America blocks yet another UN treaty

[TCO]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
I'm unsure what it is exactly, but it is related to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I got this from local papers.

here's a CNN link: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/11/un.....ap/index.html

Hmmm. it's an action plan to fullfill promises made in the 89 convention. The US has blocked several passages in the action plan, and has yet to ratify the convention itself (as only nation in the world).

Somalia signed the convention this week and is expected to ratify it -- which will leave the United States as the lone holdout.

Marcus, if we don't want to part of it, than we shouldn't be. You all can come up with some other moral masturbation scheme to get yourselves off. Without our imprimatur.

[Kropotkin]

Strangelove: They are being killed for all kinds fo reasons. Most of them being linked to sex in any form.

[Az]

Dr. Strangelove : sure. I know it's that way. And , of course , in both cases it's wrong. However all of this was just my argument to disprove the validity of any UN document. And the fact if it is a UNSC or not doesn't change much. Probably, it would mean that there is EVEN MORE power in the hands of the strong states, that don't do what's right for humanity , but what's good for themselves. I would of course support an omnipotent SC, if it would really benefit humankind, or even put up a genuine effort of doing so. But so far , little has been made that was much out of line of the policies of the big powers (even during the cold war ), and even when UN projects aimed at really helping a country out, or restoring calm in the region were established , they failed miserably , primarily due to total failure of UN in the area of logistics, coordination,or simple willpower and the ungenuine motives of many member states that contributed forces , as can be seen quite clearly in UNIFIL , or UNTAC(sp?) .

[Lonestar]

The UN has failed. It's now nothing more than a debate club for Thugs, Fascists, and those afriad of said thugs and fascists.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


Doesn't international law supercede domestic law? It does here.



If you think it's such a bad treaty, then why have all but 1 of the world's nations signed and ratified it? In other words, you are right and the rest of the world is wrong? Same with nuclear test bans, landmine bans, Kyoto, etc

So that must mean the whole rest of the world has a better environment for kids than the USA.

quit being so stupid. This is just silly vacuaous thinking.

When we sign treaties, we sign ones that will mean something/do something. We don't have two-facedness down to the art y'all do. so we'll just pass on trieaties we disagree with. Tough shi*. You can sputter all you want. (But your energy would be better off put towards something that matters...)

[Wraith]

--"If you think it's such a bad treaty, then why have all but 1 of the world's nations signed and ratified it?"

Because politicians are involved? Sorry, but just because a lot of people do something, that doesn't make it right. Especially when those people are politicians.

BTW, my reasons for saying this shouldn't be ratified are not necessarily the same as my government's reasons for not doing so. I wish they were, but probably not. I make no attempt to claim the US government is perfect, or even reasonably close. However, this UN treaty, like most of them, is largely incompatible with the principle of individual rights. I cannot agree to it, no matter how few other countries even pay lip-service to the concept of individual rights these days.

--"In other words, you are right and the rest of the world is wrong?"

If you mean "you" as in the US, I would have to say "dunno". I don't know the official reasons for not signing the treaty. If you mean "you" as in me personally, then yes.

--"Same with nuclear test bans, landmine bans, Kyoto, etc"

Landmines are too militarily useful to be banned, no matter how many people sign some UN treaty. It sure isn't going to stop them from using them to defend territory. No point in signing a treaty that won't be followed.
Not sure what the current fuss with nuclear test bans are. Last I heard the US didn't want anyone conducting them, since we can model the explosions well enough on computer.
Kyoto is one of the biggest pieces of overblown crap to ever come out of the UN. Even accepting their own numbers it does next to nothing at great expense while ignoring more viable solutions. The actual research used is faulty in the first place, and the IPCC panel won't even play the results straight, but are twisting them for their own agenda.

Wraith
"Bureaucracy is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies."
-- Balzac

[Sarxis]

I wonder how much of this treaty would infringe on the rights of individual states in the U.S.?

That may play a part, since the federal government doesn't have the final say in all American legislation.

[Dr Strangelove]

I noticed that it said tha all kids should have access to "social security". Odd that they should choose the terminology used by the USA for it's largest social entitlement program. Does any other nation use the name "Social Security" for its welfare programs? Maybe what the UN means is that all the kids of the world have a fundamental right to help themselves to American welfare funds. At least, that may be the way that Jesse Helms interprets it.

[Lincoln]

Signing treaties with the United Nations is not the answer to all of the world's problems. This only gives more authority to the UN. In the United States there is still such a thing as 'states rights' and parental authority. I see no reason to give that authority to the UN so that everyone can pretend that we did a good deed.

Look at the present bias of the UN and you will see why the US doesn't sign all of their redundant feel-good treaties that are about as useful as so muchused toilet paper. What are they going to do if someone spanks their child, take them to the World Court? We opted out of that phoney court as well. Why don't you all have a United Nations without us.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Fine by me, you're hardly have anything interesting to say in any way. That you can't behave, puts word into peoples mouths and can't keep apart arguments from people and what you think of them is more of a problem for the people in your surroundings, not me.

The problem son, is I have no time to be hypocritical.

I neither like you nor respect you, so why would I possibly care what you have to say?

Simple as that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Krop, don't mind Chris... he's being an ******* again, as is his fashion.

--

Anyway, the treaty, unlike some others, does have major problems in social policy. It really infringes on some state rights legislation, such as when to try as an adult, etc. This does lead to some horrible problems. However, I think we should sign the treaty, but not ratify it... which in diplospeak means we approve of the sentiment, but not the actual provisions.

[David Floyd]

on blocking the treaty. Damn UN

[OneFootInTheGrave]

well, while somebody is trying to make a world a better place, some others are well - human, and making excuses to uphold their world view, and laws.

Even though UN and such treaties is deemed 'useless' it is a start nomatter how tough one, and if the most powerful country in the world would have guts to uphold a good treaty and not just plain avoid it by who knows which time, just beacuse it can.

Well the lack of faith is coming from the top, and how can you than expect the bottom to be respectable towards you?
US foreign/international policy is indeed screwed up. (not any news but just really just another item on the list)

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Krop, don't mind Chris... he's being an ******* again, as is his fashion.

Wrong agin, idiot, at least your consistant.

It's just a warning, I'm through treaty fools nicely.

Show me stupidity (and YOU have a lot latey) and it's open season.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are a tired act.