Over the next few weeks and months, I want to go on a fact finding mission regarding the debate between those in support of and those in opposition to the UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child). For this time, I will attempt to remain neutral, though I suspect my opinion has already been formed and will be seen to seep in around the edges.
I've been listening to and reading arguments from both sides and each presents a plausible set of arguments against the other. For any uninterested person reading but one side of the argument, sway toward that opinion would be relatively simple. UNICEF's web pages for this particular convention are splendid and articulate. Likewise, the Parental Rights web site is overtly ominous in their portrayal of the treaty's impact on our families.
What is one supposed to believe - no less do? Well, we could continue with current protocol and do nothing but talk. However, it seems that recently talk is escalating and trending toward action.
So basically what is the UNCRC Treaty?
The UNCRC is an international treaty created and brokered by the United Nations. This treaty is not with the United Nations, as the UN is not a sovereign state. However, the broad reaching ideals and agendas of the UN saturate this document. (What is good, evil, and otherwise intrinsic in the UN are fodder for another debate.) Specifically here, we will concern ourselves with a specific product - the collective thought and action taken together to form a treaty whereby sovereign states will purport to agree on the definition and application of the rights of children citizens.
As stated on the UNICEF web site: "This compilation and clarification of children’s human rights sets out the necessary environment and means to enable every human being to develop to their full potential."
Honestly, this sounds great.
For some countries, acceptance of this treaty is a HUGE step forward. How can it be seen otherwise? For any country to move toward the idyllic as specified in this treaty from abusive child labor, slavery, and utter perversion would be a spectacular reward for the labor that went into the creation of such a document. The atrocities present and unspeakable in so many dark corners of the world must be confronted systemically. Without doubt the acceptance of the CRC in the parliaments of those dark corners can only bode well for the victims in the shadows.
One must admit though, that for some countries this is simply a feather in their cap with no meaningful action taking place. The stories are easily found where countries, in spite of ratification, have taken action in direct contradiction to the treaty. Shame on them - on many levels. Yet that failure does not prove inefficacy, shortsightedness, or inherent corruption within the CRC. What is proven, however, is the corrupt nature of humankind. This alone is the problem.
For some countries the CRC is, frankly, unnecessary and superfluous. Should those countries then balk at signing this treaty simply because it is superfluous? Well, obviously, all but two have not resisted. Somalia simply lacks a stable enough government to ratify the treaty, which means that for all practical purposes, the United States stands alone in the failure to ratify. It even seems to make sense for those countries that have established a moral upper hand in such issues to promote and encourage ratification in countries less morally inclined. Yet here sits the greatest nation in history pivoting on a decision that teeters on basically this point:
Is this treaty morally dangerous, absolutely essential, or simply an unnecessary waste of time and resources?
I can't say that I reject the treaty out of hand, nor can I say that I trust carte blanc anything that emerges from the halls of the United Nations. What most interests me is the swell of opposition that has forced the attentive to take note. Our purpose here is to help add to the ranks of the attentive.
As we discuss this further, it will become clear why it is so important for American families to care about the ramifications of this long simmering debate. What has been simmering since November 20, 1989 may be coming to a boil in this session of congress.
In the next post we get into the reasons why we perhaps should care - or in the vernacular - So What?
Link to Part 2
No comments:
Post a Comment