Human Rights as a Framework for Food Security
I. Topic Description
The United States of America recognizes that fundamental human
rights are the foundation of any meaningful discussion of food security, at home and
abroad. The RomeDeclaration on World Food Security, the World Food Summit Plan of
Action and the U.S. Position Paper prepared for the Summit all declare the persistence of
hunger for one-seventh of humanity "unacceptable." The Rome Declaration opens by
reaffirming "the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with
the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger." The
statement of the Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) Forum which paralleled the Summit
similarly opens by affirming "first and foremost
the basic human Right to Food."
The Summit Declaration goes on to state, "Democracy, promotion and protection of
all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, and the full
and equal participation of men and women, are essential for achieving sustainable food
security for all.þ Civil and political rights are indispensable to communities seeking to
achieve food security. At the same time, without adequate food, freedom from hunger and
access to the other necessities of life, people cannot sustain themselves and enjoy the other
rights to which they are entitled.
This topic includes several sub-elements:
U.S. ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights;
U.S. recognition of the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of
everyone to be free from hunger, and participation in international efforts to
clarify the content of these rights, as called for in Objective 7.4 of the Summit
Plan of Action;
Outlawing the use of food as a weapon;
In certain emergency situations, giving the right to food precedence over
national sovereignty;
Enacting appropriate policies to respect, protect, facilitate and fulfill the right
to food;
Repeal of discriminatory eligibility criteria for the Food Stamp Program;
Human rights education.
II. Background
Since the early 1940s, the United States has played a leading role in advancing
internationally recognized human rights. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1941 Four
Freedoms speech noted the indivisibility of civil and political rights (freedom of expression
and conscience) on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights (freedom from
want and fear) on the other. In his 1944 State of the Union address, Roosevelt again made
the connection: þPeople who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships
are made.þ The United States was a key player in the crafting and adoption of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and supported incorporating economic and social
rights, including in Article 25 the right to food.
During the Cold War, the United States generally championed civil and political
rights more than economic, social and cultural rights. It has signed, but not ratified, the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966. By
signing, the United States incurred an obligation not to defeat the purposes of the Covenant.
The ICESCR has now entered into force as international law, and some legal scholars
consider the right to food to have attained the status of jus cogens, or customary international
law.
Even though the United States has not yet ratified the ICESCR, it has generally
supported the many international reaffirmations of the rights to adequate food and freedom
from hunger since then: at the 1974 World Food Conference, the 1979 World Conference
on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, the 1990 World Summit for Children, the 1992
International Conference on Nutrition, the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, the
1995 World Summit for Social Development and the 1995 Fourth World Conference on
Women. In 1976, both houses of Congress passed Right
to Food Resolutions.
The ICESCR and international law on the right to food do not oblige states to feed
everyone. In fact, the ICESCR includes provisions on the rights to work, just compensation,
training and freedom from employment discrimination. States must respect the right of
everyone within their borders to have access to adequate food, protect that right from
encroachment by others, facilitate opportunities by which that right can be enjoyed (for
example through agrarian reform or steps to assure food safety) and only in the last instance
fulfill the right for those unable to do so by themselves (for example through food stamps,
food aid or other safety net programs). Under the ICESCR, even in times of resource
constraints, securing basic economic and social rights
is the prime duty of states.
The United States government is a leading source of emergency food aid for
international crises, entering into partnerships with international organizations and NGOs for
distribution. U.S. NGOs organize and conduct food distribution operations during times of
armed conflict or natural disaster, including cross-border relief operations. Generally, in the
case of international emergencies, the United States has followed the principle of þa hungry
child knows no politics,þ articulated by President Ronald Reagan, providing aid without
regard to the state of U.S. relations with the country in question. The United States has also
taken the lead in assuring that people affected by food emergencies have access to assistance
even when their government objects, or is the cause of their lack of access to food or has
collapsed (e.g., in Iraqi Kurdistan, Sudan and Somalia), in accordance with the principles of
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46-182 of December 1991. This resolution
suggests that in certain emergency situations, the right to food must take precedence over
considerations of national sovereignty.
On the other hand, the United States has sometimes attached political conditions to
emergency aid, such as the current apparent linkage between humanitarian assistance to
North Korea and that country's participation in political talks. Unlike emergency relief,
when food aid is provided to chronically food deficit areas or to population groups that suffer
from chronic hunger, the United States places many restrictions on how and where food aid
can be used, including limitations based on broader
U.S. foreign policy considerations.
In practice, when the United States imposes economic sanctions on other countries,
these sometimes contribute directly and indirectly
to food insecurity, as in Cuba and Iraq.
On the domestic side, beginning in 1974, the United States government provided food
stamps to all legal residents who met the income and asset criteria for eligibility. But 1996
legislation makes most non-citizens ineligible, along with most unemployed, able-bodied
persons aged 18 to 50 without dependent children. This legislation is inconsistent not only
with the international human rights principles of universalism and non-discrimination, but
with the U.S. constitutional principle of equal protection
of the laws.
The network of private charities which supplement public food assistance þ food
banks, pantries, soup kitchens, shelters and day care centers does not, in general, enforce
such discriminatory restrictions. However, private food assistance accounts for only about
10 percent of all food assistance in the United States. Although private charities and civic
groups can expand their food assistance efforts, their capacity to fill in the gap created by
public policy changes is limited.
Currently, the United States does not have a systematic national program of human
rights education. Few, if any, countries have such a program, even though knowledge of
human rights is essential to sustainable development.
III. Issues
At the World Food Summit, the U.S. delegation filed an interpretative statement
calling the rights to adequate food and freedom from hunger goals or aspirations that do not
give rise to any international obligations. The statement also interprets Objective 7.4 of the
Plan of Action as not calling for the development of any treaty, international agreement or
code of conduct regarding food security. Thus, the United States has not participated
positively in efforts to clarify the content of these rights and develop ways to implement and
realize them.
Ratification of the ICESCR will be difficult. Some key U.S. Senators are
unsympathetic or even hostile. Many political leaders in the United States prefer to limit
recognized human rights to civil and political rights, and are selective in making even those
rights a front-burner foreign policy concern. Assuring universal economic rights will entail
considerable financial costs, but it will also have substantial benefits in terms of improved
public health and reduced crime and social tensions.
Indeed, the U.S. delegation to the World Food Summit and the preparatory sessions
acknowledged that cost was a factor in the restrictive
U.S. interpretation of the right to food.
Yet many fundamental and widely accepted human rights involve financial costs.
These include such broadly accepted civil and political rights as the right to due process of
law and the right to free and fair elections.
The United States similarly hesitates to become involved in efforts to clarify and
realize the rights to food and freedom from hunger primarily on cost grounds. It has
expressed a fear of litigation to expand food stamp eligibility. In recent years, federal
nutrition programs and foreign aid have consistently borne a disproportionate share of the
deficit reduction burden.
Although the United States acknowledges that food should not be used as a weapon,
it includes food in the embargo against Cuba. Also, whether to include food seems to get re-
debated whenever the United States imposes sanctions. A stronger and more consistent U.S.
government policy against using food as a weapon
is needed.
The United States and other nations have not arrived at a clear and consistent standard
as to when concern about the right to food should override national sovereignty.
Progress in this area is essential for food security,
however.
People in the United States generally regard education as a state and especially local
government function. Federal curriculum guidelines are at most advisory. Yet the federal
government has played an extremely effective role in promoting public awareness of the
dangers of smoking and, through the þnutrition pyramid,þ healthy eating. The federal
government has strongly supported science education as well. NGOs have been active in
nonformal human rights education work. A government endorsed campaign on human rights
education, beginning with elementary and secondary school students, could complement these
efforts, promote public awareness of human rights in general, and the right to food in
particular. Human rights education could also become an important component of U.S.
development assistance.
IV. Proposed Actions
Ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
before December 10, 1998, the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. Resources required: minimal financial resources, major
political leadership from the executive branch, which could immediately
undertake a study of current U.S. compliance with the Covenant's provisions.
Civil society can play a pivotal role. Could be a major element of a Food for
All Campaign.
Pros: Ratification will put the United States on the moral high ground in international
human rights discussions in general, and on discussion of the right to food in particular.
This will enhance a leading role for the United States in efforts to achieve universal food
security and promote democracy and good governance worldwide. It will also mean that
President Clinton will have a major historic legacy. The United States is currently the only
member of the Group of Seven that has not ratified the Covenant. Other non-ratifiers
include governments well-known for violating human rights, such as those of China and
Indonesia.
Cons: The fight for ratification is likely to be difficult, especially under current
political circumstances.
Join in global efforts to clarify the content of the rights to adequate food and
freedom from hunger and to implement and realize these rights. This includes
efforts to design appropriate voluntary and binding instruments such as codes
of conduct, treaties and international agreements. Currently, a number of
NGOs are actively working on developing a Code of Conduct on the Right to
Food in consultation with relevant United Nations agencies and programs.
Minimal financial resources, major political will. Major NGO roles are
possible, and this could also be a part of a Food for All Campaign. Ongoing,
beginning immediately.
Pros: Again, the United States should be leading efforts to advance the right to food, instead
of putting itself in the position of the only nation to dissent from global consensus on its
importance and advancement. This is an investment in future global stability. It also allows
the United States to play a positive role in the
United Nations system.
Cons: These efforts are likely to lead to increased obligations (moral and legal) upon all
governments. Actual enforcement of international law in this area is a politically delicate
and difficult task.
Refrain from using food as weapon; lead international efforts to outlaw this.
Resources: political will, not financial. Executive order or legislation to allow
food sales to Cuba. Could be part of Food
for All Campaign. Begin immediately.
Pros: Puts United States on moral high ground to advance right to food and lead global
campaign against the use of food as a weapon. Assures that U.S. foreign policy will not
adversely affect civilians, especially children, because of the alleged sins of their
government.
Cons: Politically difficult, especially since it could benefit "pariah" regimes with strong
domestic political opponents.
Lead efforts to clarify and strengthen international law upholding the right to
food against competing claims of national sovereignty. Under what
circumstances can humanitarian intervention occur without the consent of a
country's government, especially if civilians face starvation? Resources:
minimal financial; major political will. Major NGO role. Could be part of
efforts to develop new international legal instruments. Could be part of Food
for All campaign. Begin immediately.
Pros: Would strengthen right to food in a meaningful way and effectively address important
current international policy issue.
Cons: National sovereignty is deeply entrenched. Will be extremely difficult to make
progress in this area given the perceived infringement
on national sovereignty.
Enact public policies to respect, protect, facilitate and fulfill the rights to
adequate food and freedom from hunger. Ongoing review of policies and laws
should follow ratification of the ICESCR; but enactment of appropriate laws
and policies can begin immediately. These policies would include rapid efforts
to achieve universal domestic food security and efforts to make global food
security a major goal of U.S. foreign policy. Resources required: full
funding and utilization of federal food programs would cost an estimated $11
billion annually over FY 1996 expenditures; full employment at living wages
would require a significant initial public investment, which would be recovered
through broader participation in economic growth and increased revenues.
Internationally, expansion of resources is less important than shifts in
priorities. Major roles for NGOs and the
private sector.
Pros: Enacting such policies is not only the right thing to do, but it will put the United
States in a better position to encourage others to do the same. As the wealthiest and most
powerful nation on earth, the United States is in an excellent position to lead by example on
the right to food. Finding the needed resources is a question of political will and national
priorities as much as money; Congress has repeatedly found more money for military
programs than the Pentagon has requested.
Con: These policies will require sizeable initial outlays; gaining their enactment will be a
contentious process.
Repeal restrictions on food stamp eligibility not based on income and asset
criteria. Resources: $27 billion, 1996-2002. Will require legislative change.
Begin effort in 1997.
Pros: Puts the United States on the moral high ground, represents genuine progress against
the scandal of 35 million food insecure people in
the world's richest country.
Cons: High initial investment cost. Opponents will argue about creating an "immigration
magnet." Will require tough choices if balanced
budget is to be maintained.
Embark on major domestic human rights education campaign, and integrate
human rights education into U.S. development assistance. Goal would be to
familiarize U.S. public (beginning with elementary and secondary school
students) and people in developing countries with the full range of human
rights, including economic, social and cultural rights, especially the right to
food. Modest government resources, major NGO role in carrying out
campaign. Should be the centerpiece of Food for All Campaign. Begin
immediately.
Pros: Important for developing a public constituency, at home and abroad, for human rights,
including the right to food.
Cons: Strong political backlash possible.
Include the right to food as a section in the State Department Human Rights
Report, beginning with the report for 1997.
Cost: minimal.
Pros: Demonstrates commitment to right to food. Other economic and social rights are
already included (e.g., labor rights).
Cons: Many officials believe the reports already
include too many items.
------------------------------------
Marc J. Cohen
Senior Research Associate
Bread for the World Institute
1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1000
Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
Tel: +301-608-2400, ext. 269
Fax: +301-608-2401
E-mail: mjcohen@bread.org
------------------------------------