Bush's chance with children's rights

What would you do if you could not remember the last time your country was at peace? Would you start an international movement for peace? What if you were 11-years old? Well, that's exactly what Farid did when he started the Child Peace Network and enlisted the support of thousands of children all over Azerbaijan.

This summer, the United States has a chance to help Farid and millions more children around the world when the UN General Assembly convenes a Special Session on Children in September. If recent experience is any indication, however, Farid can forget about getting help from the United States.

When an alliance of Latin American, Asian, African and European nations voted in a secret session of the United Nations Economic and Social Council to deny the United States its seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Washington expressed "embarrassment" and "disappointment." On the day the United Nations announced its decision, President Bush delivered a speech in which he tactfully avoided addressing the UN decision and instead reasserted America's commitment to human rights abroad. Earlier this year, the United States had a chance to affirm this commitment by supporting the Convention of the Rights of the Child. Alone with Somalia, the United States opposed the CRC. This June, at the third Preparatory Committee of the Special Session, the Bush administration will have another chance.

One sticking point is the CRC's prohibition on soldiers younger than 18 years old, which would prohibit several thousand U.S. soldiers from entering combat. The United States believes military service benefits its several thousand 17-year-old enlisted men — and it probably does. But this ignores the real issue: There are an estimated 300,000 child soldiers around the world today, many of whom are younger than 10 years old. The United States' attachment to its several thousand 17 year-old soldiers outweighs its intolerance of 8 year olds fighting in Sierra Leone. Misplaced priorities?

Michael Southwick, who headed the U.S. delegation at the Preparatory Committee, wanted to emasculate the CRC by excluding the very notion of children's "rights." According to the Advocacy Project, Southwick "disputed the very concepts of economic and social rights. Children are not 'entitled' to education and health, he said. These cannot be claimed from government." In a few weeks, NGO's will gather in New York to pressure the United States and other governments to modify their positions and ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

A new global power dynamic exists in the Age of Globalization — one that favors partnership and spurns pride. An example of this was the concerted voice of developing and developed countries alike that unseated the United States from the Human Rights Commission earlier this month.

In response to this, the House of Representatives voted to withhold $224 million from UN dues next year. As if withholding money from an organization to which we already owe millions of dollars is an effective way to win back that seat. It's not even an effective expression of outrage: withholding U.S. dues from the UN is cliche.

Despite its "disappointment" at the removal of its seat from the Human Rights Commission, observers hope that the United States will play a more active — and productive — role in June. Like U.S. participation in the committee meetings, child participation also causes much discussion.

Children like Farid demand that the international community take them seriously. Farid mobilized thousands of children and plans to address the UN General Assembly's Special Session in September. As Farid says, "If children need peace, they must do something about it." Many policymakers — particularly those in the United States — oppose child participation in discussions on children's rights. But by excluding children, they exclude the lessons of those who know best — and most intensely — the meaning of children's rights.

The removal of the U.S. seat from the Human Rights Commission and the U.S. position on the CRC are related. The United States is often too unwilling to make the concessions necessary to further international peace or secure international human rights. One example of this unwillingness is U.S. opposition to the CRC — one repercussion of this unwillingness was the removal of the United States from the Human Rights Commission.

By refusing to compromise on these issues, the United States affirms its superpower status. And in doing so, the United States misses its chance to make partners in a world where partnership counts most. Adam Frankel is a Wilson School major from New York. He can be reached at afrankel@princeton.edu.