U.S. Faulted for Short-Circuiting Global Treaties

[seemslikeadream]

Besides refusing to ratify several treaties it has signed, Washington has also refused to sign several other global treaties, dismissing them out of hand.

These key unsigned treaties include the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Landmines, the International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons, and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.

In contrast, the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council -- Britain, France, China and Russia -- have a better track record than the United States.

Those four nations have ratified some of the key treaties rejected by Washington, including the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Child Rights Convention and CEDAW.

Washington has signed and then quickly ratified only two recent treaties, both relating to terrorism: the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.. It signed the first in January 1998, ratifying it in June 2002, and signed the second in January 2000 and also ratified in June 2002.
more
http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=23818

[catzies]

1. We're a rogue nation.

Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, is critical of what he calls U.S. hypocrisy and double standards.

''It is ironic,'' he told IPS, ''that the United States, which has long prided itself for its commitment to the rule of law and was the primary architect of many of these treaties, now seeks to take advantage of its sole superpower status to flaunt these very agreements, as well as shield allies like Israel and Morocco from similar international legal obligations.''

''Such perceived arrogance, hypocrisy and double standards makes even reasonable concerns raised by U.S. officials about the conduct of other governments easy to dismiss,'' he added.

[Just Me]

5. Lawless activities are the #1 qualifier for a rogue nation.

Unfortunately, we are proving ourselves to be one of the worst perpetrators of lawless activities.

:grr:

[UpInArms]

2. published 12/24/01

http://www.americaheldhostile.com/ed122401.shtml

Opportunities abounded in February to join with 123 nations that pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines. The Bush administration refused to join. I guess they hadn't figured out how to agree to something so obvious. Another opportunity presented itself in August, and Mr. Bush disavowed a claim made by President Clinton that the United States would comply by 2006 to the Land Mine Treaty (banning land mines) which was signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. I surely hope that the land mine that took our American soldier's foot in Afghanistan was not of our own making.

Then, in March, Mr. Bush declared the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 "dead". Bush decided that global warming and greenhouse gasses had not been discussed and studied enough. (Note: Bush also shunned negotiations in Marrakech in November to revise the accord.)

In April, the United States failed to be reelected to the UN Human Rights Commission. Since Mr. Bush had been working for the appointment to the Human Rights Commission of John Negroponte and Richard Armitage as Deputy Secretary of State (of Iran-Contra fame), I can only suppose that the United Nations was more familiar with their history than most Americans.

In May, the administration refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss economic espionage and electronic surveillance (the US "Echelon" program), and refused to participate in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which sponsored talks in Paris on ways to crack down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens. Would OECD have assisted us in tracking terrorists earlier?

In July, the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (which had been ratified by 144 nations - including the United States) by providing for on- site inspections. I wonder if the knowledge that could have been gained then would have helped to understand the threat of anthrax and who possessed the technology to use this as a terrorist threat? (Note: In Geneva in November 2001, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that the protocol is "dead" while accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan and Syria of violating the Convention while refusing to offer specific allegations or supporting evidence.) Also in July, the US opposed the UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms and the International Plan for Cleaner Energy, being the only nation to oppose either of these agreements and plans. Did the opposition to such accords allow the terrorists to arm themselves at the expense of American lives?

The week prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States withdrew from International Conference on Racism, which brought together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa. If we had attended and listened to the participants of this Conference, would we have learned more about the view held by other countries to the expanding powers of the policies of the United States and how the effects of such were influencing opinions of the disenfranchised?

By November, the Bush administration's disdain for humanity became obvious when it forced a vote in the UN Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This Treaty was signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89, including France, Great Britain and Russia. Continuing on in December, the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriation bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, which would be to set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC was signed in Rome in 1998 and approved by 120 countries, with seven opposed (including the US).

Also, in December, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), gutting the landmark agreement. This is the first time in the nuclear era that the United States has renounced a major arms control accord. Cold Wars are no longer in vogue, it would appear that we like ours hot.

[struggle4progress]

3. kick

:kick:

[UpInArms]

4. kick

:kick:

[Tellurian]

6. This article is amazing:

"UNITED NATIONS, May 19 (IPS) - The United States, which preaches the virtues of good governance and rule of law to the outside world, is notoriously remiss in either signing, ratifying or adhering to major international treaties, according to U.S. academics, constitutional lawyers and human rights activists."

"''The problem,'' says Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights,'' is not just the U.S. refusal to sign and ratify treaties that are important to insure global standards, but even when the United States ratifies such treaties, it apparently does not feel bound by them.''

Such treaties and U.N. conventions lay down international norms governing political, social and economic life, from human rights and disarmament to torture and the environment.

..snip..

''The open and notorious ignoring of obligations of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture -- treaties ratified by the United States -- in its treatment of those captured in the Afghan and Iraq wars is a demonstration of U.S. exceptionalism that is dangerous for the world and for its own nationals,'' Ratner told IPS."


