Thoughts on the UN disability treaty vote, Rich?
Me: I hadn't heard about it, had to look it up. Looks like it's modeled after our own ADA.
I have two thoughts. First, a treaty is binding: Constitution, Article VI, section 2: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." This means if we happen to modify or repeal ADA, we are still bound by the provisions of the treaty. Second, a treaty is defined as "a formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade." Is the UN a country?
What are you thinking about it?
B.R.: I'm wondering what the benefit of blocking it is. I don't buy that it's a threat to American sovereignty. I don't buy that Rick Santorum thinks the UN is going to invade his home to make decisions about his children. And I don't think the GOP would walk into such obviously bad PR without some kind of motive. So I guess I'm wondering what that motive is.
Me: That's the thing about this kind of stuff. Whenever the GOP opposes something, it's always represented as extreme, damaging to the poor and elderly, hateful, greedy, etc. Once enough people have accepted the faulty notion that the government is the fount of all things compassionate, the GOP has lost the argument. And that's why they lost the election.
Since the treaty duplicates the ADA, what would be the point of binding us to treaty when our law already covers it?
B.R.: Well, the Democrats rarely take a stand to oppose bills that do damage to the poor and elderly - unless I'm mistaken.
I think the point of the treaty is to encourage other countries to follow our lead, not just for their own disabled citizens, but for our disabled citizens when traveling or on business abroad. I'm used to the GOP's attitude that America is the example of greatness, and that other countries should follow our examples instead of the other way around. So this vote seems like a turnaround from that ideology.
Me: According to Politico, the treaty is "...already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries...", so I doubt the reason is to be an example.
As far as the Democrats, notice the sweet deal they have. All they have to do is rush in with the government wallet and proclaim how compassionate they are. Issues of affordability, constitutionality, waste, fraud, and abuse are ignored because they require higher cognitive consideration than the emotional context of tossing around govt money.
B.R.: The treaty is modeled after ADA, so it already IS an example, but by ratifying it ourselves, we put our stamp on it. It's still the same purpose as I suggested.
What are the extra costs involved in this treaty?
Me: Then the symbolism is enough reason, in your opinion?
B.R.: No, I'm honestly asking, what are the costs of voting to approve the treaty? What are we spending, risking, losing?
Me: Treaties, historically, have been between nations that intend to cooperate for mutual advantage, or for things like the cessation of hostilities. This treaty, however, is not with a nation, it does not negotiate an issue to establish the rights of parties, it does not deal with war, economic disputes, trade issues, or anything like that. This is a political statement, a tool to bludgeon uncooperative nations, a statement that does absolutely nothing to improve the plight of the disabled. And since we already do what the treaty wants, not only is there no substance, there is no reason.
B.R.: You're correct about everything but this part: "a statement that does absolutely nothing to improve the plight of the disabled". This treaty would improve the likelihood that disabled Americans - including veterans - would have the ease and consideration in their international travels and business that they do in America. I'm not asking you to fight for the cause of this treaty, I simply want to know why it deserved to be voted down. This really seems like a no-brainer, an easy thing we could all agree on. If we can find reasons to vote this down, can't we find reasons to vote anything down?
Me: I sincerely doubt that this would do a single thing to improve anything regarding international travel for the disabled. I doubt that you can find a single UN treaty or resolution that quantifiably improved anyone's life.
I haven't said that it deserved to be voted down. But I can't find any reason at all that it should be passed.
B.R.: Bummer.
------------------
And then this follow up conversation:
B.R.: Can anyone name a U.N. treaty or resolution that has quantifiably improved anyone's life?
P.N.: The 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?
A.M.: United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951. Though it took the US 30 years to do so, it was forced under this Convention to grant asylum to tens of thousands of central American immigrants who had fled civil war in their home country.
