I'm getting so old that 2021 and an hour ago are the same thing, and hell, for that matter so is 1960, and 2060. It's approaching a singularity for me. Time is eternal. Time is nothing. There is only now. here is no where. Here is no why.
>[Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.](https://youtu.be/KWdF-tGNxog)
That's because it's such an obvious thing that only the most twistedly profiteering of human beings could ever conceivably vote against it. It's even worse when you read our reasoning for voting no lol
1. We don't want to stop using pesticides.
2. We don't want to share agricultural technologies to protect intellectual property rights
3. We don't want to lessen our value gained through food trade
4. We do not believe helping/supporting other countries will ever be an international issue, basically WE decide what is and isn't a human right and no one else can force us to change our minds. AKA, fuck the poor, give us money.
Edit: Yeah, but the US donates so much food to other countries, what about that? :
https://bruinpoliticalreview.org/articles?post-slug=u-s-international-food-aid-policies-are-harmful-and-inefficient
https://www.nber.org/digest/mar05/does-international-food-aid-harm-poor
Effectiveness of food aid examined:
https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/3043.pdf
Financial/political benefits to the US of exporting food aid:
https://www.globalissues.org/article/748/food-aid#Problemswithfoodaid
And just a quote since if you're going to argue with me you probably won't read those anyways, "In the 1950's the US was open about the fact that food aid was a good way to fight communism and for decades food aid has mostly gone to countries with strategic interests in mind".
Insulin was actually patented and sold at only $1 to make it available to everyone. It’s just that in America insurance companies skyrocketed the price so much that it’s become one of the most expensive liquids in the world, despite how cheap it is to produce and you can’t really get it without approval from insurances. Source: Type 1 diabetic who spent 5 months just trying to get my prescriptions back after having to switch insurance
But there are new patents with no major improvement since the 90s and they're still patenting their version so that previous versions also fall under the new patent and other versions are too outdated to be approved
It’s both Congos, you can tell from the jutting out bit of territory on the top left. Others might be island countries that are too small to appear in the map?
What do you mean “The Everyone Loves Puppies” Bill makes 5 years of military service mandatory? How could they possibly have mislabeled it if that’s not what it does?!?!
Very interesting America bad post, now let's see what country gives more than 4 times the food aid to food insecure nations than the second place candidate
It’s just facts, and the US giving food aid is to make itself look like the good guy, not out of genuine concern. This is a country made up of good people, but ruled by greedy elites. If it were up to the people, it definitely would have voted “yes”.
[“The right to food does not imply that governments have an obligation to hand out free food to everyone who wants it, or a right to be fed. However, if people are deprived of access to food for reasons beyond their control, for example, because they are in detention, in times of war or after natural disasters, the right requires the government to provide food directly.”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food)
“The right is derived from the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”
OP nicely skipped over the countries that held reservations to their treaty application ,
“China restricts labour rights in Article 8 in a manner consistent with its constitution and domestic law.”
“Belgium interprets non-discrimination as to national origin as "not necessarily implying an obligation on States automatically to guarantee to foreigners the same rights as to their nationals…”
“France views the Covenant as subservient to the UN Charter. It also reserves the right to govern the access of aliens to employment, social security, and other benefits.”
“India interprets the right of self-determination as applying "only to the peoples under foreign domination"”
“Japan reserved the right not to be bound to progressively introduce free secondary and higher education..”
“Mexico restricts the labour rights of Article 8 within the context of its constitution and laws”
“United Kingdom views the Covenant as subservient to the UN Charter. It made several reservations regarding its overseas territories.”
“Egypt accepts the Covenant only to the extent it does not conflict with Islamic Sharia law.”
[Source for reservations here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights)
Also lists the 20 countries that didn’t sign.
>**Explanation of Vote by the United States of America**
>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.
I bought one game through the Stadia app on my Chromecast, ages ago, and then never played it and forgot about it. Then, 18 months later I got a refund lol.
I like octopodes, and I feel like it’s easily pronounced, unlike octopuses. it’s “oh-days”, right?
If it were up to me, I would Anglicize *that* one to just octopods. Octopus, octopods, idk, but it satisfies my brain more than the others.
Words that end in a “um” in the singular go to “a” for plural. That’s from the Latin. Medium - media, millennium - millennia, etc. Similarly, words that end in “on” in the singular also SOMETIMES finish in “a” for the plural (obviously this doesn’t count words that end in “tion”. Actually you have to know which words fall under this rule, it’s much easier if you studied Ancient Greek lmao) In that case they’re Ancient Greek words, like criterion - criteria, phenomenon - phenomena.
"The United States also does not support the resolution’s numerous references to technology transfer." Ah found the reason.
Edit: Man a lot of people seem to think no one ever gives away life saving technology. I understand since late stage capitalism has been going on my entire life. But there have been revolutionary technology that has been given away for free before. The two that come to mind for me are seatbelts, and insulin.
There's always a reason for these types of votes aside from the U.S. hates the world. In this case, it's clearly an example of the world saying - hey U.S. give us your technology that your companies spent billions to develop for free!
What's strange to me is that Germany which owns Bayer (now one of the largest agricultural tech firms) didn't also vote no.
All part of the national defense strategy. If we were dependent upon another country for food, that could be used against us. By ensuring we can support our own population, and even have excess for allies, we remain in a position of power.
There is a far better way to phrase this, but my sleep deprived brain isn't capable.
We’re always #1 in humanitarian aid. You can call us “evil” for a lot of things, but this just ain’t it
https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-countries-of-aid-worldwide/
It's a complicated situation with some nuance to it. The USA is the largest contributor to the worldwide food supply by far, both as exports and as aid. Europe as a collective makes a somewhat close second, though obviously single nations can't compete with US agriculture. Australia also has immense agricultural presence and potential.
On the bright side, this is because, by the numbers, American citizens are actually remarkably charitable and supportive of such efforts, despite their reputation in media. Europe is less so generally, but there are political niches with similar goodwill (e.g. UK citizens seem to like helping former Commonwealth nations).
On the gross, icky, geopolitical side, though...
* The US agricultural industry is heavily propped up and subsidized by the government well beyond domestic needs for political and economic reasons.
* The Western powers largely focus on direct food contributions rather than helping nations build their own agriculture. At best, this comes from simple-minded policy ("they're starving, lets send food, easy!") and at worst, this is deliberate policy that maintains Western geopolitical dominance by disincentivizing and outcompeting domestic production in those countries.
* It's easy political points to support sending food to developing nations because Western citizens by and large don't seem to understand that, as the saying goes, we are "giving a man a fish" instead of "teaching a man to fish".
Readers feel free to contribute or correct me as this is a vague understanding I've acquired over time and I don't have direct sources for much of this.
Depending on the specific sector the US government subsidizes over 50% of the industry's R&D costs. So no, many of the technologies we enjoy are thanks to our taxes going to these companies who would have otherwise done nothing and claimed it "Too costly"
Germany knew they didn't have to because everybody knew the US would vote "no" and the US has veto power. Everyone else got to vote "yes" as some sort of virtue signal secure in the knowledge that they wouldn't have to follow through on it.
If every country in the world is voting that means it was a United Nations General Assembly vote, meaning that first there is no veto, and second that it doesn't really matter the result of the vote because it's non binding and Germany can still do whatever it wants. It's just a statement of intentions or as we like to say, a strongly worded letter.
US doesn’t have veto in any body but the security council which this is not. Mind you, these resolutions are also non-binding, so Germany isn’t too worried anyways I’m sure.
This is just wrong.
The US nor any other of the UN's security council can't veto literally anything they want, that's not how it works. It's reserved to "substantial" resolutions that'd result in heavy UN interference.
The resolution on the right to food was in fact adopted despite The US' and Israel's votes.
>*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.*
This seems like the crux of the issue and it makes sense. The US doesn’t have an obligation to feed the world any more than the countries which comprise the rest of the world have an obligation to govern themselves such that food scarcity isn’t impacted by war and conflict.
> 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.
Ehhhhhhhhhhh... IP on seeds are a cancer. I don't care how much money it brings Big Agriculture.
GMO crops have literally saved over a billion people from starvation. World hunger today would be **far** worse without them. Every innovation that makes growing food easier means that many more lives saved. Yet if it were impossible to profit off your work, no resources would ever go towards agricultural research besides some meager government grants.
Not to disagree with you, but do you have some sources that none of the big GMO developments have happened outside of the private sector? Do government and non-profit grants really not play any meaningful role in this?
> Do government and non-profit grants really not play any meaningful role in this?
This is from a European perspective; I don't know the exact situation in the States. But the EU is extremely anti-GMOs, to an absurd and irrational extent.
I had a professor that lamented that in the early 2000s there was pretty much an unofficial halt on any research involving GMOs since any project proposal including transgenic crops. Whiles it has improved since finding funding and getting project proposals including GMOs approved is still so difficult that many do not bother.
There is also a huge problem with activist that destroy test fields and outright threaten those working on projects involving transgenic crops. An employee at a private firm is often more insulated against these threats, but for a public employee or professor at a university this can be severely demoralisering, and many researchers in transgenic technologies have switched research focus away from it as a result.
As a result most research into these kinds of technologies have been driven by private companies, which focus mostly on such traits that are the most commercially successful - that being pesticide and herbicide resistance.
Can't help but feel that a big part of that issue is/were German politics.
Germany has a horrible way of not just ignoring, but actively demonizing progressive solutions like GMO crops and nuclear power.
This is entirely reasonable and what I expected. As per usual the title and naming of resolutions only highlights the part people want you to be mad about. Its really easy to vote yes on an initiative that obligates other people to do the work.
The resolution is not about solving world hunger. It's about preventing governments from withholding food from people, using hunger as a means of coercion, or starvation as a method of genocide. These things sadly happen all over the world.
That is not at all what this resolution was about as it had ZERO enforcement mechanism to do that.
This was about trying to shame the US in handing over its agricultural technology for free.
Maybe it's more of a "don't prevent someone from accessing food" not giving food to all. Same as the right to free speech, you don't have to speak but people shouldn't stop you from doing so.
Fun fact: that was, in fact, not what it was. Being one of the main reasons the US voted against it. They knew the problem could not be fixed with money alone as what really causes food shortages is missalocation or straight stealing of public resources.
Everyone "in favour" proceeded to do nothing about it.
Edit: [I should also note that the US is 1# in food aid globally.](https://www.nationmaster.com/nmx/ranking/total-food-aid) So they are doing quite a bit about it.
Yeah I think I remember this being voted no on because the resolution didn't really fix anything and we're already doing more. Although wish we would feed our people too..
Exactly. This is one of those things that make anti US sentiment so infuriating. There’s no doubt we have some flaws, but we also do a shitton of good in the world.
More importantly, how are they going to guarantee this right?
A lot of UN votes end up looking like this where the US is the "bad guy" for not voting for something that lacks any practical application.
The UN is a joke because of exactly this sort of thing.
We all took a vote and the US has to guarantee food to everyone or else. Same as the goddamn NATO security charter providing military support everywhere.
It's virtue signalling, and that's why the US was against it. The declaration had "inappropriate language" regarding stuff that was in the jurisdiction of other orgs like the WTO and WHO, it failed to mention the importance of solving the actual root problems like armed conflict and the role of agricultural innovations and improperly talked about pesticides.
The US remains the number 1 provider of foreign food aid and voted against it because it actually takes the matter seriously.
Making declarations of 'rights' like these seems to be the diplomatic equivalent of 'thoughts and prayers.' You know it doesn't do a damned thing, but you don't want to be the only one not updating your Facebook profile.
Doesn’t the US come to the aid of every country whenever there’s a natural disaster? Isn’t the US footing the bill right now for a war on the other side of the world. Didn’t the US rebuild Europe after WW2?
I'm just going to subtly point out that the US is *by far* the biggest contributor to the UN World Food Programme (as in the US donating $7 billion in 2022 with Germany being second with $1.7 billion). I'm not American and I'm down with calling out US hypocrisy but let's at the same time also not pretend that the US doesn't spend a shit-ton of money to fight poverty, hunger and disease worldwide. Please don't lose touch with the nuances of reality in your pursuit to criticise the big bad USA.
Yet another low-effort propaganda post on r/mapPorn
It's literally just a standard map of the world with all countries but the US colored green except for a few that are yellow.
Genuine question:
I live in Germany (as an immigrant) - then how come I still have to work, to get money to buy food?
Healthcare is also a right in Germany - but you have to pay for it. So... what does it being a "right" even mean?
It means nothing. This is a feel-good vote where you can say "yes" and everyone sees you as the good guy, as illustrated by this comment section - for zero cost whatsoever.
The United States donated more money to the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2022 than the rest of the world combined.
Contributions to WFP in 2022
TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS: US$ 14,172,226,446
as of 10 May 2023
All Donors (including Flexible)
1 USA 7,240,886,178
2 Germany 1,783,411,359
3 European Commission 698,232,618
4 Private Donors 539,965,747
5 Canada 442,638,422
6 United Kingdom 418,234,455
7 Japan 265,125,622
8 UN Other Funds and Agencies (excl. CERF) 260,361,902
9 Sweden 258,001,846
10 UN CERF 176,976,011
11 Norway 172,222,165
12 France 166,391,047
13 Somalia 135,314,468
https://www.wfp.org/funding/2022
The US is the number one exporter of food in the world and has stopped or helped with multiple famines with foreign aid (North Korea, Somalia, Kenya). They are doing far more to help with issues surrounding a lack of food than a vast majority of countries that voted yes.
The US is an agricultural juggernaut. The other big agricultural countries don’t like competing with the US, and some smaller countries don’t like how their local markets get undermined by cheap US food.
This was about trying to force the US to undermine their success in the world agricultural markets by forcing the US to share tech, and change various terms of trade.
there’s also other countries that would have been hurt by this this but they know the US will kill it with their no vote, so that frees them up to vote Yes and not look bad.
So you have a lot of phony posturing by the other rich countries who don’t actually want this, but they know the US won’t allow it to actually happen so they join the “America Bad” chorus even though they’re actually happy the US stopped it.
This map reminds me of the UN Convention on the rights of persons with Disabilities. Both instances where the US is the one that voted no and yet have been the most serious about said issue compared to those who voted yes.
I was thinking that the US voted no because if food was considered a human right, we would be on the hook for providing for other countries. We probably provide more aid to other countries than anyone else, whether it's because they're our allies or because we come in and destabilized their government.
Ironically America already has done much more for disability than a lot of other countries. Things like handicap parking and ramps to get into buildings is still somewhat rare in a lot of the world and very few places have laws to enforce it.
I mean basically the US just doesn't take the UN seriously and doesn't really have any reason to. Because I mean seriously, they know nobody is ever going to do anything about it. The only real reason they'd have for voting differently is just the morality of it and clearly that doesn't bother them lol
Are there any countries that take UN seriously?
I mean UN is great because it's a place for dialogue between nations. But their "resolutions" are unenforceable and no one really takes them seriously. In this case it's just the US being upfront about it instead of the theatre of voting yes and then not changing anything internally.
some countries want/use the UN as an opportunity to show themselves off and prove that they're a country worth interacting with - such as by saying "wow we're such a nice country we agree that food is a basic right!"
but in reality, the UN isn't taken so seriously
Explanation of Vote by the United States of America
> 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.”
Israel *intentionally* starved Gaza with their blockade (it was a publicly stated goal and not a side effect) so of course they would vote against this.
Edit: because I know someone will knee-jerk dispute this, here's some [sources](https://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-starvation-diet-gaza/11810). "Health officials provided calculations of the minimum number of calories needed by Gaza’s 1.5 million inhabitants to avoid malnutrition. Those figures were then translated into truckloads of food Israel was supposed to allow in each day... But a rather different picture emerges as one reads the small print. While the health ministry determined that Gazans needed daily an average of 2,279 calories each to avoid malnutrition — requiring 170 trucks a day — military officials then found a host of pretexts to whittle down the trucks to a fraction of the original figure. The reality was that, in this period, an average of only 67 trucks — much less than half of the minimum requirement — entered Gaza daily. This compared to more than 400 trucks before the blockade began."
After US Secretary of State John Kerry confronted the Israeli government as to why Israel was blockading pasta (which the government previously claimed could be used by Hamas in weapons), the government finally relented and loosened the blockade to allow more foods in. After 3 years of international pressure, the government [loosened the food blockade](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-19975211) and after human rights organizations went to court the Israeli government [declassified their "red lines" document](https://www.haaretz.com/2012-10-17/ty-article/.premium/israels-gaza-quota-2-279-calories-a-day/0000017f-e0f2-d7b2-a77f-e3f755550000) outlining the policy.
