United Nations

U.N. Disabilities Treaty Undermines U.S. Sovereignty

The United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) would deliver a blow to United States sovereignty and federalism and would do nothing to help those who suffer from disabilities in the United States.  The United States is already the world leader in protecting people with disabilities.  What’s more, other countries can feel free to sign the treaty; their involvement is not contingent in any way on whether the United States signs the treaty or not.

Yet the liberals – Republicans and Democrats alike – in Congress are trying to subject our country — in which disabled Americans’ rights already receive robust protections under the law, which are enforced by a wide range of state and federal agencies — to the whims of some board of “experts” in Geneva, Switzerland.  Today at noon, the U.S. Senate will decide whether or not to ratify the treaty.

Playing on emotions, liberals in the media have tried to portray conservatives as behind the times compared to countries like China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Syria, and Saudi Arabia who are signatories of the disabilities treaty.  They say, “we don’t actually have to do anything except say we like the treaty — and then wait for other signatories around the world to catch up to the United States’ laws.”

Not so fast!

America would be bound by this treaty, but certain other countries do not have the best track record of abiding by treaties.  America still believes in the rule of law; other countries do not.  (New START comes to mind.)  Take China, for example, which has failed to abide by the Law of the Sea Treaty, even though, (gasp) they signed it.

Heritage’s Steve Groves explains:

Other nationsincluding many that are party to the treatyregularly violate customary international maritime law (and the provisions of LOST) by making excessive claims about the extent of their territorial waters.”

Acknowledging the hard facts and historical evidence makes the mistake of relying on U.N. treaties (that are regularly violated by countries that are party to those treaties) very clear.

More importantly, regarding the Disabilities Treaty, Groves explains:

The U.S. Congress, American civil society, and special interest groups are far better positioned to conduct such reviews than a committee of disability experts from Bangladesh, China, Qatar, and Tunisia, which are current members of the CRPD Committee.”

Liberal politicians can’t put forth a coherent argument for why we should sign the treaty.  And when there is no rational, reasonable cause for it, they are forced to rely on raw emotion.  Senator John Kerry (D-MA) said that the proposal simply “raises the international standard to our level without requiring us to go further.”

Then why should we ratify it?

We shouldn’t.  It simply doesn’t make sense to ratify a treaty that yields authority to some unaccountable board of experts across the Atlantic and does absolutely nothing to improve the rights of Americans with disabilities.

Kerry says that travel abroad will be made easier for veterans with disabilities, but Steve Groves explains that this is totally “non sequitur, and it has nothing to do with the treaty at all.”

There is no good argument to ratify the U.N. Disabilities Treaty, but there is long list of reasons to oppose it.

Suggested Tweets
#Senate should not ratify the #UN Disabilities Treaty. It will undermine US sovereignty and federalism.

Tweet This

Please Share Your Thoughts
  • http://www.facebook.com/gregorycreswell Gregory Creswell

    Screw the U.N.

    • VanceJ

      I’ll second that motion.

    • shonangreg

      I’d legitimately like to know the specifics of how signing this treaty would compromise US sovereignty. The media is full of people blasting the Republicans refusal to sign, but the Heritage Foundation’s own website doesn’t give any specifics for why to not sign.

      Do the Republicans not have any reasons? Please tell me this is not as bad as liberals are making it look. Please tell me I’m missing something here and you can explain it.

      Please proceed, Gregory (and other GOP supporters).

      • DB1954

        I admit I know little or nothing about this treaty. All I know is that I don’t trust the UN. That’s reason enough. They’ve been in the US too long, freeloading on us while vilifying the US in every way. If you want to do something for the poorest country in the Americas, put the UN Headquarters in Haiti, IF the Haitians will have you. The last Haitian I talked to told me that the UN does nothing for Haitians, and that the Blue Helmets only make prostitutes out of poor Haitian girls, spread VD and AIDS. Maybe if the UN were re-located there, the UN bureaucrats who’re getting rich off of the corruption of so-called humanitarian projects there would be more answerable when Haitians are hungry or ripped off by UN bureaucrats.

        • shonangreg

          Trust? We don’t need to trust the UN. That is what contracts and lawyers and treaties are for.

          With all the lawyers in Congress, I expect much more than just foot stomping. Retreating from the world because you don’t trust it is a sign on uncertainty — and weakness. We should be leading, not retreating.

          And if there is a problem with the treaty, I expect our Senators to tell us why specifically. Where is the threat to American sovereignty?

    • DB1954

      Amen. There’s nothing out of the UN that I would even consider. NOTHING. And as far as US sovereignty, I won’t give an inch to them. NOTHING. In fact, the UN should get its a** out of the US, and the US should get out of the UN, not necessarily in that order.

  • Donnie S.

    Well the treaty wasn’t ratified; however, nothing in this article indicated why the treaty shouldn’t be ratified. In fact, it was just an argument in favor of US sovereignty and federalism. Keep in mind that this is the same country where the Treasury Department, although it lost in court, had refused until 2010 to update its monetary system to incorporate tactile braille-like features (like in Canada, Mexico, and India), so that people with visual disabilities can have greater access and use of money. As of now, people who are blind have must rely on sighted people or currency-reading machines to determine the value of each bill before filing it away using the system of their choice (like folding bills in different ways to denote denominations). This means that no matter how organized they are, blind people still have to trust sighted people or machines each time they receive US banknotes.

    • tevic

      I think the US Sovereignty and federalism is more than enough reason. Like the article states we already have strong laws for the disabled to a fault since they have scum bag lawyers that have paid disabled people just to look for marks to extort and sue..but i digress

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Anne-Caddick-Basso/597328063 Anne Caddick Basso

        Yes, we have many protections for our disabled. But ratifying the treaty would have given the United States a seat at the table in helping other countries bring their standards up to ours. You keep using words like “sovereignty ” and “federalism” but I have yet to hear anyone actually make a case for how the treaty would affect those things. And for why it’s worth, I have been a homeschooling parent and I have children with disabilities. Personally, I have no such concerns. I’m terribly disappointed that we have been denied a place at the international table, and the opportunity to share our vast knowledge on the subject of disability because of unfounded and ignorant fears.

        • mymitchy

          and 99% doesn’t even know what sovereign or federalist is

        • DB1954

          I don’t care to help other countries bring their standards up to ours. Sorry, I just don’t. That’s their problem, not ours.

          • myles

            So would you be against the United States signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? I take issue with the idea that human rights abuses outside the United States shouldn’t concern us. I think that just as an “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” that right abuses anywhere are a threat to the human rights everywhere. I think there is a reason that the Declaration of independence talks about all people being equal, not just the American people.

          • tevic

            I would because “Human Rights” can be vague along cultures..whats a right in on nation is a crime in another

          • johnrysf

            DB1954:

            Interesting assertions. Please help us all by providing proof.

            Thank you.

    • DB1954

      The article states why the treaty shouldn’t have been ratified: it’s yet another infringement on American sovereignty and federalism. Whatever difficulties blind people might have in counting the value of US paper currency, don’t you think we can deal with that without the help of the UN or other nations? I mean, why is it absolutely crucial that we allow some other extra-national political body the right to dictate to us what our laws must be? Can’t we formulate some system to do this for ourselves? You haven’t addressed the sovereignty issue at all. You just assume that this responsibility and / or right should be turned over to another political entity, simply because it’s not accountable to US citizens. You’ve not told us why a foreign political entity would formulate and operationalize a better system for blind Americans, you’ve just assumed that they would because it’s a foreign entity.

    • http://www.facebook.com/todd.reeder.5 Todd Reeder

      You could have paper money marked with braille. But what protects a blind person from getting cheated when paying for something? A clerk at store could tell the blind person the wrong price to cheat them out of money.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lisagwhitehead Lisa Whitehead

    You people truly are idiotic.

    • DB1954

      Based on what? You call us idiots, and you cite absolutely no reason for it? Who’s the real idiot? That “all conservatives are idiots” because Barack Obama says so is going to play out much sooner than you expect.

      • http://www.facebook.com/lisagwhitehead Lisa Whitehead

        LOL….Because Barack Obama says so?? Really? No, because every time one of you idiots opens your mouth you PROVE ME RIGHT. And “sooner than you expect”? WTF does that mean? Revolution? LOL….Idiot.

    • tevic

      You voted for Obama..

  • mymitchy

    you say:
    Playing on emotions, liberals in the media have tried to portray conservatives as behind the times compared to countries like China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Syria, and Saudi Arabia who are signatories of the disabilities treaty. They say, “we don’t actually have to do anything except say we like the treaty — and then wait for other signatories around the world to catch up to the United States’ laws.”

    Not so fast!
    ——————-
    no so fast indeed, since you forgot to mention 155 nations & 126 countries, including Britain, France, Germany that signed this document.
    I do apologize Ms. Rosario but this article is shallow on the account that it uses self serving examples (distorting reality) in order to present itself as a truth. Please refrain yourself from public speaking since your mission is propaganda (just like journalists in those countries you mention – apparatchik).

    • DB1954

      The UN is NOT trustworthy. If you only knew the abuses the UN has perpetrated on the Haitian people alone, you’d know that not even Hillary Clinton likes or trusts the UN. The UN is nothing but a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats and their ‘Blue Helmet” soldiers are pimps and exploiters of women and children everywhere they go. They sometimes even murder the people they are supposed to protect. Liberals make this claim and that about the innocence and good intentions of the UN, but they have NEVER proven themselves worthy of trust. If they claimed that the sun would rise tomorrow, I wouldn’t believe them. Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN.

      • mymitchy

        you agree with the author I understand that now but I am writing about inability of the author to provide more inquisitive text. It’s like a party pamphlet.

  • Jimmy Lin

    Bullshit. The treaty didn’t have any enforcement mechanism. Meaning it has zero ability to change the American system (which is the ADA). Instead it was the U.N wanting to have a SYMBOLIC treaty to show that they want to follow American standards for disabled people in other parts of the world.

    Yet we failed to ratify it. Sovereignty is a bullshit excuse since nothing in that treaty affects our sovereignty. Enjoy your downfall as a political party in the next 20 years, delusion and paranoia doesn’t work when it comes to governing.

    • DB1954

      Anything from the UN is suspect in my opinion. You say it had no enforcement mechanism? Well, if it’s from the UN, it probably will next year or the next. Progressives are patient. They always work incrementally.

  • myles

    I don’t understand how this violates U.S sovereignty. It simply urges nations to adopt similar laws that are provided in the United States. Who are theses “experts” in Geneva the article is referring to? What power do they have over U.S law? What happened to the idea of “American Leadership” in the arena of human rights? My understanding of the Heritage’s reasoning is “we can’t sign a treaty urging other countries to treat people with disabilities equally and to protect their rights because 1)it wouldn’t benefit us since we already do that, 2) other countries might ignore it anyways, and 3) it could violate our sovereignty. Three has no evidence and nothing in the treaty suggests such an authority of the UN and 1 and 2 seem to be reason for rejecting ANY international agreement on human rights. By the logic offered in 1 and 2, the United States shouldn’t sign on to the Declaration of Human Rights, since we (more so than others) already protect human right and other countries might ignore the declaration anyways. If Heritage supports the U.S signing of the Declaration of Human Rights, I see no reason they should be against this treaty.

  • http://www.facebook.com/todd.reeder.5 Todd Reeder

    Why do we need a world government organization telling use what we can and can’t do? I read Article 7 gives the government the power to override every decision of the parent of a disabled child by using the caveat “the best interest of the child.” This phrase has already been abused by family courts to substitute judges’ decisions for parents’ decisions and transferring the use of that phrase to the government or to a U.N. committee is the wrong way to go. What if that takes away rights of the parents? The founder of planned parentood said “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” What if this organization decides it is better for the person to be dead? In nazi germany they thought it was better for people with certain disabilities to be dead. So they started killing them.

  • jim

    As a conservative republican and the parent of a disabled
    child, I am surprised by your stance on this treaty. Many of us in this conservative movement are Christians.
    The Christian stance would clearly be
    based on how critical it is to treat, support and love the “least of these”. I
    travel the world and see the deplorable situations that the disabled often
    live. The “least of these” throughout
    much of the world are the disabled. How can our conservative argument be based on
    the treaty “does absolutely nothing to improve
    the rights of Americans with disabilities.” We
    have the opportunity to encourage the rest of the world to help children and
    persons in great need. We are truly a light on a hill in terms of this
    issue. Why wouldn’t we use our voice to say
    to the rest of the world – follow our example and take care of your disabled
    citizens. Your opposition seems selfish and
    misguided.

  • Pingback: List the Top Ten GOP Accomplishments That Have Helped Voters in the Past Five Years - Page 28()