• Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      20 hours ago

      […] 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 […]

      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.

      https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-of-the-third-committee-adoption-of-the-right-to-food-resolution/

      tl;dr:

      1. The USA doesn’t think the resolution actually does anything useful, even if it supports the intention
      2. The USA, the largest exporter of food, is concerned how the resolution might impact food exports
      3. The USA doesn’t recognize the imposition of legal obligations to act outside of its own territory
    • bossito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Keep waiting, reading useless and pointless UN resolutions is not a hobby I have. I’m not against the UN, I think it’s a needed organization, but this kind of pointless resolutions only makes it look bad and only feeds anti-UN positions within its biggest sponsor and host: the US.

      So good luck with pointless resolutions aimed at the guy paying for the circus…

    • AxExRx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      24 hours ago

      I think i ahould preface the following because it sounds more neutral than I meant it to. TBC I condone neither of these positions, nor do I mean this to be argumentative with your possition, but rather collaborative:

      I suspect the objection is to the calling out of / reminder that destruction of water facilities as a war crime, which seems to be something both sides have done/ been threatening in the Iran war, as well as the call out to allow UN/ other humanitarian aid groups unfettered access in warzones. Which seems like it conflicts with Israel’s contentions with UNRWA.