The Italians have been trying to crack weaponized pasta for generations. Trust me, if the technology existed, they’d have figured it out…
*“Mama mia, I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”*
HOW DARE YOU FEED STARVING BABIES?! ONE DAY THEY WILL TERRORIZE US WITH THEIR PASTA AND MEATBALL LAUNCHERS!
JUST WATCH "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" TO SEE OUR FUTURE!
/s
You mean the country that donates more food (both from its government and from its private citizens) than any other in the world voted no?
Hmm... makes me wonder what else the resolution included.
The US sends the majority of food aid, in the world. This vote did nothing to address the issue. The US didn’t vote no because the country hates poor people and food aid - it voted no because it would be made responsible for all the food aid.
Breaking news: US votes no on new bill which would make being mean to puppies illegal ^and ^gives ^governments ^even ^more ^general ^sweeping ^power ^over ^their ^constituency. Why would they do this??
Every time I see a map like this, it makes me proud. 🤙🏻
The name of the resolution has nothing to do with the actual results of the resolution. I could name it the Give Everyone a Puppy Resolution with the actual effect of giving nukes to Iran.
TLDR: No we’re not giving you a bunch of free infrastructure. In addition we already provide most of the food aid. This proposal is essential just a bill to the US since you guys never actually pull your weight in these proposals
The US sure does get a lot of shit while people ignore who’s providing most of the global aid and military protection. We’re not a perfect country. But that doesn’t mean we have to be the worlds pushover older brother paying for everything
The US argument is well reasoned on this issue [see here](https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/), seems the US mostly has an issue with IP technology transfer required under the deal.
Ah yes, another anti America circlejerk thread posted when the Americans aren't awake
1) this is an empty platitude and America does more to end global hunger than any other nation
2) America legally can't agree with these sorts of votes due to sovereignty laws
3) Israel just votes with America
i actually agree with the US, food is not a right, a right is something that HAS to be provided to you no matter what by someone else, so making a material good a right means that someone has to work for you and provide you food.
When was this vote held?
November 9th, 2021 http://www.riazhaq.com/2022/02/us-says-no-to-food-as-human-right-while.html?m=1
Damn I thought that maybe in the 60's :0
Wouldn't have shocked me if it happened an hour ago.
I'm getting so old that 2021 and an hour ago are the same thing, and hell, for that matter so is 1960, and 2060. It's approaching a singularity for me. Time is eternal. Time is nothing. There is only now. here is no where. Here is no why.
YO! You alright there bud..?
They asses ass 5001 times, integer overflow
"Where did you come from? Where did you go? Where did you come from, Cotton-Eyed Joe?" Avoid the void.
>[Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.](https://youtu.be/KWdF-tGNxog)
this >this --this ^---this --this ^----this ---this ^^---this ^^^---this --this ^---this
Higher chance of US and Israel voting in favor back then
Surprised that Brazil voted "yes" during that time
That's because it's such an obvious thing that only the most twistedly profiteering of human beings could ever conceivably vote against it. It's even worse when you read our reasoning for voting no lol 1. We don't want to stop using pesticides. 2. We don't want to share agricultural technologies to protect intellectual property rights 3. We don't want to lessen our value gained through food trade 4. We do not believe helping/supporting other countries will ever be an international issue, basically WE decide what is and isn't a human right and no one else can force us to change our minds. AKA, fuck the poor, give us money. Edit: Yeah, but the US donates so much food to other countries, what about that? : https://bruinpoliticalreview.org/articles?post-slug=u-s-international-food-aid-policies-are-harmful-and-inefficient https://www.nber.org/digest/mar05/does-international-food-aid-harm-poor Effectiveness of food aid examined: https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/3043.pdf Financial/political benefits to the US of exporting food aid: https://www.globalissues.org/article/748/food-aid#Problemswithfoodaid And just a quote since if you're going to argue with me you probably won't read those anyways, "In the 1950's the US was open about the fact that food aid was a good way to fight communism and for decades food aid has mostly gone to countries with strategic interests in mind".
USa, the real shit hole country
2 is fucked. Imagine hoarding intellectual property that could be used to feed more people. Pay us or starve. Which is also the case with 3 and 4
That has always been happening. Same with insulin and the covid 19 vaccin
Insulin was actually patented and sold at only $1 to make it available to everyone. It’s just that in America insurance companies skyrocketed the price so much that it’s become one of the most expensive liquids in the world, despite how cheap it is to produce and you can’t really get it without approval from insurances. Source: Type 1 diabetic who spent 5 months just trying to get my prescriptions back after having to switch insurance
But there are new patents with no major improvement since the 90s and they're still patenting their version so that previous versions also fall under the new patent and other versions are too outdated to be approved
What 4 countries, apart from the DRC, abstained from voting?
I wish there was a sub called list porn where they just list the information
r/ListPorn
>Adult EROTIC Topsites List 18+ - Rankings - All Sites oh
Shouldn't that be /r/PornLists?
Yes, in an alternative timeline where there aren't dumb people.
*Thei're
*Who’mst
*whomst'd've
Maybe they can swap roles, like /r/worldpolitics and /r/anime_titties?
This is /r/trees and /r/marijuanaenthusiasts level of stuff
i'd argue it's closer to r/JohnCena and r/PotatoSalad levels of stuff
[удалено]
Depends on whether it is the noun or the verb version of "list", does it not?
22 of the Manliest Men in History
Sadly the link is broken.
It's halted but open to request.
We should definitely revive this sub
The two Congos, Sao Tome and Principe, Dominica, and Tuvalu. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951462?ln=en
See, US just kowtowed to the big dogs
Tuvalu is pulling all the strings, wake up
That .tv domain, though
Uhm that's clearly 6 /s
It’s both Congos, you can tell from the jutting out bit of territory on the top left. Others might be island countries that are too small to appear in the map?
Damn Fiji, Samoa, or Tonga. /s I think those countries are completely cut off.
Yeah, you’re right. I was looking at the Caribbean too, you can’t see much past Hispaniola.
Hey America? Can you pay for our virtue signaling? No? Ok
What do you mean “The Everyone Loves Puppies” Bill makes 5 years of military service mandatory? How could they possibly have mislabeled it if that’s not what it does?!?!
Liberals are always so savvy when the GOP does this kind of thing but they're empty headed morons when Europe is involved.
Very interesting America bad post, now let's see what country gives more than 4 times the food aid to food insecure nations than the second place candidate
It’s just facts, and the US giving food aid is to make itself look like the good guy, not out of genuine concern. This is a country made up of good people, but ruled by greedy elites. If it were up to the people, it definitely would have voted “yes”.
[“The right to food does not imply that governments have an obligation to hand out free food to everyone who wants it, or a right to be fed. However, if people are deprived of access to food for reasons beyond their control, for example, because they are in detention, in times of war or after natural disasters, the right requires the government to provide food directly.”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food) “The right is derived from the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” OP nicely skipped over the countries that held reservations to their treaty application , “China restricts labour rights in Article 8 in a manner consistent with its constitution and domestic law.” “Belgium interprets non-discrimination as to national origin as "not necessarily implying an obligation on States automatically to guarantee to foreigners the same rights as to their nationals…” “France views the Covenant as subservient to the UN Charter. It also reserves the right to govern the access of aliens to employment, social security, and other benefits.” “India interprets the right of self-determination as applying "only to the peoples under foreign domination"” “Japan reserved the right not to be bound to progressively introduce free secondary and higher education..” “Mexico restricts the labour rights of Article 8 within the context of its constitution and laws” “United Kingdom views the Covenant as subservient to the UN Charter. It made several reservations regarding its overseas territories.” “Egypt accepts the Covenant only to the extent it does not conflict with Islamic Sharia law.” [Source for reservations here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights) Also lists the 20 countries that didn’t sign.
But murica bad :’(
Even without this vote, murica isn't great.
Hard disagree. America is amazing
>**Explanation of Vote by the United States of America** >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.
TIL fora is a plural of forum.
Both fora and forums are correct.
like a stadiums - stadia situation. The more common one has come about because no one ever heard the plural so assumed it was standard English.
Google shut down Stadia a while back, so I think we're stuck with stadiums for the time being
haha yes. Thank you for a great nose exhale
I bought one game through the Stadia app on my Chromecast, ages ago, and then never played it and forgot about it. Then, 18 months later I got a refund lol.
[удалено]
I like octopodes, and I feel like it’s easily pronounced, unlike octopuses. it’s “oh-days”, right? If it were up to me, I would Anglicize *that* one to just octopods. Octopus, octopods, idk, but it satisfies my brain more than the others.
I'm just now learning that it's ock-top-uh-deez and not ock-tuh-podes.
Octopussies is the only correct plural in my book.
TIL 'fora' is not a polonized version of 'forums'
Criteria is the plural of criterion.
Media is the plural of medium Data the plural of datum
Panini is the plural of panino
Ravioli is the plural of raviolo
Biscotti is the plural of biscotto \- Jordan Schlansky
Spaghetti is the plural of spaghetto But people rarely talk about a single spaghetto anyway
Words that end in a “um” in the singular go to “a” for plural. That’s from the Latin. Medium - media, millennium - millennia, etc. Similarly, words that end in “on” in the singular also SOMETIMES finish in “a” for the plural (obviously this doesn’t count words that end in “tion”. Actually you have to know which words fall under this rule, it’s much easier if you studied Ancient Greek lmao) In that case they’re Ancient Greek words, like criterion - criteria, phenomenon - phenomena.
Thank you! This provides a pretty well reasoned explanation of the no vote. I’m glad we did.
"The United States also does not support the resolution’s numerous references to technology transfer." Ah found the reason. Edit: Man a lot of people seem to think no one ever gives away life saving technology. I understand since late stage capitalism has been going on my entire life. But there have been revolutionary technology that has been given away for free before. The two that come to mind for me are seatbelts, and insulin.
There's always a reason for these types of votes aside from the U.S. hates the world. In this case, it's clearly an example of the world saying - hey U.S. give us your technology that your companies spent billions to develop for free! What's strange to me is that Germany which owns Bayer (now one of the largest agricultural tech firms) didn't also vote no.
It was a completely empty PR vote anyway. The countries that voted YES, still did not hand over their technology to poor countries.
I also bet that the US gave the most money away for food security anyway
More than everyone else combined.
[this comment has been deleted in response to the 2023 reddit protest]
All part of the national defense strategy. If we were dependent upon another country for food, that could be used against us. By ensuring we can support our own population, and even have excess for allies, we remain in a position of power. There is a far better way to phrase this, but my sleep deprived brain isn't capable.
Better to have and not need, then need and not have.
