• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

WI Crippler said:
And thats the problem. Countries too busy, staring at themselves in the mirror, worried about their image to others, rather than being who they are and working towards actually making things better. Thats why documents like this one are absurd. Its nothing but a bunch of cheerleaders, trying to feel better about themselves.
Click to expand...

I actually agree somewhat. Countries should not be focused on image abroad but on fixing issues at home, since fixing them at home can mean we can claim moral superiority over nations that do not live up to the principles of the treaty.

But such documents are not absurd because they draw focus on the issue (even limited) and if there is a problem then those countries by looking at themselves hopefully fix the issues that come out.

Like it or not, image, internally and externally (country wise) matters. Do you really think that the image of Texas was helped by first having that mormon child abuse group living among them, and then the whole case falls apart because of US law being geared up to protect the children from said abuse due to "religious" reasons? Everyone with half a brain can see that the children in that community are being abused and there is plenty of evidence.. I mean it is the norm for girls to marry at what.. age 15? Come on..

This treaty would only stipulate that the US in principle wants to live up to protecting children at all levels. That it in reality cant at the moment will only mean that the focus is put on that problem and hopefully legislation is put in place that makes it possible to rescue cult children that are being abused. Aint that a good thing?

And no the US is not the only western nation having problems with such cults. Child abuse is rampant across the western world in all layers of society. The only difference is we dont force them to work in mines any more and use them as soldiers.
 
PeteEU said:
Bull****. Treaties are a piece of paper. The content of such treaties depend on what the countries want as content. If a treaty is designed with a "punishment" part then the treaty has more bite, however ultimately any country can say FU to the treaty and do what they want, without much consequence.

Most treaties are nothing but documents of intent. However saying that, these documents of intent actually mean something to nations that cherish the principles of the content. Human rights for example. The Universal Declaration of Human rights is a treaty, with no "punishment" aspect in it. If a nation breaks human rights.. so what. However we cherish it because it's principles are an integral part of our democracies. But in principle, the UDHR is a worthless piece of paper from the view of nations that already live up to its principles and have those embedded in their own democratic tradition and legal framework.

This document is a document of intent. Abuse of children world wide is a big issue. While the US and Europe has laws banning abuse of children for the most part, that does not mean that the intent of this document is any different than the intent of the UDHR. Is the US afraid of pissing off a bunch of religious freaks that abuse children? Or is the US just embarrassed that it's own legal system is not yet geared up 100% to combat the abuse of children when it conflicts with "religious beliefs"? To be frank, it is a sad day when religion is more important than the well being of our children.

So as I said, this document is a document of intent, no different than the UDHR or any other treaty that dictates an intent of the signer to follow the principles of the document, either by changing ones laws or keeping laws in place that already live up to the document's intent.
Click to expand...

Bull**** back atcha. Treaties are laws and compel compliance by the signatories. If it doesn't benefit the US in some definable, measurable way, then we shouldn't touch it.
 
PeteEU said:
I actually agree somewhat. Countries should not be focused on image abroad but on fixing issues at home, since fixing them at home can mean we can claim moral superiority over nations that do not live up to the principles of the treaty.

But such documents are not absurd because they draw focus on the issue (even limited) and if there is a problem then those countries by looking at themselves hopefully fix the issues that come out.

Like it or not, image, internally and externally (country wise) matters. Do you really think that the image of Texas was helped by first having that mormon child abuse group living among them, and then the whole case falls apart because of US law being geared up to protect the children from said abuse due to "religious" reasons? Everyone with half a brain can see that the children in that community are being abused and there is plenty of evidence.. I mean it is the norm for girls to marry at what.. age 15? Come on..

This treaty would only stipulate that the US in principle wants to live up to protecting children at all levels. That it in reality cant at the moment will only mean that the focus is put on that problem and hopefully legislation is put in place that makes it possible to rescue cult children that are being abused. Aint that a good thing?

