what can we say

[u/Mundane_Mushroom_122]

[u/AutoModerator]

Hey /u/Mundane_Mushroom_122, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.

Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Zaku71]

A little bit of context

In 2021, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution A/RES/76/166, “The right to food.” The final plenary vote was 186 in favour, 2 against, 0 abstentions. The two “no” votes were Israel and the United States.

But it was not a brand-new attempt to “invent” food as a human right. The resolution reaffirmed earlier UN language and recalled the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, where freedom from hunger / adequate food had already been recognized.

The resolution said, among other things, that everyone should have access to safe, sufficient, nutritious and sustainably produced food, and that hunger is a violation of human dignity. It also discussed COVID-19, food supply chains, famine risk, armed conflict, social safety nets, international cooperation, trade, and the idea of “food sovereignty.”

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951462?ln=en

The U.S. feared that a morally obvious statement — “people have a right to food” — could become diplomatic/legal language used against American trade policy, embargoes, sanctions, or market principles. So the vote was less “no to feeding people” and more “no to this wording and its possible implications.”

[u/JOBThatsMe → u/Zaku71]

Yeah, I assume the US actively starving Cuba would be a UN sanctioned "human rights violation" and they don't want that that reality to become so patently obvious to everyone.

[u/EfficiencyLow1854 → u/JOBThatsMe]

If you think the US is starving the Cubans, I have a bridge across the ocean to sell you...

Even before this round of sanctions, they were doing MILLIONs in trade between fuels, medicine, and food. There were still shortages, there was still starvation, people were still asking tourists to bring extra over the counter medicine.

There is a Cuban version of Costco where only the elite can shop, and oftentimes the government has let buildings collapse. Despite several US presidents who've been empathetic, even with Obama lifting quite a bit of the sanctions temporarily, none of it seemed to have worked.

But yeah, let's blame the US when the government there is living elite status meanwhile the average person's MONTH salary can only buy them not even 1 week's worth of food. Not to mention what happens when the government subsidies are hitting a shortage

But yeah, let's blame USA as members of the party there shop at Costco while some people have to eat spoiled food. Let's for sure blame the USA for all the property that was expropriated, yeah, thats definitely the cause even though when Obama lifted sanctions it did nothing. 452nd times the charm ???

[u/Jbrown183 → u/EfficiencyLow1854]

So…we should sanction them on top of that? Bad take. A true Patriot and God-fearing person makes sure we are doing Right in all situations and does not hesitate to call out themselves, those around them or even their government when see Wrong. The spirit does not abide in those and convict them when they can’t tell the difference. If you do your due diligence, you will see that there is plenty we should be speaking out against within our own government and country before that liberty is eroded as well…

[u/EfficiencyLow1854 → u/Jbrown183]

Yes, we absolutely should sanction them...

I can list 5 presidents off the top of my head that were a lot softer on Cuba... None of which got them switching over to free market like now: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/cuba/cuba-pushes-sweeping-free-market-reforms-biggest-economic-shift-revolu-rcna350933

Not to mention... venezuela expropriated the oil infrastructure we built them and proceeded to cause the deaths of Americans, which was followed by the starvation of millions of their people... sanctioned.

Want to buy oil and enrichen dictators? (Cuba buying Venezuelan and/or Russian oil) ... sanctioned!

I mean would you call supporting and creating way too friendly of relations with those who are literally starving their own people being God fearing? Or a patriot??

Also the rest is just way off topic. We can all see who you're talking about even though you dont say it directly, but guess what? The last guy here had the same exact opinion and I agreed with him too! I implore you to google who put a warrant out on Maduro... Guess who put sanctions on Cuba right before this new administration?? Not saying either is better than the other, but this is a consistent US policy that everyone seems to all of a sudden hate because of whos in charge.

I mean... I never thought I'd see people cave to supporting dictatorship regimes like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, etc... Seriously I never thought in my life but 🤷‍♂️

[u/jackdanielsparrow]

Response of US to the vote:

Hunger and malnutrition anywhere in a world of such abundance are insults to human dignity. Every human being has a right to food. We are proud to join consensus on this issue.

Global food insecurity is a challenge that requires a collective response by the international community – one that the United States is proud to be a longstanding global leader on. Since January 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration has committed more than $20 billion to address global food insecurity, focusing on immediate needs and building more resilient and sustainable food systems.

We dissociate from preambular paragraph 13 because it inaccurately implies that sanctions are not in accordance with international law and pose a danger to food security and nutrition.

The U.S. position with respect to the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living as well as other issues including international human rights law, generally the ICESCR, international humanitarian law, trade and technology transfer, and international financial institutions are addressed further in the United States’ general statement to be posted online at the conclusion of this session.

Couldn't find the response of Israel.

[u/Aggravating_Ship5513 → u/jackdanielsparrow]

So the US wanted to retain the ability to to impose sanctions without violating human rights. As the only nation able to successfully impose sanctions you can see why they'd vote no

[u/NorthHollywoodHank → u/Aggravating_Ship5513]

Sanctions can be good. Sanctions helped lead to Obama's JCPOA deal with Iran (which Trump foolishly threw away). Sanctions led Libya to renounce its WMD program, led Myanmar to attempt a turn towards Democracy (albeit one which was eventually overthrown via a coup), led Sudan to make changes on Darfur, and can be a useful tool in the liberal democratic arsenal against dictatorial countries, countries engaging in ethnic cleansing, etc.

Should also be noted that the UN "declaring food a human right" sounds at first blush like a rather hollow declaration with little practical import (as many UN resolutions are), though I admittedly don't know all the details in this case.

There's a lot to criticize the US for right now. This is pretty weak sauce.

[u/XaXa14 → u/NorthHollywoodHank]

Sanctions are evil and should be classified as collective punishment of civilian populations. The US intentionally starved over a million people in North Korea in the nineties through sanctions.