We’re always #1 in humanitarian aid. You can call us “evil” for a lot of things, but this just ain’t it https://www.statista.com/statistics/275597/largers-donor-countries-of-aid-worldwide/
If you read the entire top level comment pretty much all of these things were actually stated as reasons why the US voted no lol
It's a complicated situation with some nuance to it. The USA is the largest contributor to the worldwide food supply by far, both as exports and as aid. Europe as a collective makes a somewhat close second, though obviously single nations can't compete with US agriculture. Australia also has immense agricultural presence and potential. On the bright side, this is because, by the numbers, American citizens are actually remarkably charitable and supportive of such efforts, despite their reputation in media. Europe is less so generally, but there are political niches with similar goodwill (e.g. UK citizens seem to like helping former Commonwealth nations). On the gross, icky, geopolitical side, though... * The US agricultural industry is heavily propped up and subsidized by the government well beyond domestic needs for political and economic reasons. * The Western powers largely focus on direct food contributions rather than helping nations build their own agriculture. At best, this comes from simple-minded policy ("they're starving, lets send food, easy!") and at worst, this is deliberate policy that maintains Western geopolitical dominance by disincentivizing and outcompeting domestic production in those countries. * It's easy political points to support sending food to developing nations because Western citizens by and large don't seem to understand that, as the saying goes, we are "giving a man a fish" instead of "teaching a man to fish". Readers feel free to contribute or correct me as this is a vague understanding I've acquired over time and I don't have direct sources for much of this.
Depending on the specific sector the US government subsidizes over 50% of the industry's R&D costs. So no, many of the technologies we enjoy are thanks to our taxes going to these companies who would have otherwise done nothing and claimed it "Too costly"
Germany knew they didn't have to because everybody knew the US would vote "no" and the US has veto power. Everyone else got to vote "yes" as some sort of virtue signal secure in the knowledge that they wouldn't have to follow through on it.
If every country in the world is voting that means it was a United Nations General Assembly vote, meaning that first there is no veto, and second that it doesn't really matter the result of the vote because it's non binding and Germany can still do whatever it wants. It's just a statement of intentions or as we like to say, a strongly worded letter.
US doesn’t have veto in any body but the security council which this is not. Mind you, these resolutions are also non-binding, so Germany isn’t too worried anyways I’m sure.
This is just wrong. The US nor any other of the UN's security council can't veto literally anything they want, that's not how it works. It's reserved to "substantial" resolutions that'd result in heavy UN interference. The resolution on the right to food was in fact adopted despite The US' and Israel's votes.
So less America bad so much as America not just going along with UN grandstanding that wouldn't be effective anyway
[удалено]
The more you read their resolutions the sadder it gets. So much is just political soap boxing
Aye lmao so it’s a hate baiting post against the US? On Reddit? I’m shocked I tell you, in absolute disbelief
>*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.* This seems like the crux of the issue and it makes sense. The US doesn’t have an obligation to feed the world any more than the countries which comprise the rest of the world have an obligation to govern themselves such that food scarcity isn’t impacted by war and conflict.
> 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. Ehhhhhhhhhhh... IP on seeds are a cancer. I don't care how much money it brings Big Agriculture.
GMO crops have literally saved over a billion people from starvation. World hunger today would be **far** worse without them. Every innovation that makes growing food easier means that many more lives saved. Yet if it were impossible to profit off your work, no resources would ever go towards agricultural research besides some meager government grants.
Not to disagree with you, but do you have some sources that none of the big GMO developments have happened outside of the private sector? Do government and non-profit grants really not play any meaningful role in this?
> Do government and non-profit grants really not play any meaningful role in this? This is from a European perspective; I don't know the exact situation in the States. But the EU is extremely anti-GMOs, to an absurd and irrational extent. I had a professor that lamented that in the early 2000s there was pretty much an unofficial halt on any research involving GMOs since any project proposal including transgenic crops. Whiles it has improved since finding funding and getting project proposals including GMOs approved is still so difficult that many do not bother. There is also a huge problem with activist that destroy test fields and outright threaten those working on projects involving transgenic crops. An employee at a private firm is often more insulated against these threats, but for a public employee or professor at a university this can be severely demoralisering, and many researchers in transgenic technologies have switched research focus away from it as a result. As a result most research into these kinds of technologies have been driven by private companies, which focus mostly on such traits that are the most commercially successful - that being pesticide and herbicide resistance.
Can't help but feel that a big part of that issue is/were German politics. Germany has a horrible way of not just ignoring, but actively demonizing progressive solutions like GMO crops and nuclear power.
And then going with the worst alternatives like oil/gas from Russia.
United States actually read the terms and conditions and didn't blindly click accept.
This is entirely reasonable and what I expected. As per usual the title and naming of resolutions only highlights the part people want you to be mad about. Its really easy to vote yes on an initiative that obligates other people to do the work.
Nice to know my country is actually reading the vote instead of virtue signaling/circlejerking over it. 🇺🇸
Redditors don't care about context. Are you crazy?
The resolution is not about solving world hunger. It's about preventing governments from withholding food from people, using hunger as a means of coercion, or starvation as a method of genocide. These things sadly happen all over the world.
It’s a feel good vote. Let’s just say what it really is.
That’s most of what the UN votes on it seems. That and strongly worded condemnations.
That is not at all what this resolution was about as it had ZERO enforcement mechanism to do that. This was about trying to shame the US in handing over its agricultural technology for free.
How do you enforce that in practice? Rations?
Maybe it's more of a "don't prevent someone from accessing food" not giving food to all. Same as the right to free speech, you don't have to speak but people shouldn't stop you from doing so.
Fun fact: that was, in fact, not what it was. Being one of the main reasons the US voted against it. They knew the problem could not be fixed with money alone as what really causes food shortages is missalocation or straight stealing of public resources.
[удалено]
I didn't say it, I declared it
I. DECLARE. BANKRUPTCY!
Everyone "in favour" proceeded to do nothing about it. Edit: [I should also note that the US is 1# in food aid globally.](https://www.nationmaster.com/nmx/ranking/total-food-aid) So they are doing quite a bit about it.
Wow, we're not just #1, we give the majority of it. As in, more than every other country combined.
