A 'Clean' CEDAW

In the coming months, the Obama Administration and the Senate will have the chance to right a major wrong of the Bush era: the US government's refusal--along with such beacons of women's liberation as Sudan, Iran, Qatar and Somalia--to ratify CEDAW, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, adopted by the General Assembly in 1979.

What does CEDAW promise? Guaranteed maternity benefits. The right to equal pay. (And no, Lily Ledbetter didn't give us that. The right to sue after you've been discriminated against for years is not the same as the right to be free from discrimination.) A commitment, at the broadest level, to eliminate acts of discrimination against women--i.e., to prohibit them, and to punish them when they do occur.

It's good stuff. One of the best things about the treaty is that it requires governments periodically to review and evaluate their policies and programs relating to women's equality, provoking what Human Rights Watch's Marianne Mollmann calls "a democratic dialogue" about women's rights, which has already occurred in some of the 184 signatory nations, including Peru.

Another admirable aspect of CEDAW is its stipulation that, when traditional cultural or religious practices collide with women's rights, the state is obliged to intervene on the side of women.

This dimension, quite naturally, drives religious conservatives nuts. In some countries they've found a way around it: Saudi Arabia signed the treaty but attached conditions stating that it could only be implemented in a fashion consistent with Sharia law. Needless to say, that isn't exactly what the framers had in mind.

Here in the USA, the Obama administration, which has been very pro-CEDAW, lost no time in dispatching the treaty to the DoJ , which will decide whether to attach conditions--called "reservations, understandings and declarations" (RUDs)--before it goes to the Senate (where it needs 67 votes for approval). Last time round, in 2002, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--largely at the behest of now-departed Senator Jesse Helms--sandbagged CEDAW with nearly a dozen RUDs, which in the view of some feminists essentially gutted it (and it didn't pass anyway).

One of the most egregious addressed abortion. It read: "Nothing in this convention shall be construed to reflect or create any right to abortion and in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning." As Janet Benshoof, president of the Global Justice Center, recently noted, this language was "…drafted to be used as an antiabortion tool. Under U.S. law nearly all abortions, including those needed by women due to serious health problems or fetal abnormalities incompatible with life, are defined as abortions as a ‘method of family planning.'"

Moreover, as Benshoof points out, the inclusion of this provision would undermine women's access to reproductive health services around the world. Already, CEDAW has been cited in court rulings striking down laws criminalizing abortion in signatory nations, such as Colombia. An endorsement of this qualification by the US it would weaken the legal position of women's advocates in these cases, giving aid and comfort to abortion rights opponents everywhere.

Will the Obama administration, and Senate Democrats, bow to pressure from antiabortion Republicans and include such conditions in this year's version, in a bid to ensure passage? Or will they push for a "clean CEDAW," as many feminists are urging? Senator Barbara Boxer, who heads the relevant Foreign Relations subcommittee, has pledged to begin hearings with a clean version of the treaty, but pressure will quickly mount to muck it up.

This past December, in honor of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, King Mohammed VI of Morocco lifted the "reservations" that his country had imposed on the implementation of CEDAW, and embraced an unqualified version. Wouldn't it be a fitting tribute to the late Senator Helms if the United States did the same?

Comments (31)

1. Well, first...that whirling sound you hear outside Raleigh is Jesse Helms still spinning in his grave from Obama winning North Carolina last November.

   Second, from the statement of RNC Chair Michael Steele on how "abortion is an individual choice for women"....

   maybe they don't have a problem with that anymore????

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 4:02pm

2. Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 4:02pm

   Wait for LVL to show up and show you how much of a problem they have with it. What I find funny here is that Republicans often argue that you shouldn't legislate anti-discrimination laws because it should be fixed through education, then the same people will argue to legislate anti-birth control laws instead of arguing for education so birth control isn't needed. Always struck me as weird. They are fine with people discriminating against women and minorities, but not with high school kids not getting pregnant.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/12/2009 @ 4:36pm

3. Actually, what's funnier is...

   these same guys used the United Nations' resolutions as a rationale for invading Iraq...

   but will MOCK the UN on this matter.

