JOSH PHILLIPS AND THE UNITED NATIONS
I'm hoping to get some help from the U.N. I don't have a copy to send you of the article, but I think Rev. Masters sent it to me originally from CNN.com on May 11, 2002. I think I did send it to Gov. Bush, as his brother had taken no action for the convention to improve life for the world's children. The only two countries who had not signed this prior to that time were the US and Somalia. Somalia did sign the convention that week, whether they ratified it or not, I'm not sure - but the US did NOT sign it.
Thank you for your support and concern.
MissyPOLITICS-US: Right-Wingers Block U.N. Children's Treaty
By Thalif Deen
http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/feb98/usa4.htmlUNITED NATIONS, Feb 15 (IPS) - A coalition of right wing groups and conservative religious organisations are preventing the U.S. Senate from ratifying a landmark human rights treaty that already has been overwhelmingly approved by 191 out of 193 countries.
Only the United States and Somalia have failed to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which remains ''dead for the time being,'' says Jo Becker, Advocacy Coordinator for Children's Rights Projects at the New York-based Human Rights Watch.
''We are troubled about the whole thing - and we think it reflects poorly on the United States,'' she told IPS. Somalia's non-ratification can be explained because that politicallly- troubled East African country has no legitimate government, not the case in the United States.
''We are all the more perplexed because the U.S. made various proposals which were incorporated in to the final Convention,'' Becker said.
She believes that as long as Jesse Helms, the right-wing conservative Senator from the state of North Carolina, continues as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Convention is doomed - as far as the United States is concerned.
''Helms is the gate-keeper to all international treaties, and he shares views with the religious right in this country. And Helms has more power than the (U.S.) president,'' she said.
The U.S. signed the Convention in February 1995, but until and unless the Senate ratifies it, the treaty will no have legal force in the United States.
Helms, however, has declared: ''I am convinced that the treaty forces its way into the relationship of a parent and child, and should not be considered in federal legislation, let alone international treaties.'' He also joined 24 other Senators in co- sponsoring legislation asking the U.S. President not to submit this ''very unwise treaty to the Senate for ratification.''
Helms and a coalition of about 10 or 15 right wing groups - including the John Birch Society, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, the Rutherford Institute and the Christian Coalition - are now lined up against a group of more than 350 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who are relentlessly fighting for ratification.
These NGOs include Amnesty International, American Red Cross, U.N. Association of USA, Children of the Earth, U.S. Committee for the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF), Pearl S. Buck Foundation, Children's Defence Fund and the American Bar Association.
Although the proponents have the numbers, the opponents wield the necessary political clout to successfully lobby the Senate against ratifying the Convention.
''These groups are well funded, organised and coordinated; and they are successfully motivating their members to contact the U.S. Senate to voice their objections to the Convention,'' says Susan Kilbourne of the National Committee for the Rights of the Child. ''Senate staffers have reported that their offices receive letters at the rate of one hundred opposition letters for every letter in support of the Convention.''
Kilbourne said the Convention has been misinterpreted as ''the most dangerous attack on parents' rights in the history of the United States,'' and ''the ultimate programme to annihilate parental authority.'' She said some of the right wing groups have also denounced the Convention as ''the most insidious document ever signed by an American president.''
Kalbourne pointed out that materials published by these organisations depict the Convention as ''a radical, dangerous document that will guarantee unlimited government interference in family life.''
Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in November 1989, the Convention makes member states legally accountable for their actions towards children. The Convention was opened for signature in January 1990 and came into force seven months later.
The Convention stipulates, among other things, that: every child has the right to life, and countries shall ensure, to the maximum, child survival and development. Under the Convention, primary education shall be free and compulsory, and discipline in school should respect the child's dignity. The Convention also recognises the right of children ''to be heard.''
The language of the Convention clearly indicates that it is intended to set standards for governmental policies regarding children. ''It is a policy framework, not a code of parental conduct,'' says Kilbourne. She notes that the Convention does not provide for investigations or prosecutions against parents or guardians.
Sandra Nunez, co-author of a newly-published book on the legal rights of children titled ''And Justice for All,'' said the future of children's rights lies in the hands of the state, the parents and children's themselves. ''As each era brings its own political, social and economic challenges, there will be inevitable conflicts as each entity pursues its own standard of preserving 'the best interests of the child.'''
''The difference between this century and its predecessors, however, is that children now have a real opportunity to voice their ideas on how to make the world a better, safer and more equitable place for themselves,'' she said.
Article 3 of the Convention states that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all judicial and administrative actions concerning children, and that a child capable of forming his or her own views shall have the opportunity to be heard in judicial and administrative proceedings.
By being a party to the Convention, she said, governments such as the United States agree not to pass any laws or take any action that is in contravention of the treaty.
Nunez said the Convention also raises issues relating to state rights versus federal rights. In the U.S., she said, most parents want to have the last word on issues relating to children.
The treaty also focuses on two sensitive issues: abortion and capital punishment. While the Convention prohibits the use of the death penalty for persons under the age of 18, the U.S. Supreme Court has set the constitutional threshold for executions at age 16. Meanwhile, Article 6 declares that every child has ''an inherent right to life'' while the preamble calls for ''appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.'' (END/IPS/td/mk/98)
FLORIDA MOMS WITH CHILDREN IN PRISON
