Why do American politicians when they are talking about human rights always telling about civil rights but never about socioeconomic rights?

SilverRain92
American politicians are notorious of expressing the wish to protect human rights wherever they can, but usually when they are talking about human rights they really mean civil rights such as freedom of speech or right to vote. But I've never heard about their wish to protect socioeconomic rights of people which are also crucial for human development. If a person doesn't have money to buy food or to pay for the rent and doesn't have an access to education he/she wouldn't be able to use his/her civil rights normally as well.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966 and came in force from January 1976. The United States signed this document but didn't ratify (light green) it while it was ratified by most of the countries (dark green). This document guarantees the right for self-determination for everyone, the access to education, health protection and social welfare.

How do you think why instead of interfering into the internal affairs of other countries (which is usually explained by the necessity to protect human rights in far exotic country which has a lot of natural resources) American politicians can't ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and to make efforts in order to make healthcare, higher education and apartment rent more accessible for Americans? All people deserve to have equal opportunities regardless of their race, location and economic status of their parents, aren't they?
Why do American politicians when they are talking about human rights always telling about civil rights but never about socioeconomic rights?
Why do American politicians when they are talking about human rights always telling about civil rights but never about socioeconomic rights?
1
7
Add Opinion