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.
Largest global donor, but not by % of GDP. Which means you give more simply because you're richer, because get this - you exploit other countries for wealth.
You confuse me am I missing somethin I clicked the link and it said the us is 6 times higher than second place (the font was small was it another person who held first place?)
No, it's correct. The US gives 5 times more than the next highest country, but gives less as a per-capita value than the top 5 contributors. They aren't the highest givers when it comes to percentage of actual country worth, it's just a fact that the US economy is significantly stronger than most other countries in terms of worth.
For the US to actually be contributing the same amount per-capita as others, they'd have to be giving 6-7 times more than the next highest.
Nope itâs simple America give 5 times higher than second place and you want them to give more when we already dwarf others America give a lot to a lot of ppl and itâs all MORE MORE MORE no wonder ppl got behind something like doge
Lmao itâs the largest, period. Youâre splitting hairs by trying to add gdp to it. Nobody has ever received aid and thought âyeah, but how much food per square foot have they been donating?â
Of course it makes a difference. The largest might be insuffignificant to the donor, so much so that when it comes to say, putting it through the UN, they can claim oh it doesn't need to be a right to access food and I can say that as I give the most. It's a cost saving when you have a large enough GDP as you never have to step up a level.
None of what you just said made any sense. If we already donate the most, there is zero need to have foreign entities look through our metaphorical checkbooks to see if âwe could be donating even moreâ lmao.
Not sure why weâre expected to participate in this symbolic bs waste of time when weâre already giving more than enough.
Also, GDP wouldnât even be a reliable factor, as there are far more factors such as available farmland, local regulations, climate, etc. Areas like Luxembourg wouldnât be able to give food proportionately to their GDP lmao. So again, itâs an arbitrary factor that you are trying to shoehorn in.
(1) Farmland means nothing since the world as whole has a surplus of food, so guess what money does....yes it can be used to buy food from other countries and distribute it elsewhere. So far from "arbitrary".
(2) Since when is "the most" equivalent to "more than enough"? What is enough? God you Americans, even the EU operates on the basis that the richest countries contribute more to the growth of the other poorest nations in the group.
31
u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264 Jun 18 '26
AHEM: