To convince reluctant senators to pass the U.N. disabilities treaty, which would limit American sovereignty in exchange for unlikely benefits, liberals now argue that the agreement will benefit veterans.
In 2009 the Obama administration signed the the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, an inefficient United Nations treaty that sacrifices American sovereignty without any benefit to the United States.
Now it is in the hands of the Senate to ratify or reject the treaty.
The United States has enacted extensive federal laws to end discrimination against persons with disabilities in the United States, Heritage Foundation expert Steve Groves told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last year.
CRPD would not improve on these laws. Instead, it would hand over US sovereignty to a UN governing body that would set legally binding standards and require routine compliance reviews.
“If the Senate gives its advice and consent and the Convention is ratified,” Groves testified, “it would become the supreme Law of the Land on par with federal statutes, including statutes relating to disability rights.”
Speaking last week on the Senate floor, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) laid out his argument for voting down the CRPD. Continue Reading »
To its great credit, the Obama administration has refused to sign on to a United Nations agreement that would have put more of the Internet under international governance and potentially curtailed the freedom that has allowed it to thrive.
This is consistent with what Heritage Foundation scholars Brett Schaefer and James Gattuso recommended:
The U.S. must articulate clear red lines and, if they are crossed, be willing to walk away. Protecting the vitality and viability of the Internet is preferable to signing on to a compromise agreement that violates key principles and undercuts the framework that has contributed to its success.
The defeat last week of the UN disabilities treaty was a win for sovereignty, made possible in no small part by the work of Heritage Foundation expert Steve Groves and our sister organization, Heritage Action for America.
The disabilities treaty, known formally as Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is essentially a replica of a law already existence in the U.S. Ratifying this treaty and subjecting our sovereignty to international bureaucrats would therefore have been pointless, Groves explains: Continue Reading »
The Senate could vote this week on a new United Nations treaty intended to protect people with disabilities.
But in testimony earlier this year before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Heritage Foundation expert Steve Groves argued that ratifying the treaty is both harmful to American sovereignty and unnecessary to protect the rights of the disabled.
Groves, who works in Heritage’s Thatcher Center, pointed out that a vast array of federal, state and local laws already protects people with disabilities. Ratifying the treaty would only make American laws subject to review by international bureaucrats who aren’t looking out for our nation’s interests.
An excerpt from his testimony: Continue Reading »
Thirty-four Senators have signed a letter pledging to oppose the costly United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which would erode American sovereignty. This effectively ends the treaty’s chances for ratification in 2012, since under the Constitution, treaties must be approved by two thirds of Senators.
“The American people have responded to the educational efforts of Heritage and other institutions concerned about America’s interests in the world and have made clear that the U.S. Senate should not approve LOST,” Heritage Foundation senior vice president David Addington writes. He has more:
The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action for America have fought steadily for American sovereignty and American naval and maritime rights and against taxation of Americans by international organizations and giveaways of America’s resources to foreign countries.
Heritage Foundation expert Steven Groves has spent years pointing out the dangers of the agreement, commonly known as the Law of the Sea Treaty. Continue Reading »
A new treaty isn’t the solution to proliferation of arms to terrorist groups, The Heritage Foundation’s Ted Bromund argued yesterday at the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty conference.
“It is member states that, by design or negligence, arm terrorists and violate existing embargoes,” Bromund said. “What is needed is not a new treaty on the arms trade. It is nations that are willing and able to uphold the commitments they have already made.”
The treaty suffers from wishful thinking about the power of international law, he argued:
Supporters of the ATT argue that we need it to raise national standards on the import, export, and transfer of arms. But if any nation wishes to raise its standards, it is free to do so now. The fact is that many U.N. member states have neither the desire nor the ability to raise their standards. A treaty will not compel or enable them to do so.
Heritage Foundation expert Steven Groves testified last week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (link in PDF) at hearings about ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Also testifying on the panel were former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld and former Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte.
Watch a video of Groves’ testimony below, starting at minute 61, and be sure to watch his discussion with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) at minute 67:
Is John Kerry right that we need to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty?
Advocates of the misguided Law of the Sea Treaty hope to ram the treaty through in the lame-duck session after the election, Heritage Foundation expert Brian Darling writes.
Hearings held today on treaty ratification “are a pretext for a lame duck strategy to railroad the treaty through the Senate after the November election.”
Heritage scholar Steve Groves plans to testify Thursday at Senate hearings on the treaty and explain why it would undermine American sovereignty and security.
Do you think the Senate will be able to pass the legislation in a lame duck session?
The proposed United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, if ratified, would impose limits on how all nations buy, sell and trade weapons.
This treaty would be logical if all U.N. members respected the rule of law. But all too many do not.
As a practical matter, the ATT would impose limits on the United States and its law-abiding allies, while unscrupulous regimes would ignore its restrictions with impunity.
Heritage Foundation expert Ted Bromund offers three reasons why the ATT should not be ratified.
In a world of states that do not respect human rights, a universal treaty based on the vague and wide-ranging human rights criteria that the ATT will seek to apply to arms transfers will always apply with more force to the law-abiding than it does to the lawless. It will always be used by the naïve and the evil to apply the powerful weapon of shame against those with a deeply ingrained respect for the rule of law.
Second, the U.S. should refuse to ratify the treaty because it would “impose limits on U.S. freedom of action” while giving us nothing in return. Continue Reading »
What You'll Find Here
- Heritage Impact - Reports on how Heritage is changing the debate in Washington, in the media, and around the country.
- Heritage Work - Updates on Heritage Foundation research, analysis and other work to advance conservative principles in Washington and around the country.
- Member Stories - Profiles of Heritage Foundation members from around the nation featuring their stories and why they support Heritage and conservative ideas.
- Other Work of Note
- Member Events