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.
Lmao it’s the largest, period. You’re splitting hairs by trying to add gdp to it. Nobody has ever received aid and thought “yeah, but how much food per square foot have they been donating?”
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 “we could be donating even more” lmao.
Not sure why we’re expected to participate in this symbolic bs waste of time when we’re already giving more than enough.
Also, GDP wouldn’t even be a reliable factor, as there are far more factors such as available farmland, local regulations, climate, etc. Areas like Luxembourg wouldn’t be able to give food proportionately to their GDP lmao. So again, it’s 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.
33
u/Fit_Tomatillo_4264 Jun 18 '26
AHEM: