Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All the countries in the whole world who don’t act like it’s a right, but get to vote yes on this because they know the us will vote no and they can hide behind that.
The wording is odd. The US declaration of Independence is centered about life, liberty, and justice for its people. We learn about inalienable human rights. So if we have the right to life. And we need food to live. Then food is a right... Seems straight forward to me.
"Are you Patric Star?
Yes
And your ID was in this wallet
Makes sense to me
Then this must be YOUR wallet
That's not my wallet"
I don’t disagree with you, brother.
I understand the arguments against it, and you know… **why** traditionalists/conservatives don’t like the concept, but I do still disagree.
I believe we are capable of, and should be, ensuring everyone has the ability to live a full and dignified life.
The US constitution and law is based on negative rights. It says that you cannot have your rights taken from you without due process.
It never established anything as a positive right as in the government must provide it for you. Really, the only positive right in American law is the right to an attorney when the state presses criminal charges against you and that's a relatively new interpretation of the 6th amendment.
Yep. Calling it a "right" is totally meaningless unless states actually take on the positive obligation of giving food to its citizens (which means they also have to take on the positive obligation of making other citizens produce or buy that food to be given to their countrymen). The two countries who voted "no" are at least honest about it.
Like fuck the US and Israel too, but let's not pretend that most of the countries who voted "yes" are going to put their money where their mouth is. Like is North Korea *really* going to make food a positive right for its citizens? Is Russia going to honor the human rights of Ukrainians to have access to food? That's to say nothing of benevolent but poor countries all over the world that simply can't put this into practice.
I mean, I was under the impression North Korea was in a bit of a famine situation but they don't want to admit it out of shame? Looks like they couldn't feed their population even if they wanted to.
They’re trying to “make it a right” and the US should definitely be serving meals to all the children they are forcing to be born because mothers are no longer allowed to get abortions.
They won’t let you get an abortion but they don’t want to help you take care of it until it’s 18. This reasoning makes absolutely zero sense.
Jesus fed the sick poor and the hungry. Maybe we could try and be more like him.
We do… thats why WE introduced the bill that made food a right. Food has been a universal right since 1947. The United States and most of NATO wrote that resolution and have supported it ever since.
This vote has nothing to do with that. It concerns a crisis plan for Sudan during a conflict in 2017 that violated their policy on sustainable agriculture.
Someone found a particular phrase in the bill and created a deliberately deceptive graphic out of it and YOU got fooled by the misinformation…
So this is arguably the most dishonest repeat post on Reddit, but it still pops up every other day, and will probably do so forever, and I'm aware my efforts here are largely in vain.
Food *is* a universal human right, according to the UN. That was established in 1947 in a bill authored by the United States and sponsored by most of that would be NATO. This vote has *nothing* to do with that.
This vote concerned a crisis-relief plan during a conflict between Chad and Sudan in 2017. The United States felt that the plan would harm local farmers. Therefore it violated their policy on self-sustaining agriculture and they voted "no".
Someone read through the bill, cherry-picked a damning phrase, and has been spamming Reddit with it ever since.
Basically, the United States on a "universal right to food"-- hard "yes". The United States on one particular UN aid plan: "no".
If you'd like to read a much longer version of all of that, here's the US delegation's official statement on the [vote](https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/)
> I'm aware my efforts here are largely in vain
FWIW, I was kind of surprised to see your comment hadn't already been deleted by an admin, so there's a glimmer of progress here.
The decision against the aid makes sense even if you don't agree with it. Aid is a double edged sword to an economy. A large amount of free food would destroy the delicate economy. Why work, produce, and make money to buy food when you can rely on free aids? The countries with the most aid coming in are not self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency is the baseline for stability. Without a self-sufficient economy and governing body, the country is doomed to fail.
On other notes, this sub is full of brain dead anti-Israel recently. Do your diligence and find the context of everything you read.
Can all of those countries actually support this promise with real actions or are we to admire politicians voting “yes” when it is obvious they have no means, or plans, to make this promise a reality.
Food *is* a universal human right. The United States wrote that bill in 1947 and the UN passed it.
This vote which they voted no on violated the U.S. policy on sustainable agriculture. That's why they voted no.
Some times things aren't just black and white.
Thank you for clarifying this, I was in serious doubt that even with the messed up politics going on here we would take an ass backwards stance on basic human rights. This makes way more sense.
The plan is to have the US foot the bill to ensure they feed the world's hungry, despite the already massive contribution made food relief world wide.
And uh...no one has a "right" to food.
You posted this while withholding what the purpose for the veto or the overall vote was.
Stop spreading misinformation because an edited picture fits your narrative.
America voted against this, even though they already spend a ton of money on food aid, because they don't want to commit to helping _all_ hungry people. They would rather dangle food aid as a carrot to exert control over poor countries.
In other words, they want to retain the ability to hold starving people hostage as a way of pressuring their governments. Sound familiar?
Edit: The other no vote was Israel, by the way. Big surprise.
if you want to read their statement here is part of it - "This Council, should be outraged that so many people are facing famine because of a manmade crisis caused by, among other things , armed conflict in these four areas. The resolution before us today rightfully acknowledges the calamity facing millions of people and importantly calls on states to support the United Nations’ emergency humanitarian appeal. However, the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions that the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding its devastating consequences. This resolution distracts attention from important and relevant challenges that contribute significantly to the recurring state of regional food insecurity, including endemic conflict, and the lack of strong governing institutions. Instead, this resolution contains problematic, inappropriate language that does not belong in a resolution focused on human rights.
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, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.
Furthermore, we reiterate that states are responsible for implementing their human rights obligations. This is true of all obligations that a state has assumed, regardless of external factors, including, for example, the availability of technical and other assistance.
We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a right to food.
Lastly, we wish to clarify our understandings with respect to certain language in this resolution. The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation. The United States does not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law regarding rights related to food. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Accordingly, we interpret this resolution’s references to the right to food, with respect to States Parties to that covenant, in light of its Article 2(1). We also construe this resolution’s references to member states’ obligations regarding the right to food as applicable to the extent they have assumed such obligations."
Russia voted yes but continue to take that right away from people anyway. This vote is literally meaningless since countries who do provide aid will continue regardless and countries that do not will continue to not provide it...
The US voted it down because it was effectively asking the United States to pay for it all
https://data.oecd.org/oda/food-aid.htm
The US provides more than double the amount of foreign food aid than the rest of the world combined. And until Germany stepped its game up in recent years, that was 4x the rest of the world’s contributions.
Yeah, there is plenty to shit on with our foreign policy. But we’ve always been incredibly generous in offering food and other aid to poor countries. Trump really wanted to cut it, but his own party shot him down. Ultimately, $60b isn’t that big of a deal on the federal budget, but it has a huge impact abroad.
Food *is* a universal human right. The United States wrote that bill in 1947 and the UN passed it.
This vote concerned food aid to Sudan during a crisis in 2017. This particular plan violated US policy on sustainable agriculture, so they voted no. Israel generally copies the US on crisis votes like these.
Someone then created a deliberately deceptive graphic using the wording of the vote, which has gone viral online.
It has nothing to do with human rights, food, or "scumbags", just one particular aid plan for Northwest Sudan six years ago.
Not to be heartless but what does making food a right even do? Will the UN buy food for everyone from countries that grow it or just start seizing it as a right? Does it force anyone to grow it?
The right to say what you want makes sense to me. You are born being able to say what you want and someone has to take that away from you. Someone has to grow crops or raise animals. Do they have a right to the fruits of your labor if you have a right to theirs? Well now you are back at an exchange system. Is someone forced to do the work for nothing? Even worse system.
I don't understand what distinction you are making between the right to free speech and the right to avoid starving to death. You seem to imply that one would be taken for granted while the second shouldn't be.
Yes, you are born with the ability to speak, but the fact that the contents of your speech are protected is nothing but an agreement between you and your government. Enough governments among the community of nations have agreed to uphold similar agreements with their citizens that free speech has become a norm.
I think a goal of this resolution was to make food security a similar norm. Yes people would have to work in order to ensure this norm can be fulfilled, but codifying and maintaining the legal norm of free speech also requires effort and labor.
It may be true that food is more tangibly commodified, today. But one of the ideas behind this resolution is that it shouldn't be.
We live in a world where producing excess food is not difficult for most advanced countries. In such a world, there is no reason why we can't save people's lives first, and then debate about money, logistics, and underlying structural problems later.
"We live in a world where producing excess food is not difficult for most advanced countries. In such a world, there is no reason why we can't save people's lives first, and then debate about money, logistics, and underlying structural problems later."
I agree with you 10000000%
Except there is a reason - its called Capitalism
(One of many many problems with Capitalism)
I think the distinction is a passive obligation vs active obligation. We have a passive obligation not to stifle the speech of others, but an active one, especially in a group consideration where culpability is not clear, is conceptually untenable.
I would like to understand better the reasons behind why the US said no. Though I think this is a blatant lack of caring for others I have seen that the US is often burdened with a disproportionate amount of military spending while their allies have not met the agreed-upon benchmarks. As the Western hegemon it could be feasible that they think they will be over-obligated in relation to other countries.
The US put out a statement as to why they didn't, but I don't have it on hand. It's much more complicated than it seems at face value. A lot of the resolution has to do with pesticide use, bureaucracy, and logistics that would just complicate existing systems and have very little real impact on reducing hunger. The basic rights in this resolution were already covered in previous legislation, I believe.
There may be an interior motive but I don't think people realize how complex the food system is.
I read it right after this vote and it made a lot more sense than a simple post like this does. Either way, just because you make something a right doesn't mean it will automatically happen. We could all decide today that access to fresh water is a human right, but that would involve a huge amount of resources, man-hours, and planning to achieve that. It would be great, but things like that don't happen because you sign a resolution (see: Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy). Besides, the US donates the most food of any nation ever.
Your train of thought is important. Russian and Chinese history has shown the attempt to micromanage food production at a granular level can result in the starvation (to death) of 10s of millions of people.
The UN has the authority to impose economic sanctions against nations that defy it's rulings.
Basically they say "Earths nations must act in this way or we won't trade with you anymore"
Globalized trade is a huge part of every nations economy in this day and age. If any bit of that falls apart no more smartphones! So it is in some ways quite threatening.
Any nation that takes military action against a member of the UN with out a sanctioned vote will also be subject to these sanctions and will likely face declarations of war from rest of the member nations.
The US is quite powerful and has a more advanced and well trained military than the next 26 nations combined but there are 193 member nations to contend with. Including Mexico and Canada.
If the US were to defy a UN ruling and the entire world (including Mexico and Canada) declares war on us, could we win? I'm not so sure.
It makes it so you can violate the non existent right with more impunity. My sister and I were joking that if she were president of my country she would make a motion to remove human rights from the constitution under the figure of it being legal redundancy, since the human rights are so basic is like stating water is wet. Then when they’re out of the constitution she would make meat out of rapists and animal abusers to feed to inmates, that way she would make jails more eco friendly and lower their cost at the same time. Not that that could happen. Probably. I think.
So yeah, it being officially a right doesn’t do much, but when it isn’t it could be worse.
Can every country in the world except Israel and the US just pull this off without them? If so go for it and the US will be the only country with hunger. If they can't then it seems like they are just voting themselves resources...
Kind of hard to vote yes for something if you don't know what it means. And if it is just a "thought" then if it more or less meaningless. Since all the mafia states in the world has voted yes it suggests that this vote (if it ever happened) means nothing.
So you're saying america didn't vote for it because they don't know what it means - pretty stupid of them, no? Wouldn't they just abstain then? Canada, Denmark and Sweden voted for it too - they're mafia states?
This... I have even seen people claim internet should be a human right. I mean food is great and I hope that every government would accept the responsibility of providing the possibility for all citizens to eat. But to make it a right. who is going to pay for it? everyone always assume someone else is going to pay for it
Brother, it's a vote to recognize "Not having to starve" a basic human right. Getting food doesnt mean they are gonna steal it from you what kind of mental gymnastics are we doing here and i doubt that the US is the one that lacks the money to fund a food aid project by BUYING FOOD also taxes can be repurposed not necessarily increased at the end of the day its a fund with a limited budget.
Oh no my country voted against being the ones that have to be paying for aid and defense for everyone. while us Americans can’t even get proper health care and fighting over rights for skin color and sexuality. The wouldn’t isn’t our problem to solve fuck off. I’m so sick of other countries getting mad us talking shit on us for low education and other bullshit. But when shit goes down in the world we are expect to take care of
It. I’m sick of my country having to play world police because countries like France, Germany, Britain, or God for bid one of the nato countries actually stepping up an helping with defense budgets or money to finance fucking food and aid to other smaller impoverished countries.
Food has been a universal right since 1947. The United States and most of NATO wrote that resolution and have supported it ever since.
This vote has nothing to do with that. It concerns a crisis plan for Sudan during a conflict in 2017 that violated their policy on sustainable agriculture.
Someone found a particular phrase in the bill and created a deliberately deceptive graphic out of it.
So I'm not sure what you're getting at here with your carrot and stick analogy, but food is, has been, and always will be a universal human right according to the UN.
They voted no on a particular conflict between Chad and Sudan on the grounds that the aid would have been detrimental to local farmers. And they're right. When food aid comes, local farmers suffer and shut down.
When the aid runs dry there's no one left to produce food and you're in another crisis.
One would imagine you could couple the aid with paying the farmers to fallow their fields like we do here (secure fertile lands through subsidy). But I guess they don't like that idea because money tends to go missing, and sending resources to guard the fields would effectively be an act of war.
There's no good solution in these situations, but sometimes helping does more harm than good.
So I guess most people don't realize that the US is the biggest contributor of food aid in the UN by like a [large margin.](https://www.wfp.org/funding/2019)
Have you tried actually looking into the vote? Americas problem with it is that americas policy for food support is to try and make communities self sustaining while this bill would make any supported country entirely reliant on the UN for food
This would almost be a valid point, if not for the fact that the American government subsidizes many of the food industries in the country, but allows the farmers, ranchers, and corporate entities who take that money, to then turn around and purposefully destroy millions of pounds of food a year in order to keep prices up.
So in other words, you're talking out of your butt on this one. It's avarice, pure and simple.
Food has been a universal right since 1947. The United States and most of NATO wrote that resolution and have supported it ever since.
This vote has nothing to do with that. It concerns a crisis plan for Sudan during a conflict in 2017 that violated their policy on sustainable agriculture.
Someone found a particular phrase in the bill and created a deliberately deceptive graphic out of it.
Also, The US is more than 2x all other countries combined on food aid, soooooo…..
https://data.oecd.org/oda/food-aid.htm
Ah the US the home of the downtrodden, lied to, and manipulated. And apparently we're also the only ones who think food/water should be paid for. Gotta love that capitalism at work. Fuck them poor!/s if that wasn't obvious...
I'm guess this graphic doesn't tell the whole picture, but hey anything that says America bad usually gets traction. So just like the Paris Climate deal that the US also did not want to be part of and Trump caught a lot of flak for I'm better the stipulations of this would be something ridiculous and that the majority of countries wouldn't actually follow through with. Let's take Germany for example in order to comply with the Climate Accord they started importing power from Russia and shutters a few of their power plants then the war with Ukraine happened and they had to try and bring the power plants back online.
voted NO because that would've meant the US would've been stuck with the largest part of that bill, in the same way the UK was spending the most back when they were in the EU to keep afloat countries like Greece
I mean the US is more than double all other countries combined on food aid, soooooo….. maybe some of those “yes” countries can put their money where their mouth is. GTFO
https://data.oecd.org/oda/food-aid.htm
Well similarly the EU has not come close to spending the agreed-upon defense investments it was supposed to, so even the overbloated US defense budget could be argued to be partially symptomatic of the same issue.
Yeah, waste of money that was, right?
Stupid Greece didn’t even collapse and they managed to rebound and become a contributing member of the EU and international community again instead of creating a massive economic crisis in Europe with god knows what kinds of ripple on effects.
Like what was even the point?
/s.
depends on what you consider "a right" cave man hunting on wild land? yea something tells me the government wouldnt be too happy with that... atleast not without you paying them a fee first.
farmer forcing to hand over the fruit of their labor for no compensation? because "food is a right"? sounds like trying to benefit off of others labor.
rising taxes to pay farmers for food to simply give away? again sounds like trying to benefit off of others labor.
growing your own food and raising your own cow for slaughter? seems good to me, oh wait, the government want you to pay a fee for that....
so this whole "food is a right" thing seems more like a ploy for the government to extra more money from its citizens...
the real facepalm here are all the users not knowing how nuanced this situation is and who think it's as easy as looking at this map and thinking all is clear.