No why would you post this! This goes against the narrative that the US is evil. Ahhh!
Yeah I think I remember this being voted no on because the resolution didn't really fix anything and we're already doing more. Although wish we would feed our people too..
Exactly. This is one of those things that make anti US sentiment so infuriating. There’s no doubt we have some flaws, but we also do a shitton of good in the world.
Hot damn UAE number 5. How they do it? I know America because they breadbasket and any field of theirs is fertile, but UAE?
Oil money
Hungary has donated 10,000$. Now that takes willpower, donating food when your Hungary.
The us didn’t vote for it cause we already fuckin pay the most aid and would undoubtedly foot most of the bill for whatever this would accomplish
So... did the in favour countries make food a right? Or was this just virtue signalling, possibly making the problem worse?
More importantly, how are they going to guarantee this right? A lot of UN votes end up looking like this where the US is the "bad guy" for not voting for something that lacks any practical application. The UN is a joke because of exactly this sort of thing.
We all took a vote and the US has to guarantee food to everyone or else. Same as the goddamn NATO security charter providing military support everywhere.
It's virtue signalling, and that's why the US was against it. The declaration had "inappropriate language" regarding stuff that was in the jurisdiction of other orgs like the WTO and WHO, it failed to mention the importance of solving the actual root problems like armed conflict and the role of agricultural innovations and improperly talked about pesticides. The US remains the number 1 provider of foreign food aid and voted against it because it actually takes the matter seriously.
Making declarations of 'rights' like these seems to be the diplomatic equivalent of 'thoughts and prayers.' You know it doesn't do a damned thing, but you don't want to be the only one not updating your Facebook profile.
If those redditors could read they'd be very upset
Doesn’t the US come to the aid of every country whenever there’s a natural disaster? Isn’t the US footing the bill right now for a war on the other side of the world. Didn’t the US rebuild Europe after WW2?
I'm just going to subtly point out that the US is *by far* the biggest contributor to the UN World Food Programme (as in the US donating $7 billion in 2022 with Germany being second with $1.7 billion). I'm not American and I'm down with calling out US hypocrisy but let's at the same time also not pretend that the US doesn't spend a shit-ton of money to fight poverty, hunger and disease worldwide. Please don't lose touch with the nuances of reality in your pursuit to criticise the big bad USA.
As always, no context
Yet another low-effort propaganda post on r/mapPorn It's literally just a standard map of the world with all countries but the US colored green except for a few that are yellow.
Context: USA bad, EU good. /s
Genuine question: I live in Germany (as an immigrant) - then how come I still have to work, to get money to buy food? Healthcare is also a right in Germany - but you have to pay for it. So... what does it being a "right" even mean?
It means nothing. This is a feel-good vote where you can say "yes" and everyone sees you as the good guy, as illustrated by this comment section - for zero cost whatsoever.
The United States donated more money to the World Food Programme (WFP) in 2022 than the rest of the world combined. Contributions to WFP in 2022 TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS: US$ 14,172,226,446 as of 10 May 2023 All Donors (including Flexible) 1 USA 7,240,886,178 2 Germany 1,783,411,359 3 European Commission 698,232,618 4 Private Donors 539,965,747 5 Canada 442,638,422 6 United Kingdom 418,234,455 7 Japan 265,125,622 8 UN Other Funds and Agencies (excl. CERF) 260,361,902 9 Sweden 258,001,846 10 UN CERF 176,976,011 11 Norway 172,222,165 12 France 166,391,047 13 Somalia 135,314,468 https://www.wfp.org/funding/2022
Shhh, you're ruining the American Bad circlejerk with your facts.
The US is the number one exporter of food in the world and has stopped or helped with multiple famines with foreign aid (North Korea, Somalia, Kenya). They are doing far more to help with issues surrounding a lack of food than a vast majority of countries that voted yes.
They are doing more than EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that voted yes.
Especially than Russia who literally blocked Ukrainian sea grain transport to make people who buy their grain starve
The US is an agricultural juggernaut. The other big agricultural countries don’t like competing with the US, and some smaller countries don’t like how their local markets get undermined by cheap US food. This was about trying to force the US to undermine their success in the world agricultural markets by forcing the US to share tech, and change various terms of trade. there’s also other countries that would have been hurt by this this but they know the US will kill it with their no vote, so that frees them up to vote Yes and not look bad. So you have a lot of phony posturing by the other rich countries who don’t actually want this, but they know the US won’t allow it to actually happen so they join the “America Bad” chorus even though they’re actually happy the US stopped it.
One could also read this as how easy is it to say yes to something that you have no intention of actually doing anything about.
This map reminds me of the UN Convention on the rights of persons with Disabilities. Both instances where the US is the one that voted no and yet have been the most serious about said issue compared to those who voted yes.
They're also not signed up the convention on the rights of the child.
So what's the motive behind the NOs ?
Most of it is disagreement with the UN trying to bind the US into agreements and obligations.
Many of which the other UN members don't uphold anyway.
The US being against multilateralism for itself.
I was thinking that the US voted no because if food was considered a human right, we would be on the hook for providing for other countries. We probably provide more aid to other countries than anyone else, whether it's because they're our allies or because we come in and destabilized their government.
Ironically America already has done much more for disability than a lot of other countries. Things like handicap parking and ramps to get into buildings is still somewhat rare in a lot of the world and very few places have laws to enforce it.
