A/HRC/7/5 page 10 impacts of decisions taken in other countries. All countries should therefore ensure that their policies do not contribute to human rights violations in other countries. In such a globalized, interconnected world, the actions taken by one Government may have negative impacts on the right to food of individuals living in other countries. International trade in agriculture is a case in point. It is widely recognized that subsidies to farmers in developed countries have negative impacts on farmers and the right to food in developing countries if food products are “dumped” on developing countries.11 22. By adopting the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, States have undertaken to cooperate - without any territorial or jurisdictional limitations - to ensure the realization of the right to food and the fundamental right to be free from hunger (arts. 2, 11 (1) and 11 (2)). 23. In his efforts, the Special Rapporteur has built on the work of the Committee and the studies of many academics and non-governmental organizations to show the applicability of extraterritorial obligations to the right to food. The Special Rapporteur strongly believes that States must respect, protect and support the fulfilment of the right to food of people living in other territories, including when they take decisions within WTO, IMF or the World Bank, to fully comply with their obligations under the right to food.12 III. WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE A. Schizophrenia in the United Nations system and in States’ policies 1. Non-acceptance of the right to food 24. The Special Rapporteur believes that the profound internal contradictions within the international community are a key obstacle to the realization of the right to food. On the one hand, United Nations agencies such as FAO, WFP, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) emphasize social justice and human rights and do excellent work in promoting the right to food, for example as evidenced by the FAO’s Right to Food Guidelines. On the other hand, the Bretton Woods institutions, along with the Government of the United States of America and the World Trade Organization, refuse to recognize the mere existence of a human right to food and impose on the most vulnerable States the “Washington Consensus” emphasizing liberalization, deregulation, privatization and the compression of State domestic budgets, a model which in many cases produces greater inequalities. In particular, three aspects of this general process of privatization and liberalization create catastrophic consequences for the right to food: the privatization of institutions and public utilities, the liberalization of agricultural trade, and the market-assisted model of land reform. Such policies contradict the resolution adopted on 18 December 2007 by the General Assembly 11 See E/CN.4/2004/10. 12 See E/CN.4/2006/44.