CEDAW: The Women's Treaty

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 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. We have enough petty rants in this forum so here's an issue that deserves our attention.

According to Human Rights Watch:

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 acknowledgement 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 wont 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/ced...convention.htm

There is the actual text of the treaty that im reading.

Or of course, the US would have to stop giving women special treatment

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 wouldnt be allowed in this treaty so it would be a step back for women here. Of course, that is if its truely 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

Quote by Pengwuino

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

Quote by 0TheSwerve0

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

Quote by 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.

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 wont 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

Quote by Gokul43201

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 ...

Quote by Gokul43201

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

Quote by Gokul43201

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/comment...10_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

Quote by Pengwuino

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 acknowledgement 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, thats 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

Quote by 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.

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

Quote by Pengwuino

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 acknowledgement 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

Quote by 0TheSwerve0

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.

Similar Threads for: CEDAW: The Women's Treaty
Thread	Forum	Replies
The Lisbon Treaty. For or Against	Current Events	44
International Women's Day - March 8	General Discussion	0
China Urges US to sign the Kyoto Treaty	Current Events	10
Not married is women's weakness!	General Discussion	3
Kobe Treaty	General Physics	7

russ_watters Mentor	CEDAW: The Women's Treaty 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 Recognitions: Gold Member	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	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.