The U.N.: Threat or Menace? by Geezer

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The U.N.: Threat or Menace?

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Sunday, September 24, 2006 19:48
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1939
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
The UN is funded by the US... I say kick'em out of NYC let'em fend for them selves. Well' it's true

I live in NYC. I get to watch these drunkin diploooo types make asses of them selves on the American dime...Fuck 'em

I definately agree with this GET RID OF'EM!!! They are the true sponges on society!! They are rich enough ta take care of themselves!!! KICK'EM ALL OUT AND START OVER!!!!!!!!

I wear a blaster under my Browncoat

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 24, 2006 7:48 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
What interested me was that we signed the convention in 1980, but never ratified it (I assume Congress was supposed to do this). Wonder why?

I was also amused by some of the countries which did sign and ratify the convention, promising:
-to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women;
-to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination; and
-to ensure elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises.

These dedicated countries include; Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, North Korea, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. A complete list can be found here: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/states.htm

Maybe the hypocracy level was just too much for even the US Congress to go along with.

Aha. I knew there was thread somewhere around here where I owed a response.

One of the reasons why we don't ratify this is because of pressure from the religious right. Anything dealing with reproductive rights gets their back up. And it's a pretty influential back.

To back up for a second, we really don't talk about women's rights in this country the way it is talked about in other first world countries. The kinds of studies that show the amount of unpaid work that women do on a regular basis just aren't done here. Stuff like how many hours a week a mother works and all the different jobs that she does and what that would cost if you actually hired someone. Many countries have provisions where women get paid while they take time off to have a baby. We're just starting to scratch the surface with stuff like that. To go random... A friend of mine who emigrated to France was paid by the government for breast feeding her baby. No way that would fly in the US. Compared to other first world countries we have a long way to go wrt women's rights.

With developing countries it's a whole nother ball game. The biggest fights are for women's rights with regard to water rights and property rights. Something we take for granted in the first world. Many of the countries that signed on to CEDAW are in this group.

And it's only as good as the effort the country puts in. That's the part you noted. You have to look at it on a country by country basis to see if any work is even done at all. The countries submit reports periodically. Many of the countries that we think of as having a horrendous record on women's rights issues do not submit reports at all. But these are precisely the places where one change could make a huge difference. So that is where some leverage could be brought to bear.

In my mind, there has been some positive advances because of CEDAW. It's a long term process, for sure, but there's some movement. Having everyone on board (the US included) means that every country is encouraged to make some movement. For developing countries, that movement may not seem like anything substantial from our point of view. For countries like the US, we've reached the point where there are groups opposed on ideological grounds to even recognizing we might have a problem.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer
When the UN acts as a humanitarian agency, or acts as sort of a super-NGO to provide assistance, it does it pretty well, in part because of the cachet the UN name brings to the table.

When it trys to act as a meta-government; either passing laws that member States agree to support and then ignore at will, like the CEDAW, or in preventing genocide or other governmental crimes perpetrated by a member State, its record is dismal.

I think there's a tremendous opportunity for the UN as meta-government. But if the most powerful country on the planet doesn't play ball, other countries don't see the need to play ball either. In my mind, we're part of the reason why things like CEDAW are not as effective as they could be. The fact that they are effective, on some level, however, is a tremendous positive.

Scattered and disjointed and late to the party, but a response nonetheless

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE