iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Hillary Clinton Promotes Women's Rights Treaty That U.S. Has Not Yet Joined

First Posted: 09/20/2011 7:55 pm Updated: 11/20/2011 4:12 am

NEW YORK -- On the eve of high-level meetings for the United Nations' general assembly, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended an event on Monday afternoon designed to highlight the importance of women's participation in public life.

Together with a selection of major female world leaders, including Catherine Ashton, the European Union's top diplomat, and Michelle Bachelet, the former president of Chile and the head of U.N. Women, Clinton put her name to a document calling for developing countries -- especially in the changing Middle East -- to clear the way for women to hold leadership roles.

The joint statement read:

We call upon all States to ratify and fulfill their obligations under the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and to implement fully Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women and Peace and Security and other relevant UN resolutions.

There was only one problem: the United States is the only industrialized nation -- and one of only seven in the world -- that has not yet signed onto the CEDAW treaty.

Although Clinton did not mention America's conspicuous absence from the list of full CEDAW adherents, both she and President Obama have repeatedly stated they would like to see the treaty ratified in the Senate. But while CEDAW has been in the hands of the Senate for more than 30 years -- ever since President Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980 -- it has never so much as gotten a vote in the full chamber.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Melanne Verveer, the State Department's ambassador at large for global women's issues, described CEDAW as just one of many issues affecting women that has Clinton's personal attention, and said that the administration has "made its position very clear on this."

"I've testified that around the world, the number one question I'm asked is why hasn't the U.S. ratified CEDAW," Verveer said. "We would be much stronger if we could be in the right place, but it's up to the Senate."

Erin Matson, the action vice president at the National Organization for Women, calls it "an embarrassment that the U.S. has dragged its heels for so long on this issue."

"We are in horrible company," she added. "Most of the nations around the world have ratified CEDAW, and to think that it's gone 30 years since President Carter signed it, and asked for its ratification in the Senate, it's heartbreaking."

While she praised Clinton for her leadership on global women's rights issues, Matson said the administration's effort on the treaty has been lacking.

"Secretary of State Clinton is a champion for women's human rights around the world and has spoken forcefully in favor of prioritizing CEDAW ratification many times," Matson said.

"In terms of the president, we would love to see more of a commitment to this coming from the White House, from the president himself. The White House does support CEDAW. The question is, is the White House pushing on CEDAW right now? No."

Janet Benshoof, the president of the Global Justice Center and an advocate for women's rights worldwide, said one reason the treaty has struggled to get approval is that some legal analysts fear it may institute protections for controversial reproductive programs, particularly abortion.

As a result, previous versions of the treaty that have reached the Senate floor -- including one as recently as 2002 -- have included special riders that exempted abortion laws, and a handful of other provisions, from the treaty.

Passing a U.N. treaty that includes special exemptions would be an insult to the international community, not to mention it would sap the measure of its fundamental strength, Benshoof said.

"If we have a CEDAW that is like the last one, we don't need it," Benshoof said. "It does not send a signal to women of the world that America signs a treaty without intention of ever implementing it. It would be like signing a treaty against torture and putting in a clause excluding waterboarding."

In a recent Newsweek list of the best countries in the world for women, the United States ranked eighth overall, but it joined countries near the bottom of the list -- Iran (125th), Sudan (156th) -- in not being a signatory to CEDAW.

Asked if she thought the treaty might see passage soon, Verveer laughed.

"We've got to continue to be hopeful," she said. "I can't live without hope."

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story implied the treaty had not yet been signed. The treaty was signed by President Carter, but it has not yet been ratified by the U.S. Congress.
FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

 
 
  • Comments
  • 372
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
03:54 AM on 09/22/2011
If Hillary is promoting something it won't get off the ground.
11:28 PM on 09/21/2011
Don't give it a second thought. Hillary was just misspeaking again. You have to excuse her because she has been incredibly busy ensuring that Palestinian women are getting plenty of human rights.
photo
1oldhippie
yes, WE can again!
10:48 PM on 09/21/2011
Not ratified in THIRTY YEARS!
Congress...your tax dollars at work!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kevinbr38
Give Me A Pig Foot....
02:52 PM on 09/21/2011
No need for the quasi-provocative headlines creating to stimulate discussion and create contention where there is none.
Sec. Clinton is hardly in breech of protocol considering the fact that the president said pretty much the same thing today when addressing The General Assembly.
Further, and more importantly, the woman, Hillary Clinton is starting to position herself for the role she has decided to take on after leaving The Sate Department next year...an advocate for global women's rights.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elamatt
Ever the optimistic realist
02:30 PM on 09/21/2011
Ok, as a woman I just have to ask: What's WRONG with eliminating all forms of discrimination against women??? Of course we never did ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, so we women, especially those of us 50 and over, have to take some of the blame. We had the opportunity to vote and either didn't or listened to the "women will be drafted" voices. So they many fine women in the military now were "forced" to enlist? Our national conservative bent is not doing us any favors, IMO.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:42 PM on 09/21/2011
What do you mean ALL "forms of discrimination?"

Do you mean that employers must hire women physically incapable of lifting 100 pounds even if the job calls for it?

"ALL" usually negates what follows. There is no way ALL forms of discrimination can be eliminated. Discrimination is typically in the eye of the beholder, much like "sexual harassment." It depends on the parties involved and circumstances.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:08 PM on 09/21/2011
"Do you mean that employers must hire women physically incapable of lifting 100 pounds even if the job calls for it?"

No more than they must hire men physically incapable of lifting 100 pounds even if the job calls for it.

That's called equality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elamatt
Ever the optimistic realist
05:19 PM on 09/21/2011
BTW the "all forms of discrimination" was in the article; I didn't just pull that verbage out of my hat. And, I've taken (and written) Faaarrr too many multiple choice/true or false tests to not be aware of trick words. You're a master at it, but still I'm not buying.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:39 AM on 09/23/2011
Oh, don't be too harsh on yourself. Women of the 50+ generation made huge inroads! I keep having to remind my ("so-what" / "eyeroll") teenage daughter that she should never, ever take for granted the opportunities she has that were so hard won thanks to the efforts of the generations of women who went before.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:26 PM on 09/21/2011
Ladies, people discriminate all the time for all kinds of reasons. And, having been doing so for a very, very long time (since humans were invented or hatched or whatever).

No law is going to end discrimination but those kinds of useless laws provide lawyers with a steady income.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mytwocentstoo
Micro-bios are like internet bumper stickers.
02:28 PM on 09/21/2011
Sure wish there was an "unlike" or "thumbs down" flag for comments like yours.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:31 PM on 09/21/2011
You could flag it as abusive, I suppose.

It doesn't matter to me. Comments posted on I'net message boards are for amusement only and serve no other purpose.

I'm amused, aren't you?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:34 PM on 09/21/2011
BTW, do you know the easiest and most sure way to provoke anger?

Tell an unwanted truth.

You can even see it on I'net message boards when people have a negative reaction to comments. They know it's true but do not want to acknowledge the truth.


Really, that's true.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elamatt
Ever the optimistic realist
02:31 PM on 09/21/2011
So we should just continue with "approved" discrimination, I see.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:35 PM on 09/21/2011
You aren't going to end it so you may as well acknowledge you cannot legislate all your personal problems away.

Some things are just part of life.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:26 PM on 09/21/2011
Typical American BS
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elamatt
Ever the optimistic realist
02:31 PM on 09/21/2011
NOT!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:24 PM on 09/21/2011
Who was it that suggested women should be allowed to vote?

Whoever it was, he should be (whatever).

"All forms of discrimination" is about the most nonsensical "legal term" I've ever read. Not to mention it being "vague" and "ambiguous" (legally unenforcable).

These women seem to be out of their league.

HRC needs to go home and bake cookies or something.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mytwocentstoo
Micro-bios are like internet bumper stickers.
02:30 PM on 09/21/2011
R U trolling?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:36 PM on 09/21/2011
Nope.

I post what I believe to be true.

If I didn't or don't believe it to be true, I won't post it. Unless it is intended as sarcasm, which I usually indicate if it is not obvious.
01:57 PM on 09/21/2011
IF reid and gang got right on this and got it done do you realy think tha UN has any way to force what is in this treaty?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Sharmine Narwani
01:56 PM on 09/21/2011
Put your money where your mouth is, Hilary. She actually makes me ill, this gargantuan hypocrite-on-all-matters.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:27 PM on 09/21/2011
Hypocrisy is a word thrown around a lot on these threads. In this case it is extremely well suited.
03:55 AM on 09/22/2011
Bet you can't name one thing Hillary has accomplished.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shipfixr
I feel very strongly on BOTH sides of the issue..
01:51 PM on 09/21/2011
Mrs Clinton sat in the Senate for over six of those thirty years but I don't recall any special push on her part to get this treaty on the floor for a vote. What is the Senate reason for not, of nothing else, voting the treaty DOWN if they won't vote it UP......a U.S. President signed it....the Senate, in my uneducated opinion, has to take SOME action on it or they are telling the world that our President's signature on anything is of no value....
02:43 PM on 09/21/2011
Treaties are significantly more complex than that. There are many treaties that we never accede to but follow to the letter. Among the most important is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which the United States, as the largest trading nation and the most powerful naval force, has a great deal of national interest in. Indeed the treaty was largely shaped according to U.S. wishes. We've done something similar with the Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court.

Those treaties are not legally binding on us until we accede to them (which means signature plus ratification), because traditionally signatures on treaties are a mere signaling of intent, and were never legally binding. However, customary international law can work to make widely accepted international law principles legally binding upon everyone, even states that have not become a party to the relevant treaties. For example, even if the United States withdrew from the UN Convention Against Torture, we would still be in violation of international law if we tortured someone, because the prohibition against torture has become a part of customary international law.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shipfixr
I feel very strongly on BOTH sides of the issue..
06:12 PM on 09/21/2011
kwyang: The UN convention on the Law of the Sea is nothing more than the International law of the same name that existed for many years prior to the UN. At some point, mostly in the late 40's and early 50's, the UN set out to re-codify international law; in most cases doing nothing more than bringing it under the UN banner but international law is international law no matter if part of some UN 'make work' convention. The treaty in question however DOES NOT fall under some existing code and, I feel, it is the duty of the Congress to act on it....even if it is to do nothing more than REFUSE to ratify it (although I don't know what ELSE you would call thirty years of inaction). Also, my remarks about Mrs Clinton stand unless you can show me someplace where she did ANYTHING to push this treaty during her time in the Senate....it's certainly not in her record anywhere.
01:46 PM on 09/21/2011
What is sickening is how many American leaders/politicians and their spouses, and high positioned women like Albright, Rice, and Clinton have gone around the world lecturing countries how to treat women, while back home women are considered sub-men. America gets pathetic each passing day.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anarchy4hire
Don't you love your guns, god, government?
03:53 PM on 09/21/2011
Indeed, this country both fears and hates women
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wildanimalover
01:39 PM on 09/21/2011
It is shameful and embarrassing that we haven't been able to get 50 states to sign that bill for women's rights.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hello All
01:26 PM on 09/21/2011
Many developing countries had women head of states. Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India to name a few had women head of states decades ago. The thing to note is these developing countries had their women head of state within few decades, in some cases less than a decade after their independence and America could not make one women head of state in more than 200 years after their independence.
And still one read news article headlines, "Is America ready for a women president?" http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Is+America+ready+for+a+women+president
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
xarcturusx
12:56 PM on 09/21/2011
Typical American behavior!