US votes against human right to food...again

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apparently the US has been the sole objector to this UN resolution since at least 2005. I didn't look any further back than that.

UN General Assembly GA/SHC/3941 24 November 2008

Vote on Right to Food

The draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/63/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 180 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: United States.

UN General Assembly GA/SHC/3910 21 November 2007

Vote on Right to Food

The draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/62/L.53/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 176 in favour to 1 against, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: United States.

From an article in 2006 by a public health group:
Human Rights Day: Ending Poverty

All human beings have a right to food and to be free from hunger. Unfortunately in the United States this is not the case. Just this year, the United States again voted against the UN Resolution on the Right to Food. The United States is the only country to vote against the resolution.

The Daily Kos is where this came to my attention.

"Why do they hate us?" we ask.
The real question we should be asking is: "Why do we hate them?"

Of course the majority in the UN were not so generous with sanctioning the human right to water. They agreed to remove all references to water as a 'right' because Canada and the US were concerned it might interfere with profiting from selling water resources.

UN Human Rights Council votes against water as a human right…
May 11, 2008

During meetings in March 2008 of the UN Human Rights Council, Germany and Spain proposed a resolution to identify water as a global human right. Canada and the United States refused to pass this resolution because of wording that defined water as a human right.

The United States and Canada were concerned the inclusion of water as a ‘human right’ would interfere with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) according to Food and Water Watch. NAFTA “defines water as a good and an investment” as highlighted by Water Wired. The identification of water as a human right could possibly hinder future import/export of bulk water between the two nations.

So, to satisfy the United States and Canada, the UN Human Rights Council deleted all phrases in the document stating “right to water and sanitation,” and replaced the phrases with “Human Rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation.” The Council also voted for an ‘Independent Expert’ to investigate the “issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation” over the next three years.

I couldn't help noticing this one also from the 2008 vote:

Vote on Rights of the Child

The draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/63/L.16/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 180 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: United States.

But we want everyone to have 'democracy'.

 

[Drudgewire]

The Daily Kos is where this came to my attention.

Stopped reading here.

 

[gtc]

Democracy is the process by which governments are formed and hence government policies are arrived at.

It doesn't say much of anything about what the specific policies should be.

 

[Sefarst]

Well there are two ways to look at this.

1) The US wants people to starve to death.

2) The US has underlying legal reasons and qualms with specific provisions that prevent it from signing on. These would stem from the US' unique position in the world as the richest and most powerful, thereby suggesting that any need to ENFORCE the provisions and agreements would fall to it. The US is wary of taking on such responsibilities without certain specifications.

 

[mikedenk]

Adding this to their vote against the U.N. Resolution in Favor of Rainbows, Kittens, and Puppies for Everybody (document A/C.4/68/L.50/Rev.1), I have finally been convinced that I live in the most horrible country in the world.

 

[Euromutt]

The notion of the "right to development," the "right to food" and the "right to water" all rather remind of that one scene in Life of Brian where the members of the People's Front of Judea are arguing over Loretta (formerly Stan) having the right, in principle, to bear children even though it's a physical impossibility because he is, in fact, a man and doesn't have a uterus.

 

[littlehulkster]

If you all haven't read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, you probably should. It's not about food, but it does really throw a spotlight on the misdeeds of the IMF and similar organizations.

 

[Pardalis]

I couldn't help but notice one of the signataries:

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Kind of devalues the whole thing doesn't it?

 

[Doctor Evil]

The notion of the "right to development," the "right to food" and the "right to water" all rather remind of that one scene in Life of Brian where the members of the People's Front of Judea are arguing over Loretta (formerly Stan) having the right, in principle, to bear children even though it's a physical impossibility because he is, in fact, a man and doesn't have a uterus.

Very apt. I loled.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Even though Confession of an Economic Hitman is /fiction/?

Seriously, though, from what I can tell, the United States probably doesn't want to have to ENFORCE the declarations. Or they consider it too illdefined. YMMV.

