The renewed debate over potential U.S. ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

The following was originally published by the author on Sunday, May 3rd, 2009, on the Examiner, in a follow-up to the piece posted Wednesday, April 29th, 2009, The United States and The Rights of the Child, the debate on the United States has heated-up once again.   US opponents of the UN Convention on the Rights of The Child are now arguing that a new constitutional amendment acknowledging the rights of parents is crucially needed in the Convention in-order to prevent Geneva from interfering with how parents raise their children.  The treaty, which has both large support and a large number of opponents in the US, has been the point of debate and contention for some twenty years, as the US is the only non-signatory state, besides Somalia.

The establish of a new administration under Obama, has brought the treaty back into the spotlight, many believing that under the current administration ratification could have a better chance, however the administration has made no official statement addressing the Convention.  Currently conservative groups in the US, who claim to represent parents, have voiced fears that the Convention, which addresses various protections for children around the globe, including special emphasis on child soldiers, children and the death penalty, and children who are victims of abuse, would put harsh limits on parental autonomy.  Much of the new debate over the Convention has been sirred by Republican U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, after the Congressman proposed an amendment to the US Constitution safeguarding parental rights, which would act as a buffer against the potential ratification of the Convention by the US.  Supporters for the Convention’s ratification by the US include Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chairs a Foreign Relations subcommittee handling human rights issues, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Supporters of the Convention argue these fears are unbiased and over exaggerated;

“The reality is that no country that is a party to the convention has seen parental rights encroached,” said Jonathan Todres, a law professor at Georgia State University.  Todres also noted that while U.N.’s expert committee monitoring the treaty can make recommendations to governments that have ratified the pact, there are no enforcement mechanisms or penalties.  The treaty “has the potential to be a great tool for parents,” Todres said. “It’s something the parents could use to say, ‘My child has the right to freedom of religion and the state cannot encroach on that. My child has education rights, health care rights, and the state cannot ignore that.’” (AP)

Ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child should not be overshadowed by fears of the rights adults, for protection of children’s rights must be one of the front running policies of any true democratic nation, as the protection of both adults and children must be viewed as a priority.  The signing of the Convention is does not open the door for a violation on parental rights, but merely safeguards the rights for which parents strive to protect.