Political Happiness

The UN CRPD Treaty Needs to be Stopped

noreply@blogger.com (Alison Marie) — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:15:00 +0000

Last week I wrote in a SayAnythingBlog post about an impending threat to U.S. sovereignty posed by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which was to be voted on in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

On Thursday of last week, the committee did vote 13-6 in favor of the CRPD and has sent it to the floor for a full Senate vote. Three Republicans joined ten Democrats in lending their endorsement to this treaty — Sens. John Barrasso (Wy.), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.). Thanks to these Republicans we are now in a full court press to stop what a Washington Times headline describes as “Liberals Intent on Imposing Backdoor Globalism” given to an article written by Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) who both serve on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and were opposed to the treaty. The senators’ strong disapproval of internationalist interference in American policy was evident... Read More

UN CRPD Treaty Would Undermine US Sovereignty And Eradicate Parental Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Alison Marie) — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:24:00 +0000

On July 16, former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum joined the fight against a a threat, one that is personal for him. Tomorrow that threat will take a turn for the worse or for the better as it comes to a vote in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. It doesn’t only affect Rick Santorum, his special needs daughter, and his family, but it will expose thousands of Americans to a loss of liberty and representation. This threat comes from the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Although the CRPD may perhaps sound noble, the rights that it threatens to wrest from Americans are vast and troubling. Read More

The Larger Issues

noreply@blogger.com (Alison Marie) — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 12:12:00 +0000

Little fingers play with plastic figurines as the compact voice attached to them beckons me with questions. My computer keys grow silent. Unnatural light from the screen pales to the beauty and import of the person in miniature before me. For this reason, Political Happiness has been on a hiatus for a couple of years. There will be a day for typing, but today I'm holding chubby palms and making peanut butter sandwiches.

America under UN Pressure: An Update on the CRC

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:45:00 +0000

America is now under heightened pressure to sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) by what appears to be political maneuvering by the UN. In a recent announcement, UNICEF declared that Somalia's transitional federal government will ratify the treaty, leaving the United States to be the sole UN member country not to sign.

On the surface, this may seem confusing and even alarming. Why wouldn't the U.S. want to protect children's rights? Why wouldn't we want to join with other nations in such a noble cause?

To understand the destructive implications of the CRC for American families and why U.S. ratification demands a different standard for the U.S. than any other nation read my July article UN Dictating Parent-Child Policy to American Courts.

ParentalRights.org has an excellent article highlighting why this recent move of the transitional government of Somalia is intended to put pressure on the U.S. to ratify the CRC.

It's easy to focus on the more immediate issues of health care or the American economy, but we must be aware of how close we are to international invasion of the most sacred place in the United States: the home.

Sex Education: Everyone's Issue

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:13:00 +0000

[Condensed version of this article published in Dakota Beacon, October 2009]

“Don’t worry,” a mother said when her young boy ran into a busy street. “We don’t tell him not to play in the street anymore. We know that he’s going to do it anyway. That’s why we gave him the bike helmet. He knows how to wear it. Let him explore -- he’ll be fine.”

This scenario demonstrates the rising tension playing out between supporters of abstinence education and proponents of comprehensive sex education in the classroom, a debate directly affecting North Dakota’s students.

“Comprehensive sex education” (CSE) and “abstinence education” (AE) are labels that broadly define two differing approaches to sex education in public schools. CSE is a contraceptive-based approach to human sexuality focusing on disease and pregnancy prevention. AE teaches teens how to avoid risk by making good health decisions and focusing on the total person.

All federally-funded abstinence programs are required to have as their purpose, teaching the social, psychological and health gains by abstaining from sexual activity. Abstinence programs seek to prepare kids to make healthy choices by utilizing character training and goal-setting, information regarding sexual health and pregnancy, and tools that enable kids to wait until marriage before engaging in sexual activity. Included in this training are strategies for avoiding other high-risk behaviors like drugs and alcohol that have a significant level of interconnectedness to premarital sexual activity.

