Is the US boycotting all UN resolutions for some reason? I’d think even the Bush administration would be in favor of protecting children. Do anyone know the official policy reason for not ratifying it?
(a) US social/political culture is traditionally wary of ANY “declarations of rights” that can be interpreted as declarations of entitlement – “social, cultural and economic rights” such as right-to-health-care, right-to-education, right-to-housing, right-to-identity, etc., which could be interpreted as obligating the government to provide a generous welfare system.
(b) US society will react REALLY warily to anything that sounds like “someone else is telling me how I should raise my children”; many here are not exactly enamored of how our existing School Boards, Child Protective Services and other agencies, operating under our own Constitution, intervene with their kids. The idea that “a buncha furriners” will know better will not be well received.
BTW, a LOT of this treaty is a restatement of the Declaration of Human Rights (sort of reminding the member states that yes, minors ARE humans too).
I’ll agree with JRDelirious. There is a strong contigent of people in the US that think that the parents should have varying levels of carte blanche to do with their children as they see fit. Most of these people are of the fundamentalist Christian persuation as well, one that politicians, especially the ones whom would ratify the treaty tend to tread lightly upon.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that I personally don’t think we should sign.
I’m sorry, but this is untrue. Your own link says that the US has in fact signed the optional protocol, on 5 July 2000 - notably, before either the UK or Ireland did. The US has not ratified this optional protocol, so I think that’s what you meant to say.
And why single out the US on this point of the Optional Protocol, when there are many countries which haven’t ratified it either? Like the UK and Ireland, for example?
Of course, you don’t need to single out any country. Because it doesn’t mean anything, and neither the US, the UK, nor Ireland are at fault here. And let me explain why.
Let me ask a question which may seem argumentative at first, but think on it.
Why should the US sign and ratify either of them, even if there was not the objection to the under-18 death penalty clause?
I mean really? Is there a factual contention that the US is violating as a matter of government-sanctioned policy the other portions of the document? If so, I would like to see some specific examples and proof cited here, contrasted with the document.
Are Ireland and the UK violating as a matter of government-sanctioned policy the other portions of the document? I certainly don’t think so either.
And if the US or another country is not violating the language of the document, and opposes via their votes in the UN councils the acts which are condemned in the documents…why exactly does it matter, other than for trying to score cheap political points, whether or not the US or another country signs or ratifies either of them? Is there a factual question here which can actually be answered?
In addition to the “I’ll raise my children the way I choose” objection and Anthracite’s points above, let me go even farther and say that the primary objection in the US is that we are wary of any resolution or group that attempts to violate our national sovreignty.
We already have plenty of laws to protect our children, and we don’t need a toothless UN treaty to tell us to do it. The supreme authority here is the US Constitution, not the UN. So my view is why the heck should we feel obligated to sign ANYTHING that the UN hands us?
UN declarations and World Summit documents are benchmarks of world progress. They are contracts (albeit, as you said generally worthless contracts that go unenforced) stating rules of conduct for States in modern global society. This is heading into the GD realm, but I think if the US is so insecure about its soverignty that it feels it necessary to abstain from supporting a measure intented to document accepted treatment levels for minors something very wrong is going on.
Anthracite, I think the reason the US is being singled out here and in many situations is that the US is trying to play the role of the economic, military, and moral leader of the world. It’s natural to draw criticism in that position, and in some cases I think its derserved as well.
I don’t buy that Americans feel this way more strongly than people in most other countries. Perhaps Europeans are generally more tolerant than Americans about government involvement in family issues, but in my experience, the same cannot be said about the rest of the world. The question is why Americans assume that international law represents an intrusion on their personal lives and national sovereignty.
Joe_Cool has summed up my point a little better - to put this argument in term of another nation: why, for instance, should anyone care that Ireland has not yet ratified this Optional Protocol? Why should anyone care that they did ratify the main treaty?
These protocols and treaties are designed to bring countries “into line” with those who propose them. Ireland, being a highly advanced and civilized nation, has no need for a UN treaty telling it, essentially, “Keep doing what you’re doing.”
Anthracite, if the United States maintains the status quo it would be in violation of the treaty. For instance, is the U.S, currently doing everything it can to prevent child abuse? I think not. What about child mortality, which is extremely high for an industrialized country?
One example of a direct violation of the treaty is the treatment of unaccompanied refugee children.
Since the original question was answered and a debate has ensued, the Mods should probably send this to GD.
I’d like to see a cite for this second assertion, Netbian. I highly doubt the accuracy of saying that most people who think that parents should be able “to do with their children as they see fit” are fundamentalist Christians.
Is any industrialized nation doing “everything it can” to prevent child abuse? How on earth can you define “everything it can”? What exactly is “everything it can”? I would assume that a government which does “everything it can” could also easily stop murder, rape, illegal drug use, child pornography and child murder, and spousal abuse. And yet…as much as people like to demonize the US, those problems are shared by quite a few countries. In many cases, at higher levels too.
“Extremely high”? That’s an interesting definition that you have here.
From: The Centers for Disease Control.
Looking at 1997, I see the US has a rate of 7.2 per 1000 live births, whereas England is 5.9, Ireland 6.2, Northern Ireland 5.6, Canada 5.3, and Australia 5.3.
Is that really an “extremely high” rate, or are you falling prey to the myth of large relative differences in small numbers?
In fact, if you look at every year since 1960, while all of the countries I call out show improvement, the US has a poorer rate than each of them each year.
This does not point to a sudden and recent deficit in the US system. It points instead to other factors, such as a large and poor immigrant population, and a vast multicultural area that spans many different climate zones, which most people outside of the US really can’t comprehend to any meaningful extent.
The best phrase to describe a state’s human rights obligations is to take all reasonable steps to reduce infant mortality, safeguard the right to life, etc., etc. I left out the “reasonableness” factor because if it’s not explicitly written in a law, any judge or lawyer who interprets it will read it in. The measure of a state’s compliance takes into account factors such as resources. The United States has more resources than any other country in the world, and we have the highest infant mortality of any industrialized nation. That alone is strong evidence that the U.S. is not in complaince with Art. 24 of the CRC.
I don’t understand how this supports your position. This shows that the U.S. has not made public health a priority. Compare to Cuba, a very poor country that has gotten poorer while improving the health of its people.
Then what exactly is their opposition to ratification? If it doesn’t interfere with their sovereignty, they don’t have to alter existing legislation or practices, and it will help set a global precedent for accepted treatment of children why would they oppose it?
Clarification: Every country in the world except for the United States and Somalia is a party to the CRC. The Optional Protocol has been either been signed or acceded to by every single state. In this case, the failure to ratify does not indicate an opposition to the treaty. The treaty was only completed in 2000, and it frequently takes several years for a country to get around to taking all the steps involved in ratification. The fact that the U.S. officially signed the treaty a couple months before the UK (as Anthracite points out) is entirely insignificant.
another reason may be that the UN as a whole is an idiotic proposition, and the u.s. is starting to wake up. what good has it done except hamstring good efforts? no nation needs to go to the u.n. to do right. if you look at the administrations effort to get u.n. help for the iraq thing, we can see that our interests often do very much conflict with those of other nations, and when it is vital to us and less important to them they don’t really want to trouble themselves unless we have some goodies for them. being a signatory to that is largely a symbolic thing for general effect…and signing on to anything that our laws cover quite well along with some add-ons could be to the detriment of american interests.
