US opposes many of 2005's treaties
Sure sounds horrible. We must be a nation of self serving bigots and racists... at least that's what the article seems to imply.
And how many of the 170 nations have actually done something to improve woman's rights? There are some women in Afghanistan and Iraq who got to vote recently for the first time thanks to the US and our allies that might disagree with the statement that the US "lakcs the political will". Actions speak louder than treaties you know. Who has signed this treaty? Afghanistan, back in 1980 signed because the Taliban was such a huge fan of women's rights. Cambodia [updated 12/28 new article via Bloomberg] signed back in 1980 a year after Pol Pot was in power. The Khmer Rouge is a big women's rights supporter (if there were any left). Cuba signed in 1980. Castro loves the ladies, but does he love women's rights? Cuba communists say yes. Jordan signed in 1980 because nothing says women's rights like an honor killing. Russia signed back in 1980. I can't remember... were they still communists back then? Rwanda signed back in 1980 because Hutus love Tutsi women. And the US signed back in 1980 (one of 98 countries to sign); we've just never ratified it. How about some of the countries that did ratify it? Haiti, North Korea, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Wow. What a powerful convention this must be. The women's lib movement is just oozing out of these countries. Just out of curiosity what else didn't we sign?
Because people's cultures just diappear when they get to the US. Nevermind that we think there are trade implications that this treaty could hamper, we need to protect the culture. Do we need to protect all of the culture? What about cultural relics like the honor killings I mentioned above? It's part of the culture, but it isn't exactly condusive to women's rights. That's a catch-22, that is.
Well, we just talked about 13 of the 15 EU nations who signed up for Kyoto couldn't meet the standards, so we'll let that one slide.
A large chunk of our foreign policy is dedicated to us keeping our nukes and preventing others who shouldn't have them from getting them. We need to sign a treaty to do this?
Do we have large mines fields here in the US? Didn't think so. In fact I'm sure there are more than a few US citizens that would be in favor of the US putting a few mines along our borders. Hypothetically speaking of course...
Do we really need a compliance regime to tell us biological weapons are bad?
See the nuclear test ban treaty hooey above.
You think the ICC would allow extradition to the backwards US that kills its murderers? That's why the Austrians love Arnold so much...
Rights of the child to, say live? I think we'd get in more trouble for signing that than not.
Right, torture by allegedly flushing a Koran down the toilet and ruining perfectly good plumbing.
Hey I'm sure all these treaties and committees and meetings aren't cheap. Bolton does strike me as a "less treaties and meetings and summits and more action" type of guy.
Because we're the cheese... and as any child will tell you the cheese stands alone. I think I'll repeat my statement above for Ms. Sharma here: actions speak louder than treaties. I think that just might be my new motto. |