Bro have you considered that starving to death is actually okay?

  • @FireTower
    link
    231 year ago

    US official reasoning from 2020, copied below. But here’s the link https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-on-a-resolution-on-the-right-to-food/

    This resolution rightfully acknowledges the hardships millions of people are facing, and importantly calls on States to support the emergency humanitarian appeals of the UN. However, the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding their devastating consequences.

    The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies that will have negative consequences for food security, sustainability, and income growth. Improved access to local, regional, and global markets helps ensure food is available to the people who need it most and smooths price volatility. Food security depends on appropriate domestic action by governments, including regulatory and market reforms, that is consistent with international commitments.

    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,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.

    For these reasons, we request a vote and we will vote against this resolution.

    • Dran
      link
      121 year ago

      (if genuine) isn’t, “I like the concept but I think your plan sucks and won’t work” a justifiable reason to say no?

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      It’s acquire bad reason imo. If anything, the resolution is very forgiving. It could literally pass and nothing absolutely change, yet they still chose to vote against it.