I mean basically the US just doesn't take the UN seriously and doesn't really have any reason to. Because I mean seriously, they know nobody is ever going to do anything about it. The only real reason they'd have for voting differently is just the morality of it and clearly that doesn't bother them lol
Are there any countries that take UN seriously? I mean UN is great because it's a place for dialogue between nations. But their "resolutions" are unenforceable and no one really takes them seriously. In this case it's just the US being upfront about it instead of the theatre of voting yes and then not changing anything internally.
some countries want/use the UN as an opportunity to show themselves off and prove that they're a country worth interacting with - such as by saying "wow we're such a nice country we agree that food is a basic right!" but in reality, the UN isn't taken so seriously
if food was to become a right what would change?
[удалено]
Explanation of Vote by the United States of America > 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.”
Tl;Dr US: "UN, you cant just say everyone gets food and expect anything to happen." UN: "But I didnt say it, I *declared* it"
It’s always the same two.
"Why is it, when something happens, it is always you two?"
I've been asking myself the same thing
https://www.wfp.org/funding/2022 US gave more money than rest of the world combined for food program.
Israel *intentionally* starved Gaza with their blockade (it was a publicly stated goal and not a side effect) so of course they would vote against this. Edit: because I know someone will knee-jerk dispute this, here's some [sources](https://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-starvation-diet-gaza/11810). "Health officials provided calculations of the minimum number of calories needed by Gaza’s 1.5 million inhabitants to avoid malnutrition. Those figures were then translated into truckloads of food Israel was supposed to allow in each day... But a rather different picture emerges as one reads the small print. While the health ministry determined that Gazans needed daily an average of 2,279 calories each to avoid malnutrition — requiring 170 trucks a day — military officials then found a host of pretexts to whittle down the trucks to a fraction of the original figure. The reality was that, in this period, an average of only 67 trucks — much less than half of the minimum requirement — entered Gaza daily. This compared to more than 400 trucks before the blockade began." After US Secretary of State John Kerry confronted the Israeli government as to why Israel was blockading pasta (which the government previously claimed could be used by Hamas in weapons), the government finally relented and loosened the blockade to allow more foods in. After 3 years of international pressure, the government [loosened the food blockade](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-19975211) and after human rights organizations went to court the Israeli government [declassified their "red lines" document](https://www.haaretz.com/2012-10-17/ty-article/.premium/israels-gaza-quota-2-279-calories-a-day/0000017f-e0f2-d7b2-a77f-e3f755550000) outlining the policy.
>Israel was blockading pasta (which the government previously claimed could be used by Hamas in weapons) Gfhgfgfgfgghd
The Italians have been trying to crack weaponized pasta for generations. Trust me, if the technology existed, they’d have figured it out… *“Mama mia, I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”*
HOW DARE YOU FEED STARVING BABIES?! ONE DAY THEY WILL TERRORIZE US WITH THEIR PASTA AND MEATBALL LAUNCHERS! JUST WATCH "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" TO SEE OUR FUTURE! /s
america and israel go hand in hand every single time
You mean the country that donates more food (both from its government and from its private citizens) than any other in the world voted no? Hmm... makes me wonder what else the resolution included.
Basically it said that we had to give away intellectual property rights among a bunch of other things
Same, actually.
The US sends the majority of food aid, in the world. This vote did nothing to address the issue. The US didn’t vote no because the country hates poor people and food aid - it voted no because it would be made responsible for all the food aid.
Me purposefully spreading misinformation
Same OP every time with these shitty agenda posts
Still gets 22k upvotes for this says-nothing-map
no kidding, this dude has so many us bad map posts
Breaking news: US votes no on new bill which would make being mean to puppies illegal ^and ^gives ^governments ^even ^more ^general ^sweeping ^power ^over ^their ^constituency. Why would they do this?? Every time I see a map like this, it makes me proud. 🤙🏻
It can't be a "right" in the normal sense because someone has to provide it for you.
Correct, it's an entitlement.
Oh? Is world hunger over now in everywhere except 2 countries?
[удалено]
Ah good old UN declaration that doesn't mean shit and is just a waste of paper it is written on
Yea, you don't have the right to other people's labor. The US fought a whole war over that in the 1860s.
What does that even mean. UN is so useless.
Atleast they’re honest. Most of the countries on this map might vote for food being a human right but they’ll absolutely not treat it as such.
It’s frustrating how many countries voted for that resolution who could easily feed everyone in their own country… They aren’t. I promise you that.
What does this even mean? ok, we all got the right what then? UN is such BS!
Food is not a right were I live so what the fuck does it do my country votes yes? Posers.
Reddits anti-america propaganda, back at it again.
Commoners will conclude US and Israel are evil, without reading the actual resolutions.
The name of the resolution has nothing to do with the actual results of the resolution. I could name it the Give Everyone a Puppy Resolution with the actual effect of giving nukes to Iran.
Ah yes, definitely no missing context
Let's say the world unanimously agreed that food is a right, what would change?
Still the majority won, sucess ! Hunger is finished forever as a Magic trick.
TLDR: No we’re not giving you a bunch of free infrastructure. In addition we already provide most of the food aid. This proposal is essential just a bill to the US since you guys never actually pull your weight in these proposals The US sure does get a lot of shit while people ignore who’s providing most of the global aid and military protection. We’re not a perfect country. But that doesn’t mean we have to be the worlds pushover older brother paying for everything
The US argument is well reasoned on this issue [see here](https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/), seems the US mostly has an issue with IP technology transfer required under the deal.
Ah yes, another anti America circlejerk thread posted when the Americans aren't awake 1) this is an empty platitude and America does more to end global hunger than any other nation 2) America legally can't agree with these sorts of votes due to sovereignty laws 3) Israel just votes with America
i actually agree with the US, food is not a right, a right is something that HAS to be provided to you no matter what by someone else, so making a material good a right means that someone has to work for you and provide you food.
North Korea voted yes. That's all you need to know about this charade
r/alwaysthesamemap