On 1 October 2015, Somalia ratified the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC), leaving the United States of America as the only
remaining member state of the UN not to embrace this most universally accepted
human rights treaty.
It baffles the rest of the world, and many thoughtful
Americans, as to why the US has chosen to be the odd man out in not embracing
this most humanitarian of all human rights treaties that seeks to protect the
rights and well-being of the world’s most vulnerable children. It is all the
more surprising if one considers that many distinguished American scholars and
experts were actively involved in drafting the CRC, and the US government
played a leadership role in negotiating and shaping it. But most American
citizens remain unaware of this great human rights treaty that their country helped
create, but refuses to ratify. Interestingly, while the US has failed to ratify
the CRC, it has ratified two Optional Protocols to the CRC – on the sale and
trafficking of children, child prostitution and pornography, as well as
involvement of children in armed conflict.
The US reluctance to ratify the CRC seems to be part of a
broader phenomena of “American exceptionalism” which holds that while the rest
of the world needs to be bound by human rights treaties and conventions, the US
need not join them as the US already has a great Constitution and progressive
laws that are strong and often superior to what might be contained in such
international treaties. Accordingly, the US is always reluctant and slow in
ratifying any international conventions, including those that it may have
played an active role in drafting, such as the Rome Statue on International
Criminal Court, the Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW) and the CRC. Many Americans seem to feel that that such
treaties might be necessary and useful for other countries, but not for the US,
because they fear these might actually lower the standards contained in the US
Constitution or create undesirable international obligations for the US. Such
is the sense of self-righteousness among some key and influential American
legislators that evidence to the contrary is conveniently ignored or dismissed.
Last year, over 100 CEOs and leaders of prominent American child welfare
organizations and faith-based groups made an impassioned joint appeal that
President Obama should immediately order the State Department to undertake a
thorough formal review of the CRC, so that it is ready for submission to the
Senate for ratification whenever the situation becomes more favourable.
The American Bar Association has done a comparative review
of the CRC and the US Constitution and relevant federal laws, and determined
that these are either mutually compatible or the CRC’s standards are more in
keeping with the emerging human rights norms of the modern world. The CRC recognises
every child’s right to develop physically, mentally and socially to his or her
fullest potential, to be protected from abuse, discrimination, exploitation and
violence; to express his or her views and to participate in decisions affecting
his or her future. It reaffirms the primary role of parents and the family in
raising children. It seeks to emulate key provisions on child rights and
well-being under the US Constitution and laws.
Some opponents of the CRC in America argue that it would
impose all kinds of terrible international obligations that maybe harmful to
America and its children and families. These range from how possible UN
interference might compromise the sovereignty of the US and undermine its
Constitution to how the CRC might weaken American families and role of parents
in bringing up their children. Others stress how it might bring about a culture
of permissiveness, including abortion on demand, and unrestricted access to
pornography and how it might empower children to sue their parents and disobey
their guidance. But in 25 years of experience in over a hundred countries, rich
and poor, with liberal as well as conservative governments, such concerns have
proven to be unfounded, exaggerated and hypothetical.
Studies by the highly respected American NGO the Children’s
Defense Fund, UNICEF and others show that compared to the wealth of the US, a
shocking number of children continue to lack the basics of life. Children in
America lag behind most industrialised nations on key child indicators. The US
is towards the bottom of the league in relative child poverty, in the gap
between rich and poor, teen birth rates, low birth weight, infant mortality,
child victims of gun violence, and the number of minors in jail.
For many people outside the US, it is incomprehensible how
the richest nation on earth lets every sixth child live in (relative) poverty,
how its laws allow a child to be killed by guns every three hours; or how so
many children and families can live without basic health insurance. Ratifying
the CRC will not by itself dramatically change the situation of America’s
children. But it would help establish a critical national framework to
formulate clear goals and targets which the federal and state governments,
private organizations and individuals can use to shape policies and programs to
better meet the needs of children and their families.
No comments:
Post a Comment