To contribute to the betterment of peoples’ lives by helping to set a bar for government disability policies throughtout the world.
I did five posts before yours.
Do you have a cite for how much compiling this report will cost?
I can only imagine you are being purposefully obtuse. I’ll use simple words, so you can stop pretending that you don’t understand.
When people are doing work within or funded by an organization, generally the work they plan to do must have documented support within that organization’s strategic planning documents. When I am writing a grant for a UN funded project, for example, I have to be able to prove how my project conforms with UN regulations, forwards their strategic plan, and is accordance to their principals.
I have done this kind of work, and it’s very common, for example, to open with a proposal with something along the lines of “Slavery is widely agreed to be a gross violation of human rights. According to UN Regulation 30432.3432, “No person shall be enlisted in involuntary servitude.” This is upheld in the constitution of 127 countries…Mauritania has a documented history of slavery etc. etc…Providing legal representation for slaves has been a successful way of preventing slavery. For example project A in country B achieved outcome C. This project aims to provide legal representation to formed slaves in the province of X, in order to do Y and Z…”
Organizations don’t run projects based on hunches or what seems like a good idea in someone’s heart. No organization gives people the freedom to spend money on whatever they heck they feel like. Project developers need to be able to support how and why they are spending their money. It’s really not that different that the private sector.
Currently, if you include disability support in your UN-funded project it weakens your proposal, and it will be difficult to find funding for that aspect (or even your project as a whole!) because the UN doesn’t have any way to support those activities. Disability is currently outside of the UN’s scope and not a part of it’s mission. Anyone addressing disability in a UN funding project is basically going rogue, and while it often slips under the radar, stuff like that weakens and organization and all around it is better to have a consistent policy.
Again, not that different than the private sector. If I manage a Safeway, I can’t just decide to use my space as a dance hall. Entertainment is not a part of Safeway’s strategic plan, and if I’m using Safeway’s resources in ways that are not supported internally, I’m probably going to be in a lot of trouble.
Right now, someone who uses UN resources to implement disability-related projects is going against the organizations’ mission and their work is at risk. If I want to make a camp policy of putting people who cannot walk closer to the food distribution point, that decision is not supported, and my project could find itself in trouble. On the ground, people recognize the need to serve disabled people, and so they end up making all kinds of precarious ad-hoc arrangements. This policy will bring some formalization and consistency to that.
Of course, this goes bigger than the UN. Among international organizations, the UN is the “gold standard”, and rather than each and every NGO in the world having to come up with regulation saying that slavery is bad, it’s not uncommon for UN regulation to be a part of project justification. Likewise, while UN regulations are aspirations for many countries. it provides on of the foundations by which countries make decisions. It certainly is not the sole factor in a country’s decisions, but it can be an important one.
I was hoping for something specific. In what way will the lives of disabled people be improved if the US signs the treaty that will not happen if the US does not?
It may help if we divide the disabled into two groups - inside the US, and outside. I think there is general agreement that the lives of disabled US citizens will not be improved if the US signs the treaty - the ADA has been the law of the land for the last twenty some years. And I have not heard anyone describe how the lives of disabled foreigners will be improved by having a country of which they are not citizens promise to do something that we have been doing already.
So you can’t address disability in a funding project that will happen in countries other than the US, because the US hasn’t signed it? Why does the fact that one country has not signed it, affect the treaty in countries that have signed it?
You want to do something nice for the disabled in Chad, But you can’t, because the US hasn’t signed it. Doesn’t it matter whether or not Chad has signed it?
In countries that have signed the treaty?
What you seem to be saying is that it matters not if anybody else has signed this treaty - if the US hasn’t done so, then nothing can be done about disabled people anywhere else in the world.
What was the point of getting any other countries to be signatories to this treaty? Why aren’t they bound by it?
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, you don’t understand the nature and effect of international rights conventions. Pity.
So not even one specific?
Regards,
Shodan
Regards, Shodan.
It ain’t his Party no more.
A strange & alien thing, with nothing at all in common with Dole’s Republicans but name & outward seeming has taken it’s place.
Like a Pod Person Party.
Do you think ANY country in the world, ANY world leader will say or even think for a second “look, we signed this treaty and weren’t goin to do anything, but now that the US has signed it it’s off to build wheelchair ramps”? or “fuck those blind guys…what? Obama signed it? Ok people, let’s make Braille obligatory in all schools”
Obama did sign it actually, it wasn’t ratified.
I don’t think it is likely to help, except in marginal cases. If you don’t think America should be an example, that’s fine. I think it shouldn’t shy away from its ideals.
:smack::smack::smack:…of course he signed if it was to be ratified…no dessert for me.
I think the US should set an exmaple. I don’t think this treaty was a good way to do it.
The thing id that the US is possibly the top country in “disabilities help”; signing vacuous unenforceable treaties is saying “just sign it, it looks good”.
It’s a statement of principles. It’s not meant to be “enforceable.”
Not-ratifying it just makes us look retarded, and undercuts the example value of what we’ve actually done. We might as well reject a treaty of principle about freedom of religion, or voting rights.
What specifically happens when China votes against various human rights resolutions?
Not much, except for the country showing the world that it is backwards, stubborn and on the wrong side of history.