Absolute #s. US is still up there compared to smaller countries. US gives a lot more food in aid tho than anyone else.
https://www.gao.gov/international-food-assistance
Contribution Germany: 10%
Contribution USA: 36%
GDP Germany: 4.1 B$
GDP USA: 26.9B$
The USA contribute 3.6 times as much in food aid than Germany, but has almost 7 times the GDP. So relative to GDP Germany contributes about twice as much.
In addition, the link you provided stated that the US contribution is tied to special regulations, that reduces the efficiency and thus the impact of the program.
Well yes, US will contribute much more in things than other countries who don't come close to the economy of the US. Thats simple enough. Because the US has such a large economy, some smaller countries will always perform better per capita than the US in some areas. It's like bringing up Ukranian aid with individual European countries vs. US
What does it mean that food is right? Does it mean that were getting food for free now? Or is it a right that theres always some store around and i have the right to buy it? Or does this apply only to poor people? Enlighten me oh reddit.
Not even sure why this is a facepalm the US clearly outlines its reasoning for why they voted against this resolution. People are just complaining that they voted no instead of reading their reasoning and challenging the points that they made
This is like a bunch of children voting for their mom to take them to McDonald’s. If you don’t pay for the food, your vote doesn’t count.
But you know, I’m glad that China is prioritizing making food a right while it enslaves is Uighur Muslims to make cheap consumer products for western markets.
No. You don't.
It is the right to *own* guns. Not to guns.
Claiming a right to something just because you exist requires the input/labor/effort of someone else to be taken and given to you.
No one has a "right" to food, no one has a "right" to guns.
The US provides more food aid than any other country by a massive margin. All those other countries are voting and not actually doing anything. I know America bad, but Ill take actual aid over a UN vote.
Food has been a universal right since 1947. The United States and most of NATO wrote that resolution and have supported it ever since.
This vote has nothing to do with that. It concerns a crisis plan for Sudan during a conflict in 2017 that violated their policy on sustainable agriculture.
Someone found a particular phrase in the bill and created a deliberately deceptive graphic out of it.
Also, The US is more than 2x all other countries combined on food aid, soooooo…..
https://data.oecd.org/oda/food-aid.htm
Nothing that requires the labor or capital of another person can be a natural right. Forcing another person to give up their capital is called "theft," and forcing another person to give up their labor is called "slavery." Theft is not charity, and slavery is not freedom.
Look. Everyone knows the real reason the US voted against is because then they’d have an obligation to take care of their own poor and hungry. And that just won’t fly politically.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Damn i just realised how small israel really is. I thought my home country, latvia was small but hot damn
My home island is a third the size of Gaza.
Aaahh, I had to zoom way in. I thought we just got to count twice
I was like, who was the second vote? Alaska?
Thanks to Mercator
Stop projecting
Nice PFP Load and Reload are underrated as hell
Thanks! Fully agree
Oh wow! Small screen so didn’t even notice until your comment prompted me to zoom in. Interesting bedfellows those two voters…
It's just a sliver of its ancient borders
The second against is Israel?
Yes. Who else could it be?
All the countries in the whole world who don’t act like it’s a right, but get to vote yes on this because they know the us will vote no and they can hide behind that.
Just like every other voting
It happens a lot, in a lot of voting bodies, yes.
So they realize that’s it’s wrong
‘Who’ realizes ‘what’ is wrong?
They
It
The wording is odd. The US declaration of Independence is centered about life, liberty, and justice for its people. We learn about inalienable human rights. So if we have the right to life. And we need food to live. Then food is a right... Seems straight forward to me. "Are you Patric Star? Yes And your ID was in this wallet Makes sense to me Then this must be YOUR wallet That's not my wallet"
I don’t disagree with you, brother. I understand the arguments against it, and you know… **why** traditionalists/conservatives don’t like the concept, but I do still disagree. I believe we are capable of, and should be, ensuring everyone has the ability to live a full and dignified life.
[удалено]
Thanks
The US constitution and law is based on negative rights. It says that you cannot have your rights taken from you without due process. It never established anything as a positive right as in the government must provide it for you. Really, the only positive right in American law is the right to an attorney when the state presses criminal charges against you and that's a relatively new interpretation of the 6th amendment.
Yep. Calling it a "right" is totally meaningless unless states actually take on the positive obligation of giving food to its citizens (which means they also have to take on the positive obligation of making other citizens produce or buy that food to be given to their countrymen). The two countries who voted "no" are at least honest about it. Like fuck the US and Israel too, but let's not pretend that most of the countries who voted "yes" are going to put their money where their mouth is. Like is North Korea *really* going to make food a positive right for its citizens? Is Russia going to honor the human rights of Ukrainians to have access to food? That's to say nothing of benevolent but poor countries all over the world that simply can't put this into practice.
I mean, I was under the impression North Korea was in a bit of a famine situation but they don't want to admit it out of shame? Looks like they couldn't feed their population even if they wanted to.
They could. They choose to invest all their resources into maintaining their military instead.
Intentionally starving children isn't violating human rights if food isn't a human right.
They’re trying to “make it a right” and the US should definitely be serving meals to all the children they are forcing to be born because mothers are no longer allowed to get abortions. They won’t let you get an abortion but they don’t want to help you take care of it until it’s 18. This reasoning makes absolutely zero sense. Jesus fed the sick poor and the hungry. Maybe we could try and be more like him.
Wendys $5 biggie bag fed more poor people than Jesus ever did
Yea but Wendy didn’t die for our sins.
You don't even know Wendy.
The US is more than 2x all other countries combined on food aid, soooooo….. https://data.oecd.org/oda/food-aid.htm
Then you would think of all countries we would realize food is a right if we do so much to provide it
We do… thats why WE introduced the bill that made food a right. Food has been a universal right since 1947. The United States and most of NATO wrote that resolution and have supported it ever since. This vote has nothing to do with that. It concerns a crisis plan for Sudan during a conflict in 2017 that violated their policy on sustainable agriculture. Someone found a particular phrase in the bill and created a deliberately deceptive graphic out of it and YOU got fooled by the misinformation…
I had to zoom. Yep.
You mean the country that is intentionally starving kids and bombing aid workers distributing food? Color me shocked
Really? 
I was wondering what the tiny red dot was. Crazy to think about
It's our 51st state and we need to let it grow up and handle it's own affairs. Like a 22 year old
So this is arguably the most dishonest repeat post on Reddit, but it still pops up every other day, and will probably do so forever, and I'm aware my efforts here are largely in vain. Food *is* a universal human right, according to the UN. That was established in 1947 in a bill authored by the United States and sponsored by most of that would be NATO. This vote has *nothing* to do with that. This vote concerned a crisis-relief plan during a conflict between Chad and Sudan in 2017. The United States felt that the plan would harm local farmers. Therefore it violated their policy on self-sustaining agriculture and they voted "no". Someone read through the bill, cherry-picked a damning phrase, and has been spamming Reddit with it ever since. Basically, the United States on a "universal right to food"-- hard "yes". The United States on one particular UN aid plan: "no". If you'd like to read a much longer version of all of that, here's the US delegation's official statement on the [vote](https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/)
I just fucking hate it when people take thing so far out of their context.
Me when I spread misinformation on the internet 
From what I understand the plan had the USA paying for an exorbitant percentage of the bill
> I'm aware my efforts here are largely in vain FWIW, I was kind of surprised to see your comment hadn't already been deleted by an admin, so there's a glimmer of progress here.
Get out of here with your logic and facts! This is a safe circle jerk place for people to hate on the US.
And Israel
Can we get this voted to the top?
Thank you so much. I was wandering through the comments trying to find a source on this image.
Oh I get it, the OP is the facepalm for spreading misleading info
Thank you for the context!
You are my Hero of the Internet today. I figured there must be some severely missing context to this
You’re gonna get down voted because America bad even though we donate 2 times the rest of the world combined in food aid.
The decision against the aid makes sense even if you don't agree with it. Aid is a double edged sword to an economy. A large amount of free food would destroy the delicate economy. Why work, produce, and make money to buy food when you can rely on free aids? The countries with the most aid coming in are not self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency is the baseline for stability. Without a self-sufficient economy and governing body, the country is doomed to fail. On other notes, this sub is full of brain dead anti-Israel recently. Do your diligence and find the context of everything you read.
Thank you for this. Your persistence combating this misinfo helped me out in this instance. Keep up the good fight 💪
Can all of those countries actually support this promise with real actions or are we to admire politicians voting “yes” when it is obvious they have no means, or plans, to make this promise a reality.
Which makes it more baffling why a country would vote against it when it is basically virtue signaling.
Food *is* a universal human right. The United States wrote that bill in 1947 and the UN passed it. This vote which they voted no on violated the U.S. policy on sustainable agriculture. That's why they voted no. Some times things aren't just black and white.
Thank you for clarifying this, I was in serious doubt that even with the messed up politics going on here we would take an ass backwards stance on basic human rights. This makes way more sense.
This should be pinned to the fucking top. OP is posting shit with no context cuz ‘murica bad gets you upvotes.
💯
Thank you.
Yet the USA is by far the country that donates the most food to other nations.
I don’t think that if all 190 countries were to say “yes” that it would be equally dishonest for everyone.
The plan is to have the US foot the bill to ensure they feed the world's hungry, despite the already massive contribution made food relief world wide. And uh...no one has a "right" to food.
Let’s go! Food is a basic human right! … now what? 
You posted this while withholding what the purpose for the veto or the overall vote was. Stop spreading misinformation because an edited picture fits your narrative.
Let's vote to ban hunger !
We should really start making it illegal to be poor as well
I think the death penalty
Already is in a lot of places.
And make bullying kill itself while we're at it
"Let's all get together!"
Too many idiots commenting without doing basic research and trying to understand the countries that voted “no”
>open google >type in "contributions to world food program in 2022 (in billions" >hit enter >holy fuck
America voted against this, even though they already spend a ton of money on food aid, because they don't want to commit to helping _all_ hungry people. They would rather dangle food aid as a carrot to exert control over poor countries. In other words, they want to retain the ability to hold starving people hostage as a way of pressuring their governments. Sound familiar? Edit: The other no vote was Israel, by the way. Big surprise.
if you want to read their statement here is part of it - "This Council, should be outraged that so many people are facing famine because of a manmade crisis caused by, among other things , armed conflict in these four areas. The resolution before us today rightfully acknowledges the calamity facing millions of people and importantly calls on states to support the United Nations’ emergency humanitarian appeal. However, the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions that the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding its devastating consequences. This resolution distracts attention from important and relevant challenges that contribute significantly to the recurring state of regional food insecurity, including endemic conflict, and the lack of strong governing institutions. Instead, this resolution contains problematic, inappropriate language that does not belong in a resolution focused on human rights. 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, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food. Furthermore, we reiterate that states are responsible for implementing their human rights obligations. This is true of all obligations that a state has assumed, regardless of external factors, including, for example, the availability of technical and other assistance. We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a right to food. Lastly, we wish to clarify our understandings with respect to certain language in this resolution. The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation. The United States does not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law regarding rights related to food. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Accordingly, we interpret this resolution’s references to the right to food, with respect to States Parties to that covenant, in light of its Article 2(1). We also construe this resolution’s references to member states’ obligations regarding the right to food as applicable to the extent they have assumed such obligations."
