Who is afraid of the Big Bad U.N.?

Admin — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:01:47 +0000

by Sayre Sheldon, WAND NGO Representative for the U.N. Working Group for Women, Peace, and Security, and WAND Ed Fund Board member/Treasurer

Published: December 25, 2012 by the Cambridge Chronicle & Tab

Cambridge — The answer, of course, is that we are -- or, more specifically, our Senate is; they just refused to ratify the U.N. Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Why else would the Senate vote against a treaty based on our own Americans With Disabilities Act signed by President Bush in 1990? A treaty solidly supported by veterans groups and child advocates, negotiated by George W. Bush and defended on the Senate floor by Bob Dole in his wheelchair? It is absurd that the Senate did not pass legislation protecting the rights of wounded soldiers and veterans.

We have to ask why these senators risked their careers by taking such an unpopular stand. All editorials ascribe the reason to be the hold of some people’s overriding opposition to the U.N. for its potential attack on U.S. sovereignty. To those who align with this stance; signing any international treaty means "loss of our freedom." And, unfortunately, a large sector of the U.S. population also believes that the major goal of the U.N. is a takeover of America. But why do our senators accept a myth that has no basis in fact? Aren’t elected officials supposed to educate the public instead of misleading it?

If we dig deeper, more specific reasons appear in their statements -- the rights of parents to choose treatments for a disabled child or to home-school that child were some of the objections raised. Changes in our healthcare system inevitably "leading to socialism" were also cited. And, of course, sinister changes in our reproductive practices were raised. Not that the treaty would have any power to legislate these things. Baffling to me was the Heritage Foundation’s charge that profits of U.S. corporations might be threatened. Corporate welfare is always good fodder for a policy debate on protecting human rights.

Last week we celebrated International Human Rights Day. This treaty represents a major advance for human rights. A long-sought goal for the United Nations is the general acceptance that all people have a right to respect, protection, education and adequate healthcare. The U.S. was the leader in establishing the very idea of human rights. We must not let our country step back from its beliefs in such a cowardly way.

One hundred and twenty-five countries have ratified this treaty, including Russia and China. Some are asking why we should join with countries that have such poor human rights records. My answer would be that is exactly why we should join -- to convince others of our own good record on disabilities.

And, besides, we are not exempt from questions about our own human rights policies -- the use of drones, our inability to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and our growing and unchecked Pentagon budget that allocates funds to war and defense contractors instead of vital programs that address healthcare, hunger, child abuse and education, for example.

Steve Rothstein, president of the Perkins School for the Blind, said that he could not sleep if he were one of the senators voting no. When he explained that 4.5 million children in the world cannot go to school because they are blind, I could only think of our neighbor’s child who is a student at Perkins and has made great progress there.

It is time to join the rest of the world and work for the goals that represent our better selves.

I and my fellow advocates at Women’s Action for New Directions will be watching and hoping for another vote in the next Congress. Next time, let’s get it right.

A fight for the U.N.’s survival?

Admin — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:54:13 +0000

by Sayre Sheldon, WAND NGO Representative for the U.N. Working Group for Women, Peace, and Security, and WAND Ed Fund Board member/Treasurer

Published: October 25, 2012 by the MetroWest Daily News and the Framingham TAB

It may not be a day that resonates very much in the U.S. calendar of events, but United Nations Day (October 24) honors the world’s longest existence of an international organization for peace. Founded in 1945 after World War II, the United Nations (U.N.) has far outlasted an earlier attempt following World War I, The League of Nations.

We know that the U.N. is vital for global peace, so why am I looking at a letter mailed to our house asking us to sign a petition for cutting U.S. funding of the U.N? Where does this letter come from? Is it just an empty threat like so many of these letters we have received in the past and consigned, unopened, to our recycling pile?

The sender’s title, “President, National Committee Against the U.N. Takeover,” reveals the usual U.N. paranoia that haunts U.S. political discourse. The threat this time might be more real because the petition enclosed is directed to House Speaker John Boehner in support of House Bill (H.R. 2829), which would “shift the funding mechanism for the regular budget of the U.N. from an assessed to a voluntary basis” and already has 187 co-sponsors.

In case we don’t get the message of this mailing, the enclosed petition begins “The United Nations is one of the most anti-American organizations on the planet!” Below this is the usual list of the reasons the U.S. should not fund the U.N. any longer, including corruption and salary increases. The U.S. is a major contributor to the U.N., yet the requested federal budget for fiscal year 2013 only allotted $568 million for the U.N.’s regular budget. Meanwhile, a whopping $639 billion of discretionary funds was requested for the Pentagon to fund things like unnecessary wars and outdated nuclear weapons systems. Seems like cutting U.S. funding of the U.N. wouldn’t even make a dent in our national debt.

So why is this letter effective? First – fear implied by “takeover.” Most attacks on the U.N. express frustration with its not enough getting done. Here there is some justification: a global organization seldom reaches agreement. But a U.N. strong enough to take over the U.S.? Absurd. Nevertheless, fear is effective.

Secondly ignorance – the U.N.’s “anti-Americanism.” Tell this to the smaller countries in the U.N. who feel they are being steam-rolled by the major powers! Criticism by all nations is standard at the U.N. American tolerance for free speech is one of our greatest strengths as is evident in letters like these. But its authors evidently feel that free speech on an international level becomes anti-Americanism.

Again, ignorance is effective. But blaming the U.N. for anti-Americanism is a dangerous way of shielding the public from some of the very real opposition to our actions in the world: the invasion of Iraq, for example. And let’s not forget how important the U.N. is to cleaning up the mess we helped make for women and children in Afghanistan. U.N. Resolution 1325 “urges Member States to ensure increased representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional and international institutions and mechanisms for the prevention, management, and resolution of conflict.” Our President has expressed his support for this resolution with his executive order to institute the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security.

So let’s have a U.N. Day that echoes with strong support for the world’s longest attempt to subdue fear and ignorance in all its countries and build a mutual support system for peace and security. Let’s make sure Washington knows our budget priorities and understands the vital role of women in peace processes. And let’s remember that world problems such as hunger, war, climate change, and human rights demand an organization containing all the world’s countries.

Once again, this letter travels to our waste-basket.

WAND Education Fund » United Nations

Who is afraid of the Big Bad U.N.?

A fight for the U.N.’s survival?