cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/18629062

According to the debate, they had their reasons. But still – when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.

  • FireTower@lemmy.world
    12·
    4 months ago

    This Committee is meeting at a time when the international community is confronting one of the most serious food-security emergencies in modern history. Hunger is on the rise for the third year in a row, after a decade of progress. And now, for communities already experiencing poverty and hunger, the COVID-19 pandemic is disproportionately affecting lives by harming how people provide for themselves and feed their families – both today and long after the pandemic subsides. More than 35 million people in South Sudan, Somalia, the Lake Chad Basin, and Yemen are facing severe food insecurity exacerbated by the global pandemic, and in the case of Yemen, potential famine. The United States remains fully engaged and committed to addressing these complex crises.

    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.

    https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-on-a-resolution-on-the-right-to-food/

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      23·
      4 months ago

      It all sounds like some very reasonable language, and yet no other countries raised the same objection, including not only countries we are not allied with and don’t generally seem to respect, but also countries we are allied with and do generally seem to respect.

      I read it as “hey guys let’s all agree to do this thing, and then we can figure out the details” and US is the singular guy in the meeting who is like “nope, we can’t agree to do it until we’ve split every hair about exactly how it will be done.”

      • JacksonLamb@lemmy.world
        3·
        4 months ago

        It doesn’t sound reasonable. Its argument is neoliberal economics at its worst:“we don’t want countries to be able to control their own domestic food markets because we want them to be forced to take our exports”, only counched in paternalistic We Know What’s Best For You rhetoric.