 

[WildCat]

What, exactly, is declaring such a right supposed to accomplish and how will it be expected to accomplish it?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Here's a report from 2001 about how much the US provided in food aid....

• P.L. 480 Title I: Trade and Development Assistance -- Approximately 753,200 MT of commodities, valued at $105.2 million, were programmed to 7 countries under P.L. 480 Title I. These totals do not include Title I-funded commodities under Food for Progress.
• P.L. 480 Title II: Emergency Programs -- Approximately 728,418 MT of emergency food aid, valued at $446.4 million, was provided to 26 countries through 48 programs.
• P.L. 480 Title II: Development Programs -- Over 1.3 million MT of development food aid, totaling $466.4 million, was provided to 38 countries through 115 programs.
• P.L. 480 Title III: Food for Development -- Commodities for Title III were not programmed in FY 2001.
• P.L. 480 Title V: Farmer-to-Farmer Initiative -- A total of 776 assignments were undertaken in a total of 42 food-insecure countries, including 12 New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. The estimated total is $12.0 million.
• Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949— -- More than 2.8 million MT of surplus U.S. commodities, estimated at $629.9 million, were moved through programs in 52 countries.
• Food for Progress Act of 1985— -- Approximately 436,270 MT of commodities, valued at over $107.1 million, were programmed in 19 countries.

That's something like 1.9 million million tons of food.

Does anyone have any information about how much food relief the signatories provide?

 

[WildCat]

I notice Zimbabwe has signed on for the right to food.

Does anyone see a problem with simply declaring rights to whatever while demanding nothing of the governments most responsible for causing the shortages in the first place?

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Dear SkeptiGirl:

The problem is that in order for someone to have a "right" to a tangible good, there would then be a moral and legal obligation for someone else to provide it. Human rights do not require anyone to take action to provide them; they just require that someone else not interfere with you exercising your rights. But if people have a right to a physical good, then implicitly they have a right to require others to provide it for them.

For example, if people have a "right to a TV set", what does that imply? Television sets do not spontaneously appear. Someone (usually several someones in succession) has to gather the raw materials; do the work of creating/ shaping/ tending the intermediate stages; create the finished product; pack it so that it can travel; transport it to a shipping point, from whence it is shipped to its destination. For a TV, that process might involve metal from Australia, computer boards from Korea, and assembly in Japan; packing crates from softwood or scrap from the US; and a container that travels by train, ship, and semi-truck, plus additional ground transport once it reaches the store or warehouse, to get it to the consumer.

While it is easy to think of food as "just growing", that is not really true. It takes work--plowing, harrowing, rock removal-- to turn arable land into actual working fields; water, weeding, fertilizer, and usually some form of thinning to get the seedlings to grow; the work (at the right time) of harvesting; separating the usuable food portions from the stalks, stems, chaff, etc. Then the raw food needs to be converted into things like flour, oil, dried fruit, etc. The prep-ready food then has to travel to the person who has the "right" to it. None of this happens without people doing work, and generally skilled labor and capital goods need to be expended as well.

It is not an oversimplification to say that a "right" to food implies the "right" to force others to raise that food for you. I do not believe the Confederacy was correct in saying that one human has the right to force another to produce food for them. I do not think the UN is right to say so, either.

I am glad that the US did not agree to a political document that translates, "We don't have enough food--so someone must give us some." It is a ridiculous concept, and an unjust one. It ignores reality, and treats food (or useable water) as being as available as air. Air, like freedom, is something that you will have just by living, unless someone works to deprive you of it. (In both cases, of course, a volcano or a landslide could deprive you, but those are not controlled by UN Treaty.)

This is a very preliminary discussion of what is technically known as the concept of "negative rights", which is a confusing term. Negative rights are those which you have unless someone deprives you of them. Positive rights are those which you must be given by another person's action.

