The United States’ Relationship with Human Rights
To get any form of assistance from the U.S., countries and organizations will have stipulations attached to the assistance. These stipulations work to the U.S.’s benefit to spread democracy and build nations in the ways the U.S. prefers. Some stipulations may include countries having to sign and/or ratify United Nations human rights treaties. The U.S. makes these requests and yet chooses not to ratify the same human rights treaties.
A note of introduction to treaty language: being a signatory means that a country supports but does not have to follow through on provisions, while being a ratifier means the country not only supports but has integrated it (or is attempting to) into their government and society.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) entered into force in 1990. Provisions include “protecting children against abuse, neglect and exploitation, allowing them to develop their fullest potential and enabling them to participate in family, cultural and social life”. Reasons the U.S. hasn’t ratified it revolves around sovereignty. Fears include that the “CRC will interfere with the rights of parents to hit their children, or to opt out of sex education”. The U.S., Somalia (barely has a functioning government most of the time) and South Sudan (became a country after the CRC was created, in 2011) were the only countries that did not ratify the CRC. In 2015, both Somalia and South Sudan ratified the CRC, leaving the U.S. as the lone opposition.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was adopted in 2006 and entered into force in 2008. “It clarifies and qualifies how all categories of rights apply to persons with disabilities and identifies areas where adaptations have to be made for persons with disabilities to effectively exercise their rights and areas where their rights have been violated, and where protection of rights must be reinforced.” “While the CRPD does not establish new rights, Grant explains that it provides “greater clarity of the obligations on nations to promote, protect and ensure the rights of persons with disabilities.” The United States, along with Ireland, Belarus, Libya, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, are merely signatories to the main convention. There is also an optional protocol. These countries have not signed the optional protocol.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979. In accepting the convention states must take actions “to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women; to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and to ensure elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises.” The United States was one of the first signatories to the convention, but ratification failed to be realized by the Senate. There are a few major concerns for why the United States will not ratify the convention. The first has to deal with the threat to sovereignty. The second is that “discrimination” is defined to broadly in CEDAW and would thus result in frivolous lawsuits. The third is that it would destroy traditional family structure by redefining “family” and respective roles of men and women. The fourth is that by supporting family planning, CEDAW supports abortion, though the convention never addresses abortion. The fifth is that it would threaten single-sex schools and require gender neutral education. The sixth is that it could be used to support same-sex marriage (this fear was before the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage). The seventh is that the convention would require the legalization of prostitution.
The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED) was entered into force in 2010. “‘Enforced disappearance’ is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law”.
In June of 2018, the United States removed itself from the United Nations Human Rights Council. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley defended the move “I want to make it crystal clear that this step is not a retreat from human rights commitments. On the contrary, we take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights.” The two major reasons the U.S. left the Council are the questionable human rights records of member countries (like Saudi Arabia, China and Venezuela) and the bias against Israel (pertaining to claims of human rights abuses against Palestinians. Both Bush Jr. and Obama administrations also voiced such concerns. The U.S. believes that because the Council is corrupted by countries with established abuses, the Council will not be able to seek out and protect human rights and thus must do so from outside the Council. On the flip side, this raises concerns that the protector of democracy is leaving the Council to the whims of abusing countries and this will only serve to degrade human rights and work against the U.S.’s goals.