On the surface, CSE is presented as a medically accurate, full-disclosure program on human sexuality teaching kids to avoid pregnancy and disease. However, Dr. Miriam Grossman, who spent more than ten years as a psychiatrist at UCLA Student Psychological Services, has been sounding the alarm about the true goals of CSE. Namely, sexual freedom for kids as a “right.” Social justice. Included in her warning to parents are lists of websites to which SIECUS, Advocates for Youth, and Planned Parenthood (all vociferous advocates of CSE) refer kids. These sites include discussions on topics such as popular sex positions, sexual play and fantasies, sexual experimentation with another or same-sex gender, oral and anal sex, and sadomasochism.

Calling something comprehensive suggests that everything important will be covered, even abstinence. In spite of a recommendation from the CDC, a Heritage Foundation study reported that messages about abstinence comprise less than 5% of CSE curricula. Unfortunately, when abstinence is included in CSE, the focus is often counterproductive to a true abstinence message.

For example, Planned Parenthood’s (PP) CSE curriculum and lessons for educators called Making Sense of Abstinence seem to define abstinence as merely not passing body fluids. On the list of PP’s activities that one could do and still be “abstinent” was cuddling naked and watching porn videos together. In another CSE curriculum called Be Proud! Be Responsible!, taking showers together is considered a “green light” activity.

The difference between CSE and true abstinence education is the quality of the message. CSE’s clear message is nobody expects you to choose abstinence -- that’s why there are pills and condoms and here’s how to use them. Now feel free to explore. Both the mother who lets her four-year-old play in the street and CSE providers are sending children into the world with a misguided sense of their level of protection and limited awareness of the dangers looming.

In recent years both kids and adults have been given the message that using condoms equals “safe sex.” Research shows this is not the case. The risks of contracting STD’s or becoming pregnant are only minimized, not eradicated. According to the CDC, nearly 9 million new STD cases in the United States each year are among young people ages 15-24. One in four adolescent girls in the U.S. is infected with an STD, and every year approximately 820,000 young women under the age of 19 become pregnant.

The reality is that actual condom usage among teens is not optimal. CSE supporters cite this as a reason teenagers need more encouragement to use condoms. Some suggest that telling teens about the failure rates of condoms prevent their use, but not telling them exposes young people to risks that may significantly affect their future. Dr. Grossman had the unenviable task of receiving students into her office who, after following the dictates of “safe sex,” became infected by an incurable STD and who—justifiably—felt betrayed.

Not only are teens not told the whole truth about condom failure and STDs, teens also don’t properly assess the risk. Doctors have discovered that the prefrontal cortex of the brain does not develop until a person is in their mid-twenties. This is the part of the brain that engages in critical thinking and sound judgments, linking present decision-making to future consequences. Scientists have found, instead, that the teen brain makes decisions mostly in the highly-impressionable emotion center of the brain.

CSE’s focus on contraceptive-based education and sexual exploration “as long as it’s consensual” and its message that “only you know when you’re ready” puts kids in danger of making some potentially life-altering decisions based on emotions and hormones instead of mature judgment with future goals in mind. The negative effects of premarital sexual activity are clear: several recent studies show a link between sexual activity and depression and suicide, as well as considerably higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse.

Although CSE providers claim to be medically up-to-date and accurate, they also fail dramatically in the realm of communicating to teens the affects of sexual behavior on the brain. Recent breakthroughs in neuroscience research demonstrate how sexual activity has life-changing impact on the human brain, showing that the brain forms organic connections through the repetition of events or activities. Exciting a dopamine rush through sexual activity conditions the brain to desire repeated sexual experiences. Oxytocin (in females) and vasopressin (in males) released during sexual activity leads to bonding and attachment to a sexual partner. While these chemical realities help yield strong marriages, they can also lead to repeated destructive decisions that can end in disease and deep emotional pain, affecting a person’s ability to bond in future relationships.