And no the US is not the only western nation having problems with such cults. Child abuse is rampant across the western world in all layers of society. The only difference is we dont force them to work in mines any more and use them as soldiers.
Click to expand...

So I assume China is a signatory to this treaty, since everybody but the US and Somalia have ratified it. So where do you believe there is a more systematic abuse of chidrens "rights", the US(a non signatory) or China(a signatory I assume). Signing it means nothing and is a waste of paper and ink. We don't need to sign a UN document, to pass our own legislation in regards to "the chidren".

The situation in Texas is absurd, because it is not the norm in this country. You seem to be arguing that the situation in Texas is something that is widespread in the US. It is not. It is the exception, not the rule.
 
PeteEU said:
Do you really think that the image of Texas was helped by first having that mormon child abuse group living among them, and then the whole case falls apart because of US law being geared up to protect the children from said abuse due to "religious" reasons? Everyone with half a brain can see that the children in that community are being abused and there is plenty of evidence.. I mean it is the norm for girls to marry at what.. age 15? Come on.. .
Click to expand...

I think the Dallas Cowboys have done more to harm our image.
 
url
 
Moon said:
Bull**** back atcha. Treaties are laws and compel compliance by the signatories. If it doesn't benefit the US in some definable, measurable way, then we shouldn't touch it.
Click to expand...

The hell they are lol. Treaties are NOT laws. They are agreements between countries to follow the principles of the treaty. Some treaties require that certain laws be changed or added but those are rare. Most treaties do however have to be certified by the countries legislative branch, aka the US congress in the US case, before they are accepted by said nation.
 
PeteEU said:
The hell they are lol. Treaties are NOT laws. They are agreements between countries to follow the principles of the treaty. Some treaties require that certain laws be changed or added but those are rare. Most treaties do however have to be certified by the countries legislative branch, aka the US congress in the US case, before they are accepted by said nation.
Click to expand...

The US Senate ratifies treaties, not Congress.
 
WI Crippler said:
So I assume China is a signatory to this treaty, since everybody but the US and Somalia have ratified it. So where do you believe there is a more systematic abuse of chidrens "rights", the US(a non signatory) or China(a signatory I assume). Signing it means nothing and is a waste of paper and ink. We don't need to sign a UN document, to pass our own legislation in regards to "the chidren".
Click to expand...

No one claimed that you had to sign a UN document to pass your own legislation! Hell most UN documents that the US and EU sign are already on the bloody law books in said areas. Its not us but the rest of the world. That is the whole point. How can we as democracies condemn nations for child exploitation, when we ourselves refuse to sign a treaty that is suppose to fight this on a global level?

As for China being a signatory to this treaty.. they are to the UDHR too... your point being?

Just because a country like China sings a treaty does not mean that they live up to the treaty. However countries around the world do not look up to China.. they do to the US and European countries. We are the guiding lights of democracy, women's rights, stopping child exploitation and so on (or at least we think we are :) ), and if we could care less about such treaties, why should other nations care about democracy, women's rights and so on?

It is the same principle that Iran uses against the West on the Nuclear issue. Why should they be treated any difference when Israel is not being treated in the same way? Or when Chaves calls the US undemocratic and brings up the 2000 and 2004 elections. Like it or not, it gets damn hard diplomatically to work with such nations when we cant sign simple treaties that represent our values and not theirs plus in most cases, that the principles of the treaty already are on the law books of our countries. If treaties did not matter, then why signed UDHR? After all your constitution has this in, so why care about the rest of the world? What about non proliferation of nuclear technology? The US can just ban its citizens in selling or giving the information, that should be okay no? So why sign it? Israel did not, and they doing fine right? Nothing there to be critical about or any double standards right? Then again the US could not be bitching about Iran then could it?

While this treaty is not in that league, the principles are still the same. We sign treaties because we agree with them, not because we have to change our laws drastically to live up to them.. that is usually the job of other non western nations. But in signing the treaties we send a very clear message.