A.M.: Further, though some of the United Nations Acts may not have seen direct results, by establishing an international standard it pushes countries to be better. It holds countries accountable and when necessary establishes international precedent for times when it is ok for the international community to intervene in a countries sovereignty. the UN convention on Genocide is specifically one of such UN actions. Also the human rights declaration lays out a very clear set of standards for what rights every global citizen should be given. This is priceless.
B.R.: Whattaya think, Rich?
Me: Well, I don't see these things as anything more than the UN engaging in impotent posturing, fankly. Rogue nations continue to ignore them, and compliant nations already do them. Did China suddenly turn over a new leaf? Did Saddam aquiese and cease his aggression Did Syria start treating its women like western nations do? What is North Korea doing differently because of UN initiatives? Sorry, I just don't see it...
A.M.: China has seen the greatest poverty reduction in history in the last 10 years, I wouldn't claim that its just because of the UN standards, but I don't think it hurt.
.m.: Also the United Nations Development goals has pushed nations to take serious steps to helping the most impoverished and unrepresented people of the world with the support of the international community. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/mdg/the-millennium-development-goals-report-2012/
B.R.: Rich - here's a more important question: do you WANT the U.N. to work?
Me: I don't think that's the most important question at all. Human nature is ruled by the aggressive use of force. People, or more specifically, tyrants, do not listen to reason or platitudes. That's why they're tyrants.
B.R.: Ugh...hence the attempts of the United Nations! Do you want the U.N. to work or not?
Me: China has been improved by its acceptance of capitalism.
Me: We have a government in the US. We don't need another one. Do you think the UN respects and honors the US?
B.R.: Yes, obviously, it respects us as it does many other free and cooperative nations. Would you rather the UN not exist?
Me: Obviously? The UN is continually at odds with america. We are viewed as uncooperative, we make our own decisions, we don't play well with others.
B.R.: Can you address my question before we talk any further? Would you rather the U.N. be successful in its purpose or unsuccessful?
Me: I want them to fail at their quest to create a overarching quasi-governmental organization with the power to tell sovereign nations what they can and can't do.
B.R.: Thank you. It seems to me that your apprehension to support the UN in any way plays a greater part in your opinion of the recent GOP vote to block the ADA-style treaty than the content of the treaty itself. Would you agree?
Me: I think you presume too much. I was pretty specific in what I wanted them to fail at. "In any way" is something I did not say.
B.R.: Well, I'm just trying to understand, so it's a little hit and miss obviously. So you think that the ADA-style treaty would have created more threat than benefit to disabled American citizens? You think there's a greater chance that the treaty would have harmed disabled citizens than help them?
Me: We had an extended conversation on the other thread. I hate to repeat myself.
Whether it helps anyone is an open question. Since we already have the ADA, which is what the treaty is modeled after, it won't change anything for Americans. Dictatorships will not change. Sympathetic nations will change.
We also noted the nature of treaties, what their purpose is. This treaty doesn't follow the template of a true treaty. And, treaties we adopt carry the the same weight as the constitution as the highest law of the land.
In this thread we considered the idea of whether UN treaties or resolutions have helped anyone. What I conclude from that is the passage of a treaty is synomymous with helping people. Whether people have actually been helped therefore remains an open question.
Lastly, we have broached the faulty idea that opposing a treaty or resolution is synonymous with hating the people the treaty purports to help. By extension, opposing a treaty or resolution is the same thing as obstructing peace, health, and prosperity.
B.R.: I agree that idea is faulty, and I don't think you hate disabled people for not supporting this treaty. I'm just trying to weed through the equally faulty assumption that this treaty won't help anyone, or at least anyone that we should care about. After this discussion, it seems to me that you have a mistrust of the UN which guides your opinions of their actions as a whole, which is obviously your right. Since I don't share that mistrust, and since I do believe that the UN has helped people in its global efforts, I think the potential benefits of this treaty ("sympathetic nations will change") outweigh the potential risks (committing ourselves to ADA-style regulations in the US), and therefore I believe it should have been passed. Thanks as always for the insight into your views and the reasoning behind them.
Me: I hadn't heard about it, had to look it up. Looks like it's modeled after our own ADA.
I have two thoughts. First, a treaty is binding: Constitution, Article VI, section 2: "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." This means if we happen to modify or repeal ADA, we are still bound by the provisions of the treaty. Second, a treaty is defined as "a formal agreement between two or more states, as in reference to terms of peace or trade." Is the UN a country?
What are you thinking about it?
B.R.: I'm wondering what the benefit of blocking it is. I don't buy that it's a threat to American sovereignty. I don't buy that Rick Santorum thinks the UN is going to invade his home to make decisions about his children. And I don't think the GOP would walk into such obviously bad PR without some kind of motive. So I guess I'm wondering what that motive is.
Me: That's the thing about this kind of stuff. Whenever the GOP opposes something, it's always represented as extreme, damaging to the poor and elderly, hateful, greedy, etc. Once enough people have accepted the faulty notion that the government is the fount of all things compassionate, the GOP has lost the argument. And that's why they lost the election.
Since the treaty duplicates the ADA, what would be the point of binding us to treaty when our law already covers it?
B.R.: Well, the Democrats rarely take a stand to oppose bills that do damage to the poor and elderly - unless I'm mistaken.
I think the point of the treaty is to encourage other countries to follow our lead, not just for their own disabled citizens, but for our disabled citizens when traveling or on business abroad. I'm used to the GOP's attitude that America is the example of greatness, and that other countries should follow our examples instead of the other way around. So this vote seems like a turnaround from that ideology.
Me: According to Politico, the treaty is "...already signed by 155 nations and ratified by 126 countries...", so I doubt the reason is to be an example.
As far as the Democrats, notice the sweet deal they have. All they have to do is rush in with the government wallet and proclaim how compassionate they are. Issues of affordability, constitutionality, waste, fraud, and abuse are ignored because they require higher cognitive consideration than the emotional context of tossing around govt money.
B.R.: The treaty is modeled after ADA, so it already IS an example, but by ratifying it ourselves, we put our stamp on it. It's still the same purpose as I suggested.
What are the extra costs involved in this treaty?
Me: Then the symbolism is enough reason, in your opinion?
B.R.: No, I'm honestly asking, what are the costs of voting to approve the treaty? What are we spending, risking, losing?
Me: Treaties, historically, have been between nations that intend to cooperate for mutual advantage, or for things like the cessation of hostilities. This treaty, however, is not with a nation, it does not negotiate an issue to establish the rights of parties, it does not deal with war, economic disputes, trade issues, or anything like that. This is a political statement, a tool to bludgeon uncooperative nations, a statement that does absolutely nothing to improve the plight of the disabled. And since we already do what the treaty wants, not only is there no substance, there is no reason.
B.R.: You're correct about everything but this part: "a statement that does absolutely nothing to improve the plight of the disabled". This treaty would improve the likelihood that disabled Americans - including veterans - would have the ease and consideration in their international travels and business that they do in America. I'm not asking you to fight for the cause of this treaty, I simply want to know why it deserved to be voted down. This really seems like a no-brainer, an easy thing we could all agree on. If we can find reasons to vote this down, can't we find reasons to vote anything down?
Me: I sincerely doubt that this would do a single thing to improve anything regarding international travel for the disabled. I doubt that you can find a single UN treaty or resolution that quantifiably improved anyone's life.
I haven't said that it deserved to be voted down. But I can't find any reason at all that it should be passed.
B.R.: Bummer.
------------------
And then this follow up conversation:
B.R.: Can anyone name a U.N. treaty or resolution that has quantifiably improved anyone's life?
P.N.: The 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?
A.M.: United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951. Though it took the US 30 years to do so, it was forced under this Convention to grant asylum to tens of thousands of central American immigrants who had fled civil war in their home country.