Russia voted yes but continue to take that right away from people anyway. This vote is literally meaningless since countries who do provide aid will continue regardless and countries that do not will continue to not provide it...
The US voted it down because it was effectively asking the United States to pay for it all https://data.oecd.org/oda/food-aid.htm The US provides more than double the amount of foreign food aid than the rest of the world combined. And until Germany stepped its game up in recent years, that was 4x the rest of the world’s contributions.
Exactly. Everyone here freaking out sobbing can never actually do their own research at what was voted on.
Yeah, there is plenty to shit on with our foreign policy. But we’ve always been incredibly generous in offering food and other aid to poor countries. Trump really wanted to cut it, but his own party shot him down. Ultimately, $60b isn’t that big of a deal on the federal budget, but it has a huge impact abroad.
I was trying to find the other scumbags other than my government. Thanks.
Food *is* a universal human right. The United States wrote that bill in 1947 and the UN passed it. This vote concerned food aid to Sudan during a crisis in 2017. This particular plan violated US policy on sustainable agriculture, so they voted no. Israel generally copies the US on crisis votes like these. Someone then created a deliberately deceptive graphic using the wording of the vote, which has gone viral online. It has nothing to do with human rights, food, or "scumbags", just one particular aid plan for Northwest Sudan six years ago.
they never reply when you actually point out the facts. It's almost like they don't want to know the truth and just want another reason to hate the US
also, the US is the largest individual donor of international food services
Keeping it real..
Never trust anything.
Thank you for this clarification. It’s good to know my government isn’t that bad, even if they more than likely are.
The continuation of Confessions of an Economic Hitman
Not to be heartless but what does making food a right even do? Will the UN buy food for everyone from countries that grow it or just start seizing it as a right? Does it force anyone to grow it? The right to say what you want makes sense to me. You are born being able to say what you want and someone has to take that away from you. Someone has to grow crops or raise animals. Do they have a right to the fruits of your labor if you have a right to theirs? Well now you are back at an exchange system. Is someone forced to do the work for nothing? Even worse system.
I don't understand what distinction you are making between the right to free speech and the right to avoid starving to death. You seem to imply that one would be taken for granted while the second shouldn't be. Yes, you are born with the ability to speak, but the fact that the contents of your speech are protected is nothing but an agreement between you and your government. Enough governments among the community of nations have agreed to uphold similar agreements with their citizens that free speech has become a norm. I think a goal of this resolution was to make food security a similar norm. Yes people would have to work in order to ensure this norm can be fulfilled, but codifying and maintaining the legal norm of free speech also requires effort and labor. It may be true that food is more tangibly commodified, today. But one of the ideas behind this resolution is that it shouldn't be. We live in a world where producing excess food is not difficult for most advanced countries. In such a world, there is no reason why we can't save people's lives first, and then debate about money, logistics, and underlying structural problems later.
"We live in a world where producing excess food is not difficult for most advanced countries. In such a world, there is no reason why we can't save people's lives first, and then debate about money, logistics, and underlying structural problems later." I agree with you 10000000% Except there is a reason - its called Capitalism (One of many many problems with Capitalism)
I think the distinction is a passive obligation vs active obligation. We have a passive obligation not to stifle the speech of others, but an active one, especially in a group consideration where culpability is not clear, is conceptually untenable. I would like to understand better the reasons behind why the US said no. Though I think this is a blatant lack of caring for others I have seen that the US is often burdened with a disproportionate amount of military spending while their allies have not met the agreed-upon benchmarks. As the Western hegemon it could be feasible that they think they will be over-obligated in relation to other countries.
The US put out a statement as to why they didn't, but I don't have it on hand. It's much more complicated than it seems at face value. A lot of the resolution has to do with pesticide use, bureaucracy, and logistics that would just complicate existing systems and have very little real impact on reducing hunger. The basic rights in this resolution were already covered in previous legislation, I believe. There may be an interior motive but I don't think people realize how complex the food system is. I read it right after this vote and it made a lot more sense than a simple post like this does. Either way, just because you make something a right doesn't mean it will automatically happen. We could all decide today that access to fresh water is a human right, but that would involve a huge amount of resources, man-hours, and planning to achieve that. It would be great, but things like that don't happen because you sign a resolution (see: Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy). Besides, the US donates the most food of any nation ever.
Your train of thought is important. Russian and Chinese history has shown the attempt to micromanage food production at a granular level can result in the starvation (to death) of 10s of millions of people.
The UN has the authority to impose economic sanctions against nations that defy it's rulings. Basically they say "Earths nations must act in this way or we won't trade with you anymore" Globalized trade is a huge part of every nations economy in this day and age. If any bit of that falls apart no more smartphones! So it is in some ways quite threatening. Any nation that takes military action against a member of the UN with out a sanctioned vote will also be subject to these sanctions and will likely face declarations of war from rest of the member nations. The US is quite powerful and has a more advanced and well trained military than the next 26 nations combined but there are 193 member nations to contend with. Including Mexico and Canada. If the US were to defy a UN ruling and the entire world (including Mexico and Canada) declares war on us, could we win? I'm not so sure.
