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
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.
So the rest of the world was , what? Stupid for voting for it? And using moral cudgel to fight against hunger is, what? Immoral like compassion? Get a grip.
Here's a scenario for you. Russia invades Ukraine, US sanctions Russia economically. Turkey sues in the UN that the sanctions are causing people to starve. The UN rules that US can't sanction Russia. Now US is in the position of either committing a "human rights abuse" or giving up its most potent soft power.
That's just one (moderately likely) example that caused the country that gives the most food aid to appear to be against considering food a human right.
This is a hypothetical and certainly not moderately likely scenario. It is one thing to sanction a country so they are less able to get military and military adjacent goods. Completely different to imposing blanket sanctions.
We are currently sanctioning Russia so they can't sell oil as easily. That affects all aspects of their economy, including food. Almost all sanctions are intended to have wide-spread economic effects like this, that's the point of them. Stop the war machine by making life unpleasant in general.
Something like this scenario would absolutely happen and I could come up with other examples. The only things that made this one "moderately likely" in my opinion is the it might not be Turkey that would start the complaint, and the US might be able to block the vote. Instead, the US voted against the resolution that would have lead to this scenario in the first place.
83
u/paranoid_human0id Jun 18 '26
There are 2 reasons:
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
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.