A.M.: Further, though some of the United Nations Acts may not have seen direct results, by establishing an international standard it pushes countries to be better. It holds countries accountable and when necessary establishes international precedent for times when it is ok for the international community to intervene in a countries sovereignty. the UN convention on Genocide is specifically one of such UN actions. Also the human rights declaration lays out a very clear set of standards for what rights every global citizen should be given. This is priceless.
B.R.: Whattaya think, Rich?
Me: Well, I don't see these things as anything more than the UN engaging in impotent posturing, fankly. Rogue nations continue to ignore them, and compliant nations already do them. Did China suddenly turn over a new leaf? Did Saddam aquiese and cease his aggression Did Syria start treating its women like western nations do? What is North Korea doing differently because of UN initiatives? Sorry, I just don't see it...
A.M.: China has seen the greatest poverty reduction in history in the last 10 years, I wouldn't claim that its just because of the UN standards, but I don't think it hurt.
.m.: Also the United Nations Development goals has pushed nations to take serious steps to helping the most impoverished and unrepresented people of the world with the support of the international community. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/mdg/the-millennium-development-goals-report-2012/
B.R.: Rich - here's a more important question: do you WANT the U.N. to work?
Me: I don't think that's the most important question at all. Human nature is ruled by the aggressive use of force. People, or more specifically, tyrants, do not listen to reason or platitudes. That's why they're tyrants.
B.R.: Ugh...hence the attempts of the United Nations! Do you want the U.N. to work or not?
Me: China has been improved by its acceptance of capitalism.
Me: We have a government in the US. We don't need another one. Do you think the UN respects and honors the US?
B.R.: Yes, obviously, it respects us as it does many other free and cooperative nations. Would you rather the UN not exist?
Me: Obviously? The UN is continually at odds with america. We are viewed as uncooperative, we make our own decisions, we don't play well with others.
B.R.: Can you address my question before we talk any further? Would you rather the U.N. be successful in its purpose or unsuccessful?
Me: I want them to fail at their quest to create a overarching quasi-governmental organization with the power to tell sovereign nations what they can and can't do.
B.R.: Thank you. It seems to me that your apprehension to support the UN in any way plays a greater part in your opinion of the recent GOP vote to block the ADA-style treaty than the content of the treaty itself. Would you agree?
Me: I think you presume too much. I was pretty specific in what I wanted them to fail at. "In any way" is something I did not say.
B.R.: Well, I'm just trying to understand, so it's a little hit and miss obviously. So you think that the ADA-style treaty would have created more threat than benefit to disabled American citizens? You think there's a greater chance that the treaty would have harmed disabled citizens than help them?
Me: We had an extended conversation on the other thread. I hate to repeat myself.
Whether it helps anyone is an open question. Since we already have the ADA, which is what the treaty is modeled after, it won't change anything for Americans. Dictatorships will not change. Sympathetic nations will change.
We also noted the nature of treaties, what their purpose is. This treaty doesn't follow the template of a true treaty. And, treaties we adopt carry the the same weight as the constitution as the highest law of the land.
In this thread we considered the idea of whether UN treaties or resolutions have helped anyone. What I conclude from that is the passage of a treaty is synomymous with helping people. Whether people have actually been helped therefore remains an open question.
Lastly, we have broached the faulty idea that opposing a treaty or resolution is synonymous with hating the people the treaty purports to help. By extension, opposing a treaty or resolution is the same thing as obstructing peace, health, and prosperity.
B.R.: I agree that idea is faulty, and I don't think you hate disabled people for not supporting this treaty. I'm just trying to weed through the equally faulty assumption that this treaty won't help anyone, or at least anyone that we should care about. After this discussion, it seems to me that you have a mistrust of the UN which guides your opinions of their actions as a whole, which is obviously your right. Since I don't share that mistrust, and since I do believe that the UN has helped people in its global efforts, I think the potential benefits of this treaty ("sympathetic nations will change") outweigh the potential risks (committing ourselves to ADA-style regulations in the US), and therefore I believe it should have been passed. Thanks as always for the insight into your views and the reasoning behind them.
No comments:
Post a Comment