   AND they'll discuss how we freed so many women from the Taliban...

   as Sharia law and the veil come back in Iraq and our "ally" Saudi Arabia keeps oppressing women.

   Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 6:41pm

4. It is about time we adopted CEDAW. Thanks for reminding us.

   http://mhasegawa.wordpress.com

   Posted by mayah at 03/12/2009 @ 6:53pm

5. Intresting when leftist think the U.S.A. has a RIGHT to dictate to and interfer in the politics, culture, and social hiearchy of OTHER nations! Next you want to INVADE them to enforce these rights!?

   Posted by comancheamerican at 03/12/2009 @ 6:57pm

6. I notice that Carter didn't get it approved. Clinton didn't try and get it approved.

   But it's no surprise that the pro infanticide crowd wants to push this through now.

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/12/2009 @ 7:06pm

7. Mask, how do you like this from Obama?

   "Obama Says He Can Ignore Some Parts of Spending Bill

   By CHARLIE SAVAGE

   WASHINGTON -- President Obama on Wednesday issued his first signing statement, reserving a right to bypass dozens of provisions in a $410 billion government spending bill even as he signed it into law.

   In the statement -- directions to executive-branch officials about how to carry out the legislation -- Mr. Obama instructed them to view most of the disputed provisions as merely advisory and nonbinding, saying they were unconstitutional intrusions on his own powers

   One of the budget bill's provisions that Mr. Obama said he could circumvent concerns United Nations peacekeeping missions. It says money may not be spent on any such mission if it entails putting United States troops under a foreign commander, unless Mr. Obama's military advisers so recommend.

   "This provision," Mr. Obama wrote, "raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as commander in chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority."

   He also raised concerns about a section that establishes whistle-blower protections for federal employees who give information to Congress.

   "I do not interpret this provision," he wrote, "to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential."

   http://tinyurl.com/ap7qc2

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/12/2009 @ 7:14pm

8. Posted by antisocialist at 03/12/2009 @ 7:14pm

   I don't like it.

   But until he even APPROACHES Bush's number (which was more than all previous Presidents COMBINED)...I'll bide my time.

   Plus he's making a Constitutional case, that a true scholar, he can probably reasonably debate.

   I wonder how you'd hold up against him on the question of "Does a President have a right to start any war he wants, without any Congressional approval?"

   Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 07:49am

9. Plus he's making a Constitutional case, that a true scholar, he can probably reasonably debate.

   I wonder how you'd hold up against him on the question of "Does a President have a right to start any war he wants, without any Congressional approval?"

   Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 07:49am

   Really? So by Obama using the same language Bush used in his signing statements, Obama is making a Constitutional case and Bush wasn't? On what basis do you make that stand?

   Couldn't be because Obama is a leftist Democrat?

   BTW, I agree with Obama doing this. It's just that I knew that you and other leftists would suddenly find this acceptable with Obama when you railed against Bush for using the same reasoning.

   Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 12:40pm

10. I'm not sure I understand. Suppose the Senate approves a treaty saying that abortion should be legal (or that it should be prohibited, if you want an example on the other side of the debate). Does this then become the law of the land? Where do the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives figure in this?

    Posted by Mistral at 03/13/2009 @ 1:28pm

11. Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 12:40pm

    I don't accept it. I said that I didn't like it.

    But I don't think he's abused the power like Dubya did. Again, more than ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED??? I know it wouldn't set off any alarm bells with a "Presidential authoritarian" like you.

    Nor am I surprised you'd support it. You've been perfectly honest and fair in saying that you support unitary executive actions and would continue to do so under an Obama Administration. You like strong, even dominant executive control and applied it bipartisanly.

    BTW, not a subject change, but something to keep in mind for your "escape to El Salvador"...two words I heard on the radio the other day...

    "la renta" (more details if needed)

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 2:33pm

12. BTW, not a subject change, but something to keep in mind for your "escape to El Salvador"...two words I heard on the radio the other day...