While AE enables children to embrace a positive, stable future by avoiding destructive decisions, CSE leaves this very human side of sexuality—and its impact on future aspirations, dreams, and goals—out of the picture.

When it comes to the topic of sex, a Zogby poll found that parents, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative, overwhelmingly prefer abstinence education 2-to-1 over CSE once they understand the difference. Nine out of ten teens also believe a strong abstinence message is important. Surveys reveal that 52% of teens nationwide are virgins (57% in North Dakota).

Contrary to the wishes of both teens and parents, lawmakers seem to be giving up on abstinence education. In May, President Obama’s budget set in place plans to defund abstinence education. This summer, the House withdrew funding for abstinence education. On July 31st, the Senate Appropriations Committee, including Senator Dorgan, eliminated all funding for abstinence education, channeling money instead to CSE and “pregnancy prevention” programs which were already receiving the vast majority of federal funds (4:1).

This legislative assault on abstinence education has a direct affect on North Dakota. Make a Sound Choice (MSC), the Fargo-based organization which facilitates abstinence education programs statewide, will lose the funding it needs to provide the abstinence message to the over 3,000 students it serves in North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota.

MSC is a highly successful program. An independent NDSU evaluation of MSC has shown that its benchmark goals have been exceeded by a strong margin. For example, the goal that youth participating in the program will plan to stay abstinent until marriage was benchmarked at 50%. Actual performance is 70.5%, averaged out over two-and-a-half years, which is outstanding performance. Success like this begs the question why Senator Dorgan and others in Washington would pass legislation to end funding for a program with such proven effectiveness?

The fact is that the recent federal defunding of abstinence education is the result of a very concentrated, agenda-driven effort by numerous organizations to stop abstinence education in its tracks. For example, Advocates for Youth proudly boast that they are “at the forefront of a national legislative strategy to eliminate federal funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.”

In 1998, SIECUS began an effort, underwritten by organizations like Soros’ Open Society Institute and the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, to critically evaluate abstinence education programs. In 2002, SIECUS partnered with 140 organizations with the goal of undermining Title V abstinence education federal funding for the states. By 2008, 25 states had agreed to reject Title V funding.

In 2008, a Congressional hearing on abstinence education chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman featured six panel “experts” opposing abstinence education against one in favor of abstinence education. During the hearing, Rep. Virgina Foxx asked the panel if they would support federal funding of abstinence education if it was proven more effective than CSE. Five of the seven panel members said “no,” confirming that even objective data will not persuade them from their political agenda.

Although North Dakota Senators Dorgan and Conrad have a history of not supporting abstinence education, in a recent Senate Finance Committee vote, Senator Conrad voted to reinstate Title V federal abstinence funding, an amendment that still needs to be passed on the Senate floor.

It is time to let our Congressmen hear our voice on this very consequential issue. We may not have Soros’ money, but parents, grandparents, mentors, teachers, and students must engage in the process to protect our children. Their future, and our nation’s future, is why sex education is everyone’s issue.

For more information see:

My expanded article for more details (you want to know more but don't want to read a book)

Rep. Virginia Foxx's question to sex education panel (YouTube)

ParentsforTruth.org

AbstinenceWorks.org

Make a Sound Choice

JustSayYes.org

Miriam Grossman M.D. author of Unprotected & You're Teaching My Child What?

The War on Intimacy

Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting Our Children

Are Hospital Bills a Good Reason for Government Take-Over of Health Care?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:41:00 +0000

I watched an hour's worth of footage from three of Senator Dorgan's (D) North Dakota town hall meetings on August 12th. The meetings were disturbing and unsettling. The tension in the rooms was clear even over broadband. It is obvious that Byron Dorgan is in favor of some kind of government involvement that goes way beyond what we have now. It is obvious that there are many who are deeply opposed to greater government involvement in health care and the invasion of privacy and destruction of personal liberty that will necessarily result.

