U.S. refuses to join U.N. plan for women

bfrank · 10-14-04, 04:33 PM

UNITED NATIONS - The United States has refused to join 85 other heads of state and government in signing a statement that endorsed a 10-year-old U.N. plan to ensure every woman's right to education, health care, and choice about having children.

President Bush (news - web sites)'s administration withheld its signature because the statement included a reference to "sexual rights."

U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kelly Ryan wrote to organizers of the statement that that the United States was committed to the Cairo plan of 1994 and "to the empowerment of women and the need to promote women's fullest enjoyment of universal human rights."

"The United States is unable, however, to endorse the world leaders' statement," Ryan said, because it "includes the concept of `sexual rights,' a term that has no agreed definition in the international community."

Ryan did not elaborate on the Bush administration's objections to the phrase "sexual rights," but at past U.N. meetings U.S. representatives have spoken out against abortion, gay rights and what they see as the promotion of promiscuity by giving condoms to young people to prevent AIDS (news - web sites).

The statement of new global support for the Cairo plan was given Wednesday to Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette by media mogul Ted Turner, who has lent significant financial support to the world body through his United Nations (news - web sites) Foundation.

The 1994 Cairo program, signed by 179 countries, including the United States, says women have the "right to make decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and violence as expressed in human rights documents."

The support statement notes that in 1994 "the world's governments and civil society committed to an action plan to ensure universal access to reproductive health information and services, uphold fundamental human rights including sexual and reproductive rights, alleviate poverty, secure gender equality, and protect the environment."

[more]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ulation_agenda

us against the world again

dork · 10-14-04, 04:38 PM

Quote:

"The United States is unable, however, to endorse the world leaders' statement," Ryan said, because it "includes the concept of `sexual rights,' a term that has no agreed definition in the international community."

Everyone knows "sexual rights" is code for letting them be on top. Kudos to the administration for standing up for what's right.

bhk · 10-14-04, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Everyone knows "sexual rights" is code for letting them be on top.

Serious dork is back.

I wonder if this is like the Sudan and Libya being on the human rights committee. I suspect that all this is code for "US, you pay us X billion tax $ and we spend it as we see fit." See the UN oil for food program.

Venusian · 10-14-04, 04:44 PM

does it matter? does this statement mean anything?

i'd rather have the u.n. spending their time and money doing something that matters --- sudan

bfrank · 10-14-04, 05:02 PM

not really but the timing is odd though. I guess this plays well to the base?

Tommy Ceez · 10-14-04, 05:06 PM

I think I can hold off on criticizing the country that allows women to vote, hold national office, go to school, and choose and instead focus that criticizm on the countries that stone women.

The UN doesnt have much leverage when instead of signing this document...the US lead the charge in freeing millions of women in Afghanistan.

We get a free pass.

DVD Polizei · 10-14-04, 06:12 PM

While I don't agree with the US, I think these types of "statements" are useless and make the world think these conferences of nations are actually doing something.

Countries do what they want, regardless of a little stupid piece of paper that says otherwise.

Myster X · 10-14-04, 06:18 PM

How many Arab countries sign it?

Contactsport1 · 10-14-04, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Myster X
How many Arab countries sign it?

Judging ourselves against them are we? If that were the bar we'd have to dig to get under it.

Myster X · 10-14-04, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Contactsport1
Judging ourselves against them are we? If that were the bar we'd have to dig to get under it.

Before Bfrank mentioned US against the world, I'd like to see who signed it and determine if there's hyprocrisy involve.

Contactsport1 · 10-14-04, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Myster X
Before Bfrank mentioned US against the world, I'd like to see who signed it and determine if there's hyprocrisy involve.

Groovy. Sorry about the misread.

kvrdave · 10-14-04, 06:34 PM

STOOOOOPID.

The UN.

nemein · 10-14-04, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Myster X
How many Arab countries sign it?

Beats me I can't even find which treaty they are talking about. The UN site is mess as far as searching for anything. This is the best I could find off hand (granted I didn't spend a lot of time on it)

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/treaties/womens.asp

Neither of the treaties mentioned here is 10 years old though... One is from the 70s the other is '99.

nemein · 10-14-04, 06:40 PM

A little more success... here's the US's statement letter to the program when it was originally proposed in '94.

http://www.un.org/popin/unpopcom/32n...ments/usa2.pdf

Which brings up the question of why didn't Clinton sign on to it when he was President? Did the congress block him or is there more to the story?

DVD Polizei · 10-14-04, 06:44 PM

UN. United Narcissists.

nemein · 10-14-04, 07:07 PM

This might be the main document in question http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/offeng/poa.html

Still haven't been able to find a list of signatories... You'd think such an important document as this one would be easier to dig up info on. Anyway I've lost interest if anyone else wants to try here's some links to help you out

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/spechr.htm - treaties
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/index.html - Division for the Advancement of Women home page

BTW there does seem to be a larger document/treaty called the
"Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women" to which the US is a signatory.

Something else just occured to me in that I think there is a specific UN body that deals w/ population. As this does seem to be as much about sexual rights than anything else they might have the info on this. http://www.un.org/popin/icpd5.htm

kvrdave · 10-14-04, 07:14 PM

pssst, nemein.....nobody really wants to know. We just want to say that Bush hates women and be done with it.

nemein · 10-14-04, 07:23 PM

Actually to me it sounds like people are just trying to dig up as much "us against the world again" stuff as they can to put the Kerry can do it better spin on it. Come to think of it I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before back when Bush first came into office, as I seem to recall digging around the UN site looking for info on women's rights, population control, etc. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything in the DVDtalk archive that I could find.

eXcentris · 10-14-04, 07:32 PM

The US has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child either. The only other country not to ratify it is Somalia which has no recognized government.

As to the explanation why:

Quote:

As in many other nations, the United States undertakes an extensive examination and scrutiny of treaties before proceeding to ratify. This examination, which includes an evaluation of the degree of compliance with existing law and practice in the country at state and federal levels, can take several years – or even longer if the treaty is portrayed as being controversial or if the process is politicized. For example, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide took more than 30 years to be ratified in the United States and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which was signed by the United States 17 years ago, still has not been ratified. Moreover, the US Government typically will consider only one human rights treaty at a time. Currently, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is cited as the nation's top priority among human rights treaties.

17 years, 30 years, either they are just slow or the single person affected to this task is paid by the hour.

nemein · 10-14-04, 08:27 PM

Got a source for that quote?

kvrdave · 10-14-04, 08:43 PM

Where it doesn't really mean anything, what's the rush?

Ranger · 10-14-04, 09:43 PM

Quote:

us against the world again

nooooooooo! (sobbing) Not again! We're doomed --- DOOMED!

eXcentris · 10-14-04, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nemein
Got a source for that quote?

Yup!

http://www.unicef.org/crc/faq.htm

Ranger · 10-14-04, 10:59 PM

Okay, I'll throw in some serious comments so bfrank doesn't yell at me.

For a long time, I think it's been the policy of America to avoid getting involved in UN plans that requires "equal" scrutiny. I think like in the 1970s, Australia signed some UN race plan, and a UN race committee was critical of Australia for its treatment of Aborgines (sp?). I think John Howard argued that Australia was a democracy and that it's a given that the people of Australia have more rights so they shouldn't be criticized for human rights, especially if the committee had members from non-democratic countries. I think former north carolina senator Jesse Helms has said similar things in the past, unfortunately, he has been accused of racism a few times. eXcentris' buddy, Mr. Jimmy Carter says, it doesn't matter if countries are democratic or not, they all need to be willing to be scrutized on an equal basis.

The debate is still around but I don't see US changing its position anytime soon, and I don't think it's a big deal.

mikehunt · 10-14-04, 11:15 PM

the UN sucks. for one thing at least some of them use sony vaio laptops. I know because I took a call from some countries office at the UN one day

10-14-04, 04:33 PM	#1
bfrank Premium Member Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: So. Cal Posts: 20,613	U.S. refuses to join U.N. plan for women UNITED NATIONS - The United States has refused to join 85 other heads of state and government in signing a statement that endorsed a 10-year-old U.N. plan to ensure every woman's right to education, health care, and choice about having children. President Bush (news - web sites)'s administration withheld its signature because the statement included a reference to "sexual rights." U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kelly Ryan wrote to organizers of the statement that that the United States was committed to the Cairo plan of 1994 and "to the empowerment of women and the need to promote women's fullest enjoyment of universal human rights." "The United States is unable, however, to endorse the world leaders' statement," Ryan said, because it "includes the concept of `sexual rights,' a term that has no agreed definition in the international community." Ryan did not elaborate on the Bush administration's objections to the phrase "sexual rights," but at past U.N. meetings U.S. representatives have spoken out against abortion, gay rights and what they see as the promotion of promiscuity by giving condoms to young people to prevent AIDS (news - web sites). The statement of new global support for the Cairo plan was given Wednesday to Deputy Secretary-General Louise Frechette by media mogul Ted Turner, who has lent significant financial support to the world body through his United Nations (news - web sites) Foundation. The 1994 Cairo program, signed by 179 countries, including the United States, says women have the "right to make decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and violence as expressed in human rights documents." The support statement notes that in 1994 "the world's governments and civil society committed to an action plan to ensure universal access to reproductive health information and services, uphold fundamental human rights including sexual and reproductive rights, alleviate poverty, secure gender equality, and protect the environment." [more] http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ulation_agenda us against the world again __________________ B Be good humans!

10-14-04, 05:02 PM	#5
bfrank Premium Member Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: So. Cal Posts: 20,613	not really but the timing is odd though. I guess this plays well to the base? __________________ B Be good humans!

10-14-04, 05:06 PM	#6
Tommy Ceez DVD Talk Legend Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Capitol of the Empire! Center of all Commerce and Culture! Crossroads of Civilization! NEW ROME!!!...aka New York City Posts: 10,809	I think I can hold off on criticizing the country that allows women to vote, hold national office, go to school, and choose and instead focus that criticizm on the countries that stone women. The UN doesnt have much leverage when instead of signing this document...the US lead the charge in freeing millions of women in Afghanistan. We get a free pass. __________________ Tommy Ceez may or may not be a moron, but he's OUR possible moron - El Scorcho

10-14-04, 06:12 PM	#7
DVD Polizei DVD Talk Hero Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Overpricedville, OR Posts: 36,733	While I don't agree with the US, I think these types of "statements" are useless and make the world think these conferences of nations are actually doing something. Countries do what they want, regardless of a little stupid piece of paper that says otherwise. __________________ Blu-ray Titles: ~380 \| HD DVD Titles: ~323 "I don't sell airplane parts. I've never sold airplane parts."

10-14-04, 06:34 PM	#12
kvrdave DVD Talk God Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 79,129	STOOOOOPID. The UN. __________________ Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

10-14-04, 04:44 PM	#4
Venusian Moderator Join Date: Nov 1999 Posts: 36,943	does it matter? does this statement mean anything? i'd rather have the u.n. spending their time and money doing something that matters --- sudan

10-14-04, 06:18 PM	#8
Myster X Banned Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 22,995	How many Arab countries sign it?

10-14-04, 06:40 PM	#14
nemein Moderator Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: 1bit away from total disaster Posts: 33,284	A little more success... here's the US's statement letter to the program when it was originally proposed in '94. http://www.un.org/popin/unpopcom/32n...ments/usa2.pdf Which brings up the question of why didn't Clinton sign on to it when he was President? Did the congress block him or is there more to the story? __________________ "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference. My Countdown Counting down to: End of the countdown clock 2780 days 3 hours 13 minutes

10-14-04, 06:44 PM	#15
DVD Polizei DVD Talk Hero Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Overpricedville, OR Posts: 36,733	UN. United Narcissists. __________________ Blu-ray Titles: ~380 \| HD DVD Titles: ~323 "I don't sell airplane parts. I've never sold airplane parts."

10-14-04, 07:07 PM	#16
nemein Moderator Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: 1bit away from total disaster Posts: 33,284	This might be the main document in question http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/offeng/poa.html Still haven't been able to find a list of signatories... You'd think such an important document as this one would be easier to dig up info on. Anyway I've lost interest if anyone else wants to try here's some links to help you out http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/spechr.htm - treaties http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/index.html - Division for the Advancement of Women home page BTW there does seem to be a larger document/treaty called the "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women" to which the US is a signatory. Something else just occured to me in that I think there is a specific UN body that deals w/ population. As this does seem to be as much about sexual rights than anything else they might have the info on this. http://www.un.org/popin/icpd5.htm __________________ "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference. My Countdown Counting down to: End of the countdown clock 2780 days 3 hours 13 minutes Last edited by nemein; 10-14-04 at 07:16 PM.

10-14-04, 07:14 PM	#17
kvrdave DVD Talk God Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 79,129	pssst, nemein.....nobody really wants to know. We just want to say that Bush hates women and be done with it. __________________ Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

10-14-04, 07:23 PM	#18
nemein Moderator Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: 1bit away from total disaster Posts: 33,284	Actually to me it sounds like people are just trying to dig up as much "us against the world again" stuff as they can to put the Kerry can do it better spin on it. Come to think of it I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before back when Bush first came into office, as I seem to recall digging around the UN site looking for info on women's rights, population control, etc. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything in the DVDtalk archive that I could find. __________________ "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference. My Countdown Counting down to: End of the countdown clock 2780 days 3 hours 13 minutes

10-14-04, 08:27 PM	#20
nemein Moderator Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: 1bit away from total disaster Posts: 33,284	Got a source for that quote? __________________ "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference. My Countdown Counting down to: End of the countdown clock 2780 days 3 hours 13 minutes

10-14-04, 08:43 PM	#21
kvrdave DVD Talk God Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Pacific NW Posts: 79,129	Where it doesn't really mean anything, what's the rush? __________________ Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

10-14-04, 10:59 PM	#24
Ranger DVD Talk Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 18,148	Okay, I'll throw in some serious comments so bfrank doesn't yell at me. For a long time, I think it's been the policy of America to avoid getting involved in UN plans that requires "equal" scrutiny. I think like in the 1970s, Australia signed some UN race plan, and a UN race committee was critical of Australia for its treatment of Aborgines (sp?). I think John Howard argued that Australia was a democracy and that it's a given that the people of Australia have more rights so they shouldn't be criticized for human rights, especially if the committee had members from non-democratic countries. I think former north carolina senator Jesse Helms has said similar things in the past, unfortunately, he has been accused of racism a few times. eXcentris' buddy, Mr. Jimmy Carter says, it doesn't matter if countries are democratic or not, they all need to be willing to be scrutized on an equal basis. The debate is still around but I don't see US changing its position anytime soon, and I don't think it's a big deal.

10-14-04, 11:15 PM	#25
mikehunt DVD Talk Hero Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Bartertown due to it having a better economy than where I really live, Buffalo NY Posts: 29,148	the UN sucks. for one thing at least some of them use sony vaio laptops. I know because I took a call from some countries office at the UN one day __________________ USS Ben Sisko's Mother F***ing Pimp Hand - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT2Xpfm7Iq8&feature=plcp Vote for freedom not political parties. .... MOΛΩN ΛABE If they had a philosophy. If they weren't too busy gnawing on your insides.