By Paddy Torsney and Todd Howland
President Obama will be in a good position to ask: Why segregation of women from public life -- for example the lack of equal voting rights for women in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Bhutan -- has not yet been considered a flagrant violation of the UN Charter as has racial discrimination?
Importantly, 37 years ago the International Court of Justice that South Africa's policy of racial discrimination violated its obligations of non-discrimination found in the UN Charter.
Candidate Obama should surf the present swell of interest in women's rights created by Senator Clinton's endorsement of his candidacy to reinforce his support for the US ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and go a step further to not only be seen as doing something for the rights of women globally, but actually do and appear to be doing the needed work.
CEDAW presently binds 185 of the 192 UN Members. The treaty dates back to 1979 and shockingly, the US is one of only seven UN Members not to commit to its terms. But more importantly than the symbolism of his already stated support for the US ratifying the treaty, he should speak in terms of how he wants to ratify the Convention and how he will measure improvement domestically so the US has moral authority to contribute to ending violations of the treaty internationally.
Discrimination against women is complex. Thus, progressive male politicians and advocates tend too often to shy away for fear of not getting it right. President Obama could, for example, assert that discrimination against women is more problematic than the ratification numbers indicate. The number of countries bound by CEDAW could be considered to be 153. Why? Because 32 nations made significant reservations related to CEDAW! Reservations are an international law "asterisk," as it were, to a country's participation in a treaty. When the reservation has the effect of undermining the essence and power of the treaty, it is questionable whether the country is, in fact, a State Party to the treaty. President Obama should push them to remove their "asterisk" and pressure these nations to implement more equality for their populations.
Combating gender discrimination continues to be an enormous challenge, partly due to the fact that discrimination against women tends to exist on various levels, some of which are subconscious. The fact that a country has committed itself to an international treaty to help combat these ills is merely a start, but even in ratifying CEDAW many countries talk out of both sides of their mouth relative to the human rights of women: "Yes of course we support them, but, of course, there are historic and cultural reasons why we don't in some cases."
Interestingly in the US, few human rights treaties have engendered the backlash that CEDAW has. There has been a fierce and often times misinformed opposition to CEDAW's ratification in the US. President Carter signed the treaty in 1980, but it has been awaiting Senate approval since that time. Part of this opposition to CEDAW comes from what is seen as its pro-choice content. Other critiques talk about how it is a product of "radical feminism" and how it mandates a genderless society. This would be news to the country representatives that drafted the treaty and to the many countries that have ratified the treaty, but where androgyny oddly has not taken over. But one should not underestimate the passion of these opponents. It will test Candidate Obama's ability to communicate effectively with some constituents. He will need to demonstrate leadership, not telling people what they want to hear, but rather contribute to creating a shared value, even if full agreement is not possible.
Regaining credibility and even more importantly leadership related to human rights internationally will require numerous actions by the new President. Candidate Obama has an opportunity now to clarify that CEDAW ratification by the USA and enhancing the rights of women at home and internationally are clearly on his agenda.
Ms. Torsney is Vice President of The Capital Hill Group and Canadian Member of Parliament from 1993 to 2006. Mr. Howland is a Professor of Human Rights Law at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul, Korea.