It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US doesn't sign some important treates...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I truely wonder what the decision making process is at the White House sometimes.

Here is a list of treaties that the US has not signed, or has broken, or has removed their signature from - most of these treaties are signed and ratified by every other nation in the UN...

US Global Policy

  • Convention on Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
  • UN Framework Convention on Climate Control (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol
  • Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  • Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
  • Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and Draft Proposal
  • Chemical Weapons Convention
  • Mine Ban Treaty
  • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

    Some of these are pretty important and are backed by almost every nation in the world. What would the US's reasoning be behind not being against discrimination of women? Why would the US not want to grant inalienable human rights to a child? Why would the US be the only western nation (besides Cuba) to not want to ban land mines?

    "Washington's cynical attitude toward international human rights law has begun to weaken the US government's voice as an advocate for human rights around the [*353] world. Increasingly at UN human rights gatherings, other governments privately criticize Washington's "a la carte" approach to human rights. They see this approach reflected not only in the US government's narrow formula for ratifying human rights treaties but also in its refusal to join the recent treaty banning anti-personnel landmines and its opposition to the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court unless a mechanism can be found to exempt US citizens. For example, at the March-April 2000 session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, many governments privately cited Washington's inconsistent interest in international human rights standards to explain their lukewarm response to a US-sponsored resolution criticizing China's deteriorating human rights record.

    The US government should be concerned with its diminishing stature as a standard-bearer for human rights. US influence is built not solely on its military and economic power. At a time when US administrations seem preoccupied with avoiding any American casualties, the projection of US military power is not easy. US economic power, for its part, can engender as much resentment as influence. Much of why people worldwide admire the United States is because of the moral example it sets. That allure risks being tarnished if the US government is understood to believe that international human rights standards are only for other people, not for US citizens.



    [edit on 17-9-2004 by CatHerder]




  • posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 04:15 PM
    link   
    I know alot of thse that past thorugh the UN are sneaky lil things. I was talkin the swiss vice ambassador last year. HE was telling me how soem of these treaties force teh countriy to give up soverenty and for the UN to have the ability to prosecute. AMerica likes americans to be prosecuted in our country and not dragged off to teh haig or to whereever. We have amny of thsese same laws established in our country and maybe stricter ones. Its all bout the UN tryin to invade on other countries soverienty



    posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 04:26 PM
    link   
    Kyoto? You have got to be kidding me. The Senate voted 99-0 to reject it, that might be one reason.



    posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 05:47 PM
    link   
    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) This one strikes me the most very convinient with the war going on in Iraq.



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 02:07 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Quicksilver
    I know alot of thse that past thorugh the UN are sneaky lil things. I was talkin the swiss vice ambassador last year. HE was telling me how soem of these treaties force teh countriy to give up soverenty and for the UN to have the ability to prosecute. AMerica likes americans to be prosecuted in our country and not dragged off to teh haig or to whereever. We have amny of thsese same laws established in our country and maybe stricter ones. Its all bout the UN tryin to invade on other countries soverienty


    Ahh, ok I see. It's ok for the USA to demand and impose laws and "human rights" on other nations, but it's not ok for the USA to be held to the same human rights and laws. You don't think that weakens the USA's credibility at all in the rest of the world's eyes?

    No, I'm not attacking the US, I'm just curious what the average American thinks about information such as this. Information they've probably never even heard until the above post.

    [edit on 18-9-2004 by CatHerder]



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 02:33 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by marg6043
    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) This one strikes me the most very convinient with the war going on in Iraq.


    Indeed, the ICC - championed by the US and signed by Clinton, but then "unsigned" by Bush seems pretty convenient.

  • Currently, 139 nations have signed the Rome Statute (UNA-USA)
  • Countries Must Choose: ICC or U.S. Dollars (Toronto Star)
  • US Cuts Military Aid to Friendly Nations (OneWorld Publications)
  • U.S. cuts funding to 50 nations (CNN)
  • American Foreign Policy and the International Criminal Court (US State Dept)

    Currently, 139 nations have signed the Rome Statute, the Court's founding document, and as of March 2004, 92 states have ratified it. Among these ratifying nations are the United States' strongest allies, including Canada and all members of the European Union.

    I think either you support a law covering genocide and war crimes, or you prefer being able to commit genocide and war crimes. But then again, I'm not very well educated on this particular topic so I was hoping somebody else could educate me and others regarding the USA's reasoning behind their refusal to ratify the ICC.


    [edit on 18-9-2004 by CatHerder]



  • posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 02:42 PM
    link   
    Did you also know that during bush administration and refusal to sing, he also tried to bribe other nations into not signing or US will withhold financial aid to them?

    Very undemocratic way to force other nations to do bush biding.



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 04:18 PM
    link   
    See teh us does not support genoside but supports punishishemt to all those who do it. We dont need a law in the US THAT SUPERCEDES american law like many UN treaties do that punishes genocide. This would be a death trap for the United States. In the UN everynation is entitiled to 1 vote and they are all weighted equally. If the US submits itself to some international treaties you could have a group of rogue states accuse the president of violating INternational Law. And legally the president or whomever would be bound to it. I for one do not want our soverniety encroached on and my actions be subject to a stupid international law that can be defined many ways to be predudice against americans.



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 04:21 PM
    link   
    So how do you justify the International laws authored by and promoted by the US that encroach upon the soverniety of other nations?



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 04:28 PM
    link   
    So you refuse to apply the principles that form the western democracies to a larger scale?



    If the US submits itself to some international treaties you could have a group of rogue states accuse the president of violating INternational Law.

    Accusing someone is easy. Then that person or state would be trialed in a court or the matter investigated(depending on the claim).
    If the claim can be proved, there will be actions. That's the way it works.
    The US is not better than Serbia or Iraq. Just as you are not better than your neighbour or fellow citizens.
    Even if you fear that your president would be arrested or the FEMA Concentration Camps liberated, you could at least sign Kyoto and ban Landmines etc. If Mines are not considered civilised in the US, what do you have to fear? And if you regulate pollution locally, why not globally?



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 05:12 PM
    link   
    some of those listed were indeed signed and/or ratified, the test ban treaty and the abm treaty are both still in effect, the kyoto treaty would hurt our economy and give the UN far too much control over our domestic energy policy and our industries, we dont have to sign any treaty we dont want to and our sovergnty comes first, our country was based on getting away from foreign control and having sovergn control of our own land, theres even the 11th amendment which states: The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

    even the UN charter forbids itself from violating sovergnty: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.

    and here: The present Charter shall be ratified by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.



    [edit on 18-9-2004 by namehere]



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 05:23 PM
    link   
    I say good...the less treaties we sign the better. Many treaties have a bunch of stuff tide into them.



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 05:47 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by marg6043
    Did you also know that during bush administration and refusal to sing, he also tried to bribe other nations into not signing or US will withhold financial aid to them?

    Very undemocratic way to force other nations to do bush biding.


    Interesting. What angers me is how my money is tossed to other countries and then they stab us in the back. What? Do you think they have it coming to them just because?

    Every one of the "important treaties" has crappy language that is detrimental to the exact things they claim to be for. The children's human rights one, for example, is totally moronic. Do you realize that a 10 year old would be treadted as an adult, as if the child has the learning and experience to make decisions, and that the parent of the offspring would have to consider the dumbest of assertions of the child? If a parent in Topeka, for example, refused to let the child wander the streets at night eating junk food and not doing homework, in theory, the child could petition the U.N. to remove him from his overbearing parents.

    Important treaties? Moronic treaties.

    Does the U.S. have the right to impose its thoughts on human rights on the rest of the world? Wow, wouldn't want to do that, now would we? Not considering how enlightened places like Libya, Iran, China and North Korea are. Maybe we shouyld sit at their feet and take notes! Yeah, right.

    We have no need in signing onto any treaty that is detrimental to U.S. interests or sovereignty. When we become a nation that is ass-backwards and we have our collective hand out taking money from the nation that takes our place, then we'll think about it. Hopefully, we'll at least realize we owe the benevolent nation a debt of gratitude. And, when I see these nations conducting themselves in a manner suprerior to ours, then I think it'll be a good time to pay attention. So far, the collective known as the U.N., mainly funded by the U.S., just looks for ways to bilk this nation of its wealth.



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 05:54 PM
    link   
    Why in the world would any American support our elected leaders abdicating the powers that they have only temporarily to some unelected foreign power permanently. Especially since that body has had countries like Iraq chair a disarmament committee; Libya chair a Human rights committee; Syria on the Security Council and the list goes on.

    And as for using the club of money to 'buy' compliance that is what results from a large central government.....that would be called progressive, it is what the federal government has been doing to the states for many decades now, that is democracy run amuk.


    [edit on 18-9-2004 by keholmes]



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 05:55 PM
    link   
    I also don't see the taking of our tax payer dollars to be given to countries in order to bribe them either. And US seems to do that quite a lot.



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 06:19 PM
    link   


    So far, the collective known as the U.N., mainly funded by the U.S., just looks for ways to bilk this nation of its wealth

    Oh is that so?


    Not least, EU Member States are the largest financial contributor to the UN system. They pay around 37 %
    of the UNs regular budget, around 40 % of UN peacekeeping operations and around 50 % of all UN
    Member States contributions to UN funds and programmes. Despite the fact that they already contribute
    far more to the UN than its 28 % share of world GDP...

    source:
    europa.eu.int...

    The US ist the largest contributor as a single state.
    www.globalpolicy.org...




    Not considering how enlightened places like Libya, Iran, China and North Korea are. Maybe we shouyld sit at their feet and take notes! Yeah, right.

    You could start by leaving International affairs to international organisations and give these countries the same rights that you want for yourself.
    These Countries are no Democracies but isn't it a great way to teach people democracy by ignoring it on a global scale?


    [edit on 18/9/04 by tsuribito]



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 06:36 PM
    link   
    I usually don't get involved in UN rants, but seeing as today is a slow news day....

    I grew up in a UN trusteeship and lived there for twelve years, from age 5 to age 17. It was them the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (now independent countries, among them the the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia). Back then it was administered by the United States, but our 'national' holidy was October 24th and we flew the blue thing instead of the American flag. So I guess I have some background....

    You need to understand that the UN is primarily two things: a debating society, and a mechanism for the majority of the countries comprising it -- a bunch of socialist mendicants -- to attempt to extract money from other countries, first among them the United States of America.

    They Law of the Sea is a great example of this. The UN posits that, since the sea belongs to no one, no one country can claim the sea-bed for puposes such as colonization or mining. Well, that makes sense; who is the USA to say that no one can mine the bed of the Irish Sea except them?

    Unfortunately, the Law of the Sea goes a bit further. the UN claims that the sea-bed belongs to ALL nations, and that if if any nation chooses to mine the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, it must share the bounty of its mining with all the other nations! Now obviously, neither Mongolia nor the Democratic Republic of the Congo are going to invest heavily in sea-bed mining; they have neither the desire, money, or expertise to do so. And anyway, under the Law of the Sea, why should they? All they need to do is sit back and watch one of the nations with the engineering skills, desire, will-power, and money (translation: the United States) to do so, and then stick their hand out for their "share"!

    The Kyoto Accords are pretty much the same way. This piece of Judiciary juju, in an attempt to clean up pollution, says that all countries must cut down on their pollution and, if they must pollute more than the UN-imposed maximum, can buy "pollution credits" from countries that don't pollute.

    What this means is that a country that manufactures a lot is going to pollute a lot, and they can kep on manufacturing (and in the process, polluting) if they make payments to countries which don't manufacture and have pollution "credits" to sell, such as Mongolia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In other words, in order to build more American airplanes or houses, we have to bribe bureaucrats in Ulan Bator and Kinshasa.

    By the way, did I say that "all countries must cut down on their pollution..."? Oops, my mistake! Silly me, I forgot that India and China, as "developing" countries (and HUGE polluters) are exempt from the requirements of these accords.



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 07:02 PM
    link   
    well spoken everyone.

    ITs the USA duty to protect its citizens freedoms by not signing these treaties.

    glad the calvary came beginning to worry lol



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 07:10 PM
    link   


    Did you also know that during bush administration and refusal to sing, he also tried to bribe other nations into not signing or US will withhold financial aid to them?


    What in the world?????????????? I think its the greatest thing. It is OUR money we are giving away to countries for FREE. I believe we should not give OUR money to any country unless they do what we want.

    Let me edit real quick and say...I dont mind giving FREE money away during natural disasters. But any other time that FREE money of OURS that we are giving to them should only be given if they do what we want.

    [edit on 18-9-2004 by ajm4481]



    posted on Sep, 18 2004 @ 07:30 PM
    link   
    its because the arrogant american pigs who run the white house are corrupt criminals and do not sign these treaties because of commercial interests or they do not want their power to be lessened while they like to dictate to the world. The hypocrisy sickens me.

    but that's the govt, the American people on the other hand prefer to have their sovereignty with the US govt and don't want to be accountable to the UN (those socialist europeans and third world dictators).



    new topics

    top topics



     
    0
    <<   2  3 >>

    log in

    join