Posted by Tina
Are we ready to entrust the United Nations with decisions about our children or will we continue to suffer from what one psychologist calls narcissistic sovereignty? This is one of many serious questions facing Americans as we usher in the next president and his administration. The subject at hand is a treaty ratified by 193 countries since the UN adopted it in 1989:
Convention of the Rights of the Child
* The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rightscivil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. In 1989, world leaders decided that children needed a special convention just for them because people under 18 years old often need special care and protection that adults do not. The leaders also wanted to make sure that the world recognized that children have human rights too. *
* The Convention sets out these rights in 54 articles and two Optional Protocols. It spells out the basic human rights that children everywhere have: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life. The four core principles of the Convention are non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child. Every right spelled out in the Convention is inherent to the human dignity and harmonious development of every child. The Convention protects children’s rightsby setting standards in health care; education; and legal, civil and social services. *** By agreeing to undertake the obligations of the Convention (by ratifying or acceding to it), national governments have committed themselves to protecting and ensuring children’s rights and they have agreed to hold themselves accountable for this commitment before the international community. States parties to the Convention are obliged to develop and undertake all actions and policies in the light of the best interests of the child. * (emphasis mine)
The good things that this treaty promises, special protection from harmful influence, abuse and exploitation, specific rights to life, survival, and development are things no decent person would deny a child. But they are also things that no UN body can command or create for every child. What this treaty does is subject every parent, teacher, pastor, group leader or coach to international determination regarding their treatment and participation with children. American law offers sufficient protection for our children. But there are those among us who think otherwise:
* Advocates for a United Nations treaty on childrens rights blamed American arrogance for it not being ratified by the United States, but critics charge signing onto the Convention on the Rights of the Child could mean international law trumping U.S. state and federal laws and the rights of parents to make decisions about raising and educating their children. *** It might sound dismissive, but I think it has something to do with what I would call, and some other people call, narcissistic sovereignty, Harold Cook, a non-governmental organization representative at the U.N. and a fellow with the American Psychological Association, told CNSNews.com. *** But critics say national self-determination is at the heart of why the treaty should not be ratified. *** This would be one of the most invasive things we could do as far as the sovereignty of our nation, Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, told CNSNews.com. *** Smith said that if Congress ratifies the treaty, it would give the United Nations authority to object to federal and state laws that it thinks violate the treaty and give Congress the power to pass laws to make the country comply with its tenants a fact advocates do not deny.*
Are we a nation that values every individual and the freedoms and rights that our Constitution protects or is America an unreasonable nation suffering from narcissistic sovereignty, as Harold Cook suggests? And what about our new president, what position will he take? Barack Obama has said, It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land. I will review this. Will Obama sign the treaty? If he does what will it mean…should we be concered…do we care?