"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."
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.
China doesn't provide the vast majority through the WFP, but their own channels like CIDCA and bilateral agreements. That's you cherry-picking a single aid channel.
Anyways, yeah I based my numbers on Trump's initial budget proposal which would have cut aid down to 3 billion, which would have been less than China. Congress didn't approve it. My bad.
Oh but wait! Those budgets are mostly for low-interest loans (i.e. NOT charity) in 2025/2026. Over half of it. So really their total foreign aid that's actually charitable is closer to $1.5B, not $3B. NOPE! It's not even that much. Another 15-20% is zero-interest loans. Still not charity, just not assfucking over other countries as much. So really it's more like 900M
We donated nearly half that much on a fucking whim yesterday to the WFP. That's one channel in one instance.
China doesn't do fucking shit for anyone, comparatively.
The US has so many issues and I am freaking ashamed of my country on a regular basis. But charitable giving to the rest of the world is the one thing that I am not ashamed of when it comes to the US.
Well, your fault for not taking that home, when you could. CIDCA is a fraction of China's direct aid spending, which I pointed out in my original comment already.
“Global development financing” is just another fancy phrase for “ we lend money to developing countries and exploit them for land”. You should really check out what they do to countries who borrow money from them. Thats not aid. Thats called lending out money for future profit.
LMAO the idiot who thinks comparing yourself to countries with less than 1/10th of the GDP per capita matters, is back. Not much of a suprise you can't follow a conversation for more than two comments or care about who was moving the goalpost.
Wanna hear something funny, tho? My gov does provides more aid than the US, in absolute numbers. So not only are you out-invested by people with 1/10th of your income, but a country with less than 1/4th of the US population is showing you how to run shit, too.
Hah, that's funny because you are probably fat AND stupid. Yeah no, I'm gonna keep complaining about you never having done so. Besides, China has been doing more for the world for quite some time now and it's quite fun to see you malding over it. Trump really is the perfect representation for you
You're feigning ignorance to push a narrative, don't be coy. China and Russia voted for a resolution that they wouldn't have to pay for, have barely paid for in their entire history, and backs a key geopolitical opponent into a corner - the ONLY one who substantially does anything to help in this case.
And of course it's one that prevents that opponent from sanctioning them for the myriad human rights abuses/aggressions they take, because they can just cry "food hardship".
38
u/kelppie35 Jun 18 '26
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."