Global Women's Rights Treaty Gets Second Wind

[Diane Monaco <dmonaco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

INTERNATIONAL
Global Women's Rights Treaty Gets Second Wind

By Peggy Simpson - WEnews correspondent

WASHINGTON (WOMENSENEWS)--For the first time since 1994, the U.S. Senate
plans hearings on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women, the U.N. global women's treaty which has been
ratified by 168 countries since 1979.

The U.S. hearing, set for May 15 before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, does not guarantee that the United States will finally ratify
the treaty, but it's a big step forward. The treaty has been in force for
decades without United States participation; if the Congress ratifies the
treaty, the United States will have a seat at the table when global women's
rights issues are debated in the U.N.

The treaty spells out a framework for governments to use in combating
discrimination against women and in protecting women's human rights.
Although it contains no enforcement mechanisms, it sets out goals--and
provides examples of how they can be met--to end inequities in women's
legal status, education, work, health care, marriage and family relations,
finance and politics. Treaty signatories must report annually to the United
Nations on continuing gender inequality in their countries, progress they
make and their governments' strategies for eliminating discrimination
against women.

North Carolina Republican Sen. Jesse Helms, who will retire this year,
blocked the treaty from being debated while he was committee chair from
1995 until Democrats regained control of the Senate in 2001.

In 2000, California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer and all the other women
members of the Senate except Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison
moved to hold hearings on the treaty. But Helms rebuffed them.

"Dream on," Helms told the treaty advocates, saying he would continue to
block the measure, which he said had been "negotiated by radical feminists
with the intent of enshrining their radical antifamily agenda into
international law."

"I will have no part of it," he said.

Helms' support came from anti-feminist and religious groups that claimed
the treaty would interfere with "family values" and with pro-life
activists' attempts to curtail abortion rights.

Today, the committee is chaired by Delaware Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden,
who supports the women's rights treaty. All committee Democrats favor the
treaty and at least several Republicans are probable supporters--but Biden
won't call for a vote unless he is assured of at least 13 votes, says Leila
Milani, the Senate liaison for a coalition of women's groups seeking the
treaty's ratification.

A favorable committee vote would send the treaty to the Senate floor, where
67 votes are required to ratify the treaty. That would be the end of the
process--no House action or White House signoff would be required for U.S.
ratification to take effect. But Milani says supporters are well short of
that 67 total--and other supporters say this year's Senate committee
hearing may be a warm-up for full Senate action next year.

Treaty supporters, however, are encouraged that President George W. Bush,
through the State Department, has in essence given it his support, even if
that support is lukewarm.

"I think that the fact that the Bush administration already has spoken on
the issue of women in Afghanistan will help us on this treaty," Milani
said, referring to Laura Bush's public statements in support of Afghan women.

Helms could still try to sabotage the hearings or put a hold on Senate
ratification of it as a last hurrah, but such a move would not be welcomed
by the many Republicans in tight election races this fall.

Coalition Creates User-Friendly Name for Treaty

Although most women's rights advocates have supported the treaty since
1979, few made it a priority, which permitted Helms and other conservatives
to effectively block a vote. Another problem that kept the treaty stalled
was that, until recently, few people in the general public had even heard
of it. Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal says that's
partly because of its jargon-heavy name.

"Who knows what a 'convention' is?" she recently told a meeting of the
Journalism and Women's Symposium, a national organization of reporters,
writers and broadcast producers. "Who realizes that this is actually a
global women's rights treaty? Why not call it that?"

A move toward using the more generic "global women's treaty" has taken
hold, as a recently created coalition of more than 135 religious, civil,
women's and professional groups has urged voter pressure on the Senate to
ratify the treaty this year.

Why the action now? It's an election year. The women's vote will be pivotal
in deciding which party controls the next Congress. Democrats back the
treaty and are pushing for action on it. Moderate Republicans want to avoid
giving the Democrats an opportunity to characterize all of them as
retrograde on women's issues.

Other Conservatives See Treaty as Hazardous

Although Helms' imminent departure from Congress may move the treaty toward
passage, supporters also must address other concerns of opponents. One
criticism made by Helms and others was that the convention would prompt an
avalanche of frivolous lawsuits demanding changes in U.S. laws or
practices. Advocates say the treaty would not trigger any lawsuit not
already authorized under U.S. law.

In 1994, the United States ratified another U.N. treaty, the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, with
language almost identical to the women's treaty. There has been no
avalanche of frivolous suits since its ratification, advocates argue. The
racism treaty did put the United States solidly on the record against racism.

Right now, the United States cannot have a role in the global women's
rights committee sessions which are held three times a year, to assess the
global status of women. Linda Tarr-Whelan, a former U.S. ambassador on
women's issues to the United Nations, says U.S. ratification of the global
women's rights treaty "would allow us to hold our head up on women's human
rights issues, to be active in assuring those rights around the world."

Women's rights advocates say that, despite conservative worries and
accusations, the women's treaty will not change U.S. abortion laws,
prohibit same-sex schools, or affect child-rearing laws in any way.

In countries that have already ratified the women's rights treaty, the
document has provided valuable benchmarks for equality and mechanisms for
changing laws and systems to achieve that equality, say treaty supporters.
The Web site for the United Nations Development Fund for Women carries
updates on cause-and-effect actions stemming from its passage by various
countries. Zambia, for instance, ratified the treaty in 1985 and six years
later extended its bill of rights to cover sex discrimination. After Sri
Lanka ratified, its government put in place laws which guaranteed women
equal access to land and equal treatment in agrarian reform.

The war in "Afghanistan is a huge factor--and the work by American women to
make sure that the voices of Afghan women were not silenced as the Taliban
put them under house arrest was a major influence on the strong Bush
administration position there," Tarr-Whelan said. "Now we hope the
convention will be ratified with Bush support--their support means this
will have a very good chance this year."

Peggy Simpson is a veteran reporter who covered the 1970s-1980s women's
political movement and has recently returned to Washington after a decade
in Central-Eastern Europe, covering the economic-political transition after
the fall of communism.

For more information:

UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM): - http://www.unifem.undp.org/

UN Division for the Advancement of Women - Convention for the Elimination
of All Forms of - Discrimination Against Women: -
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

Feminist Majority Foundation - Convention to Eliminate All Forms of
Discrimination - Against Women (CEDAW): -
http://www.feminist.org/research/cedawmain.html



________________________________________________________________
Copyright 2002 Women's Enews. The information contained in this
Women's Enews report may--with the prior written authorization of
Women's Enews--be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise
distributed. To obtain permission, reply to this email and provide
the publication or broadcast date and the name of the newspaper,
magazine, radio or television station, cable network, Web site,
newsletter or list serve where it will be replicated. Please
include the approximate size of the audience you intend to reach.
________________________________________________________________
Women's Enews is a nonprofit independent news service covering
issues of concern to women and their allies. We are supported by
our readers and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the
Barbara Lee Family Foundation and the Starry Night Fund. The
donations from readers are critical to our success. They are an
important measure that we are serving our audience--the yardstick
that our foundation supporters will measure us by. Donate now by
going to http://www.womensenews.org/support.cfm
________________________________________________________________
Women's Enews subscribers may select whether to receive a
daily full text, daily summary or weekly summary. To change your
email address, send mail to membersvcs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To change
the frequency of your mail or to cancel your subscription, send a
message to Member Services or use our online form:
     http://www.womensenews.org/update_subscription.cfm
	
New subscribers can send a message to membersvcs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://www.womensenews.org/subscribe.cfm