The situation in Texas is absurd, because it is not the norm in this country. You seem to be arguing that the situation in Texas is something that is widespread in the US. It is not. It is the exception, not the rule.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, but that was not the point. And it is a bit more wide spread than just Texas though :) Dont they have compounds all over the US? But yea it is the exception that is for sure. Just as it is the exception that Jehovas Witnesses are under investigation in several countries for the same bs. But that dont change the fact that these countries have signed the treaty and are investigating Jehovas Witnesses not because of the treaty, but because the legislation was on the books in the first place.
 
Moon said:
Yeah, the janitor's there too, but he doesn't get to ratify treaties either.
Click to expand...

Dont be too sure!!!! Some treaties are only good enough for a guy who cleans toilets :)
 
WI Crippler said:
Who cares if we sign it or not. If we violate it, whats the UN going to do about it? Write us a nasty little letter? I say we go ahead and sign a bunch of UN documents and violate all of them, just to show the UN what a worthless, toothless hag it has become.
Click to expand...

Right, it isn't as if the US hasn't recently violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations or anything.

I still see absolutely NO reason. People say "image." That doesn't cut it with me. Are there any CONCRETE reasons to sign and ratify the treaty?
 
PeteEU said:
Bull****. Treaties are a piece of paper. The content of such treaties depend on what the countries want as content. If a treaty is designed with a "punishment" part then the treaty has more bite, however ultimately any country can say FU to the treaty and do what they want, without much consequence.

Most treaties are nothing but documents of intent.
Click to expand...

Signed and ratified treaties create BINDING obligations under international law that are typically enforcable judicially through the ICJ.
 
WI Crippler said:
So I assume China is a signatory to this treaty, since everybody but the US and Somalia have ratified it. So where do you believe there is a more systematic abuse of chidrens "rights", the US(a non signatory) or China(a signatory I assume). Signing it means nothing and is a waste of paper and ink. We don't need to sign a UN document, to pass our own legislation in regards to "the chidren".

The situation in Texas is absurd, because it is not the norm in this country. You seem to be arguing that the situation in Texas is something that is widespread in the US. It is not. It is the exception, not the rule.
Click to expand...

This is exactly correct. Though, in addition to the US and Somalia, Taiwan is also a non-signatory. I would take Taiwan's rights regarding children against the criminal regime in Beiping any day of the week.
 
PeteEU said:
The hell they are lol. Treaties are NOT laws. They are agreements between countries to follow the principles of the treaty. Some treaties require that certain laws be changed or added but those are rare. Most treaties do however have to be certified by the countries legislative branch, aka the US congress in the US case, before they are accepted by said nation.
Click to expand...

Treaties are the fundamental basis of international law and are typically enforcable through the ICJ.
 
No one claimed that you had to sign a UN document to pass your own legislation! Hell most UN documents that the US and EU sign are already on the bloody law books in said areas. Its not us but the rest of the world. That is the whole point. How can we as democracies condemn nations for child exploitation, when we ourselves refuse to sign a treaty that is suppose to fight this on a global level?
Click to expand...

You answered your question with your first two sentences. It doesn't take a resolution or a treaty by the UN to accomplish said rights. And since we have the rules on our own books, we fully reserve the right to condemn the acts of others who do not grant such rights. We don't need a treaty with the UN. We set the example by our actions, not some signed document that actually accomplishes nothing, other than to simply "say" you are going to abide by it. As I point out with my example of China.

Just because a country like China sings a treaty does not mean that they live up to the treaty.
Click to expand...
Rendering that treaty useless, since it obviously does not matter what you do,even if you sign it.

However countries around the world do not look up to China.. they do to the US and European countries. We are the guiding lights of democracy, women's rights, stopping child exploitation and so on (or at least we think we are :) ), and if we could care less about such treaties, why should other nations care about democracy, women's rights and so on?
Click to expand...
Because its not the treaties that have made the difference for women and children in our societies. It is the acts of the individual nations, that they took upon themselves to enact, that are the so called "guiding lights" you refer to. You mention nobody looks up to China, even though they are a signatory. Thats because the action means more than the words. You make my case for me. Signing the treaty is not the action people look up to. Especially in countries where they don't have the educational tools we have at our disposal. You think some child in Africa knows or cares onw way or the other if the US signed this treaty? You think they look at us unfavorably vs. Europe or China, because they have signed this treaty and thus "must mean it"? The treaty is just verbal masturbation on paper. It serves no purpose than to make oneself "feel better", while not accomplishing anything of note. The US should not be a part of the UNs circle jerk.
While this treaty is not in that league, the principles are still the same. We sign treaties because we agree with them, not because we have to change our laws drastically to live up to them.. that is usually the job of other non western nations. But in signing the treaties we send a very clear message.
Click to expand...

China obviously doesn't agree with the treaty, yet signs it. Why? Because it has no teeth. Its just smoke and mirrors, illusions. Its people wanting to give the appearance of caring about these things, without having to do the hard work to make sure that progress is actually made on the ground. Its arrogance at its best(or worst)

Of course it is, but that was not the point. And it is a bit more wide spread than just Texas though :) Dont they have compounds all over the US? But yea it is the exception that is for sure. Just as it is the exception that Jehovas Witnesses are under investigation in several countries for the same bs. But that dont change the fact that these countries have signed the treaty and are investigating Jehovas Witnesses not because of the treaty, but because the legislation was on the books in the first place.
Click to expand...

Of course cults are more widespread than Texas. But not all cults are the same. The one I grew up in had no compounds, or forced marriages but it was considered a cult all the same. These cults, while they may be in each state, are hardly representative of the US population in general, and are a very extreme minority. It makes headlines, because its not normal for these things to happen.
 
ludahai said:
Signed and ratified treaties create BINDING obligations under international law that are typically enforcable judicially through the ICJ.
Click to expand...

Which the US does not give a damn about.
 
WI Crippler said:
You answered your question with your first two sentences. It doesn't take a resolution or a treaty by the UN to accomplish said rights. And since we have the rules on our own books, we fully reserve the right to condemn the acts of others who do not grant such rights. We don't need a treaty with the UN. We set the example by our actions, not some signed document that actually accomplishes nothing, other than to simply "say" you are going to abide by it. As I point out with my example of China.
Click to expand...

Sure you can condemn them, but they can only reply, mind your own business as we have no international agreements on such things.. wups that is what the treaties are for you so hate. Without treaties we have no rules or guidelines to run the global political system. Guess you would rather have more anarchy?

Rendering that treaty useless, since it obviously does not matter what you do,even if you sign it.
Click to expand...

Hardly useless. Not only can people internally in China use the treaty to bang their own government over the head, but the international community can (like they are doing) bang the Chinese government over the head with the treaty. Can the Chinese just ignore it? Sure, but so what? In the global system of image and international politics we in the west have a moral superiority on this issue when it comes to China and we can use the treaty, that they signed, to remind them that they have treaty obligations. And they know it... they might not care, but they do know it, and the opposition in the country knows it too, which gives the opposition "a leg up" in many ways.

It is all about image and diplomacy. Now you might not agree with such things and only believe in the policies of the gun, but that is not how the world works.

Because its not the treaties that have made the difference for women and children in our societies. It is the acts of the individual nations, that they took upon themselves to enact, that are the so called "guiding lights" you refer to. You mention nobody looks up to China, even though they are a signatory. Thats because the action means more than the words. You make my case for me. Signing the treaty is not the action people look up to. Especially in countries where they don't have the educational tools we have at our disposal. You think some child in Africa knows or cares onw way or the other if the US signed this treaty? You think they look at us unfavorably vs. Europe or China, because they have signed this treaty and thus "must mean it"? The treaty is just verbal masturbation on paper. It serves no purpose than to make oneself "feel better", while not accomplishing anything of note. The US should not be a part of the UNs circle jerk.
Click to expand...

