Globally Embraced Child Rights Treaty Languishes in U.S.

Ten years ago this Saturday, the Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted unanimously by the U.N. General Assembly amid predictions it would prove to be a “Magna Carta for children.”

A decade later, the pact has been formally ratified by every nation save two: Somalia, which hasn’t had a functioning government for much of the time since the treaty was adopted, and the United States.

The American failure--the result of conservative opposition--to ratify one of the most widely accepted treaties ever negotiated undermines U.S. credibility and Washington’s attempts to pressure other governments to honor U.N. accords on human rights, critics charge.

The children’s convention is widely considered a milestone in human rights. Its goal is to improve the education, living conditions, health care and treatment of the estimated 2 billion people under the age of 18, who represent one-third of the world’s population. It has been formally ratified by 191 nations.

“This convention has improved the lives of millions of children and made the world a better place,” said Carol Bellamy, executive director of the United Nations Children’s Fund, or UNICEF. “It’s stimulated legal reform in dozens of countries, enjoined governments to take the health and well-being of children seriously, and initiated a process of goal-setting that keeps everyone honest about global progress--or lack of it.”

More than 50 countries have amended their constitutions or legal codes to address children’s rights because of the treaty. South Africa’s 1996 post-apartheid constitution recognizes the rights of children to basic nutrition, education, health and social services and protection from exploitation. Tunisia’s 1995 Code for the Protection of Children contains 123 articles that conform its laws to the convention.

The Philippines introduced laws protecting children from sexual exploitation, and Sri Lanka raised the age of sexual consent from 12 to 16. Colombia enacted a Minor’s Code that protects a child’s right of expression. Honduras retrained 75 judges, 293 mayors and 300 government staff members after its 1996 Children’s Rights Code went into effect. And 23 other countries are working on new laws, according to UNICEF.

Children have benefited even in the anarchy of war. Because of the treaty, warring parties in Afghanistan, Angola, Congo, Sierra Leone and Sudan have conducted “days of tranquillity” cease-fires to allow millions of children to be immunized from disease.

The U.S. formally signed the convention in 1995. But the Clinton administration has not submitted it to the Senate for ratification because of opposition from Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and conservative groups that believe the treaty infringes on U.S. sovereignty and the rights of parents.

Helms has repeatedly warned the White House not to submit the treaty, which he has described as an “insane interpretation of international law” and “incompatible with the God-given right and responsibility of parents to raise their children.”

At the same time, critics say the administration shares part of the blame because it has done virtually nothing to try to win support for the convention, either with the public or in the Senate.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is not the only treaty awaiting U.S. ratification. About 50 international treaties--at least one dating back half a century--have been signed by the United States but never ratified.

Among them is a second high-profile human rights treaty, the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Ratified by more than 100 countries, it has lingered for two decades in the United States. It was endorsed 13 to 4 by the Foreign Relations Committee in 1994, but the full Senate has never acted on it.

Other significant international accords that have been snubbed in this country include the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was rejected by the Senate last month, and the Law of the Sea Treaty, which remains bottled up in the Foreign Relations Committee despite the Navy’s efforts to get it ratified.

In opposing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Foreign Relations Committee is in sync with the views of several conservative organizations, including the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, the Christian Coalition and the Eagle Forum.

“The convention basically states that children are autonomous, and it takes away the right of a parent to be involved in crucial decisions in people’s lives. It essentially makes the government the parent,” said Denesha Reid, director of public policy at Concerned Women for America in Washington.

“It gives children unlimited rights, such as freedom of expression,” Reid continued. “It’s also against abuse of children and, while we’re opposed to abuse, what is abuse? Does that include spanking a child? A family should be able to discipline a child as it sees fit.”

The text of the treaty stipulates that “no child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” It specifically prohibits capital punishment and life imprisonment without possibility of release for offenses committed by children under 18. Both forms of punishment are permitted for minors in the United States.

Another disputed clause says that “no child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honor and reputation.”

Parents still have supremacy, treaty supporters argue. The convention stipulates that governments must “respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of extended family or community . . . to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance.”

Supporters also insist that the convention does not infringe on the U.S. Constitution or national sovereignty.

“This is a ridiculous nonissue,” said Cynthia Price Cohen, executive director of the Child Rights International Research Institute in New York and a drafter of the convention. “No one can tell a sovereign nation what to do. The treaty is also written in such a way that each country can accommodate it to local standards.”

UNICEF officials say the treaty reflects U.S. values and laws. Article 2, for example, stipulates that a child must not be discriminated against on the basis of race, color or religion.

“Unfortunately, despite its virtues, the convention’s been lumped into a whole agenda of issues that involve opposing the United Nations,” said Joe Mettimano, deputy director of public policy at the U.S. Committee for UNICEF. “There’s also a constituency that doesn’t think we should be involved or subject to any international instrument such as a treaty. There’s not a political environment to support it at the moment. Submitting it would be a suicide mission.”