Monday, 2-16-98---

UNITED NATIONS/USA:

A coalition of right wing groups and conservative religious organizations

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 politically- 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 organizations

(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 Defense 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, organized 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 100 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 program 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 organizations

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 7 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."

(source: InterPress Service)

Rick Halperin

AI-Texas