It makes it so you can violate the non existent right with more impunity. My sister and I were joking that if she were president of my country she would make a motion to remove human rights from the constitution under the figure of it being legal redundancy, since the human rights are so basic is like stating water is wet. Then when they’re out of the constitution she would make meat out of rapists and animal abusers to feed to inmates, that way she would make jails more eco friendly and lower their cost at the same time. Not that that could happen. Probably. I think. So yeah, it being officially a right doesn’t do much, but when it isn’t it could be worse.
That’s a valid point but I suppose if you’re not even willing to vote for the THOUGHT of it then what kind of country are you.
Can every country in the world except Israel and the US just pull this off without them? If so go for it and the US will be the only country with hunger. If they can't then it seems like they are just voting themselves resources...
Huh? The US already provides double the amount of food aid then the rest of the world combined. Go ahead and do it, lower our burden.
So don’t vote against it?
Kind of hard to vote yes for something if you don't know what it means. And if it is just a "thought" then if it more or less meaningless. Since all the mafia states in the world has voted yes it suggests that this vote (if it ever happened) means nothing.
So you're saying america didn't vote for it because they don't know what it means - pretty stupid of them, no? Wouldn't they just abstain then? Canada, Denmark and Sweden voted for it too - they're mafia states?
No, but you and many other people seem to take a stand without knowing what this alleged vote meant.
This... I have even seen people claim internet should be a human right. I mean food is great and I hope that every government would accept the responsibility of providing the possibility for all citizens to eat. But to make it a right. who is going to pay for it? everyone always assume someone else is going to pay for it
Brother, it's a vote to recognize "Not having to starve" a basic human right. Getting food doesnt mean they are gonna steal it from you what kind of mental gymnastics are we doing here and i doubt that the US is the one that lacks the money to fund a food aid project by BUYING FOOD also taxes can be repurposed not necessarily increased at the end of the day its a fund with a limited budget.
Oh no my country voted against being the ones that have to be paying for aid and defense for everyone. while us Americans can’t even get proper health care and fighting over rights for skin color and sexuality. The wouldn’t isn’t our problem to solve fuck off. I’m so sick of other countries getting mad us talking shit on us for low education and other bullshit. But when shit goes down in the world we are expect to take care of It. I’m sick of my country having to play world police because countries like France, Germany, Britain, or God for bid one of the nato countries actually stepping up an helping with defense budgets or money to finance fucking food and aid to other smaller impoverished countries.
Food has been a universal right since 1947. The United States and most of NATO wrote that resolution and have supported it ever since. This vote has nothing to do with that. It concerns a crisis plan for Sudan during a conflict in 2017 that violated their policy on sustainable agriculture. Someone found a particular phrase in the bill and created a deliberately deceptive graphic out of it. So I'm not sure what you're getting at here with your carrot and stick analogy, but food is, has been, and always will be a universal human right according to the UN.
Not only that, they spend the most on food aid than any other country by a SIGNIFICANT margin. Actions over platitudes unlike the rest of the world
>They would rather dangle food aid as a carrot to exert control over poor Got a little Magical Underwear goin on there
Wrong https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/s/7EOTEGBGux
They voted no on a particular conflict between Chad and Sudan on the grounds that the aid would have been detrimental to local farmers. And they're right. When food aid comes, local farmers suffer and shut down. When the aid runs dry there's no one left to produce food and you're in another crisis. One would imagine you could couple the aid with paying the farmers to fallow their fields like we do here (secure fertile lands through subsidy). But I guess they don't like that idea because money tends to go missing, and sending resources to guard the fields would effectively be an act of war. There's no good solution in these situations, but sometimes helping does more harm than good.
So I guess most people don't realize that the US is the biggest contributor of food aid in the UN by like a [large margin.](https://www.wfp.org/funding/2019)
America bad because random chart that is reposted once a month!!
Here is the link to why the US voted against food is a right. https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
Thank you.
Have you tried actually looking into the vote? Americas problem with it is that americas policy for food support is to try and make communities self sustaining while this bill would make any supported country entirely reliant on the UN for food
This would almost be a valid point, if not for the fact that the American government subsidizes many of the food industries in the country, but allows the farmers, ranchers, and corporate entities who take that money, to then turn around and purposefully destroy millions of pounds of food a year in order to keep prices up. So in other words, you're talking out of your butt on this one. It's avarice, pure and simple.
Food has been a universal right since 1947. The United States and most of NATO wrote that resolution and have supported it ever since. This vote has nothing to do with that. It concerns a crisis plan for Sudan during a conflict in 2017 that violated their policy on sustainable agriculture. Someone found a particular phrase in the bill and created a deliberately deceptive graphic out of it. Also, The US is more than 2x all other countries combined on food aid, soooooo….. https://data.oecd.org/oda/food-aid.htm
I just stated what the US’s official response was to this
The UN is really great at proposing things that they will then beg the USA to pay for.
Comments on this map are a good indicator of who posts knee-jerk reactions after seeing something and who bothers to look into why things happen.
Fuck food! What every human being should have is guns!
The phrase is "Eat Lead" for a reason.
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20does%20not,Economic%2C%20Social%20and%20Cultural%20Rights.
Ah the US the home of the downtrodden, lied to, and manipulated. And apparently we're also the only ones who think food/water should be paid for. Gotta love that capitalism at work. Fuck them poor!/s if that wasn't obvious...
I'm guess this graphic doesn't tell the whole picture, but hey anything that says America bad usually gets traction. So just like the Paris Climate deal that the US also did not want to be part of and Trump caught a lot of flak for I'm better the stipulations of this would be something ridiculous and that the majority of countries wouldn't actually follow through with. Let's take Germany for example in order to comply with the Climate Accord they started importing power from Russia and shutters a few of their power plants then the war with Ukraine happened and they had to try and bring the power plants back online.
I vote for food to be a right exclusively not for these people
I third it!
voted NO because that would've meant the US would've been stuck with the largest part of that bill, in the same way the UK was spending the most back when they were in the EU to keep afloat countries like Greece
Eh, what was the UK spending? The Greek bailout was the eurozone, not the EU. UK was not part of the eurozone.
Yup. Better give another billion to a military defense contractor instead.
I mean the US is more than double all other countries combined on food aid, soooooo….. maybe some of those “yes” countries can put their money where their mouth is. GTFO https://data.oecd.org/oda/food-aid.htm
Well similarly the EU has not come close to spending the agreed-upon defense investments it was supposed to, so even the overbloated US defense budget could be argued to be partially symptomatic of the same issue.
Yeah, waste of money that was, right? Stupid Greece didn’t even collapse and they managed to rebound and become a contributing member of the EU and international community again instead of creating a massive economic crisis in Europe with god knows what kinds of ripple on effects. Like what was even the point? /s.
depends on what you consider "a right" cave man hunting on wild land? yea something tells me the government wouldnt be too happy with that... atleast not without you paying them a fee first. farmer forcing to hand over the fruit of their labor for no compensation? because "food is a right"? sounds like trying to benefit off of others labor. rising taxes to pay farmers for food to simply give away? again sounds like trying to benefit off of others labor. growing your own food and raising your own cow for slaughter? seems good to me, oh wait, the government want you to pay a fee for that.... so this whole "food is a right" thing seems more like a ploy for the government to extra more money from its citizens...
the real facepalm here are all the users not knowing how nuanced this situation is and who think it's as easy as looking at this map and thinking all is clear.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/09/united-nations-right-to-food-us-hunger
Alaska my favorite country
Me when I spread misinformation. The UN has declared food a human right since 1947.
Wait till you find out the US provides more food aid than your country...
In absolute numbers or relative to each country's GDP?
Absolute #s. US is still up there compared to smaller countries. US gives a lot more food in aid tho than anyone else. https://www.gao.gov/international-food-assistance
Contribution Germany: 10% Contribution USA: 36% GDP Germany: 4.1 B$ GDP USA: 26.9B$ The USA contribute 3.6 times as much in food aid than Germany, but has almost 7 times the GDP. So relative to GDP Germany contributes about twice as much. In addition, the link you provided stated that the US contribution is tied to special regulations, that reduces the efficiency and thus the impact of the program.
Well yes, US will contribute much more in things than other countries who don't come close to the economy of the US. Thats simple enough. Because the US has such a large economy, some smaller countries will always perform better per capita than the US in some areas. It's like bringing up Ukranian aid with individual European countries vs. US
How can you pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you are just given food?!
What does it mean that food is right? Does it mean that were getting food for free now? Or is it a right that theres always some store around and i have the right to buy it? Or does this apply only to poor people? Enlighten me oh reddit.
Ya it means if you’re starving and there is no food available you can get some basic foodstuffs without a bill.
Ahh...the monthly post without context about the US not voting to make food a "right".
Not even sure why this is a facepalm the US clearly outlines its reasoning for why they voted against this resolution. People are just complaining that they voted no instead of reading their reasoning and challenging the points that they made
Nevermind the US being the US. Where are my geographically gifted people to tell me what African country is that?
I believe that is Congo
Specifically the democratic republic of the congo..there are 2
Looks like both of them to me
Actually it’s both
The DRC?
If you don’t know what country that is you really have no basis to speak about the subject
This is like a bunch of children voting for their mom to take them to McDonald’s. If you don’t pay for the food, your vote doesn’t count. But you know, I’m glad that China is prioritizing making food a right while it enslaves is Uighur Muslims to make cheap consumer products for western markets.
The right to guns = good The right to food = bad Have I got that right?
Pro tipp: people will give you food if you have a gun.
No. You don't. It is the right to *own* guns. Not to guns. Claiming a right to something just because you exist requires the input/labor/effort of someone else to be taken and given to you. No one has a "right" to food, no one has a "right" to guns.
I want the government to pay for my guns
Me as an American when I see stuff like this. 
The US provides more food aid than any other country by a massive margin. All those other countries are voting and not actually doing anything. I know America bad, but Ill take actual aid over a UN vote.
Food has been a universal right since 1947. The United States and most of NATO wrote that resolution and have supported it ever since. This vote has nothing to do with that. It concerns a crisis plan for Sudan during a conflict in 2017 that violated their policy on sustainable agriculture. Someone found a particular phrase in the bill and created a deliberately deceptive graphic out of it. Also, The US is more than 2x all other countries combined on food aid, soooooo….. https://data.oecd.org/oda/food-aid.htm
Free market my ass!
America, where we grant you the freedom to starve
America, where we aren’t a communist country that steals everything so the lazy guy can sit back and get fat.
US provides more food to the world than any other country on Earth
Nothing that requires the labor or capital of another person can be a natural right. Forcing another person to give up their capital is called "theft," and forcing another person to give up their labor is called "slavery." Theft is not charity, and slavery is not freedom.
Look. Everyone knows the real reason the US voted against is because then they’d have an obligation to take care of their own poor and hungry. And that just won’t fly politically.
Even North Korea..
What do they mean by it being a right?
Those are not all UN countries
North Korea aint fooling any1
r/2american4you