Part Two of The Hypocrisy of the U.S. in International Standards
The U.S. is seen as the leader of the free world, the country that other countries look up and aspire to. It is the representation of freedom and democracy. If any country hopes to achieve legitimization (other countries view a country as truly democratic with goals in mind to create a better world order for those citizens and all humans, as well as have an accepted authority) in the international order it needs to please the United Nations (U.N.), though really it needs to please the U.S. The easiest way to this this then would be to mimic the U.S. While the U.S. and U.N. maintain rigorous standards for international legitimization and relations, the U.S. is a bit hypocritical in this approach. It argues that countries must sign the various resolutions, declarations, and conventions the U.N. creates in order to prove their commitment to democracy and thus their legitimization. The U.S., however, has opted out of many important and sometimes obligatory laws. Some of these include: the Law of the Sea Treaty, human rights treaties (on children, indigenous people, people with disabilities, and those experiencing enforced disappearance), conventions (against discrimination against women, cluster munitions, and against torture), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Mine Ban Treaty. Part Two of this conversation will feature the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Mine Ban Treaty, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (also known as CEDAW) was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1979 as an international bill of rights for women. It defines discrimination as “… any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field”.
Opposition to CEDAW in the U.S. stems from concerns of radically changing culture in the U.S.; those on the conservative and religious right fear it will undermine traditional family values (same-sex marriage, negate family law and parental rights), go against the free market system by forcing equal pay, create a back-door Equal Rights Amendment, as well as threaten U.S. sovereignty.
Proponents of CEDAW argue that by not ratifying human rights law, the legitimacy of the U.S. as the leader in human rights is question and is seen as hypocritical when the U.S.urges other countries to follow the law. Another main argument for ratification is the immense influence the U.S. would have on other parts of the world (nations follow those who lead by example).
The Mine Ban Treaty (also known as the Ottawa Treaty) was adopted in 1997. The main tenets of the treaty prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of antipersonnel mines. It was created to end the use of mines because of the humanitarian cost, as civilians are disproportionately affected by the mines.
One of the reasons the U.S. won’t ratify the treaty is because they differentiate between smart (destruct or deactivate automatically) and dumb mines (last indefinitely), and in utilizing smart mines can deter enemy actions while better mitigating civilian risk. Other reasons the U.S. won’t sign is that the U.S. is one of the largest manufacturers of land mines and that, specifically, they are used along the boarder of North and South Korea as North Korea doesn’t follow typical rules of deterrence.
One argument for ratifying the treaty is that the U.S. follows the core obligations anyways and should show international solidarity by just officiating it. Other arguments for ratifying is that the main U.S. opposition comes from the military, indicating that a majority of U.S. citizens want the treat, and that landmines have a limited military utility which doesn’t outweigh humanitarian concerns, especially seeing as the U.S. has one of the largest military stockpiles and thus has other sources of deterrence.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (also known as CRPD) was adopted in 2006 to change how people with disabilities are seen: from viewing them as objects needing charity, help, treatment, and protection to viewing them as subjects with rights who are capable of claiming such rights. It says that people with disabilities must enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
One argument for why the U.S. shouldn’t ratify the treaty is that the U.S. shouldn’t allow binding international law influence domestic law; the U.S. should create the law itself. Other reasons include the typical thought that these treaties challenge U.S. sovereignty, that the treaty is too general to have any real impact, and that because the U.S. is the greatest defender of human rights, it doesn’t need to be told how to achieve human rights.
The main argument to ratify the treaty is that it is modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is already law of the land and thus not seen as threatening American sovereignty, so then the CRPD is seen as also not threatening U.S. sovereignty. Other arguments include that ratifying the treaty would reinforce the U.S’s commitment to expanding disability rights, and would also ensure these rights for Americans abroad and those who like to travel.
The U.S. pushes for developing countries to seek legitimacy by adopting U.N. resolutions, and while it supports these resolutions, it will not commit to them. Does this mean the U.S. is losing legitimacy in the international sphere? For Part One, Part Three, and Part Four of this conversation, please click on the links.
