Miren Gutiérrez

November 16, 2009

GENDER: “Truly Exciting If the U.S. Could Ratify CEDAW” – Part 2

Filed under: Articles by IPS, General, Interviews by the Author — miren @ 12:12 am

Miren Gutierrez* interviews INES ALBERDI, executive director of UNIFEM

Security Council debates protection of civilians - and women - in armed conflict. / Credit:U.N.
Security Council debates protection of civilians – and women – in armed conflict.

Credit:U.N.


ROME, Nov 15 (IPS) – CEDAW or the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Violence Against Women (CEDAW) was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1979.
On its 30th anniversary, just seven U.N. member states continue to refuse to accept the only international instrument that comprehensively addresses women’s rights within political, civil, cultural, economic and social life.

In the second of a two-part interview IPS talks to Ines Alberdi, executive director of UNIFEM, about the countries holding out, including the U.S., and the new agency for women that the General Assembly has decided to create.

IPS: The U.S. is the only developed nation that has not ratified CEDAW (although it has signed it); now it’s a priority of the Barack Obama administration…

On the New Agency for WomenIPS: The U.N. General Assembly adopted recently a resolution aimed at creating a new full-fledged U.N. agency for women, headed by an under-secretary-general. How do you envision the consolidation of the four existing U.N. women’s entities?

INES ALBERDI: Well, there is now general agreement on a plan to merge the four gender-specific entities of the U.N. into a new ‘composite’ entity, taking into account each of their existing mandates. The adoption of the GA resolution in mid-September in this regard was an extremely important step in moving this forward. The Secretary-General and Deputy Secretary-General (DSG) are committed to ensuring that the U.N. does its utmost to turn this promise into reality and there is momentum now for strengthening the UN system in the areas of women’s rights and gender equality.

UNIFEM strongly welcomes the resolution for the establishment of the entity that promises to address the gaps and challenges in the U.N. gender architecture and has taken an active part in the discussions that the DSG has held among all of the gender-specific entities about how best to do this.

INES ALBERDI: It is very encouraging to see that the U.S. government is expressing receptiveness to ratifying the treaty; CEDAW now has almost universal ratification, which is a sign of a global consensus. It would be truly exciting if the U.S. could ratify the Convention in this anniversary year, but whenever this happens it will send a wonderful message on the importance of advancing women’s rights.

IPS: States ratifying the Convention are required to weave gender equality into their legislation, repeal all discriminatory provisions in their laws, and enact new provisions to guard against discrimination against women. But in many cases there is a gap between legislation and real action.

IA: CEDAW creates not only obligations for legal reform, but also more broadly for the full range of measures that are actually required for women to enjoy their human rights. So to meet the CEDAW requirements there is a need to integrate gender equality into laws and policies, the operation of legal and institutional structures, the allocation of budget resources, the attitudes of judicial and police authorities and so on as well as to change media and cultural stereotypes about women.

Real action also requires resources, and here of course women must compete with many more powerful groups and interests. This is why it is important to build the organising and advocacy capacity of women and gender equality advocates both inside and outside of government.

IPS: Several countries have ratified the Convention subject to certain declarations, reservations and objections. What are the commonest reservations and objections? Why?

IA: There are a wide range of reservations. One of the common areas for reservations is where a country sees a conflict between its existing legislation and the requirements of the Convention. What’s really encouraging to see in recent years is a trend towards states removing their reservations, after conducting successful law reform initiatives – in the areas of for example, nationality laws, or family codes.

Read more…

Share it:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • BarraPunto
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • Meneame
  • MySpace
  • Netvibes
  • PDF
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • Twitter

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress