STATEMENT OF HON. JEANE KIRKPATRICK, SENIOR FELLOW AND DIRECTOR OF FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICY STUDIES, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, FORMER PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ambassador KIRKPATRICK. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer. Senator BOXER. And let us pull the mike real close to you so everyone can hear you.

Ambassador KIRKPATRICK. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I want to address three questions very briefly:

1. Is there significant discrimination in the world?

2. Will the passage of the convention on the elimination and discrimination solve the associated problems?

3. Will it help the women who need help most?

Finally, maybe we ought to say, what could we do that might? The answer to the first question is, the widespread discrimination in many societies, including most Third World societies, most societies in the world, the answer is yes, clearly, obviously in most societies. Many, if not most, girls and women have little control over their lives. Almost all women are denied equal rights, equal educational opportunity.

In many Third World countries, as you know, women can neither choose their husbands nor their marital status, nor control the size of their families. In many of these countries women are denied contraception, access to contraception, even if it is widely available in their countries.

In a number of countries in Africa and the Middle East societies, women are trapped in early and polygamous marriages, denied education beyond elementary school, if that, and destined to live as dependents and paupers. Should they become widows, these are miserable circumstances. I can hardly bear to think about them. There are countries in which bride-burning is still a practice, widow-burning is still a practice. These are dreadful situations.

If one thing is clear, it is that there are no global standards agreed upon about what constitutes discrimination against women particularly. It is also true, of course, that most of the issues associated with women specifically, like marriage and child-bearing are dealt with casually if at all in most societies.

What I am going to address very briefly is, what could a convention eliminating discrimination do for women who are trapped, for example, in the codes governing marriage? What could they do for that Nigerian woman that we read about not long ago who was sentenced to be stoned to death because she was thought to be guilty of adultery? I guess she was finally pardoned, or that sentence was suspended. Only at the very last moment, though.

This convention unfortunately is unable to have much effect. Because I lived at the U.N. for 5 years I became extremely impressed with the emptiness of words. I would like very much to see women all over the world have all of the rights that are enumerated in CEDAW. I would like to see women all over the world have all of the rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I might say, too, and I believe that it is important, it is more important to do than to speak.

80-461 D-2

It would be very important, in my opinion, if we desire to make the U.N. a seat of improvement of the status of women, if the U.N. desired to make the U.N. the site of improvement and elimination of discrimination against women, they could begin with their own personnel policies which, though less discriminatory than they have been in past times, remain highly discriminatory. Very few women ever manage to make their way out of the lower ranks of U.N. personnel systems.

They could also systematically eliminate discrimination against women in each and every one of their international programs, refugee programs, development programs, health programs, where when I visited those programs and supported them, I saw with my own eyes the incredible discrimination against women in some of the refugee camps, above all in the Afghan refugee camps, actually, in the eighties. The U.S. and U.N. were both trying to respect traditional culture, which made paupers and beggars out of the women in the camps, and most of the people in the camps were

women.

What really bothers me is the impression that people have that they have solved the problem because they have passed their U.N. treaty. The fact is, U.N. treaties read well and they act almost not at all. I mean, they simply do not lead to improvement and progress almost never, and unless and until there is implementation, then, of the treaties, and that is true for all the treaties, I might say, not just this treaty but all the treaties, and until there is implementation of the treaties

Senator BROWNBACK. Madam Chairman, could she proceed?
Senator BOXER. I have not stopped anybody.

Senator BROWNBACK. I just wanted to make sure she has the ability to proceed. She is probably the most knowledgeable witness we will have here today and

Senator BOXER. I think every single person here is extremely knowledgeable, and I did not intend to cut her off at all, and I said to all that the bell will go off in 5 minutes and then you can conclude as you wish.

Senator BROWNBACK. I am glad you did not intend to cut me off, either, but if she could just have that time to speak.

Senator BOXER. Let me just reiterate what I said at the beginning. We set the clock for 5 minutes because of the press of time. Everyone can take as much as they need to then conclude their remarks. The chair will permit that. Please proceed.

Ambassador KIRKPATRICK. I understand that, Madam Chairman, and I thank you for that. I just want to emphasize that I believe it is cynical, if I may, to pretend that ratifying the global treaty will transfer or transform the practices of discrimination against women in almost all the societies in the world. If we want to help women in the most oppressed societies, I think we should above all try to share the lessons that American women have learned from experience.

We should emphasize implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because, Madam Chairman, one thing I am certain of, and that is that women never have their rights respected except in societies where men have rights respected. That is just a fact, and so I think maybe the focus needs to be on free

dom and on democracy and on rule of law, and universal rights for everyone.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Kirkpatrick follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEANE J. KIRKPATRICK

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. The rights and roles of women is a subject about which I have thought and written a good deal in the course of my life. I have lived through very significant changes in the opportunities and practices that determine the lives of women in the United States and elsewhere. My own life and experiences have been importantly affected by changes in attitudes and practices concerning women. So naturally I have been and remain interested in this subject. At the time that I sought employment as a teacher of political science at the university level, it was still commonplace to encounter frank admission by some persons in authoritative positions in public university such as I encountered from one department chair: "We don't have any women in this department and, frankly, we like it that way." Fortunately I was able to identify a department whose members had more open minds on this matter.

When Ronald Reagan appointed me to serve as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations in his first Administration, I became the first woman ever to represent a major power or a Western Country in the United Nations; and the first woman to be "at the table" when major issues of foreign policy were decided.

As I said, there have been major increases in the opportunities available to women in my lifetime.

I desire to address three questions:

(1) Is there significant discrimination against women in the world?

(2) Will passage of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination solve the associated problems?

(3) Would it help women who need help most?

There is widespread discrimination against women in many societies including most Third World societies. In many, if not most, of these societies, girls and women have little_control over their lives. In many, women are denied equal, legal rights, and equal educational opportunity. In many Third World Countries women can neither choose their husbands, nor their marital status, nor control the size of their families. In many of these countries women are denied contraception even where it is available.

In a number of Africa's polygamous societies women are trapped into early marriages, denied education beyond elementary school, if that, and destined to live as a dependent or a pauper should they become widows.

As all women (and men) familiar with life on five continents understand, there are no global standards agreed upon by all concerning what constitutes discrimination against women. The patterns of relations between men and women, of distribution of roles, responsibilities, rights, resources, and obligations are as diverse as the laws and practices governing courtship, marriage, divorce, death, inheritance and so forth.

Issues of reproduction and education are more complex but equally or more resistant to regulation by global treaties. Views vary widely and deeply between cultures and civilizations concerning the education of girls as well as boys, of age at marriage, of childbearing, divorce, and distribution of responsibilities in a family.

What can a convention eliminating discrimination do for women trapped into Shari'a codes governing marriage, divorce and inheritance? I share CEDAW's desire to see ended any existing vestige of discrimination against women. I also believe U.S. law provides important defenses for U.S. women against workplace discrimination.

No U.N. body, no U.N. code can overhaul practices in, say, West Africa, where some farmers have four wives, and perhaps, a concubine or two. It may be that U.N. bodies can influence the age for marriage.

This convention will not help girls being sucked into polygamous marriages, nor left penniless by inheritance laws that give everything to the sons and/or the favorite wife or impose a sentence of death by stoning on an unfaithful wife or widow. The establishment of universal norms and goals can be helpful if the norms are relevant, not if they are so remote from the lives and societies of these societies being considered. A treaty such as CEDAW describes an ideal society and reflects realities of life in no society. It reflects the author's aspiration of some women who

managed to get an education for all women: for education, employment, medical care, and a degree of control over their own lives.

If taken literally, this convention can only breed cynicism.

Should the United Nations desire to eliminate discrimination against women, they could and should begin with their own personnel policies which, though somewhat less discriminating than in the past, remain heavily biased against women in all policy levels.

The U.N. could and should systematically eliminate discrimination in its programs, its refugee programs, its development programs, its health programs, its education programs. It could undertake a crash program to provide education for girls in societies where there is none.

This convention cannot begin to guarantee American women what our Constitution, our laws, and practices provide us.

It is cynical to pretend that a global treaty can transform societies and governments that deny citizens all rights. If we want to help women in the most depressed societies, we should sharp the lessons American women have learned from experi

ence.

Women have rights only in societies where men have rights. Freedom and democracy are what they both need.

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. I want to say that Hon. Jeane Kirkpatrick is the senior fellow and director of foreign and defense studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and of course we all remember her as a former Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Every one of our witnesses brings tremendous credibility to this topic, and it is my pleasure now to introduce Hon. Harold Hongju Koh, who is a professor at Yale Law School, who is a former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights.

We welcome you, and again I will reiterate we have the 5minute clock. When it turns red, just try to collect your thoughts and finish up.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD HONGJU KOH, PROFESSOR, YALE LAW SCHOOL, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, NEW HAVEN, CT

Mr. KOH. Let me commend you, Senators, for your action to move to ratify this long overdue convention, which I have studied and worked for both in an academic capacity and as Assistant Secretary of State. In his recent State of the Union Address, President Bush said, "America will always stand for the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the powers of the State, and respect for women," among other things. There is no more fitting way for this administration and this Senate to answer that demand than by moving quickly to ratify this treaty.

Senator Boxer, I want to commend both you for your efforts to make these hearings a reality and Chairman Biden, as the principal author of the Violence Against Women Act, for your sustained efforts to secure a national commitment to end violence against women across the country.

My message today is that this commitment should not stop at the water's edge. Particularly after September 11, the U.S. cannot be a world leader in guaranteeing progress for human rights— whether in Afghanistan, in the United States, or around the world-unless it is also a party to this treaty on women's rights. You have heard about the background and history of the CEDAW. Let me simply reinforce Ambassador Kirkpatrick's request that we implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is precisely what this treaty is designed to do. It says

in the Universal Declaration that everyone is entitled to the rights in the universal declaration "without distinction of any kind such as race, color, or sex," and it was for that reason that they moved to the drafting and ratification of this treaty.

You have heard that at this moment our country is the only established industrialized democracy in the world that has not ratified the women's rights treaty. That is a national disgrace for a country that views itself as a world leader on human rights.

So why should we ratify? For two reasons. First, ratification would make an important global statement regarding the seriousness of our commitment on these issues. Second, it would have a major impact on ensuring both the appearance and the reality that our national practices fully satisfy or exceed international standards.

Senator Brownback, you mentioned the things that occurred in Afghanistan when they had simply signed but not ratified CEDAW. Yet that is precisely the situation that we are now in. We have signed but not ratified CEDAW, and ratification is clearly the next step that we need to take. In response to Ambassador Kirkpatrick, I would say, it may well be that ratifying this treaty is not the whole answer, but it is certainly an important part of the answer. You have heard about the provisions of the CEDAW. Let me say from my own experience at the State Department, where I supervised the production of annual country reports on human rights conditions worldwide, that a country's ratification of CEDAW is one of the strongest indicators of the strength of its commitment to internalize the norm of gender equality into domestic law. For us, to obey the treaty's provisions would not be burdensome, while countries with far less impressive records have, in fact, ratified the treaty, and these are countries we would never consider to be our equal on such matters.

From my time in the Government I can also say that our continuing failure to ratify the CEDAW has reduced our global standing; it has damaged our diplomatic relations, and it has hindered our ability to lead in the international human rights community. Nations that are otherwise our allies cannot understand why we have not taken this obvious step. Our European and Latin American allies in particular regularly question and criticize us for this both in public settings and in private diplomatic meetings. They have challenged our moral leadership on human rights, which is devastating after September 11; and perhaps most important, our exclusion from this treaty has provided anti-American diplomatic ammunition to countries who have exhibited far worse records on human rights generally and women's rights in particular. So, to persist in nonratification, I think, would be extremely damaging.

Will ratification help? As a recent comprehensive world survey issued by the U.N. Development Fund for Women chronicles, numerous countries around the world who have ratified CEDAW have found that it has helped to empower them to change their constitutions, to pass new laws, and influence court decisions. It would have the same effect here. Most fundamentally, ratification would further our national interest. You do not have to take my word for it. Secretary Powell put it well earlier this year when he said, "the worldwide advancement of women's issues is not only in keeping