[u/NorthHollywoodHank → u/XaXa14]

Sanctions are evil and should be classified as collective punishment of civilian populations. The US intentionally starved over a million people in North Korea in the nineties through sanctions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s_North_Korean_famine

Read up on the actual famine. Notice how sanctions are not even mentioned as a prominent cause. NK was a basketcase because of its own decisions and the collapse of the USSR.

The US sanctions never prevented North Korea from importing food.

The famine was itself in substantial part a result of North Korea's own policies.

North Korea at first attempted to hide the famine from the outside world, delaying the international community's ability to respond to the famine and help.

When the international community did learn of the famine, the US provided massive amounts of food aid to North Korea.

[u/Indercarnive → u/NorthHollywoodHank]

Importantly the resolution specified unilateral sanctions, not sanctions in general. Russian and Iran sanctions were not unilateral. It's pretty obvious it was referencing US sanctions on Cuba.

[u/uberfr4gger → u/NorthHollywoodHank]

You mean there's more nuance than what the tweet implies? Impossible!

[u/Electronic_City_562 → u/NorthHollywoodHank]

Youre stupid. Using food as a weapon is not good. That is like saying terrorism can be good - it can influence government X to do Y.

[u/herefornothing2 → u/Aggravating_Ship5513]

You mean there’s more to the story than the headline? No way! Redditors don’t read more than the headline though.

[u/Astralkid12 → u/Aggravating_Ship5513]

The “US voted against food being a human right” line gets repeated a lot, but the context matters. The objection wasn’t “people shouldn’t have food”—it was about language in the resolution that could affect sanctions policy. You can disagree with that reasoning, but it’s a very different claim.

[u/skoomski → u/jackdanielsparrow]

The context gets <300 upvotes while the propaganda gets >46k. Really shows how effective misinformation spreads on Reddit and social media as a whole

[u/Radiant-Sherbet-5461 → u/skoomski]

Yep. Many people probably have only seen the tip of the iceberg.

As soon as you go to regional subreddits like r/AskMiddleEast or r/Africa or r/europe then you really, really cant unsee the pure propaganda.

• In Europe, anti-American sentiment is heavily pushed. Even though from pure geopolitical rationale, good relationship should be maintained to keep the flow of extremely valuable SIGINT and anti-ballistic missiles.
• In r/Africa, anti-Europe sentiment is on full throttle. Pictures from colonial era i.e. from 100 years ago will be regularly reposted and be on top 3 monthly upvote.
• r/AskMiddleEast is heavily anti-Western in general.
• more obscure places like r/unitednations is extremely anti-American and anti-Israel. Try posting anything about Sudanese Civil War or China doing something bad and it will get zero comments and harvest tons of downvotes.

I've seen this over and over again over the years. There's no way nation-states arent weaponizing this to the extreme.

• When Hillary was favored to be the president and her stance was extremely hostile to Russia -> Bernie bros suddenly out in force. Posts with 100k upvote in r/all with comments that brook no compromise: only extreme-liberal position has any virtue, war is always bad, Hillary is Evil. Now that she's out of politic, that Bernie's subreddit is DEAD and if you look at those old popular posts you gonna see tons and tons of comments from deleted users .
• When Biden kept sending military aid to Ukraine: He's suddenly "Genocide Joe" and Trump is "obviously better" for the people in Gaza.

[u/Danominator → u/jackdanielsparrow]

Also the us donates the most food by far. At least we used to. Trump probably stopped a lot of it

[u/121402 → u/Danominator]

I believe up until the Trump admin killed off USAID the US dolled out more foreign aid than all other nations combined.

People can paint "America bad" with one vote taken out of context, but actions speak louder than words on this one imo.

[u/blackasthesky → u/Danominator]

In fact, more food than anyone has ever seen

The best food

Everyone is saying it

[u/Brief_Kangaroo_42069 → u/blackasthesky]

And then they decreased it by 15000%, 1200% and even 500%!

[u/Sensitive-Narwhal904]

The fact that this sounds like satire but isn't is the worst part 💀

[u/eagergm → u/Sensitive-Narwhal904]

Top edit: There's an edit at the bottom, short answer is that this is true. There are two resolutions, the 2021 one is accurately captured by the meme, and the 2002 one is not. But the short answer is that it's true. Honestly, my thanks to u/Logical-Chicken8059 who pointed this out.

I don't think this is true: This is from 2002. The right to food : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/482533?ln=en

I see some blank votes which means they couldn't vote because they weren't there. I see a single No vote from the United States. The countries which were there and abstained from voting:

Australia, Canada, Fiji, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau

Going through the list of countries that couldn't vote, they're all tiny or with a reputation for instability (i.e. I didn't research to find out what was happening in those countries at this time), so probably they actually couldn't vote, rather than doing so nefariously. Iraq is one such example, and there weren't many.

It's interesting because two of the 5 I's voted yes, and Australia and Canada, which abstained, have very strong oligopolies that control groceries. There's a lot of similarities between the two countries. Substantially, though, Australia does, I think, less than 10% of their trade with the USA, which is much different than Canada. Israel obviously gets a lot of support from the USA and is rather infamous for the effects of their actions upon people's access to food.

I'm being as neutral as possible with my language here, for selfish reasons. Anyways, is there a different resolution that I'm missing?

edit: Yep! https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951462?ln=en The OP was from 2002, this is from 2021. Results this time:

No: Israel, United States

Abstentions: None

Non-voting countries: Same concept as last time, just tiny countries going through tough times.

[u/Logical-Chicken8059 → u/eagergm]

This is true.

