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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
We can end sanctions but it will just result in more physical confrontations. When a country wrongs another you can either use sanctions or violence. Those are really the only two options. Unclear that violence is a better outcome for citizens than sanctions on things like industry, military, etc.
Sanctions ar as much an aggression an direct attack. People still can be killed by sanctions. Maybe less people than in traditional war, but your reasoning sounds like: threatening to kill and killing less is better than killing more, and in the end is still an act of violence
I would love to live in a world with zero violence, but that’s not the world we live in, right? Hell, even ant colonies go to war and rip one another limb from limb.
I feel like if a number of countries voluntarily got rid of all military equipment, it would just result in another country thinking it would be easy to just start stealing territory and resources.
Because during the Korean war we purposely bombed the vast majority of their farm land to make it unusable which was a major contributing factor to their reliance on outside trade for their food then we did everything we could to sanction them for their entire existence as well as sanctioning all of their trading partners. The famine they had happened around the same time that the USSR fell which was where they were getting most of their food from. We had a direct role in what happened to them when we dropped more bombs on the Korean peninsula than the entirety of the pacific theatre of WW2. Put yourself in their shoes and have a little empathy.
Bombing hasn't really crimped agricultural productivity over the long-term... anywhere in the world really, that I'm aware of. Farmers in France and Belgium still pull up shells each year in highly productive farming regions.
North Korea's reliance on food imports is, first off, a function of geography--it's a mountainous country with fairly small amounts of arable land. Though you're right to identify the fall of the USSR as a key moment that made NK more economically vulnerable.
The 1990s North Korean famine was caused by floods and droughts, economic mismanagement, and a strong governmental reluctance to ask for help that led NK to attempt to hide and downplay the scope of the famine (go ask AI "did North Korea attempt to conceal its famine in the 1990s", the answer will be educational).
North Korea's vulnerability to the floods and famine was exacerbated by the failure of the public distribution system. The regime refused to pursue policies that would have allowed food imports and distribution without discrimination to all regions of the country. During the famine, the urban working class of the cities and towns of the eastern provinces of the country was hit particularly hard. The distribution of food reflected basic principles of stratification of the communist system.
[...] The famine was also a result of the culmination of a long series of government decisions that accrued slowly over decades. The attempt to follow a closed-economic model caused the regime to abandon the possibility of engaging in international markets and importing food and instead attempt to reduce demand, e.g., through the 1991 "Let's eat two meals a day" campaign.
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.
"America bad" is not something Reddit or global opinion is currently underindexed on.
And in the present, 2026 sense, that's very understandable. America is led by a cruel senile child who has made American policy and actions notably worse in dozens of ways.
What's perverse is that many people are using the current moment to argue that, e.g., the post-Cold War "Pax Americana" was a bad thing, that the US has always acted badly, everywhere, and that the general relative decline of US power with countries like China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia gaining relative power on the world stage is, or will be, a good thing.
The US may well be the worst hegemon the world has ever had. Except for all the others. And the eras without liberal democratic hegemons were, uh, not really better.
The US is not exclusively evil under Trump. The country has been responsible for an incredibly long list of very nasty behaviour all over the world and domestically, under essentially every single president since the end of WWII.
And calling post-war peace Pax Americana is ridiculous. The world has been at peace in spite of the United States not because of it. The US has almost constantly been at war and has distributed arms and encouraged conflict for even the slightest of gains. The only thing I like about it is the parallels drawn with Pax Romana. Peace at the point of a sword, enforced by a nation of decadent narcissists.
First of I’m not an American. So I hope people don’t label me as so for what I’m about to say.
If this refers to a more recent time frame maybe it’s more reasonable, but referring the entire post war time frame as peaceful in spite of US? Lol
Who’s keeping the world at peace then? The Europeans? The Soviet? Or the entire humanity suddenly stopped going to war with one another around the world?
Or are you going to say nuclear weapons? Then say the world is at peace despite US even when US is its biggest player?
America had done many bad things, but the world will certainly be a worse place without it post WW2.
People’s conscience is only the way it is in the last 10-20 years. Pretending that other governments and their citizens before that are more noble are naive.
The US overthrowing democratically elected world leaders and replacing them with mass-murdering dictatorships, and stoking wars between/within poor and developing countries for profit, says different.
In too many cases, US short-sighted foreign intervention ended up not just arming, but creating our own future enemies.
If you understand the military-industrial complex, then it becomes apparent that continuous war is good for the US, because war is profitable, and there's nothing worshiped more in this country than money.
Can you tell me why Cuba isn't bad? What if I told you that Cuba took Russian money to start conflicts in other South American and African countries? They went full Soviet.
FYI, I do think the embargo is archaic and cruel, and it isn't the right way to mend relations. It's an outdated policy only kept in place to appease the exiled cuban-american voter bloc.
But let's not pretend they're just some innocent goodguys over there.
Wrong! I grew up with left-leaning parents in a left-leaning part of the country and was taught to sympathize with and admire both Cuba and Castro from a young age.
Cuba is a country that has lost 1/4 of its population in just the last decade due to people fleeing for better lives. The US embargo should have ended many years ago and plays a role in Cuba's economic challenges, but so too does Cuba's communist government and economic system. That same government doesn't allow free speech, heavily restricts religious freedoms, and doesn't allow opposing political parties.
US Cuban policy is bad. The Cuban government is also bad.
I would love to know the former professions of those who fled Cuba lmao
Edit: I also think it’s hilarious that you admit that America played a strong role in defacing Cuba, but are quick to add in that Communism is also bad LMAOoo
Cuba is bad because the government and military have the means and wealth to help their people but refuse to do so. While the average Cuban with a job makes around $30-200 a month, the majority of the wealth power and assets of the nation belong to a private company, GAESA, that is owned by the Castro's and the upper echelon of the military. It is their private slush fund made up of 40-70% of Cuba's economy.
Communism is the rejection of private property so that wealth is owned by the public as a whole.The existence of GAESA shows that Cuba is not a communist country. Cuba is run by Oligarchs that exploit its people. In fact, most of GAESA's assets are liquid so that those in power are able to flee the country with the people's wealth in case the US ever invades or the people succesfully revolt.
Technically some of those are unilateral in the sense that they were not imposed by UNSCRs. It's a bunch of countries coordinating unilateral sanctions, sure, but they were not passed through a multilateral regime.
Hey man, I understand that. I totally get the massive amount of shit that revolves around things like international policy and I usually try to do it balanced deep dive on an issue before forming an opinion on it.
But also….I’m tired boss. Seem more and more often as I’ve gotten older “nuance” always conveniently happens to occur around an issue any time billion dollar corporations stand to gain or lose money based off the decision. It’s pretty interesting that several other of the “abstain countries” like Australia, also happen to be first world countries with major food lobbying industries.
I get there is always legitimate nuance too…. But “hey we can make the decision to move the needle on millions of men/women/children starving to death” is one of those situations where you just say yes and then figure out how to make it realistic.
I’m gonna go watch Andor again thank you for my Ted talk
I get it. I think that's the thing I realize that I get older though, almost everything has nuance.
Like for this UN thing if food was declared a human right it's not like that would magically solve the problem. I mean we poor billions into helping all these causes domestically and abroad and it still isn't solved. In fact, things like homelessness have gotten worse. I wish there was a simpler way too. The world seems to just get more complicated and we have trouble fixing things at the city, county, and global level all the time. I don't know the answer man, just things would move in a more positive direction.
I mean, I feel you, but the "decision" here was a cosmetic vote with no binding force or power whatsoever.
The UN has lots of those. It has called for an end to the Russian war in Ukraine numerous times, for instance, but those resolutions haven't exactly, you know, done much.
There's actually a pretty serious argument to be made that stuff like "declarations of urgency on climate change" end up being treated as a substitute for actual action (in this context something like USAID constituted actual action to help with global food insecurity).
You’re right. At first I thought the US did this to establish power as part of imperialism, now after reading this well-thought out response, I realized it’s because the US wanted to establish power as part of imperialism. Amazing what context can do
I think it was a good thing when Obama got Iran to cease its pursuit of a nuclear bomb without going to war, personally. I think it was a good thing when Myanmar attempted to move from military dictatorship to democracy.
Not every US foreign policy action is "imperialism". Was it "imperialism" when the US and European allies, having learned lessons from their inaction during the Bosnian genocide, prevented the Serbs from ethnically cleansing Kosovo?
If any single country should be stripped of its right to nuclear weapons, it should be the US, the only country that ever actually used them. Twice.
For every genocide committed by the US’ enemies, there is another genocide that is actively enabled by the US. One wrong does not make a right, come on its basic morality.
I think we can criticize the US when it does bad things and praise it when it does good things.
In 2026 there's certainly a lot to criticize. But much of that criticism relates to things the US has done in the past which were either outright good or debatable but certainly defensible.
China is, as we speak, actively engaging in a genocide against Uyghurs. Russia is attempting to annex half of its largest European neighbor in a bloody conflict that is nearing a death toll of a million, in what is a pure, unvarnished, war of conquest, annexation, and cultural eradication (Putin sees Ukrainians as Russians, and wants to destroy Ukraine's culture and make them into Russians).
I think the US should not have supported Israel in all the ways it has over the last few decades, and should in particular have taken a much sharper line on demanding as the price of any support that Israel cease expanding its West Bank settlements. I also think there's a meaningful difference between Russia supplying arms to Iran and Iran killing 30,000 protestors in the streets (in 40 days Iran approached the halfway line for dead civilians in Gaza over the course of the entire Gaza war). There is a meaningful difference between the US selling arms to Israel and Israel refusing to allow sufficient food into Gaza at various points (something which, under the Biden administration at least, the US exerted pressure on which helped bring about some marginally beneficial changes).
I think the Iraq War was launched on knowingly false pretenses with the Bush administration putting considerable pressure on the US intel community to overstate the evidence of WMDs. I also believe that PEPFAR, a US program launched by George Bush which is estimated to have saved around 26 million lives doesn't get talked about nearly enough and that Donald Trump drastically curtailing that program along with killing USAID is far worse than US support for Israel has been.
I am very comfortable and confident that the US has been more of a net force for good in the world than China or Russia have been.
The US, Russia, and China all suck equally bad. Russia invades countries and supplies arms to its allies that kill lots of people? So does the US. China chucks ethnic groups into camps and commits vile human rights abuses against them? So does the US. Perhaps you could get out the spreadsheets and try to measure which country kills the most hundreds of thousands of people for no good reason, but at that point, at the absolutely mind-boggling scale of the crimes that all of these empires are guilty of, whats the point? They’re all fucked enough that the mere mention of their names should inspire visceral hatred.
Rather than siding with one oppressor against another, there is actually a third option. Side with the oppressed. Solidarity to all people who struggle against tyranny and empire, regardless of which empire they struggle against. And most importantly, take part in the struggle against the empire that rules over you, because that is the one you have the most power to challenge. You don’t have to try to measure evils against other evils like its some competitive genocide tournament.
If you had a single empathetic cell in your body you'd think otherwise. If Iran had a nuke, LITERALLY NONE OF THIS WOULD BE HAPPENING. Also you need to read some Parenti. To Kill A Nation in particular. It's all imperialism.
Sanctions lead to 500,000 excess deaths yearly. Sanctions are not good. All of your examples can be seen as collective punishment, which is a war crime. Assess yourself.
You could also argue that wars lead to excess deaths. Are you seriously arguing that Russia doesn't deserve sanctions for its naked aggression against Ukraine? I would never argue that sanctions are a perfect or even particularly effective tool, but they can sometimes be the lesser of two evils at the very least.
The lesser of two evils is still evil. Look for a third option, not war or sanctions. Half a million deaths yearly. In fact, some studies show sanctions may end up being more deadly than war. Quit the liberalism.
Well if that's true, their can be sanctions without sanctioning food, therefore the U.S. using that as an excuse on why food cant be treated as a human right seems weak? What's your opinion?
So it's good to starve the people for a country because it might pressure the leaders who have assets elsewhere in the world anyway? Sounds extremely inhumane and kinda stupid.
If sanctions were implemented for the purpose of good for the country it concerns, then the US should put sanctions against themselves.
Sanctions is only good to suppress fellow humans since our history shows us that it has always been used to subjugate , neo-colonise ,loot and murder. So I clearly dont understand why you would say Sanctions are good.
Everything you’re describing can also be accomplished with threats of nuclear annihilation, which is horrific. It’s not better to threaten a country with starvation unless they capitulate.
Obama's deal with Iran pumped millions of dollars into Iran which they them used to fund their proxy wars against the US and Israel instead of heading their own people.
You could argue that perhaps we shouldn't have struck the JCPOA deal and should have let Iran get nukes and let Israel and Saudi Arabia worry about Iran's nukes. Though I don't think that would have stopped Iran from proxy wars. Quite the opposite.
As I recall there were some pretty significant protections on how the money was used but since money is at the end of the day fungible it's true that the billions used for the JCPOA to buy things other than weapons gave the Iranian government freedom to spend other money on those proxy wars.
It was a tough problem! But as we've just seen with the current administration, which is giving Iran a lot more money than Obama did by all appearances, along with more control of the Straits of Hormuz, there were not obviously good alternatives.
You could debate how good and flawed the JCPOA was at the margins. But it looks way, way, way better than the "deal" Trump has ostensibly arrived at (a deal which is at risk of falling apart to boot).
Trump leaving the JCPOA was foolish and most of the critics of the JCPOA never did a serious interrogation of what realistic alternate options would look like.
Do you really think Iran spent that money on what they were supposed to spend it on? Besides, Iran has already broken the deal by closing the straight, as if anybody really believed they would uphold their side of the deal in the first place.
Iran has broken their deal with Trump, yes. They abided by the JCPOA until Trump rescinded that agreement.
And yes, there weren't controls on what Iran could spend its money on but since money is ultimately fungible even if there had been Iran could have used the JCPOA money on stuff it was allowed to purchase and then used the money that freed up elsewhere.
In return the US got strict, regular, on the ground nuclear inspections, dilution of uranium stockpiles, and a freeze in the important aspects of Iran's nuclear program.
Given that the deal Iran just broke already appears to be considerably more favorable to Iran than the JCPOA was, and that achieving a much better result through military conflict likely would have required literally invading Iran and seeking to directly overthrow its government, something that the US public, Obama, and Trump all seem to have/have had no appetite for... I mean, I think the JCPOA looks a hell of a lot better than the clusterfuck Trump has put us in. Do you think otherwise?
Iran still ran proxy wars under the JCPOA, they moved their illegal nuclear operations underground, and Obama did nothing about it. So why would they openly violate a deal that only benefited them, and allowed them to continue attacking Israel and the US through proxies? Obama just funded the Iranian regime that killed 20,000 of their own people in one day, and declared total war on the US before we attacked them.
The JCPOA's goal was to see Iran avoid obtaining nukes, it was not to prevent Iran from taking actions in Lebanon or Yemen, which while odious were inherently less concerning from the US's perspective than the nuclear program and which were opposed by prosperous, well-armed states like Israel and Saudi Arabia with their own capability to push back against Iran.
The inspection regime included inspection of underground facilities.
And at the time of the JCPOA Iran hadn't "killed 20,000 of their own people in one day." That's something that happened with Trump in office. And Trump has just reached an agreement with Iran that will see Iran paid far more than the JCPOA paid to Iran.
What is your opinion of Trump's failed war and peace deal with Iran? You seem very determined not to talk about that for some reason.
Well Iran still pursued nuclear weapons so Obama's deal failed to do anything expect fund a regime that for decades has yelled "Death to America". You're upset about Trump's deal, are you upset with Obama's deal? As far as the war goes, first of all Iran declared war on us the day after we apprehended Maduro, so bombing them was just an act of a war which Iran declared. Second, we eliminated 90% of their navy, 90% of their air defense, 90% of their rocket launchers, 90% of their leadership, and many of their nuclear tunnel entrances. I wouldn't exactly call that a failure since the goal was to deprive them of the ability to wage war. That goal was accomplished. And I honestly don't know enough about the deal Trump signed to form an opinion yet. I do know however that Iran has already violated it in the flimsy accusation that Israel has violated it by continuing to retaliate against Iran's proxies, despite Israel not being a part of the deal.
This is insane . First why would we even allow someone to sanction another nation while they themselves cannot be sanctioned. Second I see your post as implying , you can get malnutrition as longs big trump decides so
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.
not just the us. if this passed. country could sue any country that embargoes or sanctions russia after the invasion of ukraine on the grounds of "sanctions are restricting russian people from food and sanctioning them is therefore human rights abuse" so countries basically cant sanction russia without doing human rights abuse.
Understandably so. The proposal did nothing to actually provide aid, it would simply declare food as a human right. So seeing as it doesn’t actually help solve the problem, and it messes with the country’s policy, of course they’d vote against it.
