SRES-669-117
Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment and an amended preamble by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S3528; text: CR S3528)
Sponsored by Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
What it does
This resolution would formally express the Senate's condemnation of the deliberate use of hunger and food deprivation against civilian populations during armed conflict. It would call on the U.S. government to prioritize diplomatic efforts to identify and address situations where hunger is used as a weapon of war. It would also urge that U.S.-supported security operations minimize civilian harm and avoid disrupting civilian food supplies and livelihoods.
Who benefits
Civilian populations in active conflict zones who are at risk of deliberate food deprivation, particularly in regions experiencing ongoing armed conflict (e.g., sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe as of 2022). International humanitarian organizations advocating for stronger diplomatic pressure on parties that weaponize food. U.S. diplomatic personnel who would receive a clearer congressional mandate to raise food security in foreign policy discussions.
Who is hurt
This is a non-binding resolution with no direct legal or budgetary effect, so no specific group faces a direct material harm. Parties to armed conflicts who use food deprivation as a military tactic could face increased U.S. diplomatic pressure. Some critics argue that resolutions without enforcement mechanisms may divert diplomatic attention or political capital from more binding policy tools, potentially at the expense of other foreign policy priorities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the deliberate starvation of civilians is a war crime under international humanitarian law, and that a formal Senate condemnation sends a clear, bipartisan signal that the United States will not ignore this practice. They contend that naming and shaming actors who weaponize food strengthens the international norm against targeting civilian populations, and that directing U.S. diplomacy toward this issue costs little while potentially saving lives. Supporters also argue that the resolution reinforces existing U.S. commitments under the Geneva Conventions and aligns American foreign policy with widely shared humanitarian values, building credibility with international partners and organizations working to address famine in conflict zones.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a non-binding resolution carries no enforcement power and may create a false impression of meaningful action while the underlying crisis continues. They contend that without accompanying legislation, funding, or sanctions, the resolution is largely symbolic and may allow policymakers to avoid the harder work of crafting enforceable policy responses. Opponents also suggest that broadly directing U.S. diplomacy toward this issue could complicate relationships with allied governments whose military operations may be implicated, potentially undermining other strategic foreign policy objectives. Some argue that existing international law already prohibits the starvation of civilians, making a separate Senate resolution redundant rather than additive.