tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1673747533541391425.post1797573931587614892..comments2009-10-18T06:39:50.895+03:00Mark Jacobsenhttps://profiles.google.com/107999162787819355839noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1673747533541391425.post-41628181607934007062009-10-18T03:31:27.232+03:002009-10-18T03:31:27.232+03:00It is a deception game. It is a common tactic to use deception to speak for your opponent in a forum where your opponent can not speak for himself (last minute campaign adds, national media, etc). Thus, not signing the charter is used to say we endorse everything that charter would hope to ban and that our values are the same as Somalia. There are very legitimate reasons for not signing and those need to be articulated. To agree simply to quiet our opposition would be to surrender our integrity and truly compromise the legitimate concerns that exist with the UNCRC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1673747533541391425.post-34193169178273607222009-10-09T07:13:03.482+03:002009-10-09T07:13:03.482+03:00According to Wikipedia, "The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention. It commented on nearly all of the articles, and proposed the original text of seven of them. Three of these come direct from the United States Constitution and were proposed by the administration of President Ronald Reagan." It seems strange that the US, particularly during the '80s, wan not able to secure a version of the Convention more to its liking. At any rate, you're correct that the US is not playing the perception game successfully, to its own detriment. Perhaps as a starting point, the US could, apart from this Convention, take a serious and unambiguous issue confronting children - human trafficking and sexual slavery, say - and lead a well-funded, highly-publicized, multilateral international effort against it. The UNCRC has 54 articles; the US might benefit from drafting some brief, direct resolutions which directly target specific issues as opposed to getting bogged down in dubious, interminable all-or-nothing conventions.Sam Sundquisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00168137243961193026noreply@blogger.com