What’s Wrong with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

[Fourmother]

Looking into this, I honestly am pretty bitter that people are making up boogeymen about what it means. For your families, it means nothing so far as I can tell. For some kidnapper in Myanmar it brings down international pressure on his government to lock him away.

 

Volty, this strongly echoes my feelings. I'm not usually affected by forum discussions, but quite frankly, I have been deeply saddened by this thread. This isn't a "you put your chocolate in my peanut butter" kind of disagreement, and the stakes are highest for those who have no voice at all. You've given me a little hope. Thank you for posting your thoughts.

[Peek a Boo]

"Seems to me there's nothing in the treaty that interferes with US law. US law is generally interpreted in protecting freedoms anyways. What it's most concerned about is big picture things: female circumcision, child labor, child poronography or prostitution, child abuse, sex trafficing, any number of abhorent things."

 

So where are these things prohibited in the treaty?? It is a treaty that doesn't explicitly state the problems and allows states to interpret it however they see fit. It is a HOLLOW treaty. It does NOTHING to give legal teeth to any of the serious problems.

 

"I can't find anything controversial in it to well intended western folks. Even corporal punishment, which is generally frowned upon, is unadressed. Seems really harmless to me and doesn't interefer with any of our constitutional rights."

 

THAT's one of the problems!! It is HOLLOW!!! We are making a huge stink about something that our own laws already address!

 

"Not ratifying the treaty means the US lacks a legal vehicle to beat, coerce, force other nations to ratify the treaty itself. Not ratifying means the US will not have a legal mechanism to complain about sex trafficing or female genital mutilation."

 

Bull. *we* are not The Police of the UN. Do you want us to be?? We already have laws on the books that address those things. That's plenty of "leading the cause" --and if our current actions/voice in speaking out and preventing those crimes don't "set an example" to the world, then signing an unenforceable treaty will do diddly squat. As it is the UN doesn't enforce the treaties/sanctions it already has in place. Anyone up for another "strongly worded resolution?" And when we step in?? The world gets mad. Don't give me this baloney about how us signing a treaty will give us legal leverage. **The UN is not concerned with legal leverage** Tell that to the Oil for Food guys.

 

 

"Looking into this, I honestly am pretty bitter that people are making up boogeymen about what it means. For your families, it means nothing so far as I can tell. For some kidnapper in Myanmar it brings down international pressure on his government to lock him away."

 

It does??? where does it "bring down pressure" on a kidnapper?? Are the kidnappers in Mayanmar any worse than kidnappers here? Is kidnapping for trafficking purposes worse than kidnapping for other purposes? Does the treaty spell this out?? Are you saying that when a kid is kidnapped in the US there will be more international pressure? I thought this wouldn't really affect our laws?? MYANMAR HAS ALREADY SIGNED THE TREATY --THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY BOUND BY IT ALREADY. If signing it makes all the difference, then why should we be worried about *us* not signing it--the country you say you are concerned about is already under this treaty. Do we need to sign it in order for it to be effective in Myanmar? Of course not. And to make it even "stronger" there's an Optional Protocol about child trafficking in place. Yeah....one of those "But I strenuously object!!"

 

If the US can't speak out about and/or effect change on Really Bad Things happening in other countries w/o signing an unenforceable treaty, then the state of the world is even worse off than I thought.

 

If the UN cannot enforce its own treaty when allll the other member nations have already signed it [except us and Somalia], and the success of this treaty hinges on our ratifying it, then the United Nations is worse off than i thought.

 

If millions of kids' unheard voices are dependent on the US signing an unforceable treaty when everyone else has -that nobody is going to enforce unless we sign it--, that means the UN is a JOKE and cannot do anything worth signing.

 

If that doesn't "deeply sadden" people then I would posit that you are focussing on making the US the "problem" instead of looking at the bigger picture : the rest of the world is incapable of working together and enforcing their own treaties.

 

edited to add: read the section on Myanmar at wiki-- the bigger nations are even TOLD to NOT get involved personally w/ places like Myanmar --we are told to leave it w/ the UN. It *is* w/ the UN!!! Myanmar is bound to the treaty and we are not s'posed to intervene. Us signing the treaty does nothing to help kids in Myanmar.

[Peek a Boo]

However, I do want to say that QC is not, realistically, representative of Canada. I know you know that, too. The things that have happening in QC -- the cases you mention, as well as the atrocious anti-homeschooling legislation that's been passed lately, to name only a few -- are truly shocking. I honestly do not know why QC can get away with these things unchecked. Were these types of legislation to be presented in other parts of Canada, there would be so much public scrutiny, they'd never get off the debate floor.

 

....Except what usually happens [historically, not just limiting it to North America or this era] is when these things get passed in one area, they are used as precedent in another. Regulation rarely diminishes: it increases. "But it WORKS over there! Why can't we do that too??!!" I hope you're right and things like this continue to be shot down as many places as possible. But i sure wouldn't count on it.

[gardenschooler]

Thanks for bringing this up, Molly, as this has prompted me to go and reread the text (which I haven't in a very long time).

[Peek a Boo]

Insomnia strikes again---

 

here's an even More Fun approach:

 

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty15_asp.htm

 

"Declarations and Reservations" --official statements made when signing the treaty.

 

Akin to Bush signing statements. "We're signing this, but we don't agree w/ A, B, or C, so we're exempt from that part and ain't gonna do nuthin' to enforce it."

 

but by golly --they signed it.

 

 

edited to add:

oh-- and don't forget to read all the Objections to those reservations and declarations. Yup. mega legal teeth in action. I'll bet they are really scared.

[Volty]

Peek,

 

Getting diplomats from all over the world together to agree on anything is always a major challenge. The UN is often hamstrung with ineffectivness and an inability to enforce it's treaties without the backing (muscle) of it's member states.

 

So on the rare occasion when you can actually get an agreement that the US, Brits, French, Russians, and Chinese can agree on, as well as most everybody else, it's usually because something serious is wrong. And all these talking heads have come together on this.

 

A lot of times, the only way third world countries will change these sorts of repugnant policies is from international pressure. And the only legally binding document that can be used to browbeat them is a treaty. If they don't sign the treaty they're liable to sanctions cuts in aid, trade, etc. If they do sign, then compliance can be measured and exerted from their governments. And a lot of it does get watered down.

 

Last year when we were looking into it, it was illegal for Americans to adopt children in Cambodia. What was happening was that orphanages were making lots of money selling infants to foreigners, often by bribing women or even by hiring kidnappers to steal them from nursing mothers. In this regard, the US can pressure change directly on Cambodia, no UN treaty is needed.

 

But what of this in Thailand fathers have been known to sell their underage daughters to brothel owners. In lots of African countries, Mali for sure, girls' clitorises are removed as part of a tradition. Now this is just as reprehensible too, and a lot of well meaning diplomats in the UN are doing their best to outlaw these things. Now in Mali and in Thailand these things are normal. But if the international community can pressure their goernments to outlaw these practices, then NGOs (chairities or aid agencies, or concerned local citizens on the ground there) can pressure the government to crack down on it.

 

As far as making the US the world police, LOL, I'm as far opposed to that as you could imagine. Even though I personally did that and in my case it worked out pretty well. :cool:

 

As for US law, we have plenty of laws on the books outlawing these sorts of thing but our laws only apply within US borders. If we want these laws passed in other countries, we have to ge them to sign this treaty. If we don't sign the treaty ourselves, we don't have the right to exert pressure on others. Does this make sense.

 

Also, I love the avatar. Julie Newmar slinking across the TV scren in a tight body suit is irresitable, but it doesn't look like her or Halle Berre or Cassandra Cane. Is it you?

[Peek a Boo]

See, i agree with you that it can be tough to get people to agree on something like this. But our laws already show that we ARE in agreement with the gist of this. The US signing it really doesn't provide any *additional* international pressure: if Every. Single. Other. nation can't help apply pressure, then us signing historically has little impact. As you said, the UN will have to get THEM --the ones who have not signed the treaty and NEED to apply these laws-- to sign the treaty. The UN could easily point to the fact that we are already in compliance w/ this treaty by our own laws, but instead everyone is looking at it backwards: they are putting blame and focus on a nation that is NOT the problem. We absolutely have the right to exert pressure on other nations: it is international law and we are a UN member. If the UN asks for military assistance in securing Situation A in Country B that deals directly with this treaty, do you think they will disallow our help because we haven't signed the treaty? When a crisis situation occurs, help will be welcome from just about anyone that will agree to help. Our own laws demonstrate our commitment to that. We certainly don't need to sign a treaty that *not every legal opinion* agrees will be in our best sovereign interest.

 

So no, I disagree on the "bringing pressure" argument --esp if the US is supposedly the lynchpin for the whole works. For every sanction the UN sets up, there's a loophole that other nations refuse to follow to enforce it properly. back to Oil for Food.... If we are that important, I want a reduction in UN dues :-) If we are that important, the other nations should be paying dues to the US. If we are that important, we should garner a bit more respect in actions we DO take.

 

-----

It's Michelle Pfeiffer. But it absolutely might as well be me :)

http://www.redoakrecord.com/index.asp?show=11/15/2007&Page=1

[Volty]

I don't know how America or Americans can expect to exert pressure on a third world dictator to follow a treaty if we don't agree to follow the treaty ourselves.

[GothicGyrl]

I don't know how America or Americans can expect to exert pressure on a third world dictator to follow a treaty if we don't agree to follow the treaty ourselves.

Which is precisely why, as it is written now, this treaty is useless. As I said in previous post, if they could write a treaty focusing on the main problems within each country--like genital mutilation for Mali, Child Labor in China, etc.. then it wouldn't be so hard to sign in.

 

But this treaty is so open-ended, with MANY backdoors to be left wide open, that all other rights we may have now, could possibly be lost if one discovers those backdoors and uses them.

 

That's the crux of it for me. It is not specific enough to specific areas each country should be focusing on. South Africa has a problem with young girls being raped because the men believe virgins cure AIDS--how is this treaty going to stop that? It isn't, actually. Especially when you've got a government that doesn't want to change (like the US).

 

If it could just be more focused on major issues and leave the rest alone, it wouldn't be a problem.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't know how America or Americans can expect to exert pressure on a third world dictator to follow a treaty if we don't agree to follow the treaty ourselves.

 

 

Well sure-- and i don't know how America expects a treaty that has no teeth to be ABLE to exert any pressure. Especially when the UN keeps telling us to NOT exert pressure and to leave it up to the UN to handle internally --all those countries have already agreed to the treaty. Either sign the treaty on their terms [no exerting pressure] or don't sign it and exert all kinds of pressure that we want.

 

We are at an impasse :-)

[Volty]

The UN has no enforcement mechanism. It was delberately designed weak because nobody wanted them to be/become a world government. Enforcement is handled by the constituent members, the biggest member on the block is the US. Without US pressure, who's going to enforce it? The Brits? Canada? Russia? France?

[Peek a Boo]

The UN has no enforcement mechanism. It was delberately designed weak because nobody wanted them to be/become a world government. Enforcement is handled by the constituent members, the biggest member on the block is the US. Without US pressure, who's going to enforce it? The Brits? Canada? Russia? France?

 

I absolutely agree with you: The UN was deliberately designed to be weak. It's working about as well as the Articles of Confederation did :-)

 

ok, so you think the US *is* supposed to be the Police of the World, enforcing treaties cuz the other nations can't or won't... You think this treaty will be ineffectual and NOT keep kids safe unless the US *acts* to enforce it. Us signing it alone will do nothing --it must be *enforced*.

 

So if we are the ones who are going to be enforcing an idea --cuz that's all this treaty is: an idea, w/ no solid specifics to back it up-- then we should be able to enforce that idea on our own, pointing to the fact that this treaty is international law [whether we agreed to it or not, it *is now*], and based on the history that our own laws ARE in compliance w/ this treaty whether we sign it or not. We have no legal authority to enforce the treaty. We are specifically told to NOT enforce the treaty -to let the UN handle it internally. So any action we take would be outside the UN. Wait a sec-- we've seen this scenario before.......

 

which brings us back to: Everyone whines when we act as the enforcement police --it has the OPPOSITE effect of what WE want, so there goes the "we gotta bring pressure" argument. Bringing international pressure ONLY works when all the other nations are solidly on board. That doesn't happen too often. It did *once* w/ Saddam Hussein and he backed down, but they didn't have the guts to come together like that again. So here we are.

 

Enforcement sounds great! I could handle the UN giving the US authority to enforce these treaties. But we have to look at how it has actually worked when the US tries to enforce stuff around the world. But for the sake of discussion, how do YOU think the US should enforce this treaty? Wait for the UN to give us authority to enforce it? Go ahead anyway With a military presence?? or Sanctions? Summit Talks? How do you see those situations playing out in accomplishing the goal of keeping children safe?

[mcconnellboys]

You said:

 

"If the UN cannot enforce its own treaty when allll the other member nations have already signed it [except us and Somalia], and the success of this treaty hinges on our ratifying it, then the United Nations is worse off than i thought."

 

The UN can NOT enforce anything and has not been able to enforce anything for decades. It may not EVER have successfully enforced anything, like its parent, the League of Nations, before it. I think Wilson's idea was a good one, but it would actually require ALL member nations to work together to enforce sanctions, etc. against noncompliant countries. And there are too, too many of them ready to make deals under the table for easy cash, rather than upholding *ideals* in order to make the world better..... Wilson was a great idealist, but idealism doesn't always work in a world full of opportunists.....

 

Regena

[Peek a Boo]

You said:

 

"If the UN cannot enforce its own treaty when allll the other member nations have already signed it [except us and Somalia], and the success of this treaty hinges on our ratifying it, then the United Nations is worse off than i thought."

 

The UN can NOT enforce anything and has not been able to enforce anything for decades. It may not EVER have successfully enforced anything, like its parent, the League of Nations, before it. I think Wilson's idea was a good one, but it would actually require ALL member nations to work together to enforce sanctions, etc. against noncompliant countries. And there are too, too many of them ready to make deals under the table for easy cash, rather than upholding *ideals* in order to make the world better..... Wilson was a great idealist, but idealism doesn't always work in a world full of opportunists.....Regena

 

yeah. That was my point exactly ;)