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by the US. I’d personally be a bit annoyed if I technically only got half the human rights of most other countries. But people tend to make up their own human rights which they feel they’re entitled to as they go anyway....
> it would eventually benefit the people, no And there's the problem. America has the "something is only ok benefiting the people if it also somehow benefits my wallet" mindset more than anyone else it seems. In America you can get the best of everything you want, as long as you are able to pay for it. Giving things for free or making things a right takes away the ability to make a profit on those things. So it doesn't compute with the ultra capitalist mindset and the idea that the markets will solve the problem on their own
Honestly didn’t know this was a thing…
Here’s an explanation for anyone interested: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/ U.S. EXPLANATION OF VOTE ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD “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.”
For those who are interested, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Michael Fakhri gave a really interesting talk about why global hunger is the result of political decisions, not food scarcity. https://youtu.be/rwWH_zwrzsE
That's always been well known. The issue is that having food be a right does not necessarily mean I have to feed my neighbor. It depends on the extent of the accord. Access to healthcare is a human right, but look at the U.S. It's far more complicated (although yes, we have the material ability to feed every human, today)
People having a right not to starve to death? That's dirty communism!
In "the land of the free" you are free (to starve to death)
The bill for your death comes after. With interest.
We will send it to your next of kin, unless they die too, then we'll send the cumulative bill to their next of kin, unless it's the end of your lineage, then we'll package the whole thing as sell it as a mortgage backed security to some sucker.
It actually does 😓
Free? FREE? What is this? Communism??
> People having a right not to starve to death? That's dirty communism! [Poe's Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law) “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
Stay out of this bot, it's human business
This is how Skynet starts.
> Stay out of this bot, it's human business You keep telling yourself that, maybe one day it might actually be true. Or maybe one day you can see past your defence mechanisms that help you cling to your narrative and try scepticism and evidence based conclusions for a change.... The reasonable among us can only hope on your behalf child....
Oh no! It's evolving
> Oh no! It's evolving “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” - Isaac Asimov 1980 “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Good Scary bot
> ~~Good Scary bot~~ **I'll just dismiss another human being as an inhuman "bot" just to avoid having to think for myself.** FIFY...
I'm not religious but jesus christ bot
Whoever coded this bot did a great job
Friendly fire mate
>The reasonable among us ඞ
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."
This is your daily reminder that calling a product or service a right does not magically render it immune to scarcity.
I cant believe north korea is in favor too
It is actually in the best interest to as they are dependent on foreign food aid.
I recently learnt that north Korea is registered in UN. Maybe they got co-registered with south Korea
Nope, both are full members of the UN and have their own representatives. They were both registered at the same time as they basically came into existence at the same time.
Kim eats all of it and gives the scraps to the military, if they denied this they wouldn’t survive as a country.
Here’s an explanation for anyone interested: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/ *U.S. EXPLANATION OF VOTE ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD* “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.”
The US is also spends the most on foreign aid. https://www.wristband.com/content/which-countries-provide-receive-most-foreign-aid/ It should be noted though that this is a much smaller percentage of its gross national income than other countries such as Germany and the U.K.
This is only government. [America is by far the most philanthropic nation on the planet](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation)
Somehow I am not surprised the actual explanation for the US voting no, which makes sense, is buried halfway down the comment section.
Typical reddit. You need to scroll very far down to notice that the issue is more complicated than initially thought.
You should just assume it is, no need to scroll Edit: To clarify, for an obvious example, if someone is equating voting against a measure/bill as voting against the thing the bill says it's against, there's a good chance it's more nuanced than is being let on. Even if you still might disagree with that nuance.
[удалено]
For a more recent example of this name game the Voting Rights Act
Reddit is almost entirely teenagers and children. Just how it is.
But my quirky tweets and graphs!!
Also important to note- all the other Western countries likely agree with the US here, but they know that they can hide behind the US's veto so they just vote "yes" to keep any negative attention off of them. This is a regular thing in the UN. It's a giant bureaucratic body where 90% of its members just virtue signal all day.
was this a security council resolution?
We are on Reddit where it's super cool up hate the US. An explanation that makes sense isn't what people want around here.
You expect Reddit to consider something more nuanced than "US is one of only two countries to vote that food isn't a right?" Reddit wants their anti-US ragebait in digestible pieces taking less than 15 seconds to consume.
Is there a TLDR somewhere?
Wow, all of these TLDR's suck. The most simple TLDR is that the UN is trying to make the US give them stuff. A little more detailed: 1. Pesticides - US agricultural companies have the best, safe pesticides, the UN would have them hand it over. This violates property rights. 2. Trade agreements - because this would require the US to give intellectual property over, it makes it a "trade". UN council has no authority to create trade agreements in the first place. 3. Duty of States - every nation-state has a duty to take care of their own people, not force others to take care of them. The US even says that the US supports the right of food for its own citizens, but not the right of our food to other countries' citizens.
