Where Do We Stand on the Rights of Children?

The United States is the only country other than Somalia that has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. To understand why, we sat down with longtime humanitarian, Eduardo Garcia.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

November 20 marks the 20th anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which mandates and enforces basic human rights for children around the world. This anniversary serves to publically remind American citizens that the U.S. is the only member of the United Nations apart from Somalia that has not yet ratified the Convention.

To understand why, HuffPost sat down with Eduardo Garcia, a longtime humanitarian aid worker and currently a Child Protection Technical Advisor at the International Rescue Committee.

HuffPost: Mr. Garcia, could you start us off by explaining what the Convention of the Rights of the Child encompasses and why it is important?

Garcia: The convention is one step more in the long journey of protecting children. We have had a lot of milestones on the way and especially in the 20th century and there have been a lot of efforts to stop the direct abuse, exploitation and violence against children. The convention is different because it is not a declaration; it's an advising law. This really makes a huge difference in a legal sense to consider that children have rights.

The convention includes four principles that have dramatically changed the rights of children. These include the survival and development of the child, the principal of nondiscrimination -- not only against children for being children but also for race, disabilities, religion or any other reason. The third is the consideration of the best interest of the child. This is a very interesting principle, whenever there is a decision that needs to be made, you have to balance the needs of the child, which is something the U.S. Supreme Court has been doing for years. The last is the principal of child participation. Children have the right to participate; this is a general principal of child protection, to allow half of our population to have a voice. This has opened incredible possibilities for children and society in general.

When we do community reconstruction projects, children have a lot to say and a lot to contribute. It's having an incredible impact in development in communities. Children have a lot of imagination, good ideas, and perspective. As adults, [before the Convention] we were missing all that wealth. The convention is bringing the value of children to society.

HuffPost: The U.S. helped craft this convention and has been actively involved in supporting the international rights of children. So why has it stopped short of ratifying the Convention?

Garcia: The U.S. has signed the Convention but they haven't ratified it. The difference is not that the U.S. doesn't want the convention. It has a lot of support in the U.S. and American organizations like the IRC work with the convention on a daily basis.

In part it's bureaucracy, as there are a lot of hurdles to get over. They have ratified the optional parts of the convention that prohibits child recruitment to war and child trafficking, prostitution and pornography. But I believe the reluctance to ratify the convention comes from people who don't fully understand it.

I've never encountered anyone who has really rejected the convention. How can you? Since the Convention was entered in 1990 until 2008, there was a really big drop in child mortality. This was due, in part, to the four principles being enforced, state by state.

HuffPost: But there are political barriers in the U.S. that have, until this point, prevented our full ratification of the Convention?

Garcia: The U.S. has actually been really supportive of the convention. It has already ratified the extra protocols. It's already signed the Convention, so under international treaty law they have an obligation to abide by the convention. But by not ratifying it they do not have to actively enforce it in the U.S. But from their actions so far, they say, "we cannot accept children around the world."

I hope the Convention doesn't get political -- it really shouldn't be. It shouldn't be a question of a political party, it should be so beyond that. The fact that almost every country in the world including the Vatican has ratified this expresses that.

Everyone cares about children, so we should keep the conversation about this at that level, not at the political minutia. It will take time, but I don't think anyone would object to something so morally right. The convention is not the end of the protection of children, but the beginning of the rights of the child.

HuffPost: What can we, as citizens, do to change misconceptions about the Convention and encourage the U.S. ratification?

Garcia:Every citizen can do something. The first thing is to learn and be informed about the convention about what that implies: to know about the situation of children around the world. That means we don't close ourselves into a little corner but open our eyes to humanity. Children are 50 percent of our humanity.

The second is to engage with others, and in a country with a thriving democracy it is important to engage your representatives and make them accountable. Make your politicians and reps care about what you care about. The IRC has a petition for the ratification of the convention. I encourage everyone to go to the website to sign the petition. Ask your local and state representatives, congressmen, and especially President Obama to support this. This way we can show we support the children of the U.S., but also those around the world.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot