Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
Climate, Culture, Principles, And “In the Company of Syria”

Climate, Culture, Principles, And “In the Company of Syria”

Last updated on: June 6, 2017 at 5:32 pm by Jane the Actuary

Climate, Culture, Principles, And “In the Company of Syria” 2017-06-06T17:32:57-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

“I hope this e-mail finds you well.”

How many of your e-mails start that way? Probably not many, unless, like me, you work with colleagues across the globe, in which case, quite a few. It’s the e-mail equivalent of a cultural imperative that all interactions, and, in particular, business dealings, must start with extended inquiries into the health and well-being of each party and their families. And it’s just one of a number of ways in which our American culture differs from many others, differences that get lost in the emphasis on the notion of multiculturalism — that is, the idea that we are a nation of many cultures makes us blind to the fact that there is, deeper down, an American culture.

And it seems to me that the reason why the United States has rejected the Paris Accord on climate change is a cultural one. Oh, sure, you might say that the rejection is because Trump is evil and wants to destroy the planet in the name of short-term profits for American businesses, but, when Obama signed the agreement in 2016, he did not submit it to the Senate for ratification. To be sure, the Senate was GOP-controlled so doing so wouldn’t have had any practical effect, but neither did Obama make any push for a binding agreement during the years when the Democrats controlled House, Senate, and the presidency.

Beyond which, it’s my understanding that the agreement itself is fundamentally a declaration of “good intentions.” As described by The American Interest and Commentary magazine, the targets for reductions are set by countries themselves, and can be changed at any time, without any sort of external enforcement mechanism. Secondly, the Green Climate Fund does not have (so far as I can tell) any power to compel any country or other entity to had over the cash that’s supposed to go to poor countries (who, buy the way, have nothing to lose in signing the agreement, since they are intended to be recipients of the funds, not contributors).

And, indeed, the United States is nearly alone, in the company only of Syria and Nicaragua, in not signing the agreement.

But that’s not the only such case.

The United Sates is the only country to have not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Clinton signed in 1995.

The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (SEDAW)? Only the Holy See, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Tonga have not signed it; the U.S. and Palau are the only ones who have signed but not ratified it (the U.S. under Carter, in July of 1980; see Wikipedia).

The Convention on Rights of Persons With Disabilities? Here’s that list: US, Libya, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Chad, Cameroon, Botswana, Solomon Islands, Fiji have signed but not ratified, South Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia, and Equatorial Guinea have not signed. (Per the UN site.)

Why has the U.S. not ratified these agreements?

It’s easy to find individual explanations: the Convention on the Rights of the Child takes away parental rights, might prohibit homeschooling, etc. CEDAW could prohibit even the moderate abortion restrictions we have in the U.S., eliminate single-sex schools, would require quotas on the hiring of women, and so on.

But consider that Saudi Arabia, despite its notorious “guardian” system, has ratified CEDAW. North Korea, which imprisons whole families, has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. And if I weren’t already running out of time to start my workday, I’d find a really good example of a country which does really dastardly things to the disabled.

And beyond these specific examples, every other country that has signed it has taken the view that, to whatever extent they disagree with any aspect of the application of the Convention, they’ll go their own way, and it’s no big deal. (With respect to the Paris Accord, I would guess that the other signatories had a similar view: we’ll make the decisions that we think are best for our people, and try to get as much benefit out of the deal as possible.) What, then, is the point of signing these conventions? To some degree, it’s a matter of taking an action to further their resolve to Do the Right Thing; in other cases, it’s purely about asserting on the world stage that you’re just as good and righteous as everyone else, no matter the truth at home. To some degree, there is also the hope that any given nation that signs/ratifies will then have greater moral standing and a specific platform from which they can effect change in nations that are deficient in their treatment of children, women, the disabled.

Why didn’t the U.S. ratify them? In the same way as we don’t ask whether every member of your family is doing well before getting down to business. We focus on the practical, the concrete, and don’t see the same value in the aspirational and symbolic (or, as critics would say, the farcical claims of success) — we ask, how, concretely, will this ratification affect the people at home? Consider, too, the fact that in certain cultures (I’ve read this of various Asian countries), Americans have trouble doing business because, culturally, their counterparts just will not say “no”, leading the Americans to think they’ve made the deal, when, in reality, our American culture of a straightforward “yes” and “no” is not a part of how they do business. We want an Agreement, a Treaty, to have a clear path, a practical impact, and enforceable consequences, when much of the rest of the world just doesn’t care.

(It reminds me a bit of two views of marriage: the U.S. says the equivalent of “marriage is a serious binding commitment”; the ROW says, “marriage is a piece of paper that’ll show everyone else how much we love each other, make everyone like us more, and maybe get us some benefits.”)

And I’m not saying American culture is right or wrong on this point. But it’s different. And this has nothing to do with climate change.

Image: https://pixabay.com/en/pollution-global-warming-environment-2049211/

Previous Post

May 27, 2017

Wanted: fundraising advice

Next Post

June 3, 2017 We're getting multi-culturalism all wrong

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Old Testament book is entirely written as a dialogue between God and a prophet?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Zechariah Amos Habakkuk Malachi