Why hasn't the United States ratified CEDAW?

[0TheSwerve0]

I'm starting to regret my political ignorance; that's what I get for leaving my insular liberal arts school. The latest "news" (from 2004 ) to come out of my introductory politics class, is that the Senate did not ratify (as far as I know they didn't even vote on) the http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm" . We have enough petty rants in this forum so here's an issue that deserves our attention.

According to http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/cedaw/":

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is often described as an international bill of rights for women. CEDAW defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets a framework for national action to end such discrimination. CEDAW is the most authoritative U.N. human rights instrument to protect women from discrimination. It is the first international treaty to comprehensively address fundamental rights for women in politics, health care, education, economics, employment, law, property, and marriage and family relations.

CEDAW defines discrimination against women as:

"[A]ny distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field." (Article 1)

Who would you expect not to ratify this? Was one of the countries the U.S.?

The United States is the only industrialized country that has not ratified CEDAW. By not ratifying, the U.S. is in the company of countries like Iran, Sudan, and Somalia.

CEDAW has been in limbo in the U.S. Senate since President Carter signed it and sent it to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a vote in 1980. Not only did the Senate Foreign Relations Committee fail to vote on CEDAW at that time, it failed to even hold a hearing on it until 1990, ten years later. In 1993, sixty-eight senators signed a letter asking President Clinton to support ratification of CEDAW. After a thirteen-to-five favorable vote (with one abstention) by the Foreign Relations Committee in 1994, a group of conservative senators blocked a Senate floor vote on CEDAW.

In June 2002, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on CEDAW. On July 30, 2002, the Committee voted twelve to seven in favor of sending CEDAW to the full Senate for ratification.

The votes IN FAVOR of ratification of CEDAW were:

Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)
Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN)

The votes AGAINST ratification of CEDAW were:

Sen. George Allen (R-VA)
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN)
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC)
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN)

Unfortunately, the full Senate did not vote on CEDAW before the end of the 107th Congress. For CEDAW to move forward, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will again need to vote in favor of sending the treaty to the full Senate for ratification.

wtf?!

Is this due to national social pathology or cutthroat practicality? Do we stand to lose economic gain or what? People often feel uncomfortable around this topic, but it merits acknowledgment at least.

 

[Pengwuino]

It's quite possible, as with many other treaties, that other countries signed simply as political pandering. There have been treaties that have been rejected by the US (think Kyoto) because of their lack of effectiveness or sections being ludicrous. I can just immediately think of the idea that if this treaty demands full legalization of abortion, obviously it won't happen in a strongly moral nation.

The US has also been known to refuse treaties based on the fact that most of the requirements to the treaty are already met or exceeded by US law.

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm

There is the actual text of the treaty that I am reading.

Or of course, the US would have to stop giving women special treatment :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Look at the education part. There are a LOT of educational facilities, scholarships, and positions that are given only to women and i think that wouldn't be allowed in this treaty so it would be a step back for women here. Of course, that is if its truly equality they're looking for.

You really have to think about what kind of message signing these treaties mean. It's effectively saying to the world that women just aren't treated equally here when in fact, they have many advantages that are even denied to guys.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

You really have to think about what kind of message signing these treaties mean. It's effectively saying to the world that women just aren't treated equally here when in fact, they have many advantages that are even denied to guys.

Actually, I was thinking it supported human rights for women everywhere. Even if we don't follow all of its rules, it can still be used to denounce countries that don't sign it. Guess we are one of those though! I also think the stance on abortion and other conservative stances might be behind its rejection (all the Republicans rejected it in its committee). Plus, they might actually have to pay us equal wages if they signed it.

 

[russ_watters]

Did the senators give a reason for blocking it? It may be a sovereignty thing, but it may also just be that they considered it superfluous. I do agree, though, that ratifying treaties like this gives us more political leverage.

 

[Pengwuino]

Actually, I was thinking it supported human rights for women everywhere. Even if we don't follow all of its rules, it can still be used to denounce countries that don't sign it. Guess we are one of those though! I also think the stance on abortion and other conservative stances might be behind its rejection (all the Republicans rejected it in its committee). Plus, they might actually have to pay us equal wages if they signed it.

What country are you from and did you actually read the treaty?

 

[Gokul43201]

It's quite possible, as with many other treaties, that other countries signed simply as political pandering. There have been treaties that have been rejected by the US (think Kyoto) because of their lack of effectiveness or sections being ludicrous.

Unlike Kyoto, this treaty has never been "rejected by the US". Every time it's come up for vote in a senate committee, it gets passed. What's keeping it from getting ratified seems to be hedging tactics by those that don't want it to go through.

If it came up for vote and got voted down, that's a different thing altogether. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Yet, rather than I can just immediately think of the idea that if this treaty demands full legalization of abortion, obviously it won't happen in a strongly moral nation.

You are implying here that that all the rest of the industrialized world is not "highly moral", unlike the US. And you are asserting that the granting of abortion rights is immoral, right?

 

[Pengwuino]

You are implying here that that all the rest of the industrialized world is not "highly moral", unlike the US. And you are asserting that the granting of abortion rights is immoral, right?

Well when you think about the actual act you're allowing ...

Unlike Kyoto, this treaty has never been "rejected by the US". Every time it's come up for vote in a senate committee, it gets passed. What's keeping it from getting ratified seems to be hedging tactics by those that don't want it to go through.

Fair enough, i see them as nearly one in the same however unless its a small group using the system to keep it from passing. If that is the case then i retract the "rejected" part.

 

[edward]

Unlike Kyoto, this treaty has never been "rejected by the US". Every time it's come up for vote in a senate committee, it gets passed. What's keeping it from getting ratified seems to be hedging tactics by those that don't want it to go through.

If it came up for vote and got voted down, that's a different thing altogether. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

You are implying here that that all the rest of the industrialized world is not "highly moral", unlike the US. And you are asserting that the granting of abortion rights is immoral, right?

Abortion rights are the crux of the of the issue. Conservative politicians are not about to ratify this and then get beaten over the head by the Christian right.

The Bush Administration opposes U.S. ratification of CEDAW, arguing that the treaty is pro-abortion rights and anti-family. Opposition on these grounds is unfounded. The truth is that nothing in the treaty addresses abortion specifically or women's traditional familial roles negatively.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20021010_sunder.html

 

[Pengwuino]

I believe the treaty says "reproductive rights" and "family planning". If the first amendment can be construed to mean a case for abortion, then this one sure isn't going to make it through without the pro-abortion electorate taking note.

 

[kyleb]

You really have to think about what kind of message signing these treaties mean. It's effectively saying to the world that women just aren't treated equally here...

That doesn't logically follow. If you were to sign an agreement to read this forum, that would not be an acknowledgment that you don't read this forum by any means. The same holds true for this treaty.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yah but this treaty isn't saying "The above signers have read this treaty, that's all"...

 

[kyleb]

There is nothing to justfy your "yah but" in that, my proposed agreement to read this forum isn't saying "The above signers have read this agreement" either.

 

[Pengwuino]

There is nothing to justfy your "yah but" in that, my proposed agreement to read this forum isn't saying "The above signers have read this agreement" either.

So if you sign something said you have read this forum ... it doesn't mean you've read the forum? Well its a bit harder to get away with such a thing with an international treaty...

 

[twisting_edge]

Guys, guys...look up the abortion rights in european countries (many of whom presumably ratified this thing). The abortion rights in the U.S. exceed those throughout most of europe.

I can dig up a source for that pretty easily if you want (easier to do it Monday, though, as the links in my outgoing archives at work).

Obviously, if "the US is the inudstrialized country" not to have signed it, most of Europe has, and therefore they either plan to ignore it or abortion isn't the driving issue.

 

[kyleb]

So if you sign something said you have read this forum ... it doesn't mean you've read the forum?

No I said; if you were to sign an agreement to read this forum, that would not be an acknowledgment that you don't read this forum by any means.

In the same sense, signing the treaty in question doesn't not "mean women just aren't treated equally here", despite the fact that you attempted to claim otherwise.

 

[Gokul43201]

Plus, they might actually have to pay us equal wages if they signed it.

Maybe this is a joke, and I'm not getting it. Equal pay is required by law (since the 60s or 70s?). So, if you're saying that this law is being ignored or subverted in some way, how is signing a Treaty going to help any?

 

[Moonbear]

I can find a few troubling parts:

Article 5
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures:
(a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women;
(b) To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.

Article 6
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.

In 5(a)...how? It seems like an impossible requirement. How do you change the social and cultural conduct of others? That sounds like it would do more to curb our freedoms than anything else.
In 5(b)...yikes! That one doesn't sit well at all. Again, it looks like it would be going backward..."proper understanding of maternity as a social function." Just what is a proper understanding of maternity? Some might construe that as suggesting all women should go back to being housewives, barefoot and pregnant.
In Article 6, well, just take a look at the outrage expressed in the other thread when our administration suggested the same to Germany! But, the federal government couldn't sign that, because it would interfere with states' rights. The federal government doesn't have the authority to make prostitution illegal.

(c) The elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education by encouraging coeducation and other types of education which will help to achieve this aim and, in particular, by the revision of textbooks and school programmes and the adaptation of teaching methods;

There goes the women's colleges. And, again, since education is under state and local control, not federal, Congress has no authority to agree to that.

(f) The reduction of female student drop-out rates and the organization of programmes for girls and women who have left school prematurely;

I haven't looked to see what those rates are, but what if they are less than male drop-out rates, or really just not that bad at all? How do you reduce it if it's already a fairly low rate in the first place? Maybe this is not possible to accomplish.

So, I think the devil is in the details here. The overall concept might be fine, but when you read in detail, you realize that due to the way the US government works, and the separation of federal and state governments, the federal government simply can't agree to some of these terms without violating Constitutional protections of states' rights.

 

[Gokul43201]

I sort of agree with your objection to 5a and definitely to that of 5b, but not to 6.

The federal government doesn't have the authority to make prostitution illegal.

...to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.

It doesn't ask you to make prostitution illegal, only to make its exploitation illegal. This, I believe, is trying to address prostitution under coercion.

Many of the points there read like they are written to address problems of sexual stigma and gender role stereotypes in socially backward countries. The developed countries just seem to sign on saying, "yeah, we get the drift but there's not much this treaty is going to change." Looks to me like it's more a symbolic thing.

 

[Moonbear]

It doesn't ask you to make prostitution illegal, only to make its exploitation illegal. This, I believe, is trying to address prostitution under coercion.

Maybe...I'm not entirely sure. Again, from that thread about Germany, we can see that some do consider all forms of prostitution to be exploitation. Even if it's intended to mean coercion, it could be interpreted more than just one way. Without statements from those who opposed it, we can't really know why they were blocking the votes on it, but that's another possible reason, that some of the wording introduces enough ambiguity as to have unintended consequences if they agree to it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Again, from that thread about Germany, we can see that some do consider all forms of prostitution to be exploitation.

Exploitation by who?

Edit : Nevermind, I'll go read that thread later (if it doesn't have a 1000 pages already).

 

[Moonbear]

The developed countries just seem to sign on saying, "yeah, we get the drift but there's not much this treaty is going to change." Looks to me like it's more a symbolic thing.

I agree, and as long as their government is set up in a way that those signing have authority over all those measures, it's no big deal. But, when our government is set up in a way where the agreement is at the federal level, but the jurisdiction over passing laws related to addressing the issues is at the state level, it makes it hard to even offer the symbolic gesture without running afoul of the Constitution. That could be why they're blocking the vote...it's better to take no action than to vote it down when you don't actually disagree with the principles and intent but can't vote for it due to technicalities.

 

[Moonbear]

Exploitation by who?

Evil men of course. I don't agree it's exploitation, so can't really answer that question, but it's something that gets tossed out from time to time in the overall debate about legalization vs. criminalization of prostitution.

 

[Evo]

I agree, and as long as their government is set up in a way that those signing have authority over all those measures, it's no big deal. But, when our government is set up in a way where the agreement is at the federal level, but the jurisdiction over passing laws related to addressing the issues is at the state level, it makes it hard to even offer the symbolic gesture without running afoul of the Constitution. That could be why they're blocking the vote...it's better to take no action than to vote it down when you don't actually disagree with the principles and intent but can't vote for it due to technicalities.

I'm going to throw my hat in with yours here.

 

[Gokul43201]

Note that the education bit used the word 'encourage', rather than something like 'enforce'. Would it be a violation of the Constitution for the President to say something like: "Hey, all you states. Think about making more schools be coed. It'll be good for you. Peace out, y'all"? I don't know.

 

[kyleb]

I can find a few troubling parts:

In 5(a)...how? It seems like an impossible requirement. How do you change the social and cultural conduct of others? That sounds like it would do more to curb our freedoms than anything else.
In 5(b)...yikes! That one doesn't sit well at all. Again, it looks like it would be going backward..."proper understanding of maternity as a social function." Just what is a proper understanding of maternity? Some might construe that as suggesting all women should go back to being housewives, barefoot and pregnant.

It isn't so troubling when you note how they are prefaced:

Article 5
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures:

Anything which curbs our freedoms or promotes misogyny obviously fails to meet the requirement bolded above. ;)

 

[loseyourname]

There goes the women's colleges. And, again, since education is under state and local control, not federal, Congress has no authority to agree to that.

Not only that, but the women's colleges are privately owned and ran. Even the states have no right to dictate who may or may not be excluded from attending.

 

[twisting_edge]

As an aside, here's an interesting bit of trivia about the Germans and prostitution.

'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your [unemployment] benefits'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml

I nearly choked when I first came across that one over a year ago. It's too funny: once the Germans toughened their unemployment laws, people receiving benefits became obliged to accept any legal job available after a certain period had elapsed.

I'm sure the situation has since been changed. Talk about unintended consequences. Also, I'm pretty sure that as a practical matter it would have been no problem to get the brothel to agree you'd make a terrible employee, and decide not to hire you.

[edited to add] This is relevant: it demonstrates the sort unintended consequences that can arise from flat rulings imposed without due consideration of existing systems.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Maybe this is a joke, and I'm not getting it. Equal pay is required by law (since the 60s or 70s?). So, if you're saying that this law is being ignored or subverted in some way, how is signing a Treaty going to help any?

Yeah, I'm saying this law is being ignored and subverted. http://hrw.org/english/docs/1996/12/07/usdom4164.htm" criticizing the U.S. for being lax on toture bans. If we sign it, then we look even more hypocritical for not treating women fairly. Yeah, compared to a lot of other countries, we are fair. But doing ok by comparison shouldn't be the acceptable level. If abortion isn't the real issue, then why won't they ratify the convention? I agree, sadly, that ratifying it doesn't mean it can't be completely ignored. It is symbolic though, which confer a lot of power. It's an acknowledgment of the issue, which I think is necessary in a country that doesn't like to talk admit it's own shortcomings on fairness for women. Plus, it can be used as leverage as I said before.