Still, there is one statement in favor of government intrusion of health care from a member of the crowd at the Casselton meeting that is worth exploring. A lady took the mic and described how her life had been taken over by the repayment of hospital bills. She worked hard day after day, not able to advance on the upwardly mobile scale like many Americans, but only keeping her family afloat and paying off her debt to the medical industry for a health crisis in her family. She stated that she hadn't asked for this health crisis to happen, but life dealt her a blow and she only now, years after the incident, has paid off her bill.

l applaud this woman for assuming responsibility and ascending to meeting the financial obligation (that nobody would ask for) thrust in her lap. Hear me out. At the risk of sounding uncompassionate for a moment, I would also like to say that each of us are dealt blows in life. Each of us face hardships not experienced by others. These experiences are often some of the most difficult circumstances in our lives. This woman did the right thing. If she doesn't let bitterness and envy eat away at her, she will be stronger and better for the hardships she has endured and experience many positive rewards throughout life.

Although they may be heartbreakers, instances like the one mentioned are not good reasons to look to the government for a take over of American health care as this woman is doing. For every story like this, there is an equally compelling story to persuade us not to look to government as the solution. I can draw one from my own life.

My husband was paralyzed from the waist down in a farm vehicle accident thirteen years ago this month. He walks now. Had government been in charge of health care, that likely wouldn't be the case. Immediately following the accident, the emergency room doctor applied a cutting edge treatment for spinal cord injuries that she had learned about only the week before that. There is a very small window of time (less than an hour) for affective application of this treatment. He was treated in time with results that impressed every doctor he saw thereafter.

My husband walks, but he lives with persistent daily after-effects from the accident that most people his age have never thought of, consequences he never asked for: one of life's blows. But he is a stronger, better person because of it and has a rare magnanimity and appreciation for life.

Recently, a friend spent two hours dealing with farm management issues in the Farm Service Agency (FSA), an agency of the federal government. He had an issue that he raised months ago with the agency, but his concern was not being addressed. He went in to get it resolved. The whole office was filled with tension. A neighbor of his who worked at the agency said that in the over twenty years she had worked for the FSA (previously ASCS), she had never experienced a worse year. Everybody was on edge. Employees, including herself, were not sleeping. After standing there for two hours, my friend learned that the power of attorney form that had been signed by his wife and on file was lost. He had to travel for an hour to obtain his wife's signature. When he returned, the lady behind the desk told him that he had been given the wrong forms and would have to start over again.

We must ask ourselves: Do we really want our life and death decisions to be rubber-stamped by overworked, overstressed government employees? Every intuition based on past experiences with government agencies informs us that this will also be the case in government managed health care. Under a system like that, what incentive would the doctors have to attend seminars on the latest treatment technology? What incentive would companies have for developing them? Had my husband stepped into a hospital environment fraught with internal pressures from ever-changing government policy where doctors and nurses were overworked and underpaid and where long lines of unattended patients were waiting, would he have received timely treatment? I think it is safe to say no. He would likely have lived the last thirteen years in a wheelchair and still be there today.

But the woman whose hospital debt took over her financial life could use an arm around her shoulder, a little support in the midst of trauma -- believe me, I know. Instead of handing the whole American health care system over to the federal government because of such instances, why not provide innovative ways of dealing with crisis? In this example, why not have a well-screened program with rigorous criteria for a compassion fund? It could be administered by the government if we are determined to see the government as provider, but better yet, why not give philanthropic organizations and/or businesses incentives and cooperation with the government to provide this kind of fund for people debt-ridden with hospital bills?

Senators Dorgan, Conrad and Congressman Pomeroy, there are a myriad of solutions to some of the most painful problems associated with our current health care system. Don't turn control of our personal lives over to to government and shut down the private health care system. Look for freedom-friendly free market solutions. And fellow citizens, let's be responsible. Let's get creative, and let's stop looking for parental care and crisis-relief from the government alone.

Welcome to Political Happiness!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:58:00 +0000

This blog is dedicated to the world-wide generational effort of pursuing political happiness. Its title is inspired by the following quote from George Washington written in a letter to the Pennsylvania Legislature, September 5, 1789:

It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.

My conviction is that political happiness has been more solidly attained by the foundation of the United States of America through the solemn, rigorous, sacrificial, and thoughtful efforts of the Founding Fathers of this great country, whose Declaration of Independence against tyranny and crafting of the U.S. Constitution have had the net effect of bringing forth more political happiness and less misery around the world for over 230 years (mistakes acknowledged but not withstanding).

Political Happiness is dedicated to reminding readers world-wide of the conservative truths stemming from our Judeo-Christian heritage, that have been the guideposts of the United States of America and the foundation of her success. I believe fidelity to these truths and the original intent of the constitutional framers in modern-day political, cultural and social issues is necessary to preserving our Constitutional Republic and, consequently, political happiness.

A little about me. I grew up in the Upper Midwest. My husband and I own and operate a grain farm where I have spent the last eighteen years being a mom to my kids and exploring ideas related to emotional, spiritual, and political happiness.

UN Dictating Parent-Child Policy to American Courts: The Threat of the UNCRC - Is It in the “Best Interest” of Your Child?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:28:00 +0000

[This article was originally published in the Dakota Beacon, July 2009]

In recent years, lawmakers have had a propensity to hide behind smokescreens advertised to be “for the good of the children” to advance dubious public policy agendas. Ironically, these agendas often have the exact opposite effect in the lives of kids and undermine time-tested and historically verifiable results for happy and successful children (not to mention the eventuating adults).

In light of the trend towards destructive decision-making cloaked in touchy, feely language about what is good for children, it’s prudent to be immediately skeptical of most things that are being pushed to benefit children; see what’s hiding under the verbiage before turning our children over to anyone’s good ideas.

It’s this principle that sent up red flags when Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, told students on June 22 at a school in Harlem that the Obama administration is looking into “when and how it might be possible to join” (or ratify) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

In a cursory reading of the text of the CRC, you may find little wrong with it. For example, these praise-worthy excerpts come directly from the CRC:

...Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community....

...the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth....

However, as in many things in life, what looks good on the outside can often be rotten and even harmful at its core.

The CRC first came upon the world’s stage in 1989, since then it has been ratified by every nation except Somalia and the United States. In 1995, President Clinton signed the CRC. Ratification of the treaty, requiring two-thirds vote of the Senate, however, was halted when many senators began to understand that ratifying the treaty would be a radical departure from US legal precedence regarding the parent-child relationship.

Because most law governing the parent-child relationship in the U.S. is established by individual states, ratifying the CRC would undermine our constitutional republic, the representation of the will of the people, and the role of elected (accountable) legislators in favor of an unelected (unaccountable) international body.

How could the CRC supplant US Law?

The simple answer lies in the US Constitution. In Article 6 it states, the terms of international treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” This means that according to the Constitution, the laws and constitutions of the states are trumped by the terms of international treaties.

Why have so many other countries signed the CRC if it has the potential to be harmful?

This is also simple. No other nation has the same constitutional conditions regarding international treaties. Therefore, other countries are able to sign the treaty with special “reservations” that they deem appropriate for their intentions or conditions. Reservations are a kind of disclaimer. Because of our Constitutional ramifications, reservations are not an option for the United States.

For this reason, when Ambassador Rice and others claim it is a disgrace for the U.S. to be coupled with Somalia (which has no formal government) as the only countries that have not ratified the CRC, they are misleading the American public.

Another reason that the U.S. Senate backed away from the CRC lies in a philosophical difference in the relationship between the state and the child and who defines the “best interest” of the child. U.S. law governing the family is based on the understanding that a parent operates in the best interest of the child and is given the benefit of the doubt unless proven unfit. The CRC, on the other hand, acts on the presumption that it is the state that best defines the best interest of the child.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1925, "The child is not the mere creature of the State. Those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." This ruling is consistent with the understanding of the role of the family and parenthood in cultures around the world down through the ages. Now, with the CRC, countries are turning over the role of the family and foundational parental involvement to international government. Unfortunately, under the Obama administration the U.S. is dangerously close to following suit.