Well you heard it here..The US has become "dangerous" to the world. The article just stops short of calling the US a terrorist nation.

[Tellurian]

7. And this:

"Besides its own narrow interpretations of treaties it has ratified (which creates legally binding obligations under international law) Washington has also refused to ratify dozens of conventions and treaties that it has already signed."

"These key ''un-ratified'' treaties include the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the Kyoto Protocol to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and the Convention on the Rights of the Child."

Geeze, I wonder if Laura knows this? Bush refused to ratify 2 key elements of her agenda. The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). And the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Convention on the Rights of the Child." Oopsy, forgot momentarily about the Stepford wives thingy..uh-huh!

[seemslikeadream]

8. I love this place

I know that if I post an important story I will have the best analysts of it, thanks to you all.


In the book’s forward Campbell writes, “As a young artillery forward observer with a marine ‘grunt’ company in Vietnam in 1968-69, I gained intimate knowledge of war, atrocities and the reality of quick, random and ugly death. This traumatic experience drove me to learn more about the legal, moral and political aspects of the proper—and at times improper—uses of military force. My near decade of research on the U.S military’s lessons of Vietnam…and the American military’s application of these lessons throughout the 1980s and 1990s eventually brought me to the problem of genocide. Why was there insufficient international political will to employ decisive military force to stop genocide in Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo? How can political will be built to suppress future genocide? What will the 21st century look like if we fail to halt genocide?”

more
http://www.udel.edu/PR/NewsReleases/2002/may/5-02-02/genocide.html

[Just Me]

11. Me, too!!!

And you are an amazing contributor, along with Tellurian and Tinoire and Judilyn and UpInArms and so many other members!!!!

DU provides the fertile environment necessary towards the path of "truth".

:kick:

[Tellurian]

9. an update from the ipsnews website:

addressing conditions in prisons throughout the country, in addition to the current issues making news at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp

[seemslikeadream]

10. A BARBARIC ADMINISTRATION

BOOT BUSH! For the world's sake, Dubya must go




A BARBARIC ADMINISTRATION

No wonder this same Bush administration has failed to ratify the International Criminal Court and would go further to punish nations that seek to use the provisions of the court to sanction the illegal actions of U.S. military. The Bush administration knew the kinds of human rights abuses it intended to allow in its self-righteous war on terror, which has become the war of terror.

The U.S. has sunk to the level of some of the barbarians whom it is opposing. (I condemn all forms of terrorism, left or right)

In March of this year, a report of the well-known human rights organisation, Human Rights Watch, was released, and it was damning, too: It found systemic abuse of Afghan prisoners.

ALARMING

The report, which I read, is alarming. In its summary, the human rights organisation says that while the Americans went into Afghanistan to protect fundamental human rights and freedoms: "On Afghan soil, the United States is maintaining a system of arrests and detention as part of its ongoing military intelligence operations that violates international human rights law and international humanitarian law(the laws of war). In doing so the United States is endangering the lives of Afghan civilians, undermining efforts to restore the rule of law in Afghanistan and calling into question its commitment to upholding basic rights." Strong words.

more
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20040516/focus/focus1.html


WAKE UP AMERICA AND SMELL THE FLESH
smell the palpable, ghastly odor of burning human flesh



WOULD YOU HAVE HELPED?


Any of us who've read about that horrific era are terrified by the thought of it, the photographs, even by meeting people who lived through it. Our hearts break. We cannot possibly comprehend. How can we say, "We're sorry"? It is not enough.

But of what are we most afraid? I personally think what torments us most about that piece of charred history is our not really knowing how we'd have reacted had we been non-Jewish Germans living in Deutschland at that time. Oh, many of us loudly insist we'd have taken a stand, protested, put a stop to the slaughter of millions. In fact many did try, some were successful, but many ended paying the ultimate price for their heroism.

We are left wondering if we really would have had the courage to stand up to the black, brutal violence of Nazism, if we would have had the bravery to save even one life; Jewish, Gypsy, homosexual, mentally or physically handicapped, or any marked for extermination in order that the so-called Aryan race be kept pure. Would we? Would you? Would I?

I've pondered on this problem a great deal over the years. I was alive, happy and thriving back in the 1930s and 40s while millions were dying in ways so horrible most of us cannot touch our minds to the thought of it for fear it will burn into the very core of our psyches. Children like me were being ripped to pieces. Who knew? Did you? Did we? Did I?

I wonder if I'd been a parent in Germany with a family I loved and knew what was happening, and yet because a horrible war was exploding all around me, would I have had the courage to scream "Stop!!"? Would I have taken the terrible chance that my family would be piled amongst the slaughtered because of my heroics? If I lived near a crematorium and could smell the palpable, ghastly odor of burning human flesh, would I have called a meeting of my neighbors, demanding to know what that was? Would I, like so many did, have spent my life protesting, "But we just didn't know!" Would I have put my beloved family at risk to save complete strangers?

more
http://www.vansavage.com/columns/holocaust.shtml