I have become convinced that there are no positive rights except for the limited ones that may be granted to specific individuals through agreement. My husband, for example, has the right to share my home, my bank account, and my bed. It's part of being husband and wife. But I do not think that anyone else has those rights, until and unless I decide to grant them. I have the right to my dinner from a restaurant if I pay for it, due to the trade agreement the owner made by opening his eatery.

None of the above should be read to mean that I think it's somehow a bad idea for all people to have a supply of food and potable water. I even think it's a goal to work towards, and I contribute money towards those goals. I think it's a good idea for some of my taxes to support action toward those goals. But...it's not a right.

Expecting that this post will be completely misunderstood, but I tried, MK

 

[qwints]

Not to threadjack,

but the US refusal to sign the Mine Ban Treaty is a more concrete example of strategic decisions trumping idealism. Like it or not, we Americans live in a country that values realism.

 

[littlehulkster]

Even though Confession of an Economic Hitman is /fiction/?

Seriously, though, from what I can tell, the United States probably doesn't want to have to ENFORCE the declarations. Or they consider it too illdefined. YMMV.

Einar Greve admitted it was "basically the truth" in interviews, FYI.

Also there's this:
http://www.economichitman.com/pix/veracitymemo.pdf

Perkins may have embellished things a bit (Mostly the bits about his involvement with the NSA), but all evidence points to what he said being more or less truthful.

 

[geni]

The notion of the "right to development," the "right to food" and the "right to water" all rather remind of that one scene in Life of Brian where the members of the People's Front of Judea are arguing over Loretta (formerly Stan) having the right, in principle, to bear children even though it's a physical impossibility because he is, in fact, a man and doesn't have a uterus.

We have the capacity to ensure that everyone in the world outside north korea gets fed. We've had the capacicty for decades. It's far from being a physical impossibility.

 

[geni]

What, exactly, is declaring such a right supposed to accomplish and how will it be expected to accomplish it?

It would mean in theory that if a leader used stavation as a weapon against a section of their population it would be less effort to produce justifications to remove them.

 

[Euromutt]

We have the capacity to ensure that everyone in the world outside north korea gets fed. We've had the capacicty for decades. It's far from being a physical impossibility.

What's so special about North Korea that the inhabitants of that country couldn't be fed as well?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Hi

Here's a report from 2001 about

That's something like 1.9 million million tons of food.

Does anyone have any information about how much food relief the signatories provide?

If one takes MT as being million tons, then that is more food than there is in the whole world (& also very cheap at the quoted prices). So, the MT must therefore be metric tonnes, which are each 1,000 Kgs (about 1 ton).
Note: deleted table (as detected as URL) from your quote, as unable to post reply with it included, due to <15 limit.
As I now have more than 15 posts, I should now be able to include your original post that I was resoponding to details:

Here's a report from 2001 about how much the US provided in food aid....
Originally Posted by U.S. International Food Assistance Report 2001

* P.L. 480 Title I: Trade and Development Assistance -- Approximately 753,200 MT of commodities, valued at $105.2 million, were programmed to 7 countries under P.L. 480 Title I. These totals do not include Title I-funded commodities under Food for Progress.
* P.L. 480 Title II: Emergency Programs -- Approximately 728,418 MT of emergency food aid, valued at $446.4 million, was provided to 26 countries through 48 programs.
* P.L. 480 Title II: Development Programs -- Over 1.3 million MT of development food aid, totaling $466.4 million, was provided to 38 countries through 115 programs.
* P.L. 480 Title III: Food for Development -- Commodities for Title III were not programmed in FY 2001.
* P.L. 480 Title V: Farmer-to-Farmer Initiative -- A total of 776 assignments were undertaken in a total of 42 food-insecure countries, including 12 New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. The estimated total is $12.0 million.
* Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949— -- More than 2.8 million MT of surplus U.S. commodities, estimated at $629.9 million, were moved through programs in 52 countries.
* Food for Progress Act of 1985— -- Approximately 436,270 MT of commodities, valued at over $107.1 million, were programmed in 19 countries.


That's something like 1.9 million million tons of food.