How will the Treaty be enforced?

Pro-treaty advocates like to remind Americans that the CRC will not have enforcement power over how the U.S. carries out the tenants of the treaty. This is also deceptively misleading.

It is quite true that the power to enforce the treaty will lie squarely on the shoulders of the American courts and social workers and not on the CRC Committee. However, it is the committee that has interpretive power over the meaning of the treaty. This is an important distinction, and herein lies the most potential for destructive effects in American families.

Many examples could be used to demonstrate these effects from abortion to education. In the case of abortion and in spite of the fact the the text of the CRC states that it is concerned about protecting the child “before as well as after birth,” UNICEF (the UN’s Children’s Agency) has argued for the right of children to have access to “reproductive health services” (including abortion). They advocate for children to have this access with or without parental consent. This “right” has been defined or interpreted as being in the “best interest” of children by UNICEF. We have every reason to believe that decisions by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will fall in line with current UN interpretations.

Once an issue (or a case), like access to abortion, is interpreted by the CRC Committee, then the American courts will be obligated to carry through the enforcement of the committee’s interpretation. Again, this is directly opposed to our constitutional republic where elected leaders decide policy. Instead, it will be an unelected international committee making parent-child policy decisions for Americans. As you can see, the CRC power of interpretation will directly undermine each states’ laws governing abortion and many other things related to children and parenting in the U.S.

There are many people currently in high places in the U.S. who are are sympathetic to the CRC and are strenuously pushing for U.S. ratification. Perhaps you remember this quote from our current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her book It Takes a Village: “The village itself must act in place of parents. It accepts those responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in government.” As this sentiment demonstrates, those in positions of governmental authority right now do not need a lot of convincing to turn families over to governmental imposition, even from international entities. This June saw much activity regarding the CRC, which is perhaps an indication that the push for ratification may come sooner rather than later. Our response must start now.

What can our response be?

Groups promoting parental rights are advancing the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) in Congress. Representative Pete Hoekstra (MI) is sponsoring the amendment, H.J. Res. 42. Currently, the bill has 105 cosponsors. In the Senate, Senator Jim DeMint (SC) recently became the primary sponsor of the PRA (S.J. Res. 16), where there are now two cosponsors.

The provisions are laid out in three succinct sections. The first guarantees parents the liberty to “direct the upbringing and education of their children.” The second section forbids the infringement of this right without proof of the parent being unfit. The third states that no “international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights” above stated. The PRA extinguishes all threats to parental rights imposed not only by the CRC, but also by our domestic courts and trends in international law.

Our immediate role as American citizens is to encourage our senators and representatives (in North Dakota Representative Earl Pomeroy, 202-225-2611; and Senators Dorgan, 202-224-2551; and Conrad, 202-224-2043) to become cosponsors of the Parental Rights Amendment. We also have a responsibility to get informed, tell others, and to defeat ratification of the CRC by the Senate if it were to come to a vote.

Where can we find more information?

The most comprehensive site that deals with the ramifications of U.S. ratification of the CRC is www.ParentalRights.org, which informed much of this article. I encourage you to sign up for their email alerts so you can get updates on breaking news regarding both the CRC and the Parental Rights Amendment.

Other Resources:

This is the interpretive mentality we will be dealing with if we ratify the UN's CRC: Here's an article on The U.N.'s Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) report offering universal sex education to children 5-18 years of age that teaches 5 year olds about masturbation and advocates abortion: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543203,00.html

My notes (compiled 7-09) on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child have much more information not included in this article. You can find them here: http://docs.google.com/View?id=d978x5q_3d3z8q6d7

A January 2010 update on Somalia's intentions to sign the CRC can be found in this excellent article.