    "la renta" (more details if needed)

    Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 2:33pm

    From Wiki

    "El Salvador still has one of the lowest tax burdens in the American continent (around 11% of GDP). Many specialists claim that it is impossible to advance significant development programs with such a little public sector (the tax burden in the United States is around 25% of the GDP and in other developed countries of the EU it can reach around 50%, like in Sweden).

    El Salvador historically has been the most industrialized nation in Central America, though a decade of war eroded this position. In 1999, manufacturing accounted for 22% of GDP. The industrial sector has shifted since 1993 from a primarily domestic orientation to include free zone (maquiladora) manufacturing for export. Maquila exports have led the growth in the export sector and in the last 3 years have made an important contribution to the Salvadoran economy."

    And this on taxes in El Salvador

    http://tinyurl.com/bx76tt

    We aren't hit with the nonresident taxes since my wife is from El Salvador and holds dual citizenship. We registered some of our sons for the dual citizenship so they have been able to buy property there also.

    Take a look at the area where we have our property

    http://tinyurl.com/adgb9n

    If you're not an ocean person

    http://tinyurl.com/bllnsa

    http://tinyurl.com/bkjkcw

    A view of El Salvador for those who still think in the 70's

    http://tinyurl.com/cxmn9g

    After looking at these, tell me why I wouldn't want to live there?

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 4:02pm

13. Here is where the family stayed last year

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-ZIT37XfBg

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 4:13pm

14. Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 4:02pm

    You didn't Google "la renta" and El Salvador...did you?

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101426190

    Posted by Mask at 03/14/2009 @ 07:24am

15. Posted by Mask at 03/14/2009 @ 07:24am

    didn't view the videos I take it?

    yes, gang crime is bad, mostly in San Salvador. But the article is an exaggeration of what life is really like.

    The gang problems are nearly as bad in LA.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/14/2009 @ 12:19pm

16. So you're against high taxes, but willing to expatriate to a country with same, only because you don't have to pay?

    Smells like hypocrisy, Anti, but the beaches look idyllic.

    Posted by snowball666 at 03/14/2009 @ 3:02pm

    the overall tax burden is much lower.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/15/2009 @ 01:45am

17. Are you planning on running a B&B or retiring proper? Looks like a pretty sweet life, either way.

    Posted by snowball666 at 03/15/2009 @ 06:56am

    Actually, we are starting a green company. Solar installations and green products.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/15/2009 @ 11:48am

18. Posted by antisocialist at 03/14/2009 @ 12:19pm

    And you have no problem with Funes?

    Posted by Mask at 03/16/2009 @ 10:19am

19. "The gang problems are nearly as bad in LA.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/14/2009 @ 12:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person "

    Interesting that you should mention that. My understanding is that much of the San Salvador gang problem is an import from Los Angeles. It seems that many El Salvadoran refugees learned the ropes from the LA gang culture and took it back home with them when they repatriated.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/16/2009 @ 1:19pm

20. Interesting that you should mention that. My understanding is that much of the San Salvador gang problem is an import from Los Angeles. It seems that many El Salvadoran refugees learned the ropes from the LA gang culture and took it back home with them when they repatriated.

    Posted by brunowe at 03/16/2009 @ 1:19pm

    That is true, sort of. They were most deported, many from jail or prison here. It's also why they operate mostly in San Salvador. They don't do well in the countryside or down in San Miguel or the coastal areas like Libertad.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/16/2009 @ 1:31pm

21. It would be wonderful if the United States ratified a clean CEDAW. There is nothing in it that should offend anyone who thinks that all humans are "created" equal. There isn't much of an enforcement mechanism in it (of course); it's mostly a set of standards and goals against which countries can measure their progress in human rights for women.

    The United States might pay more attention to the measures on which we have been backsliding (such as access to family planning) if we had to file the requisite annual report.

    For those of you who think that there are more important things to pay attention to and who don't care on principal whether women have equal rights or not: population growth is a huge threat to the quality of life of everyone. Lots of research has shown that the key to smaller families is a) women's access to family planning (big surprise) and b) women's access to education and jobs. Those are two of the important areas the convention addresses

    The United States ratification of this convention would not only be good for us but would make us look a little less like exceptionalist idiots. It also might give the convention a little more global status.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 03/16/2009 @ 2:00pm

22. Posted by antisocialist at 03/16/2009 @ 1:31pm

    Larry, what about Mauricio Funes? Marxist or "hybrid"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/16/2009 @ 2:40pm

23. Larry, what about Mauricio Funes? Marxist or "hybrid"?

    Posted by Mask at 03/16/2009 @ 2:40pm

    I posted some stuff about that on the "Assault on Obama Foreign policy" thread so as not to duplicate.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/16/2009 @ 2:51pm

24. Posted by antisocialist at 03/16/2009 @ 2:51pm

    Caught it...will drop it here.

    Posted by Mask at 03/16/2009 @ 3:22pm

25. Caught it...will drop it here. Posted by Mask at 3:22pm

    Well, good, Mask - despite your effort at the beginning here to address the topic (CEDAW) this entire thread has gone in some other direction(s). Of course I could be missing stuff because I have a pretty long "ignore" list - which was the strategy suggested by multiple people when some of us bitched about the difficulty of having relevant & coherent discussions on the Nation blog comments.

    I thought Mistral way back at 3/13/2009 1:28pm asked a relevant question, which was to what extent does a convention like this override US law? Since many of the signatory states have a very long way to go in fulfilling the terms of the convention, and I haven't heard about any international embargos against them as a result, I think we can assume that there aren't very many consequences to not toeing the mark here. Should there be? Why isn't that being discussed here, instead of Obama putting caveats on bills and the tax rate in El Salvador?

    I actually bothered to get on the UN site & read the text of the convention - actually, not for the first time. There is nothing in it about abortion one way or the other.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 03/16/2009 @ 3:55pm

26. posted by antisocialist 3/12/2009 7:06pm

    "but it's no surprise the pro-infanticide crowd wants to push it through now"

    Abortion is not infanticide. If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 03/16/2009 @ 4:02pm

27. Abortion is not infanticide. If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 03/16/2009 @ 4:02pm

    What do you think they are killing, a grasshopper?

    if you don't want to face the truth, that is your problem.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/16/2009 @ 4:33pm

28. Antisocialist, I don't believe that a pre-viable fetus is a baby. And I expect I know a lot more about it than you do, since I've actually had a baby & I'd be willing to bet you haven't. Correct me if I'm wrong. There's more to human responsibility than sentimentality.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 03/16/2009 @ 4:53pm

29. Antisocialist, I don't believe that a pre-viable fetus is a baby. And I expect I know a lot more about it than you do, since I've actually had a baby & I'd be willing to bet you haven't. Correct me if I'm wrong. There's more to human responsibility than sentimentality.

    Posted by cdlepthien at 03/16/2009 @ 4:53pm

    I called my 5 children and 8 grandchildren all babies when they were in the womb. I've viewed some of my grandchildren laughing and sucking their thumbs while in the womb. I've never once heard a women say "we may name this fetus Emily". Nor have I ever heard a woman say "do you want to feel the fetus move"?

    Having a baby does not make you an expert on biology and anthropology.

    Posted by antisocialist at 03/16/2009 @ 6:52pm

30. Antisocialist, Really, you're basing your characterization of abortion as infanticide on biology and anthropology? How interesting. I base mine on ethics.

    Yes, we all love our children. Yes, people shouldn't get pregnant by accident but it happens.

    It's great if you have a happy family, but you should really try to understand that in some situations, choosing not to have a baby is far more responsible than choosing to have one. Two Catholic doctors in South America just got excommunicated for performing an abortion to save the life of a nine year old girl who was raped by her stepfather. Would you care to explain why they should have just let her die?

    Posted by cdlepthien at 03/16/2009 @ 8:05pm

31. Posted by cdlepthien at 03/16/2009 @ 8:05pm

    Keep in mind antisoc's (aka lvliberty aka Larry) position on "biology and theology".

    He believes that a one-second-after-implantation-in-the-uterine wall fertilized human ovum is a "baby"....

    but the Neanderthals were 'soulless androids'!

    Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 07:33am