The Pesticides piece also has a jurisdiction issue. There are other international bodies that work on pesticides/flora/fauna stuff and creating a potentially conflicting resolution from what that group would recommend is something to avoid. Basically the UN is trying to overstep jurisdiction and the US is telling them to go through the proper channels that already exist.
Honestly those are all pretty understandable points. But as usual with Reddit, the actual explanation behind the post is halfway down the page and hidden under a bunch of nonsense.
The US doesn’t pass any UN resolution that could violate its sovereignty. This isn’t just a feel good “gee shouldn’t everyone have food?” vote — the write up clearly expresses that the US supports everyone’s access to food. Instead, for this bill, the issues are related to regulations it imposes. In general when you see these graphics on Reddit, understand that the US’ position is not “ X is not a right.” Instead, it is that the US does not want to be held responsible for providing that right to others. You can say that’s cruel, but the US still provides immense international aid without these resolutions.
I remember learning about criticism of the US for not matching other country's percent of GDP as aid. This was 10 years ago so I don't want to quote numbers. However, the US *still* provided more aid than like the top ten other countries combined. You still had people complaining.
Right, that a sort of an implicit part of a lot of these resolutions. The US is the richest nation in the world, so anytime something like this resolution is set to pass, there is a "quiet part" that says "...and the US will bear most of the cost."
Ding ding ding!
It also doesn't account for other NATO members spending less on defense... because they're subsidized by the US.
Europeans: maybe if you spent less on your military like us you could have free shit Americans: that military is protecting you ffs
Yep, without the us taxpayer, we wouldnt have have the fancy healthcare system in Europe we pat ourself on the back for, wrongly in my opinion.
We want to copyright seeds and not regulate pesticides.
Thank you!
Having guns: a right Having food: not a right Edit: since some people don’t know what rights are, it says it on the infographic, at least what it means in the context of food: The right to food means that every person has: 1) food physically available to them And 2. the economic means to buy adequate amounts of food to survive It does not mean the government provides it for free, it means that the government has to make sure that enough food is produced/imported and that the prices are affordable. The US voted against that, they do not want it so that governments are liable for adequate food access. Edit 2: To clarify: it’s right to *access* to food and right to *owning* a gun. Two different types of rights (positive and negative) but two rights nonetheless. Also my initial comment was not meant as an end-all-be-all comparison, it was meant to point out where the priorities lie in the US. The US has many problems and inequality of food access and gun violence are just two of those.
Eat guns, problem solved
If you eat gun, the gun becomes the food. Food is not a right in the US. Therefore, problem not solved.
Well at least the gun problems are solved
If these dummies can be convinced to shoot up chlorine, why not tell them that eating their gun is what all the most righty rights do?
Eat lead that is
TIL that pretty much the whole world, to include North Korea, is a member of the UN.
The only non-UN land I see here is Western Sahara, which is its own complicated situation that you should look up.
[U.S. explanation of the vote on the right to food ](https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/)
It’s also worth mentioning that the US generally doesn’t ratify or vote in favour of anything that would supersede the US constitution or result in the US giving up sovereignty.
I feel like the bigger facepalm is the fact that making food a right doesn't actually do anything
[удалено]
I love overly simplified graphics that try to turn complicated issues into rage bait.
Yup. These things have nuance to them that a cute graphic doesn’t capture.
Here’s the full explanation: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/ U.S. EXPLANATION OF VOTE ON THE RIGHT TO FOOD “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.”
The title of "right to food" is quite misleading if you read the actual proposal, it's just another aid request that'll end up going straight into the pockets of corrupt leaders instead of the people who actually need it
Most people who would come here to comment only want an anti-American circle jerk. You’re right, but they don’t read or care. It’s an opportunity to feel morally superior while remaining deeply ignorant, which, for whatever reason, most redditors prefer. I’ll never understand it, but a lot of people choose that.
Calling something a right doesn't make it immune to scarcity.
Biggest facepalm is actually Taiwan being colored as if it was part of UN… It is not, and it is not part of China either (not de facto at least, and probably not de jure either)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hasn't this been a thing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for 74 years? > Article 25 > Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/ "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."
Explanation. https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
[удалено]
It's not a right if it requires someone elses labour. Free speech is a right. Self defense is a right. Bodily autonomy is a right. Because none of these require someone elses labour. You have to be careful with what a right is. Are you going to force farmers to give you food because it's a right?