Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US, Somalia Still Opt Out of Children's Treaty
UNITED NATIONS - When the U.N. children's agency (UNICEF) commemorates the 20th anniversary of its landmark international treaty protecting the rights of children next week, there will be two countries skipping the celebrations: the United States and Somalia.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which was adopted unanimously by the United Nations back in 1989, will be 20 years old on Nov. 20.
(Image: WorldVision.org.uk) "It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," presidential candidate Barack Obama said last year during his election campaign.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which was adopted unanimously by the United Nations back in 1989, will be 20 years old on Nov. 20.
Described as the world's most rapidly and universally ratified human rights treaty, the Convention has been ratified by 193 states.
But the only two countries that have not ratified the treaty have nothing in common.
"Somalia is understandable," Kul Gautam, a former U.N. assistant secretary-general and ex-UNICEF deputy executive director, told IPS.
It has been a failed state without an effective government for over two decades, he added.
"But the United States does have a functioning government, which claims to be a great champion of human rights in the world. It baffles non-Americans, and even many Americans, as to why the U.S. is reluctant to ratify this Convention," Gautam added.
When he was on the campaign trail last year, President Obama also said it is important that the United States return to its position as a respected global leader and promoter of human rights.
"I will review this and other treaties to ensure that the U.S. resumes its global leadership in human rights," Obama vowed, before being elected president last November.
Meg Gardinier, chair of the Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, told IPS that the United States extensively scrutinizes treaties before taking final steps toward ratification.
This careful review, necessary to ensure compliance with existing law and practice at the federal and state levels, can span decades.
"Concerns, frequently misdirected and misguided, have prevented the U.S. from endorsing a human rights doctrine its democratic principles have influenced," she said.
"The political will required to ratify the CRC must be reinvigorated under President Obama who reminded us that: 'America has carried on because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears and true to our founding documents,'" she said.
"Our founding documents - namely the U.S. Constitution - shaped the [CRC], the world's most rapidly ratified human rights treaty," she added.
The Convention recognises every child's right to develop physically, mentally and socially to his or her fullest potential, to be protected from abuse, discrimination, exploitation and violence.
The treaty also gives children the right to express their views and to participate in decisions affecting their future, in accordance with the child's evolving capacities.
Asked about the U.S. stance, Gautam told IPS that some opponents of the CRC in the United States have argued that ratification of the CRC would impose "all kinds of terrible obligations that maybe harmful to America and its children and families".
These, he said, range from "how possible U.N. interference might compromise the sovereignty of the U.S. and undermine its constitution; to how the CRC might weaken American families and role of parents in bringing up their children."
Additionally, the opponents have misinterpreted the CRC as possibly bringing about a culture of permissiveness, including abortion on demand, and unrestricted access to pornography; and how it might empower children to sue their parents and disobey their guidance.
"Such concerns are not unique to America. Many groups in other countries have expressed similar fears from time to time," Gautam said.
"But we have now had 20 years of experience in over a hundred countries to judge if such concerns are justified," he added.
In the United States, the ratification of the CRC, like all other international treaties, is in the hands of the Senate.
The former administration of President George W. Bush, which dismissed most international treaties with contempt, had no plans to lobby the Senate for the ratification of CRC.
An Asian diplomat told IPS that despite President Obama's best intentions, he doubts whether CRC ratification will be a priority for a U.S. Senate currently preoccupied with two politically sensitive issues: health care and climate change.
"I was told that Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has a higher priority than the CRC," he added.
CEDAW was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1979. And the United States is the only country in the industrial world which has not ratified the 30-year-old treaty which strives for a world without gender discrimination and protects the rights of women worldwide.
"It's an irony," said the diplomat, "that the CRC remained unratified by the United States despite the fact that UNICEF has always been headed by a U.S. national. It obviously did not help."
The United States signed the CRC in 1995 shortly after the former UNICEF Executive Director Jim Grant died. It was his goal that there would be universal ratification of the CRC by 1995.
At that time, Senator Jesse Helms, the right-wing neo-conservative head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced that he would not accept any further treaties for U.S. ratification - and so the process toward U.S. ratification was halted.
At the U.N. Special Session in 2002, a group of U.S. non-governmental organisations (NGOs), dismayed at the dismissal of the CRC and its principles by some U.S. delegates, pledged to re-establish a Campaign for US Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Gautam said that at this historic juncture, the whole world is looking to President Obama and his administration with enormous hope and expectation of a renewed American leadership on many major issues facing humanity.
In the eyes of the rest of the world, he said, the failure of the U.S. to ratify the world's most universally embraced human rights treaty, stands out as a strange enigma.
"Now that the Obama administration has committed itself to regain the lost American moral leadership in the world, and to follow a more multilateralist approach, child rights activists not just in America but all over the world, are hopeful that the US will finally ratify this important Convention," he declared.
Asked how confident she was that the Obama administration will rectify the anomaly, Gardinier told IPS: "There is cautious optimism that the CRC will be ratified in the foreseeable future."
She said plans are underway to secure ratification by 2011.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
14 Comments so far
Show AllShould we join the rest of the world (except Somalia) in an affirmation that children are human and have rights? It is a complicated issue. It is a difficult decision. We have to weigh all the options. The market will solve all children's problems. We are consulting with advisors. How would it affect deployment of military parents? Would that mean children have to housed, fed and clothed? Would we be forced to provide medical care? Would that mean that children would have to be protected from coal waste? Would we have to take the hormones out of the meat and milk? We have to do a cost analysis. Would we be held responsible for collateral damage to children?
Oh forget about it. We will just say we are a child-friendly country and leave it at that.
Joe
Many argue that Somalia had a functioning government before the USA sent it's Ethiopian proxies to overthrow the Sharia Council based established law and order.
This Islamic Government controled 90% of Somalia and had diminished violence to a very low level.
This government was so much in control that the citizens were complaining that their traditional mild narcotic Khat was illegal and they were not permitted to see Hollywood movies.
For the USA mass bloodshed always seems preferable to peace imposed by Sharia Law.
And where is the USA with Landmines and cluster bombs?
partly right glen but not wholly so
we - the imperial us, its hired military thugs and private sector assassins have the job of destroying every country in the world and then transforming them into right wing ultra fascist nazi client states
that is the game
don't believe me then consider: iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, saudi arabia, yemen, israel, colombia, sri lanka, egypt, the uae, yemen, honduras, mexico, georgia, croatia, yugoslavia, the ukraine...
i could go on
and glen what they are doing there they now do here
Buff 11:49 --- I am afraid you may be horribly correct as shown by the book " Confessions of an Economic Hitman"
how bout this little gem, another step on our jive dance into fascism, as noted by rachel maddow citing an article by david sirota from "Inside US Trade"
“Business groups are worried by the potential effects of provisions banning the import of all goods made with convict labor, forced labor or forced or indentured child labor that were included in a recent customs bill. American business groups are concerned, upset.” “Worried” was the actual phrase, worried about laws against using slaves and child labor.
Quote, “Business sources say the bill could cause DHS to more actively seek out imported products made with child labor, forced labor or convict labor.”
Oh, no. How will the corporations save themselves from that onerous rule that you can‘t use slaves and prisoners and children to make your products if you want to sell that product in the United States? Darn that liberal red tape.
Quote, “Sources conceded that this was a sensitive issue because industry groups do not want to be seen as opposing strict measures guarding against human rights abuses. However, one source did expect a push from lobbyists closer to the finance committee mark-up of the bill.”
Wow. I‘m guessing that business interests are OK with something like this being discussed in a subscriber-only industry newsletter publication like “Inside U.S. Trade.” I‘m guessing they might not want to let it become widely known that they are lobbying to stop rules against slavery."
end quote
how fucked up are we when we have no jobs no healthcare an eroding environment all of wall street on welfare plus the admission that we now have to rely on slaves, slave labor, child labor and forced child labor to make a buck
i thought we fought a war over slavery...
fact is, slavery is back and booming and being fought for by the united states in all of our glory - hey we are probably just pining for those good ole days when we had the niggers under chains
its not uncommon to pine nostalgic in times of trouble - so we harken back to our glory days,i guess
by the way, the ones who aren't our slave are the ones we kill with not a thought or care
fuck that shit about freedom and democracy - we are the oil stealing, gas stealing, peasant killing and slave mastering fascists from the totally bankrupt, morally and financially, poisoned republic of amerika
have a good day nazis
Another treaty many people think was ratified but has languished for over 60 years with a bare minimum of US support (which is a travesty considering who actually sold the idea to the world) is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Until the USA becomes civilized enough to ratify that treaty, it will remain a Barbarian Empire that will always put profit over people.
It has been a failed state without an effective government since Ronald Ray Gun was president.
>>The Convention recognises every child's right to develop physically, mentally and socially to his or her fullest potential, to be protected from abuse, discrimination, exploitation and violence.
I am mystified at the reluctance of the USA to sign this convention. It is not like they have not ignored treaties and Conventions willingly entered into in the past.
I think it is because it, like the universal declaration of human rights, prescribes certain materialist freedoms - freedom from hunger, homelessness, unemployment, etc. These were elucidated in FDR's four freedoms, but since then came to be regarded as inimical to everything America stands for - "Free Markets" and the high principal of "Every Man for Himself". These treaties would compel the taxes of a citizen to go to ameliorate another citizen's misfortunes, and this is socialistic "coercion" and is unacceptable!
I am being sarcastic, but dead serious - the US considers public aid to the poor and sick to be against it's highest ideals. I know it is hard for people in other nations to wrap their minds around it, but it is true.
camus13
We are talking about the U.S. we are the greatest country in the world and as I noted yesterday the city of Wilkes-Barre Pa had two judges who sent 5000 children to prison because the judges had a deal for kickbacks with the owner of a private prison.
Each child was not allowed a lawyer, in violation of PA law and each case took about 3 minutes.
They were caught (the judges) and a DA agreed to a 7 year prison term. A Federal judge in the area say no deal so the ex-judges are going to trial before this same judge. Yes, I want to be on this jury.
The PA Supreme court tossed out all 5000 cases.
But it happened over many years and no one, not the DA, not the legal profession, not anybody caught up with it in time.
Now if the US signs this treaty then how can we keep creating private prisons that judges will sent children too to receive a kickback?
In the U.S. the idiots that go crazy over abortion never give a hell about children after they are born. And this case proves it.
Jeevee
My god How unutterably wicked can this country become?
Not to mention that biased, excitement & murder-loving tv is ruining many, MANY lives...
well, this is a no brainer! If we recognize that children have inalienable rights, how could we possibly continue to mutilate the genitals of baby boys while baby girls are protected by federal law. Infant genital mutilation is a crime, but if you happen to be born a boy in the U.S. everyone looks the other way. This is a billion dollar industry in the U.S. It would also call into question the terrible disparity in education based on the property taxes, where wealthy districts get great public schools and poor districts don't. We can't have poor kids getting the same education as rich kids, they might challenge them in the workplace in the future.
There is no evidence that circumcision has any effect on a person's physical or mental health in any way, and since it does no apparent harm, we have to respect certain religious traditions.
But, the rest of your points are well-taken.
When I got permission to demonstrate at the Federal Building for the U.N. Convention On The Rights of The Child to be ratified some 10 years ago, people did not even know what it was. I remember reading, an irate letter to the editor of our local Catholic Newspaper, protesting the CRC.I understand that the U.S. would not be able to recruit children for the military under the age of 18 years, nor would we be able to charge children as adults or execute people who committed a crime under the age of 18.We would be required to have single payer health care to cover all American children not just by state law. Religious reasons could not prevent a child from getting a medical procedure such as a transfusion,chemotherapy, or a therapeutic abortion. If the child does not want to be brainwashed by the parents religious cult they could not seek help to refuse religious control.No savage inequalities of schools would be allowed. It's time to get down town to the Federal Building again to beg for ratification of the convention on the Rights of the Child.I wonder if people will know what it is about this time.