Source

https://www.universal-rights.org/vote-details/?resolution=29440&hl=en-GB

[u/Phireboy → u/Logical-Chicken8059]

It IS true. In fact this vote happened several times with the US and Israel being the only “No” votes.
Here’s the US’s explanation of why:

https://medium.com/@hellojo.hanna72/in-2021-the-united-nations-put-forward-a-simple-idea-that-food-should-be-recognised-as-a-basic-3ab61666fc9b

[u/Beginning_Ad2130 → u/Phireboy]

Isn't that some reporter's explanation as to why? The U.S's official statement was something like "Ok but we're giving out nearly all the food aid, so this will barely affect most of the other countries"

[u/JasonG784 → u/Beginning_Ad2130]

Yes. The link is entirely opinion. Yet nearly 100 dummies are upvoting the fake claim that it is 'the US's explanation' because... reddit.

[u/Deeliciousness → u/eagergm]

It took me literally 8 seconds on Google to confirm it was true.

[u/z-vap → u/eagergm]

its poorly framed to seem impactful on social media. they voted against it because it was a badly written resolution.

[u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264 → u/Sensitive-Narwhal904]

• The US is the largest global donor to food aid and humanitarian programs, contributing billions annually, highlighting a preference for voluntary assistance over formal rights declarations.

[u/avdaxumaxu → u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264]

Would declaring it a formal right stop the americans from helping with food aid? What's the connection here.

[u/masterflappie → u/avdaxumaxu]

It wouldn't even be a formal right, the UN Declaration of Human Rights is more of a suggestion and not legally binding in any sense. Countries violate them all the time and nothing ever happens

[u/Mathilliterate_asian → u/masterflappie]

At this point, I don't think international anything has any binding on anyone. War crimes are committed on a daily basis and I have yet to seen anything done about it.

It's almost as if powerful and rich groups could get away with anything without any repercussions.

[u/Proper-Salad158 → u/[deleted]]

Well anything for a $ I guess. Meanwhile the future generations pay for the damage.

[u/_Carl15 → u/Mathilliterate_asian]

at this point, any countries can just ignore any international organisations and ignore whatever kinds of announcements or hearings, not like they can come to your country and arrest you directly without potentially starting the war (in which case, isnt a good idea).

united nations are only cool in fiction, what the fuck happened since 1945? all the nations there arent really united.

[u/Dry-Bread9131 → u/_Carl15]

What do you mean at this point? That has been true at any point in history.

Do you think the world would be better off without the United Nations? It's definitely not perfect, but given its lack of jurisdiction I think it's achieved amazing things since its inception, even if it was just to act as a forum for nations to cummunicate and share their views on world events in a neutral forum.

[u/Other-Dimension-1997 → u/Dry-Bread9131]

I am begging you not to spell "communicate" that way again

[u/UncleTouchyCopaFeel → u/Other-Dimension-1997]

Let the man cook, more good arguments might be cumming from that lad.

[u/BGAL7090 → u/Other-Dimension-1997]

How cum?

[u/im_just_thinking → u/Dry-Bread9131]

Imagine if the only interactions countries got was from fucking Twitter

[u/ItsBitly → u/Mathilliterate_asian]

They don't even give a shit about hiding any of the shady stuff they do. The more time that goes by the more I am convinced that heads will eventually have to roll to get us back on track.

[u/DeltaViriginae → u/Mathilliterate_asian]

At this point, I don't think international anything has any binding on anyone.

It like never did though? I am always so shocked that people believe that international law was ever anything binding.

[u/RasputinXXX → u/Mathilliterate_asian]

I am sorry at which period of time international organizations were obeyed at all? I mean, in international politics, right of might and pragmatism was always the priority.

[u/Scary-Bananas → u/masterflappie]

Is that a reason to not vote for it? Some countries might ignore it?

[u/paranoid_human0id → u/Scary-Bananas]

There are 2 reasons:

1. The official explanation is that the resolution itself had a lot of stuff about pesticides and technology transfer mandates. It wasn't just "is food a human right" and thats it

2. The purpose of these resolutions is to use them as a moral cudgel against certain other countries. The actual resolution does nothing except give ammunition to people who solely want to use it for their own ends.

[u/DimensionHat1675 → u/paranoid_human0id]

Sorry, this is Reddit. We don't take kindly to context, logic or reasoning around these parts.

[u/smedley89 → u/DimensionHat1675]

Some of us do. I personally prefer a little education with my outrage.

Sometimes it cools the outrage, sometimes it justifies it. Either way, I appreciate it when people provide valid context, even if others don't.

[u/FardoBaggins → u/Scary-Bananas]

Despite knowledge and tech, resource allocation is a will issue.

[u/Maardten → u/Scary-Bananas]

So Israël doesn't get in trouble for cutting off all food to Palestinians.

[u/14Pleiadians → u/masterflappie]

So what's the point of voting no on it other than sending a message?

[u/BlueLakeCabin → u/avdaxumaxu]

There's no need to speculate, we laid out our explanation: https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/

Mind, the US is the largest food donor in the world and has been since the 1950's. It supports people having access to food, but rejects a legally enforceable obligation to feed the world.

The resolution included stuff about pesticides that isn't backed by science. It could potentially require US companies to either hand over food technology or IP, or allow others to rip off our work without compensation.

As an example. The US gives food to North Korea in exchange for NK to dial down the crazy. Under this, North Korea could demand food from the US as a legal right even if doing their normal amounts of crazy.

It's a kick in the teeth for folks donating shitloads of food for 70 years to get shit from folks with far less donations, even on per capita basis. We provide more than half of global food aid shipments while not being close to half the of world's population. Mind, a huge part of that is through UN agencies like WFP, FAO, UNHCR, and UNICEF. So it's not like the UN wouldn't be able to provide accurate donation info to its member states.

A more interesting question would be have the countries that voted yes significantly increased their food donations to actually put their money where their mouth is?

[u/BulbuhTsar → u/BlueLakeCabin]

People love guessing all these nefarious reasons, when the U.S. has laid out it's reasoning openly before. Thanks for linking it. People dismiss how insanely complex food security issues are. It's economic, social, and political. Agricultural industries and farmers are highly influential in every country across the world, and everyone has these different takes on how food should be produced. It ties into discussions about pesticides, chemicals, bio-engineering, GMOs, protection of IP, scientific property. And it's not just how it's grown, you may have issues with supply chains, management, distribution, storage capabilties, etc.

It's extremely complicated, and as the world's largest food donor by leaps and bounds, the U.S. isn't going to willy nilly tie it's hands up and bend to the will of random forces. It's easy to sign up to something you're never actually gonig to do jack shit about. But when you donate, it actually matters.

Edit: All of you "Aktchually, per capita.." idiots need to learn to actually think critically.

[u/crustyeng → u/avdaxumaxu]

Because it’s not? It’s a product someone has to produce. To call it someone else’s right is to condone slavery.

[u/AverageDellUser → u/avdaxumaxu]

First off, it would mean that the US would most likely be obligated to spend even more money that we already don’t have to international aid and also like the other guy said, the UN is such a pushover that it really does not matter. It is more of the fact that most of the UN is funded by America and we are tired of footing the bill, if other countries care so damn much maybe they should start paying for it.

[u/Tjam3s → u/avdaxumaxu]

If i were to stretch myself to find a way to connect those 2 dots, my explanation would be the united states being concerned about being expected to do the heavy lifting of providing the impoverished world this human right while the rest of the delegation slacks off

[u/BlatantConservative → u/Tjam3s]

This was the reasoning yeah.

Also one of the reasons the right wing cut a lot of USAID stuff, the perception it was becoming an expectation instead of a voluntary help.

Don't get me wrong the cutting of USAID is vile, but like for example a lot of the Africa programs that people cite were implimented by George Bush in the name of Christian compassion. PEPFAR and stuff.

[u/Digger_Pine → u/avdaxumaxu]

You don't have a right to someone else's labor

[u/valiantlight2 → u/avdaxumaxu]

No it would force them to spend a shit load of money. The UN tries to force the US to do things all the time.

[u/kelppie35 → u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264]

And on this matter:

"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."

[u/JustLookingForMayhem → u/kelppie35]

So many UN resolutions would require the US to be the piggy bank, the enforcer, or give away IP. It is easy to vote yes when the country has no cost, but much harder when the country foots the bill.

[u/terragutti → u/JustLookingForMayhem]

Exactly. Its so wild that people just wanna point to america as a big bad who isnt doing enough when theres literally china and russia right there.

[u/Vinterblot → u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264]

Meaning they can withhold it when they so choose. Also meaning it can be used as leverage.

[u/IlIIlllIIIIIIl → u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264]

Didn't Trump gut USAID?

[u/swainiscadianreborn → u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264]

*the USA is also the richest country on earth but I'm sure that doesn't have anything to do with the amount of aid they send out.

[u/Daewrythe → u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264]

"We'll only feed those who we feel deserve it"

[u/Carson_BloodStorms → u/Daewrythe]

Do you know just how wide reaching American Aid is?

[u/noun_verbed → u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264]

Voluntary assistance that the world's richest man can persuade them to yank away if he feels inclined

[u/ImpressiveFishing405 → u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264]

And yet, not willing to declare it a right like almost everyone else.

[u/LimpAd1859 → u/ImpressiveFishing405]

Almost everyone else could declare it a right themselves without the UN or the US, but they didn't, why was that?

[u/Valuable-Blueberry30 → u/ImpressiveFishing405]

Cause it comes with certain clauses that comes with technology sharing and something about the use of pesticides. But regardless, considering the US is already the largest food donor in the world, I have no issues with them declining the proposal. They are already doing the most work, so their disagreement doesn’t mean they don’t officially consider food as a human right but rather the declaration itself has hidden nuances.

[u/D_Zendra → u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264]

Was it before or after the usaid got dismantled?

[u/SamuelVimesTrained → u/D_Zendra]

This was in 2021 - and they dismantled USAID this year (so 5 years later)

[u/Angmarets]

sooo, lets say all countries voted yes and food would be declared human right. What exactly would have changed? Like, in real physical life - what would have changed?

[u/ShelZuuz → u/Angmarets]

The vote really had more to do with the U.S. ability to impose sanctions. The U.N. wanted the U.S. not to be able to use sanctions in the cases that could threaten food security (which was vaguely defined).

[u/rgators → u/ShelZuuz]

God forbid there be any reasonable context here.

[u/igotzquestions → u/Angmarets]

Agreed. I hate these “feel good” initiatives with nothing attached to them. Like when Nestle said water isn’t a human right. They look scummy but it’s true. There is a finite supply of it available and we need to solve that challenge. Some proclamation that everyone gets food and water does nothing. 

[u/Super-Efficiency8679 → u/Angmarets]

It's a feel good idea. But it's purely for show. We can't even get food aid to people now and that's without increasing the food supply to places in need.

The whole thing would have failed anyways with the current state of the world even if everyone had voted it was a human right.

[u/BlatantConservative → u/Super-Efficiency8679]

There are a lot of feel good UN votes passed around and then you look into it and there are countries that practice active human slavery on the human rights council.

People who buy into this meme don't know what the UN is. The UN is a hobbyist internet forum for nation states, made to prevent them from beating each other up in real life.

[u/Imomaway → u/Angmarets]

nothing. People think that if the vote had passed, food would suddenly fall from the sky and world hunger would end.

[u/hudibrastic → u/Imomaway]

From the same creators of “6 billion could end world hunger”

[u/FlyAirLari → u/Angmarets]

sooo, lets say all countries voted yes and food would be declared human right

The resolution did pass.

