USA Does not Ratify Child Rights

[lennie]

There are only two countries in the world that have not ratified the 'UN Convention on the Rights of the Child'(1989) which contains 54 Articles.
One country is Somalia, and the other , the United States of America. This is international law that applies to the rights of children and young people from birth to 18 y.o.

I wonder why?

[keith]

lennie said:

There are only two countries in the world that have not ratified the 'UN Convention on the Rights of the Child'(1989) which contains 54 Articles.
One country is Somalia, and the other , the United States of America. This is international law that applies to the rights of children and young people from birth to 18 y.o.

I wonder why?

The leaders of the United States of America are proud to present the picture of being the foremost bearers of human rights.

Yet, they have often been heavily criticized for advancing their own interests and of double standards.
They often have not ratified various international human rights related treaties (and where it has, there have been many, many reservations).
US diplomats were influential in drawing up the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet the USA has not always put (some of their own) words into action.

WE should worry about Hicks and Childrens Rights.

[brian1]

keith said:

The leaders of the United States of America are proud to present the picture of being the foremost bearers of human rights.

And from lennie: "I wonder why?"
Maybe the following will assuage some of your wonder:

What most people fail to understand (including many Americans) is that a particularly important part of the Constitution's and Bill of Rights' upholding of individual rights is not so much the enforcing of those rights by the government, but rather, the government's sworn contract not to interfere with those rights.

Why does the US object to the treaty? Below are some snippets and their links. You might want to go to the links and read them thoroughly to get a comprehensive view of both sides of this controversy.

www.apfn.org/apfn/childs.htm

[snip]

The United States, under the Bush administration, seeks to avoid use of the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as the foundation for the World Summit for Children. The U.S. believes that the legitimate need to protect children from gross human rights abuses can be accomplished without implementation of the CRC that some say eviscerates parental rights and national sovereignty.

~~~~

www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Abuses/Child.asp

[snip]

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the major convention countries sign up to.

Somalia and USA are the only two countries in the world that have not ratified the convention.

However, as UNICEF point out, "Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government. By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify - but has yet to do so."

On the one hand it would seem that the U.S. has no excuse not to sign, but as UNICEF further point out, in the U.S. ratifying treaties can sometimes take a very long time, even decades.

And despite the U.S.'s perceived short-comings here, according to a report by Human Rights Watch, many countries have also failed to enact the convention that they have signed to.

~~~~

www.eagleforum.org/psr/1993/mar93/psrmar93.html

[snip]

The New World Order Wants Your Children

The treaty is called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It was unanimously adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on November 20, 1989 and signed by more than 100 foreign governments. President George Bush did not sign the Treaty or send it to the Senate for ratification. There are dozens of excellent reasons to reject it.

If the text of the U.N. Treaty were proposed as new federal legislation, the bill would never pass. It would be unacceptable to the American people because it would give the Federal Government too broad a grant of power over our children, families and schools, and it would be unconstitutional because of both vagueness and federal interference with states' rights.

[rambler]

brian1 said:

keith said:

The leaders of the United States of America are proud to present the picture of being the foremost bearers of human rights.

And from lennie: "I wonder why?"
Maybe the following will assuage some of your wonder:

What most people fail to understand (including many Americans) is that a particularly important part of the Constitution's and Bill of Rights' upholding of individual rights is not so much the enforcing of those rights by the government, but rather, the government's sworn contract not to interfere with those rights.

Why does the US object to the treaty? Below are some snippets and their links. You might want to go to the links and read them thoroughly to get a comprehensive view of both sides of this controversy.

www.apfn.org/apfn/childs.htm

[snip]

The United States, under the Bush administration, seeks to avoid use of the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as the foundation for the World Summit for Children. The U.S. believes that the legitimate need to protect children from gross human rights abuses can be accomplished without implementation of the CRC that some say eviscerates parental rights and national sovereignty.

~~~~

www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Abuses/Child.asp

[snip]

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the major convention countries sign up to.

Somalia and USA are the only two countries in the world that have not ratified the convention.

However, as UNICEF point out, "Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government. By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify - but has yet to do so."

On the one hand it would seem that the U.S. has no excuse not to sign, but as UNICEF further point out, in the U.S. ratifying treaties can sometimes take a very long time, even decades.

And despite the U.S.'s perceived short-comings here, according to a report by Human Rights Watch, many countries have also failed to enact the convention that they have signed to.

~~~~

www.eagleforum.org/psr/1993/mar93/psrmar93.html

[snip]

The New World Order Wants Your Children

The treaty is called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It was unanimously adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on November 20, 1989 and signed by more than 100 foreign governments. President George Bush did not sign the Treaty or send it to the Senate for ratification. There are dozens of excellent reasons to reject it.

If the text of the U.N. Treaty were proposed as new federal legislation, the bill would never pass. It would be unacceptable to the American people because it would give the Federal Government too broad a grant of power over our children, families and schools, and it would be unconstitutional because of both vagueness and federal interference with states' rights.

Your country never seemed to care much about Children when you bombed IRAQ either

[lennie]

brian1 said:

keith said:

The leaders of the United States of America are proud to present the picture of being the foremost bearers of human rights.

And from lennie: "I wonder why?"
Maybe the following will assuage some of your wonder:

What most people fail to understand (including many Americans) is that a particularly important part of the Constitution's and Bill of Rights' upholding of individual rights is not so much the enforcing of those rights by the government, but rather, the government's sworn contract not to interfere with those rights.

Why does the US object to the treaty? Below are some snippets and their links. You might want to go to the links and read them thoroughly to get a comprehensive view of both sides of this controversy.

www.apfn.org/apfn/childs.htm

[snip]

The United States, under the Bush administration, seeks to avoid use of the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as the foundation for the World Summit for Children. The U.S. believes that the legitimate need to protect children from gross human rights abuses can be accomplished without implementation of the CRC that some say eviscerates parental rights and national sovereignty.

~~~~

www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Abuses/Child.asp

[snip]

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the major convention countries sign up to.

Somalia and USA are the only two countries in the world that have not ratified the convention.

However, as UNICEF point out, "Somalia is currently unable to proceed to ratification as it has no recognized government. By signing the Convention, the United States has signalled its intention to ratify - but has yet to do so."

On the one hand it would seem that the U.S. has no excuse not to sign, but as UNICEF further point out, in the U.S. ratifying treaties can sometimes take a very long time, even decades.

And despite the U.S.'s perceived short-comings here, according to a report by Human Rights Watch, many countries have also failed to enact the convention that they have signed to.

~~~~

www.eagleforum.org/psr/1993/mar93/psrmar93.html

[snip]

The New World Order Wants Your Children

The treaty is called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It was unanimously adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on November 20, 1989 and signed by more than 100 foreign governments. President George Bush did not sign the Treaty or send it to the Senate for ratification. There are dozens of excellent reasons to reject it.

If the text of the U.N. Treaty were proposed as new federal legislation, the bill would never pass. It would be unacceptable to the American people because it would give the Federal Government too broad a grant of power over our children, families and schools, and it would be unconstitutional because of both vagueness and federal interference with states' rights.

Or it would maybe get them into too much crap with the UN, particularly when the US is the world greatest aggressor. It is seven years since the UN Convention and if America cannot get their act together in that time it would appear obvious they do not intend to.

[brian1]

lennie said:

Or it would maybe get them into too much crap with the UN, particularly when the US is the world greatest aggressor. It is seven years since the UN Convention and if America cannot get their act together in that time it would appear obvious they do not intend to.

You wondered; I explained - with links. Your answer contradicts. Was the wondering simply rhetorical?

The central reason is the same for resistance to nearly all UN "treaties."

A significant number of Americans strenuously object to UN law enforcement of any sort coming into the US and directly interfering with US sovereignty. World law interfering with US law would make the UN into a world government with all the nations of the world simply member (subservient) states in the organization. This is the basis of nearly all of America's assorted non-cooperations with the UN.

Much of the UN is founded on the oxymoronic system of totalitrian socialism. Most Americans will not accept such a government when it is clearly defined for them. UN propaganda has not yet been effective enough to hide the true face underlying the false kindly mask of the UN. There's going to have to be a lot more censorship in the world in the style of the People's Republic of China, first.

Also, did you notice the part about many of the nations ratifying the treaty are refusing to implement it? It seems that there is a case for America being the more honest one among those nations.

If you condemn the US for this, you are simply wasting your time whinging about what you don't like. If you want it to change, you will need to think of contructive persuasions to bring the US around to your own point of view. Do you think you can do it?

[brian1]

rambler said:

Your country never seemed to care much about Children when you bombed IRAQ either

They cared. I suspect that you don't - you're just using it for a talking point.

BTW - How many children were on board the 9/11 flights, in the World Trade Center, and victims of terrorist bombings throughout the world in the past few years? How many of the generic wide-area bombers were Muslims?

[Flash]

brian1 said:

rambler said:

Your country never seemed to care much about Children when you bombed IRAQ either

They cared. I suspect that you don't - you're just using it for a talking point.

BTW - How many children were on board the 9/11 flights, in the World Trade Center, and victims of terrorist bombings throughout the world in the past few years? How many of the generic wide-area bombers were Muslims?

A Good point Brian. Americans like Australians love their Kids
and spoil them rotten. Only bad thing we do is take em to 2 much sport all weekend.We have plenty of local infrastructure
to protect them despite signing the United Nations thing.
Remember sometimes sadly we because we are not nuclear armed have to be seen to fit in and tow the UN Line. But we hate em. I should remind readers that Libya, under fire for years from human rights activists, was overwhelmingly elected and chairs the top United Nations rights body .
Did we need any more evidence that the United Nations is nothing but a hopelessly incompetent, hopelessly corrupt puppet organization for the world’s killers and dictators?

Then there is the UN Plan to disarm free people of Safegaurds
for protection

The Eyes Roll

And we can thank the UN for the IRAQ Mess

Thank God the USA was NOT Afraid.

What ever people feel about Old Glory a coward she aint

Keith

[lennie]

Brian1

It may have appeared a rehetorical question but the facts you have laid out are relatively clear. The fact is that many westernised countries consider the USA as a role model in humanitarian roles. The USA could however be seen as condraticting itself in that it does not ratify a convention for the harmless child and then goes out in aggression into countries such as Iraq and kills them. It would also appear that the USA does not ratify the convention because it's only concern is children in their own back yard and bugger the rest. It is fair to say that the USA has used a charade of giving the people of Iraq and other countries freedom from oppression with limited results, when the real reason is it's bid for resources, Oil being a major one of late. So Libya heads the UN in Child protection, what a laugh, Gaddafi though is a perfect example of US negotiation. The US let him off the hook bigtime. It seems the USA wants their cake and eat it to.

[brian1]

lennie said:

Brian1
The fact is that many westernised countries consider the USA as a role model in humanitarian roles.

The USA could however be seen as condraticting itself in that it does not ratify a convention for the harmless child and then goes out in aggression into countries such as Iraq and kills them. It would also appear that the USA does not ratify the convention because it's only concern is children in their own back yard and bugger the rest. It is fair to say that the USA has used a charade of giving the people of Iraq and other countries freedom from oppression with limited results, when the real reason is it's bid for resources, Oil being a major one of late.

So Libya heads the UN in Child protection, what a laugh, Gaddafi though is a perfect example of US negotiation. The US let him off the hook bigtime. It seems the USA wants their cake and eat it to.

Overall, that seems a fair analysis. I would disagree in a few particulars, though.

First on my list: I doubt that oil is an important factor here except where it governs the behavior of other countries in their world activities - Iraq included. The USA is never going to recoup monetary losses from pursuing the Iraq war and occupation.

Additionally, the US has sufficient oil reserves of its own but refuses to tap them, due to internal politics. And the US can buy plenty of additional oil from Mexico, who is looking to open up some rich new fields.

Second, you are probably somewhat off the mark with regard to "bugger the rest" because, as I pointed out before, the real reason is that the US has a very strong faction that isn't going to allow any diminishment of national sovreignty by outside forces coming into the country and enforcing foreign laws on American soil.

Also, you ought to carefully read all of the UN's bill of rights. There are caveats in there. Certain exceptions to human rights wherever the UN might see a 'need' to change or ignore them on special occasions. This has the effect, by US perceptions, of turning irrevocable 'rights' into revocable 'privileges'. This has been noted by American politicians and there are enough of them who disagree with this foreign concept of rights to put a stop to a lot of proposed American submission to UN treaties.

Because the US doesn't accept UN treaties at times doesn't mean that the US refuses the rights themselves. Under US law, I'd say that most, if not all, of those rights already exist here.

As for waging war and occupation on other countries, I'm very much against it. I was reluctantly agreeable to the occupation of Afghanistan, since the people they were protecting were clearly the source of much of the world's Islamic terrorist activities, including 9/11, and millions of Muslims came out into the streets and had parties for days after 9/11. The terrorists clearly needed to be stopped and their cheerleaders needed to be shown that you do not beard the lion in his own den.

I was, however, very much against the occupation of Iraq. It was too long a project, with too much time involved that would give the resistance plenty of opportunity to develop effective counter-tactics. It also established a central locus of suffering for millions of innocents who could not move out of harm's way.

Of course, my views in government circles count for nothing, since I'm just another ordinary citizen of the US - one of 280 million.

Finally, returning to the subject of human rights under the UN, ponder this:

www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

From the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 8:
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

"granted him by the constitution" Again: This is illegitimate usage in the USA with respect to 'rights'. Anything 'granted' under American usage is privilege, not a right, and is revocable by the government. In the US Constitution, we have 'unalienable rights' that are acknowledged by our government - not 'granted'. Article 8 pretty well throws out the dependability of the rest of the rights 'granted' individuals in this Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 14
1.Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2.This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

"or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" That takes it right back into the political arena, in contradiction of the first half of that sentence. Sneaky!

Article 29
1.Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2.In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3.These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 29, by its very nature, requires strong central power over all the individuals of the world by the United Nations itself, bypassing the authority of the nations of those citizens whenever the UN deems it desirable.

Most places you read about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it's just a long-winded explanation of how wonderful it is. You should always read the originals of such important documents for yourself and consider carefully just what could go wrong or what caveat could be buried in it.

This thing was designed by lawyers and politicians and has some serious jokers hidden in it - probably deliberately. You gotta watch those pollies and lawyers carefully every second.

And finally, how many member nations of the UN actually toe the line with respect to those enumerated human rights? My own answer would be: Not very many.

[lennie]

Thankyou Brian1 for a thorough explanation. You see, I study in the field of Child and Youth Welfare, and also 'Alcohol and other Drug Counselling'. The supposed mentors in many of the lessons condemn the USA but never the United Nations who, from my perception cast a pretty facade that excludes reality. West Papua for starters is a victim of the United Nations actions and I dare say are for many more.

[brian1]

lennie said:

The supposed mentors in many of the lessons condemn the USA but never the United Nations who, from my perception cast a pretty facade that excludes reality. West Papua for starters is a victim of the United Nations actions and I dare say are for many more.

I too dare say there are many more - past, present, and future. The UN is as rapacious and vicious an entity as any. Wherever men who hunger for power over others gather, this happpens.

West Papua is next, and we will probably hear lamentations after the fact, as usual, but not much prevention right now.

A single past example comes immediately to mind, from among several others:

~~~~

www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/07-30-2001/vo17no16_unexposed.htm

[snip]

The final thrust is perhaps the most frightening, given the history of the United Nations with personal disarmament. Commenting on the UN’s record in Rwanda, Jasper notes that "Lt.-Gen. Romeo Dallaire, the former commander of Canada’s UN ‘peace-keeping’ mission to Rwanda in 1994, revealed that he had sent a fax to Annan’s office warning that Rwandan security officials had been ordered to ‘register’ the (predominantly Christian) Tutsis as an obvious prelude to mass liquidation. Annan’s office ordered Dallaire to ‘assist in the recovery of all weapons distributed to or illegally acquired by civilians,’ which, in effect, meant disarming the intended victims!" The result of the disarmament is another dismal chapter in history. The Rwandan government waged a massive genocidal campaign against the Tutsis while the UN looked on and washed its hands of responsibility in the matter. Now the UN wants to supervise personal disarmament on a global scale — a truly chilling development.

New Push for Empowerment

Years ago, UN proposals to empower itself got little more than smirks from most Americans. But the United Nations is currently lobbying in dynamic new ways to obtain these additional powers. The rise in influence of the Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs) at the UN, as well as a new UN partnership with business organizations, has led to greater domestic and international pressure for adoption of agreements to strengthen the UN. And Americans have only seen the opening salvos of these new arrangements.

~~~~

www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.html

[snip]

Nightmare in Rwanda

The same lawlessness infected the UN mission to Rwanda, which suffered a Cambodia-style genocide earlier this decade. Crossette noted that Rwandans accused UN troops "of illicit trading, hit-and-run driving, sexual harassment and criminal abuse of diplomatic immunity they have bestowed on themselves. The disruptive personal behavior of some troops has been a factor in Rwanda’s demand that all peacekeepers be withdrawn from the country...."

Also contributing to that demand is the fact that UN forces in Rwanda actually abetted the worst bloodletting in recent memory — the Rwandan genocide of 1994, in which a half-million Tutsis were annihilated in approximately 100 days. "Many of the mass murderers were employees of the international relief agencies," testified Peter Hammond of Frontline Fellowship in Holocaust in Rwanda. In one incident recounted by Hammond, Belgian UN troops stationed in a heavily fortified compound in Kigali "deceived the [Tutsi] refugees by assembling them for a meal in the dining hall and then [they] evacuated the base while the refugees were eating. Literally two minutes after the Belgians had driven out of their base, the Presidential Guard poured into the buildings annihilating the defenceless Tutsi refugees."

When the Tutsi-organized Rwandan Patriotic Front drove many of the worst Hutu murderers from Rwanda into the Congo (then called Zaire), the UN intervened militarily — on the side of the murderers. One year after the genocide, wrote Peter Beinart in the October 30, 1995 issue of The New Republic, "former [Rwandan] government militias, often armed and sometimes in uniform, control many UN refugee camps, terrorizing civilians and plotting to reinvade." Janet Fleischmann of Human Rights Watch-Africa reported, "The UN clearly took the lead in assisting these refugees who were in uniform and armed … and that helped them establish control over the refugee camps." This development provoked the renowned French humanitarian group Medecins sans Frontieres and several other charitable organizations to withdraw from militia-controlled UN refugee camps.

~~~~

www.word-power.co.uk/catalogue/185649831x

[snip]

In Rwanda in 1994 one million people were killed in a planned, public and political campaign. For six years Linda Melvern has worked on the story of this horrendous crime, and this book, a classic piece of investigative journalism, is the result. Its new and startling information has the making of an international scandal.

The book contains a full narrative account of how the genocide unfolded and describes its scale, speed and intensity. And the book provides a terrible indictment, not just of the UN Security Council, but even more so of governments and individuals who could have prevented what was happening but chose not to do so.

Drawing on a series of in-depth interviews, the author also tells the story of the unrecognized heroism of those who stayed on during the genocide - volunteer UN peacekeepers, their Force Commander the Canadian Lt.-General Romeo A. Dallaire, and Philippe Gaillard, the head of a delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross, helped by medical teams from Medecins Sans Frontieres.

The international community, which fifty years ago resolved that genocide never happened again, not only failed to prevent it happening in Rwanda, but, as this book shows, international funds intended to help the Rwandan economy actually helped to create the conditions that made the genocide possible.

[lingus]

FASCINATING
Thank you Brian1 and Lennie.
An exceptionally informative and educational discussion.
Brian1 You are obviously well informed and state your case clearly. Obviously Lennie and yourself share similar concerns, but see things from different perspectives.

This discussion thread where greated understanding is achieved by proper and fair discussion should serve as an example, and end the petty 'pixie point' battle that surrounds the guns issue.

I have saved most of this thread for my references. THANKS to you both - Particularly Brian1 for his detailed efforts.

Peter Cunningham
17 April 06

[lennie]

lingus said:

FASCINATING
Thank you Brian1 and Lennie.
An exceptionally informative and educational discussion.
Brian1 You are obviously well informed and state your case clearly. Obviously Lennie and yourself share similar concerns, but see things from different perspectives.

This discussion thread where greated understanding is achieved by proper and fair discussion should serve as an example, and end the petty 'pixie point' battle that surrounds the guns issue.

I have saved most of this thread for my references. THANKS to you both - Particularly Brian1 for his detailed efforts.

Peter Cunningham
17 April 06

Thanks Peter

Maybe send a copy to Tom. It was a subject that interested me because I am studying it as one of my subjects at TAFE. I could have easily adopted the attitude of Tutors but decided to throw it to the Lions, so to speak. There again, before I bacame interested in Political Messageboards I thought the UN was the fairest international body available. Boy oh boy, have I learned different.

[lingus]

LENNIE - The UN is nowhere near "United"

It comprises of a bunch of nations that use it as a nesting place for out of date pollies and bureaucrats.

It is a slush fund of the highest order, and should be abolished. It's principles are well intentioned, but dangerous in the extreme - so dangerous that if not killed off - will become the greatest tyrant on earth that has ever existed.

Regarding my presence here - I dislike the way threads and comments are simply withdrawn. Today I posted some comments, but the thread didn't appear - then did appear then was deleted.

Not my idea of fairness - so all in all - it was good to 'meet' you and other reasoned people on this forum. YOu can always contact me via my website: www.autoscoringsystems.com

Pass on my thanks to others please.

Peter Cunningham