eNews

The Obama Administration has resurrected the debate over the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and is pushing for the United States to finally join the treaty. Yet, while ratifying the treaty sounds like a great effort to protect children, it would instead offer the UN inroads to dictate to American parents how best to raise their kids.  According to the US Constitution, treaties are binding laws that must be followed by judges, even if those treaties conflict with the laws of the individual states.

Except for the United States and war-torn Somalia, every single country in the world has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said Monday that the Obama Administration wants to find out "when and how it might be possible to join."

Horrible things are done to children every day around the world. In Uganda last week, children marched through the streets of the capital to raise awareness about the existence of child sacrifice in the country and to urge the government to outlaw the practice. In South Africa, men are selling their younger sisters and nieces into prostitution, and in Afghanistan, 12-year-old girls are forced to marry grown men. And across the world, millions of children lack basic food, water, sanitation, medical and dental care and educational opportunities.

Obviously, the protection of the young and helpless should be of highest priority in any country. The United States has long appreciated the importance of defending children from violence and exploitation, and the US already has excellent laws in place to defend children. Even the poorest children in America can have access to food and medical care. And that's the point. The US has no need to ratify an international treaty in order to protect its children.  Not to mention that in South Asia and Africa, ratification hasn't stopped children from exploitation.

Secretary of State Madeline Albright signed the UNCRC in 1995, but the US did not ratify the treaty, and for good reason.  According to Article 6 of the US Constitution, international treaties are binding, and the UNCRC would officially supercede state laws.  While the UNCRC might not change things much in lawless nations, US judges would be required to follow the dictates of all 54 articles of this international law.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a nice idea. It declares that children have basic rights that should be recognized – like the rights to survival, to protection from harmful influences and abuse. The Convention has four core principles which, according to the UNICEF, are "non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child."

It's perhaps that last one that most frightens US lawmakers and parents. What does "respect for the views of the child" mean and, since the treaty is a binding legal document, what would its ratification mean for parents' rights in America? If a 10-year-old says, "I don't want to go to church with my parents," does he have the "right" to refuse? If a teen girl says, "I want to go to work as a prostitute in Las Vegas," could her parents legally stop her?  After all, prostitution is legal in Nevada, and the UN has been willing to promote the rights of prostitutes.

There is concern that the UN would attempt to dictate to US parents how to raise their kids. The UN agenda is not conservative and family-friendly. To get an idea of how the UN interprets the treaty, here are some of the recommendations that have been made to various countries:

To Austria: "Austrian Law and regulations do not provide a legal minimum age for medical counseling and treatment without parental consent. [The UN] is concerned that the requirement of a referral to the courts will dissuade children from seeking medical attention and be prejudicial to the best interests of the child." [italics added] 

To Barbados: "In spite of efforts to increase attention to early childhood education, the Committee remains concerned that the number of child-care centers is not enough to serve all children concerned. . . "

To Macedonia: "promote adolescent health policies and strengthen reproductive health education and counseling services, including with regard to … pregnancy among girls and abortion."

To the United Kingdom: "…the Committee is concerned that insufficient attention has been given to the right of the child to express his/her opinion, including in cases where parents in England and Wales have the possibility of withdrawing their children from parts of the sex education programmes in school. In this as in other decisions, including exclusion from school, the child is not systematically invited to express his/her opinion and those opinions many not be given due weight, as required under article 12 of the Convention."

In many of the cases, the UN is promoting contraception, sex ed, and abortion as "rights" that minors have, while denying parents' rights to decide what is appropriate for their children. The UN wants children to be able to get medical treatment without their parents' consent, and considers child care centers better places for children than their own homes. (The UN has consistently urged countries to create more child care centers in the interest of "women's rights" as well, while frowning on cultures that promote motherhood.)

The net result is that the state becomes the de facto parent, shouldering its way into the family and usurping the parents' authority.  Children need to be protected from abuse and starvation and exploitation, and they need to be able to receive a decent education, but the US can do many things to promote the welfare of children around the world without submitting itself to the United Nations.

An Israeli official made a visit to the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem on Tuesday, sparking anger among Muslims. Yet, while the Dome of the Rock is the third most holy site in Islam, it is the holiest spot on earth in Judaism as the site of the once and future Temple. Most recently, a Jewish scholar has argued that the Third Temple could be built on the Temple Mount without tearing down the Dome of the Rock. Of course, that idea has faced opposition from both Jews and Muslims.

"God's Holy Mountain Vision" project was launched last week, a new Jewish initiative to build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount beside the Dome of the Rock without tearing it down. Director of the initiative Yoav Frankel argues that a prophet could, by divine revelation, determine the precise site of the Temple and could have it rebuilt without the need to destroy the Muslim shrine.

"This vision of religious shrines in peaceful proximity can transform the Temple Mount from a place of contention to its original sacred role as a place of worship shared by Jews, Muslims and Christians," said Frankel.

Of course, both Jews and Muslims oppose the proposal. Many Jews do not believe that the Temple should be built until the Messiah comes. Muslims agree that no Jewish temple should be built near their shrine.

Sheikh Abdulla Nimar Darwish, founder of the Islamic Movement in Israel, argues that it's pointless to discuss rebuilding the Temple until the "mahdi" – the Muslim messiah comes. "Why are we taking upon ourselves the responsibility to decide such things?" Darwish said in a telephone interview with The Jerusalem Post. "Even Jews believe that it is prohibited to rebuild the Temple until the messiah comes. So what is there to talk about."

Darwish warned that attempts to rebuild the Temple before the Messiah would only result in mayhem. "As long as there is a Muslim alive, no Jewish Temple will be built on Al-Haram Al-Sharif. The status quo must be maintained, otherwise there will be bloodshed."

The Dome of the Rock, which dominates the skyline of Jerusalem, was erected on the Temple Mount in the late 7th century. Muslims believe that the dome is built over the spot where Mohammad allegedly ascended into heaven to receive his Islamic commission, making it a very holy site in Islam. In 1967 Israel regained control of the Temple Mount, but shortly after gave the Muslim Waqf (religious trust) the authority to manage the mount in order to keep peace. Since 2006, visitors have been allowed to enter the compound at restricted times. Non-Muslim worshipers are still not permitted to enter the area.

Jewish authorities do not approve of entering the compound anyway, primarily because the site of the ancient Temple is still holy and there is no purification system in place to make worshipers ritually clean. There is also concern that people might accidentally tread across the site of the Holy of Holies. The Chief Rabbinate of Israel has placed signs outside the Temple Mount that state in Hebrew and English:

"ANNOUNCEMENT AND WARNING: According to the Torah it is forbidden for any person to enter the area of the Temple Mount due to its sacredness."

On Tuesday June 23, Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch visited the Temple Mount to review how police would deploy in case of an emergency. Aharonovitch's spokesman said that the visit was coordinated with the Waqf, who accompanied the minister around the site. However, a visit by Ariel Sharon in 2000 sparked the bloody Al-Aqsa Intifada, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Hussein, called Aharonovitch's recent visit, "an assault on an Islamic place."

When a simple visit by an Israeli official causes violent anger among Muslims, the possibility of another Jewish Temple seems impossible. Still, the Bible speaks of a future Temple, one that stands in Jerusalem when the Man of Sin arrives to sit in the Temple and pretend to be God (2 Thess 2:3-4). For nearly 2000 years, the Jews have been without a Temple, and they long for its presence once again in Jerusalem. Despite the current existence of the Dome of the Rock, members of the Temple Mount Faithful movement have been preparing the necessary articles and priests necessary to resume ritual worship.

According to the Bible, both in the Old Testament and the New, the Temple will be rebuilt.  The question is just when.

On June 22, 1941, Germany invaded Russia. While the Red Army eventually did win the war, that initial invasion of Russia was a horrible massacre. A total of 3,050,000 men, 7184 artillery pieces, 3,350 tanks, 2,770 aircraft, 600,000 vehicles, and 625,000 German horses swept across the Soviet countryside on three different fronts. The Russians were paralyzed by surprise as well by fear of Stalin. Crushed by his purges, Russia's military leaders feared making any decisions on their own, and their poor equipment and morale was hardly a match for the invading Germans. June 22 is a tragic day in Russian history.

Sixty-seven years later, things have changed a little. ICBMs have replaced horses. Stalin and Hitler are both resigned to being bad tastes in the mouth of history, the Cold War is over, and the Soviet Union has been gone for nearly two decades.  Most importantly, Russia has improved its ability to defend itself.  Still, Russia struggles to maintain good relations with the West while securing a comfortable level of security for itself. 

NATO:
On the one hand, Russia is again working to cooperate with NATO. Barring any major catastrophes, talks between NATO foreign ministers and Russia's Sergey Lavrov will take place on the Greek island of Corfu on Saturday. Relations between Russia and NATO, the EU, and US went south during Russia's 2008 war with Georgia. Contracts and military cooperation with Russia were frozen, and relations with the US were just beginning to improve by the time President Obama took office in January.

Russia and NATO have common interests in fighting the Taliban and keeping Afghanistan and Central Asia stable. There is also a need to cooperate against Somali pirates off the coast of Africa.

OSCE:
On the other hand, Russia on Tuesday defended last year's suggestion that Europe develop a new "security architecture" to overhaul Cold War organizations (like NATO). The US and NATO did not appreciate the proposal when it was made by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last year. Russia has also balked at renewing the mandate of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to monitor Georgia in the interest of security and human rights.

On Tuesday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told a conference at the OSCE, "We're not attempting to undermine NATO or any other organization active in the security field. Quite the contrary, we are in favor of coordination and synergies between existing international structures to ensure that no single government (or) organization in the Euro-Atlantic area work against each other."

Israeli Drones:
Russia has been buying unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) from Israel in order to study them and reproduce the designs on their own. After hearing of these plans to "borrow" their technology, Israeli officials said it would not be selling Russia its most advanced drones. Russian defense companies have not produced advanced systems on their own. "We have a responsibility to safeguard our ingenious technology," one Israeli official said. "We were aware of this possibility, even though it was not said explicitly until now."

US Missile Defense:
Russia has butted heads with the United States over US plans to build a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Bush Administration planned to build a small system in Eastern Europe in order to halt missiles from Iran. Eastern Europe promised to benefit from the missile shield, which would have protected its citizens as well. NATO leaders endorsed the plan in 2008, but Russia wants the US to drop the idea. Russia simply does not want a US-placed missile defense system anywhere near its borders. While the US has been prepared to join with Russia in mutual slashing of nuclear arms, Russia has hinged its arms reduction on the US' willingness to scrap its plans for the missile defense shield. 

It may be that Russia doesn't want the West to be protected from Iran.  Russia's trade relations with Iran are no secret, and Russia is one country actually backing Iran's recent election results.  In the not-too-far-back of their minds, though, the Russians are suspicious of the West.  The Cold War has only been over two decades, and old fears persist.  The  Russians also learned well not to be too trusting.  They have not forgotten the broken promises of Hitler, and the surprise invasion of 1941.