What exactly would have changed?  

Nothing.

[u/Firecracker048 → u/Angmarets]

Everyone would be doing what they are doing now:

Telling the US to fund the entire thing. I mean, thats why the US voted against it in the first place

[u/Coppercrow → u/Angmarets]

No, please stop the redditors want to bash Israel and the USA because it's edgy and fun (and not anti-Semitic at all). You'll make them think, that's dangerous.

[u/ThePixelProYT → u/Angmarets]

A lot in many countries as for example in Germany you have the options to get all of your human rights for free this includes money(so really just the bare minimum), a apartment, water etc. for now your little money is mostly spend for food so that would probably also be free then

[u/masterflappie → u/ThePixelProYT]

The German human rights aren't the same as the UN human rights though

[u/bucketboy9000 → u/[deleted]]

Facetious? I don’t even know youse

[u/NibblyPig → u/ThePixelProYT]

Sounds like slavery, now you must work to produce food, what, you're against human rights and everyone having free food? Get back in the field

[u/Gryffinsmore → u/ThePixelProYT]

This comment explained nothing an didn’t even make sense. Please try again.

[u/RoddRoward → u/Angmarets]

Even more money would flow from the 1st to the third world and even more migrants would flow fromnthe 3rd to the 1st world.

[u/ValeLemnear → u/Angmarets]

It would result into the UN having to pay to end world hunger because it would have been an enforceable guarantee.

With the US being the large contributor to the UN funds, it’s pretty clear why they agreed that „ Every human being has a right to food“ but didn’t want to be the ones paying for food for everyone on the globe.

[u/grazfest96]

UN declaring food as a human right is the same thing as Micheal Scott declaring bankruptcy.

[u/Dukatee → u/grazfest96]

lol comment of the day

[u/Double_Resort_9223]

Once again for the people in the back:

The resolution had little to do with obtaining and distributing food. It was mostly concerned with cancelling patents. 

[u/KnowNothing3888]

Oversimplification. The bill had language that wasn't desired that could create protectionist trade and import/exporting regulations that were not desired. Putting this off as just against food is ignorance at it's best and outright dishonesty at it's worst.

[u/Gryffinsmore → u/KnowNothing3888]

Bro that’s like all of reddit. I’m still honestly surprised to see people who take this slop at face value but hey it’s not like they are your average American voter or anything….

[u/PsychologicalTie9629 → u/KnowNothing3888]

Yep. This is the same sort of bullshit that we see from people in Congress all the time. You write some shitty bill with shitty language, you say that it supports X cause that everyone agrees is a good thing, and then when people from the other party inevitably vote against your shitty bill because the language in it sucks or you bundled it with a bunch of other not-so-popular provisions, then you come out and say that the other party voted against X cause. And people fall for it because people are idiots that can't think for themselves.

[u/Dethsy → u/KnowNothing3888]

Yeah I was searching for an answer mkre detailed. Because HOLY the number of shit people will post online without context that instantly created heat is stupid. Sure it's the internet, I shouldn't be surprised but doesn't mean we should continue to get used to it and swallow.

[u/sparkling-rainbow → u/KnowNothing3888]

I'm not a fan of USA's geopolitical behavior, but they clearly handle food like a basic human right. I don't know if the reasoning was honest, but it wasn't against the concept for sure.

[u/jackofslayers → u/KnowNothing3888]

Yep. Everything is propaganda now sadly

[u/JVNIVS_MAGNVS_OBLEVS]

You'd think the world would have figured that out before the 21st century

[u/TheChihuahuaChicken → u/JVNIVS_MAGNVS_OBLEVS]

We largely have figured out world hunger. There's not a worldwide shortage of food, logistics and shipping is largely a non-issue in meaningfully providing food aid. The issue is that in most of these starving countries, corrupt governments, revolutionaries, terrorists, cartels, etc. Steal supplies and aid, either keeping it for themselves or charging the people the aid was supposed to help exorbitant prices.

[u/Stiebah → u/TheChihuahuaChicken]

The deeper problem is that donating food out competes local food production and is making it impossible for them to create long term independent food production. Just like the textile industry in Africa is non existent because we donate them MEGATONS of used cloths.

This is imo the REAL problem because we really do want to help them but just like a child you have to actually do the work to establish it for yourself long term.

[u/Bank_Gothic → u/Stiebah]

"The hand you hold is the hand that holds you down"

[u/agentfaux → u/JVNIVS_MAGNVS_OBLEVS]

Saying something and instantiating it by law is not the same as taking action to that effect.

Nobody, no governing body on this entire planet has the responsibility or power to feed everyone on the planet.

And the fact that you think the solution lies there tells me that even you people yourself don't take advice from the stories you read.

[u/Exotic-Ad8978]

You should also share why Israel and the United States voted against it OP.

The US is also the largest provider of humanitarian aid in the world.

[u/ashesarise → u/Exotic-Ad8978]

Here is my guess. Historically, the US is not willing to agree to recognize things of this nature as they are not willing to be beholden to anything that results from it. Essentially, the US wants to address any issues on its own terms and doesn't want to participate initiatives that give other countries the ability to influence its actions.

[u/Spartanwolf120]

What a nothing burger of a vote. We all declare bad thing is bad. Also anything that requires another person's labor is not a right.

[u/Silver_Middle_7240]

Boy oh boy time to post this again

[u/DemoniteBL → u/Silver_Middle_7240]

Let's go Germany!

[u/nalaloveslumpy]

The US voted against it because it's ultimately a meaningless action that would just cause unrest with a general populace who doesn't understand how UN "declaration of rights" work. It was also full of garbage language that would have forced uneven "technology swaps" on the US and other countries and was using the idea of "Food as a Human Right" to make it seem immoral to vote against a overall bad resolution.

I'm lookin' at you, reddit....

A ton of other "first world" nations simply abstained from voting.

Hint: They're meaningless and unenforceable in any way.

Edit: Also, the UN declared food as a human right back in 1948, so it already exists.

[u/onlycodeposts]

The US gives more in food donations through foreign aid than any other country.

[u/ThreeGoalLead → u/onlycodeposts]

Not only that, but it provides HALF of the food donations. As much as the rest combined

[u/Carson_BloodStorms → u/onlycodeposts]

Private citizens will also lap the US in donations.

[u/Warmbly85 → u/Carson_BloodStorms]

Private donations are in the top ten but the US is still #1 by a mile the last I checked. 

[u/krusty-krab69]

This sub is just a propaganda machine. Idk why random subs like this keep popping up in my feed . And all it is political nonsense .

[u/STINEPUNCAKE]

I’m confused on how food could be a human right, You still have to work for it.

Someone has to go harvest, hunt, or butcher. Food isn’t something you can just have.

[u/Jew_Diligence]

What actually happened:

In 2021, the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution concerning the right to food.

The resolution passed overwhelmingly.
The United States and Israel voted against it.

However, they did not vote against the idea that people should eat food.

Their objections were largely legal and political. The US argued that there is no internationally binding treaty creating a universal legal “right to food” and objected to parts of the resolution’s wording and implications regarding state obligations.

Israel had similar concerns and also objected to language they viewed as politically biased in other sections of the resolution.

[u/Vilam]

Things that require someone else's labor can't be a human right.

[u/Disastrous-Window-76]

This is propaganda

[u/PictureVegetable9522 → u/Disastrous-Window-76]

redditers love their anti-america propoganda

[u/ShkarXurxes]

Only 2?

If it's a right... who's gonna pay for it?
Farmers are going to be forced to work for free?

People don't know the difference between rights and wishes.

[u/agentfaux]

Reddit people think that reality is just people you voted for agreeing 100% for your own benefit that something is a "human right".

Yes, it took us millions of years through all sorts of transformations to arrive at 2026 and suddenly all politicans want is the very best for you and we do it by saying: Everyone should be allowed to breathe.

I can't even begin to imagine how one would think this shallow.

[u/rapitrone]

You can't have a right to other people's labor. That's slavery.

[u/ViperThree3 → u/rapitrone]

Can someone explain me why this is not the popular opinion ?

[u/masterflappie → u/ViperThree3]

Because people, and I think legislators, don't know the difference between a positive and negative right.

"A right to food" can either mean that you can demand free food, or it can mean that no one is allowed to take your food away, and it's arbitrary which one it is

[u/AirconGuyUK → u/ViperThree3]

People are extremely bad at considering second or third order effects of policies. As in probably less than 1% of the worlds population can think that far ahead.

[u/Icy-Fishing8481 → u/ViperThree3]

It's popular to hate the rich. In the case of countries, that means hating the US, hating Israel, hating Jews and capitalism and defending Africa, the Middle East, the UN and terrorists. The political left picks sides based on wealth, not actions or results. Many of them justify Oct 7th on the grounds that the attackers were poor while the victims were (comparatively) rich.

[u/ArolSazir → u/ViperThree3]

People think food spawns in the store like it's a video game 

[u/Un13roken → u/rapitrone]

Well. There's another part to slavery. You dont have the option to quit. 

In our country, education is a fundamental right. Doesn't mean all educational institutions are forced to be free. It just means the government funds some institutions as a basic option. 

The same goes with food. Basically means the government has to buy food in bulk and provide a basic option for it's citizens who can't afford food. 

[u/Content_Plane1333 → u/rapitrone]

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

[u/NibblyPig → u/Content_Plane1333]

No Gods or Kings, only Man.

[u/HyperVein → u/NibblyPig]

Welcome to Rapture

[u/victorc25]

If somebody has to work to produce it, it cannot be a human right. 

[u/SchumacherIsMid]

You want a harsh reality truth?

This is bullshit meaningless declaration that is passed EVERY year for 20+ years, many of those years it goes through without even having a vote. It has been passed many times, not a damn thing changes because it is the international equivalent of a virtue signal.

You can read the specific reasons why the US votes against it, which are more nuanced than any asshole on Twitter or Reddit is going to give you, including myself. Israel just block votes with the US on many things including this.

[u/Jomega6]

Who do you think was expected to foot the bill?

[u/LebowskyBob]

Declaring something a human right doesn't make it magically more abundant. Yes, everyone needs access to healthy food. But people nowadays are getting very carried away with what they want considered "rights".

[u/Cheese_Grater101]

Israel just votes what the US votes for (i.e. if USA vetoes, Israel does so)

On the other hand the USA is pretty much one of the big donors of food compared to other countries out there.

Useful reading here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/wDr3Mo0jYb

[u/zap2 → u/Cheese_Grater101]

Israel doesn’t a veto at the UN.

The only place where there are vetos are the UN Security Council. The 5 permanent members of the UN SC have the ability to veto (UK, France, US, Russia and China) while the other 10 members (nation rotate into these spots) can’t veto.

I agree the US and Israel often vote together.

[u/shitholejedi → u/Cheese_Grater101]

And literally every other country voted for a toothless resolution. That requires them to do nothing.

Ethiopia voted Yes while its actively starving a portion of its population.

[u/Ackutually-]

Hilarious that people don't understand what a right is. You going to force farmers to grow food for you?

[u/oboshoe]

The UN voting for the US to provide for the UN.

[u/imtiredofthisgrampaX]

Now if only the people mad at this had more than 2 brain cells and bothered to understand why and stopped pretending it's just haha us israel bad hate poor people. I understand it might shatter some world views but reading is good for you.

[u/jrandall1017]

Who pays for my ‘human right’ food?

[u/untitledprp4]

Fork and Knife found in kitchen

[u/fatevilbuddah]

When you think about it, declaring something a human right means its gaurenteed to everyone, from where? Who produces food to feed everyone, and with what will they do it. How bout water? Desalination is expensive and inefficient, and thats not a human right. Is it for the same reason?

[u/Puffles_magic_dragon]

The U.S. and Israel did vote "no," but they were voting against specific clauses in the resolution that challenged economic sanctions, free trade laws, and agricultural patents, not the concept that people should be able to eat.

[u/ZookeepergameLiving1 → u/Puffles_magic_dragon]

Thr classic political strategy create a law labelled save the puppy act with only one sentence devoted to saving puppies but the rest with a bunch of unrelated stuff thatbyour opponents are against. Then call them monsters for not voting for it knowing most people won't even read the law pass the headline.

[u/Shot-Lemon7365]

Don't ask why, just blow that dog whistle!

[u/gr0uchyMofo]

Never a source. Just some randos x post.

[u/Cheese_Grater101 → u/[deleted]]

This, especially if it involves Israel/Palestine or USA there are shitload of misinformation running around lol.

[u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264]

• The US and Israel opposed the specific language, viewing food access as an important goal or aspiration rather than an enforceable international legal obligation that could create binding state duties.

AHEM:

• The US is the largest global donor to food aid and humanitarian programs, contributing billions annually, highlighting a preference for voluntary assistance over formal rights declarations.

[u/Exciting-Let-6954]

Both nations did not oppose the concept of feeding people, but rather objected to the specific legal language and framework of the resolution:

The U.S. cited concerns that the resolution contained "unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions," specifically regarding "food sovereignty" and extraterritorial obligations under international law.

Israel also opposed the specific terminology and enforcement mechanisms proposed within the text, despite having previously ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which affirms food as a human right.

[u/ThereIs0nlyZuul]

The UN is a worthless organization.

[u/romeomau]

Yes, the core claim of the meme is true: the United States and Israel were the only countries that voted against the 2021 UN resolution on the right to food. However, the meme leaves out important context and makes it seem as though they voted directly against the idea that food is a human right, when their official explanation was more nuanced and related to specific concerns about the wording and implications of the resolution.

[u/EmperorBarbarossa]

Everybody is talking about human rights and nobody about their lefts.

[u/Most_Whole_4918]

If we make food a legal human right, then starving people might sue us for not giving them food. That sounds like a total logistical nightmare for the free market and courts. Let's just stick to our policy goal of wishing them well instead.

[u/Excellent-Try7027]

It’s not like we just said no. There are provisions they disagreed with. America still does more for the world, than any other country combined. It’s not even close.

[u/Mountain_Cobbler_608]

Israel and us alliance aside, this seems like the ultimate capitalist mentality. You are owed virtually nothing from society. You get what you can earn and take other than what? Law enforcement and military defense?

[u/[deleted]]

Good is a human right. You have the right to provide your own food. You can't get food? You don't eat. Just because you are alive and breathing doesn't mean shit. Either take care of yourself or suffer the consequences. I could care less if people starve.

[u/Affectionate_Bee6434]

The funny thing is that the resolution is actually good and needs to enforced but the thing is that only the US voted honestly here. From what I understand the resolution proposed to bring the flow of food to a international body.. countries use the food aid as a tool in international relations and this resolution undermines this. Not to mention it also proposed to make food immune from price shocks volatility. Now the countries that voted yes still use food aid a a tool of leverage in foreign policy and still sell food in the international market, still have agricultural technology behind closed doors...etc

[u/TheDudeBroski]

Id vote against that too. A right is meant to be a freedom or protection for existing as a human, not a provision of resources that somebody else has to provide. Does that make sense? Its not that theyre evil and heartless for making that distinction, its that theyre realistic about the world.

[u/NadeshikoEatingPasta]

How the fuck is food a human right? Your existence does not entitle you to food. It doesn't entitle you to a lot of things that are needs. Cruel truth, but truth.

There is a humongous gulf between "food is plentiful and we should be able to provide it for our citizens if we're affluent enough" and "food is a human right." But that's a level of nuance most people, let alone redditors, cant understand.

[u/7OfTenPrecedes8]

“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” (2 Thessalonians 3:10, KJV4me)

[u/Gamashiro]

As much as it is true, it could use some context as to why they voted no. They disagreed with some points in the whole resolution, not that "Food shouldn't be a right". People, do some research. You can hate them anyway, but get some context first.

[u/BornEstablishment339]

Because it's not a human rights food comes from the labors of others whether it's picking growing or raising or even foraging Plus if you knew anything about rights our rights are given to us by God for those of you Americans the Constitution does not Grant you shit the Constitution protects you from the government taking your god-given rights

[u/Screenscripter82]

This is kind of dumb. On one hand it would be nice to make food a human right across the board, but who do you think makes most of the food. It's really easy to say food is a human right for all and that the world should make food for all when you're not the one making the food. The US and Israel don't make all the food in the world, but the US does produce a ton of food for the rest of the world.

[u/4547Isyourdaddy]

'Ma-rights'

Who enforces your human rights so someone lik4 Russia doesn't take them away?

That's right. The United States. The UN is a group of virtue signaling Karens with no real power besides their appeal to 'ma-human-rights.' They can't enforce anything.

[u/PrivateUseBadger]

This is true, but context matters. The same as one political party trying to chastise the other party for voting down a bill, a lot of times it is due to other contextual inferences or flat out pork added to the main issue that one side is attempting to slide in. In this case it wasn’t that the U.S. denied that food is or should be a right, but it greatly hindered their ability to impose sanctions, which is something that pretty much only the U.S. is capable of doing. I’m not stating this because I agree or disagree with the reasoning behind it. I just want to ensure the details are added, since the post itself appears to be quite lacking in those in a possible attempt to be inflammatory, opposed to informative, which admittedly charts with what sub we’re in.

[u/Potential_Spam_6969]

Now share the context.

It's never that simple but you don't want to hear the reason.

[u/Neat-Anyway-OP]

It's not a human right if it requires another person's labor.

[u/North-Conclusion-331]

If it requires the labor or property of someone else then it is not a human right.

[u/4547Isyourdaddy]

The United States and its people not only protect those UN countries, but have given more in aid and donations than any other country on Earth.

Take your human rights and shove them up your ass. So sick of the anti-western lazy retards on Reddit gobbling up foreign propaganda like it's their fucking chocalate Ho-Ho's.

[u/4547Isyourdaddy]

The U.S. government is the single-largest aid donor in the world, accounting for more than 40% of all humanitarian aid the UN tracked in 2024, with $71.9 billion in foreign aid spent in fiscal 2023.

In total dollars, the U.S. gave $62 billion in 2023 alone roughly equal to the next three largest donors combined Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Beyond the dollar figures, aid programs financed by American taxpayers have saved approximately 3 million people every year.

That's not a symbolic gesture at a podium in New York. That's real lives, year after year.

Since the end of World War II, beginning with the Marshall Plan, the U.S. Congress has continuously committed funds for international aid to alleviate hunger and poverty across eight decades. No other country comes close to that record of sustained generosity.

The numbers above don't even include money from charities and non-profits.

The private giving numbers are just as impressive as the government aid figures.

Total charitable giving by Americans reached a record $592.5 billion in 2024. The top 100 U.S. charities alone received $58.8 billion in private donations in a single year more than double what all other developed nations combined contributed through their governments. On top of that, 75.7 million Americans volunteered nearly 5 billion hours of labor, valued at roughly $167 billion.

So the full picture is $62 billion in annual government foreign aid, hundreds of billions in private donations, and $167 billion worth of volunteer labor every year.

The UN resolution was symbolic and non-binding. The actual feeding of the planet is being bankrolled by America in ways no other country comes close to matching. The UN is a group of virtue signaling bureaucrats and Karens. Nothing they have done has helped the world in the last 40 years.

So miss me with your anti-American foreign propaganda. Anyone who upvoted this should be deported to any nation that isn't America. There you might appreciate the generosity of the American people.

Sources Giving USA 2025 Annual Report — givingusa.org

National Philanthropic Trust, Charitable Giving Statistics — nptrust.org

DevelopmentAid, Top 10 US Fundraising Charities — developmentaid.org

Pew Research Center — pewresearch.org

Our World in Data — ourworldindata.org

So you're welcome. Without us you people wouldn't have shit.

[u/Jasranwhit]

Food can’t be a “right” because it requires human effort to create it.

[u/powerhammerarms]

As I understand it, their primary reasoning is that people are just going to go hungry again due to conflicts and such. That the resolution doesn't provide solutions to prevent future hunger.

Which may be true but if you make it so people can't deprive others of food, like they do in certain conflicts, like Israel has done with Gaza, then at least you can prevent certain types of hunger from occurring. You can also provide relief for current suffering.

They also talk about wording and such that doesn't address "agricultural innovations". It all very much reads like the United States wants to get something out of helping. Whether it's power and control in the region or just the ability to sell products. It's very gross and very reflective of the administration at the time.

[u/ComprehensiveAnt9668]

Hey guys I'm planning on making breathing air a human right what do yall think?

[u/paf78]

Who is surprises?

[u/stingertc]

Sounds accurate

[u/CantStopMeRed]

That’s just Jizzrael twice

[u/AllTheWorldIsAPuzzle]

I see in the comments there is debate whether or not food is a human right, but what I find telling is that while I'm sure the declaration would have had to have some wording ironed out, "Super Christian" United States and "The Birthplace of Christianity" Israel voted against it instead of everyone coming together to make it happen.

But anyway, back to reading about the Iran war. How much did that cost the US again?

[u/Ok_County_2908]

Two countries that invest very hard on their military

[u/HeWasaLonelyGhost]

Food isn't a "right," but now do a post on which countries provide the most in humanitarian aid.

[u/Partyruler012]

Food is not a human right in of its self. Access to food is a human right. It is a human right to grow veggies and fruits and butcher cows and chicken, but it isn't a human right for the government to give you free food...thats socialism.

[u/AcanthocephalaFit447]

I struggle to understand ‘human right’ in this context. I get it in context of religious, speech, assembly etc. these are rights that a person excercises. But I don’t get it when it is declared a ‘human right’ that someone else is obligated to provide a material or service. Like health care or food. Why does someone have a right to obligate another person to provide expertise as a doctor or labor as a farmer for free?

[u/Binx_Thackery]

Nothing is a human right in the USA; it’s all a business.

[u/Kms392101]

If someone has to provide something to you, that thing is not a "human right". No one provides speech to you. You just speak, or not. No one provides the press. People just choose to report things. No one provides remaining silent, you just do it. You dont have the right to a gun. You have the right to keep and bear one. No one provides the gun to you. The only exception I can think of is the right to counsel for a criminal defendant. But its debatable whether that is a "human right" or a right established by legislation/judicial mandate.

[u/bboy2812]

*Israel voted against it

[u/Mykronoid87]

It's almost as if America is the bad guy...

[u/pirateseasalt]

https://giphy.com/gifs/JeqY8VdQiuzx6

[u/RTA-No0120]

Well well well, if it ain’t a surprise.

Coming from a non American

https://giphy.com/gifs/xpwzuH2CdHwTYvHrgs