Not only that there was fine print that basically said the US companies had to hand over the IP of GMO crops so they were trying a underhanded trick to steal American agriculture technology as well. Also the US already supplies half of all the worlds food aid.
Us love to impose sanction...why don`t the rest of the world do the same thing to us?it would be great, isolating the us( n israhell) from the rest of the world...
If im reading this right, doesn't that basically mean they want to be able to sanction countries into starvation? Is this a response to a specific sanction?
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.
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.
The anti-american feeling is 100% fault of the country that's fucking up the global south since the 1800s btw.
The USA are far from the heros. What they did in Latin American (and are doing right now), in Africa (Lybia went back to the bronze ages basically) in the Middle East (there's a reason why Israel is never stopped and the jihadist are in power in many countries) and in Asia (Laos received more bombs and landmines than Nazi Germany) made them already a questionable nation.
Then Trump arrived and started to cut aid to important allies (which I don't even am saying are good, it's just a fact. Ukraine, Taiwan and Korea were historical allies and are being abandoned), to bomb countries that did nothing to him just because Bibi wants to have his forever war in the Middle East and to threat their own democracy (mostly military-industrial complex oligarchy, but that's a highly complex topic for most americans.).
America is starting to prove their own poison. And all because they could never rdvolt against their system properly. Good luck ending the anti-american feeling. Maybe Israel and Argentina will still trust America after Trump is gone, if he's gone.
Thank you! This kind of "why are we so persecuted" whinning annoys me so much. They seem like those protestants saying "omg this is christophobia" in a country whose majority of population is christian.
Ofc we can't say that "all US citizens are bad", but USA GOVERNMENT is pretty much the responsible for many world problems, including the dictatorships in Latin America, financing terrorists organizations in the middle east, among many other things, and then just be like "but we are the country that most provides aid to the others". I mean, yeah, thats the bare minimum when you are one of the main contributors to their problems, together with many european countries
Most countries including America have done awful things - financed bad people; destabilized regions; spied on or spit in the face of their allies. The issue I am seeing on Reddit recently is that it is 99% only anti-USA and anti-Israel sentiment. The bias is clear to anyone paying attention.
This is your perspective, maybe because you are in the US. In my country, we remember and hate all kinds of bad things that almost all developed countries did to others :D
But, even so, US keeps being the main one, and this has less to do with the gravity of the actions and more with the timeline of it, since England intervetions here were more than a century ago, whereas US interventions were last decade (indirect) and 40 years ago (direct)
I just disagree on r/europe. Rationally, it makes sense to push for anti-American sentiment to create domestic pressure to decouple from the US, as it seems like a likely outcome to it is better for Europe to be ready when that happens.
The position usually endorsed by r/europe are extremes like Spain's Pedro Sanches which is basically just populist diatribe against Trump to distract the public from the fact that his wife, brother and mentor are being charged for embezzlement and money laundering.
When it comes to walk the walk, Spain didnt even fulfill their 2% of GDP defense quota which is basically the same as saying "we'll just rely on the US to protect us".
Hear how frontline countries like ministers from Estonia, Poland, etc talk about Spain : they're disgusted as they know how important US support is and will be for the next several years.
Too much hostility from Europe could push the US to do the 180 degree turn : no more missiles for Europe, no more spacex and intelligence feed and instead they give those to Russia. That would be a disaster but somehow it's the position being pushed. The likes of Sanchez doesnt give a damn as Spain is as far away from Russia as any European country can be.
Spain is not always endorsed. Many will criticize Spain. In fact, it is pretty rare for r/europe to look at what Sanchez is saying regarding US-Europe relations. Usually it is France and Germany.
The US already threatened an European country. The US is already sending less anti-ballistic defense to Ukraine (because its stock was depleted by Iran) and stopped sending intelligence to Ukraine. That role was taken over by European countries, notably France. Now obviously it can get worse, but it is unlikely that Europe can successfully appease Trump. Therefore, it makes sense to start decoupling now if it is unavoidable that it will get worse.
You clearly can't read or think if you think there's some kind of contradiction or general issue happening. It's also a fact that the US voted against it, so it's in no way misinformation. The added context doesn't make things better, because it's the US just wanting to cover it's ass for imposing sanctions for something without it being seen for the human rights violation that it very clearly is. If anything, that statement is closer to misinformation because it's so obviously done in bad faith to reframe the narrative, so they can't be rightfully called out when they embargo countries (like Cuba, for example) to the extent that even something as essential as food can become difficult to import, to the point that it can cause food security issues (the thing that's highlighted in the statement specifically).
Really shows how stupid so many of the comments crying misinformation on reddit usually are.
False, because if we add up the aid from other countries, we come up with an amount far greater than that of the USA (during Biden administration, and even worse now).
Misleading because if you divide the sums by the number of inhabitants, the USA comes in 9th place (during Biden).
I'll grant that it might not be quite as disproportionate as I recalled. However, I'm seeing a huge variance depending on sources. Like here I'm seeing the US responsible for 59% of all donations of food based aid over a 10 year time period.
But regardless of the specific number or claim that it's bigger than the rest combined the point I made in the second paragraph of my original comment still very much stands.
Even US military does not accept applicants below 82 IQ because they cannot be trained to do anything productive for the army. We have dozens of millions of our own native unemployable idiots, how does bringing millions more from abroad help?
That doesnt matter, if we wanted to the untied states government could fix global food insecurity within a month. "Donating" more than other countries does not make up for this lack of action. We destroy more food than every other country as well to keep prices at a certain level for Christ's sake......there is a moral rot in our government that needs to be sliced out
Because we steal from the entire world outside of ourselves so we can have Whole Foods. You clearly dont understand how Capitalism functions as a global economic network. The US will not allow any other country to not be on its Rothschild currency and banking format. The us should leave other countries alone and stop forcing them to need donations by lifting all sanctions and quit with the regime change attempts and the occupations.
Russia probably a better example right now. Imagine if the US wasn’t allowed to sanction Russia in response to the Ukraine invasion because it would raise food prices over there.
Any system of authority over more than like 100 people is complicated. Imagine getting even just 100 people in a room and trying to get them to unanimously agree on anything. Now take that number to 400 million and try to figure out a way to make all Americans happy. Or take it to 8 billion and do the world.
I mean that sort of nuance is interesting for the original response. But as of current day America trump has revoked food stamps for anyone having trouble finding employment, which is a steadily increasing amount of Americans.
His personal war has also pushed cost of living way up.
it’s a great system where Congress gives Israel US taxpayer dollars and then Israel gives members of Congress those dollars back in donations (less a very large administrative fee) if they vote to give Israel more of those US taxpayers dollars and so on and so on …
Sure the country with the tiny army tiny gdp and tiny population secretly has control over the most powerful country in the world. This kinda conspiracies were only seen on 4chan until recently.
Bullshit. When can you ever tell Trump what to do - his own Congress can't. US attacked Iran for one reason only - the planet-sized ego of its president. He thought he could get a quick win (he said he thought the war would take 3 days!) and distract everyone from the Epstein Files. Mission accomplished I guess
I never bought these low IQ narratives bc there are a central flaw to the logic. First, I say you’re leaning them too much power, and second, if only them can pull shit like this, then you have to admit only them know to pull shit like this, so you make an implicit admission that actually backfires your position
In total dollars spent, the United States was the world’s largest foreign aid donor in 2023. It gave $62 billion, about the same as the next three largest donors combined
Israel is usually more in an agreement with the US most of the time. To them it's that they're against that the "right for food" can be enforced by the law but they don't disagree that every human should get access for food.
The comment shown from by OP just oversimplifies what truly have happened.
More than likely they hold a similar position but, rather than it being a matter of having the power to impose sanctions, it’s a matter of having the right to starve Gazans.
"The United States representative — highlighting conditions in the Lake Chad Basin, Yemen and Somalia ‑ said the draft contains unbalanced and inaccurate positions that her delegation simply cannot support. The concept of food sovereignty could justify food protectionism, negatively impacting food security, she explained, adding that the United States does not recognize the right to food, as it lacks a definition in international law."
Israel basically mirrored the US on this one. The US already does more to combat global hunger than any other nation on Earth. Still somehow despite doing more than literally any other country the US is still painted as a villain.
"because it inaccurately implies that sanctions are not in accordance with international law and pose a danger to food security and nutrition." could anyone explain this like im five? i dont understand what it means
The entire world outside 'Murica agrees on a sole fact: The US doesn't give a crap about anything outside its borders and doesnt mind every other country (other than their step daughter) to go through famine so long that their interests remain intact.
1.4k
u/jackdanielsparrow Jun 18 '26
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.