So basicly you are an isolationist? You could care less what other countries do with their people, but you reserve the right to criticize them based on your own moral values? What makes your moral value "better" than theirs considering there are far more of them? Without a treaty which said countries have agreed on in principle, you cant claim the diplomatic high ground let alone the moral high ground in being critical of them for not living up to their treaty obligations. So what if the Chinese exploit children, the US does not agree with the international community that this is a crime... they have not signed the treaty after all. China and the international community cares very little about US law btw... very very little, so using that as an excuse to be critical of other nations is very hollow. That is why we have treaties and organisations to solve international disputes before they erupt in to a gun fight.

International diplomacy is guided and run by treaties, that is a fact. Most of these treaties have been made in conjunction with the UN on a global scale. Most of these treaties are broken in some way at some time by many countries with the exception of the western nations (minus the US). This dilutes even more the meaning of treaties yes, but it does not help that the US is on some sort of isolationist binge like the 1930s. Yes most treaties have no teeth, but that was not the intent of the treaties in the first place. Most treaties are a document of intent as I have stated. If the treaty has teeth in, then it is a strong treaty, but they are rare. NATO is one such treaty.. it has teeth.. one member attacked will be defended by the others. UDHR has no teeth.. there is no global police force to pounce on nations that break the UDHR. But is the UDHR useless then?

China obviously doesn't agree with the treaty, yet signs it. Why? Because it has no teeth. Its just smoke and mirrors, illusions. Its people wanting to give the appearance of caring about these things, without having to do the hard work to make sure that progress is actually made on the ground. Its arrogance at its best(or worst)
Click to expand...

Yes it is smoke and mirrors lol.. that is international diplomacy for god sake! International diplomacy is nothing but smoke and mirrors and image. Not having or agreeing with basic treaties like this, is basicly saying to the world.. bugger off and leave us alone..If that is what you want, fine by me, but then dont come crying about Darfur, Child abuse, terror and what not, because you have no standing or right in the international community, since you want to isolate yourself like North Korea.
 
PeteEU said:
Sure you can condemn them, but they can only reply, mind your own business as we have no international agreements on such things.. wups that is what the treaties are for you so hate. Without treaties we have no rules or guidelines to run the global political system. Guess you would rather have more anarchy?
Click to expand...
Yep but this isn't even the global politics system. This is the internal affairs of nations. I'd rather you didn't interfere with my nation's sovereignty. I have little wish to interfere in yours.
 
Wessexman said:
Yep but this isn't even the global politics system. This is the internal affairs of nations. I'd rather you didn't interfere with my nation's sovereignty. I have little wish to interfere in yours.
Click to expand...

That's where you are wrong. They are interdependent on so many levels. The old saying, if you cant practice what you preach...
 
PeteEU said:
Sure you can condemn them, but they can only reply, mind your own business as we have no international agreements on such things.. wups that is what the treaties are for you so hate. Without treaties we have no rules or guidelines to run the global political system. Guess you would rather have more anarchy?



Hardly useless. Not only can people internally in China use the treaty to bang their own government over the head, but the international community can (like they are doing) bang the Chinese government over the head with the treaty. Can the Chinese just ignore it? Sure, but so what? In the global system of image and international politics we in the west have a moral superiority on this issue when it comes to China and we can use the treaty, that they signed, to remind them that they have treaty obligations. And they know it... they might not care, but they do know it, and the opposition in the country knows it too, which gives the opposition "a leg up" in many ways.

It is all about image and diplomacy. Now you might not agree with such things and only believe in the policies of the gun, but that is not how the world works.



So basicly you are an isolationist? You could care less what other countries do with their people, but you reserve the right to criticize them based on your own moral values? What makes your moral value "better" than theirs considering there are far more of them? Without a treaty which said countries have agreed on in principle, you cant claim the diplomatic high ground let alone the moral high ground in being critical of them for not living up to their treaty obligations. So what if the Chinese exploit children, the US does not agree with the international community that this is a crime... they have not signed the treaty after all. China and the international community cares very little about US law btw... very very little, so using that as an excuse to be critical of other nations is very hollow. That is why we have treaties and organisations to solve international disputes before they erupt in to a gun fight.

International diplomacy is guided and run by treaties, that is a fact. Most of these treaties have been made in conjunction with the UN on a global scale. Most of these treaties are broken in some way at some time by many countries with the exception of the western nations (minus the US). This dilutes even more the meaning of treaties yes, but it does not help that the US is on some sort of isolationist binge like the 1930s. Yes most treaties have no teeth, but that was not the intent of the treaties in the first place. Most treaties are a document of intent as I have stated. If the treaty has teeth in, then it is a strong treaty, but they are rare. NATO is one such treaty.. it has teeth.. one member attacked will be defended by the others. UDHR has no teeth.. there is no global police force to pounce on nations that break the UDHR. But is the UDHR useless then?



Yes it is smoke and mirrors lol.. that is international diplomacy for god sake! International diplomacy is nothing but smoke and mirrors and image. Not having or agreeing with basic treaties like this, is basicly saying to the world.. bugger off and leave us alone..If that is what you want, fine by me, but then dont come crying about Darfur, Child abuse, terror and what not, because you have no standing or right in the international community, since you want to isolate yourself like North Korea.
Click to expand...

All I can say is that it seems you value image over substance when it comes to world issues. I'd rather actually work towards accomplishing things, as an international community, than sit there and say we have accomplished something while really doing nothing substantitive. Its not shocking, to have a European(most likely an EU supporter) to value image over substance. How long have people in Europe been criticizing the US for its blind eye towards Africa, while doing nothing themselves? Its actually quite par for the course. Pass resolutions and treaties through the UN, as if they accomplish anything of substance, when in reality they don't. I remember an article, where the UN sent a team of 5 experts to determine why there was slaughter going on in Darfur. 5 experts, when there should have been military intervention. What a waste, but I suppose that the image of sending a team to Darfur to investigate the issue was a good enough effort.
The problem, is that the leaders of the free world, aren't willing to make any sacrifices on behalf of others who are not free. I am certainley not an isolationist, something I argue with American libertarians with quite a bit. If I had a powerful voice, I would call on more action and less words from our fellow democratic allies. Not necessarily military action(although I never rule it out), but diplomacy that works, because it is backed up with teeth in the agreement. Not treaties for the sake of agreeing with each other, but treaties that give incentive for others to change. And not to change them into mass capitalist markets, or make them in our own image, but simply change that allows for their people to decide who represents them and their interests. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, should not be something that is reserved for Americans only, IMO. I believe that particular right should be inherent for all men(this includes women), and its the only American ideal I would push for in agreements. I don't care if they can own guns, or have a UHC system, thats up to them. I believe that making a sacrifice for others on that behalf, is more noble than making it for your own. The EU and UN attitude towards that goal is non-existant. And the American support for that goal is waning itself, as we are slowly beginning to turn inwards, because we simply cannot afford to do these things alone anymore. For too long we have shouldered the cost, burden, and sacrifice on behalf of free people around the word, mostly by ourselves. Others have made contributions, but the overall price that is paid lays heavily on our shoulders through the decades. I do not fear for whatever the future holds for our country, but I do fear for what will happen to other countries when Americans finally decide that our omni-presence around the world is simply too much of a burden to bear.
 
PeteEU said:
That's where you are wrong. They are interdependent on so many levels. The old saying, if you cant practice what you preach...
Click to expand...

So what are you saying? You believe there are enough connections between nations that you should be able to interfere in others at will?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom