US to UN - Woman's Rights are NOT Unalienable

Sometimes you just have to call it synchronicity. First, Newshog's Favourite Rightie, Harkonnendog, makes the statement that "without private property there are no other civil rights", effectively distancing himself from that half of the Republican Party comprised of right-wing Christians who would prefer that women be effectively the property of their husbands and fathers. (See here, here and here) Then Shamanic highlights exactly that incongruity in the right by pointing out how perplexed they are about women's property rights. The current administration, which they feel they have to support after voting for it, has been increasingly schizophrenic about the issue - trying to placate their Christian fundies and their libertarian rationalists both at the same time.

Now, via tas at Loaded Mouth (thanks, Tas!)comes a Guardian report on a conference intended to mark the 10th anniversary of the Beijing conference on the status of women, an event seen as a landmark in efforts to promote global cooperation on women's equality. The US delegation really put a spanner in the works by demanding that the UN publicly renounce abortion rights.

Organisers had hoped that informal discussions last week would reach a consensus on the draft, leaving the next fortnight clear for government officials and women's activists to hold more substantive talks on advancing economic equality and political participation, and fighting violence against women.

But those hopes were crushed in a closed-door session late last week when Washington demanded the declaration reaffirm its support for the declarations made in Beijing 10 years ago only if "they do not include the right to abortion", says a copy of the US text obtained by the Guardian.

But wait, it gets worse. Not content with opposing free choice for abortion, something that (at present at least) is the law of the USA after a decision that it was supported by the Constitution, the US delegation wanted to go even further.

The chief of the US delegation, Sichan Siv, went on to tell his counterparts that Washington opposed the ratification of the international treaty on women's equality, as well as resolutions that would "place emphasis on 'rights' that not all member states accept, such as so-called 'sexual rights'."

Mr Siv also told diplomats that Washington opposed any move to seek funds from industrialised countries to implement the reforms called for under the Beijing declaration.

The stand left America almost entirely isolated at the pre-conference sessions. According to officials who were at the meetings, only the Vatican observer supported Washington's hard line. There was harsh criticism of the Bush administration yesterday from diplomats and women's activists.

Lets get this straight, people. Those "sexual rights" that not all member states support include women's suffrage, women's rights to property and the right to not be raped! At least part of the reason for two very expensive wars was supposedly bringing these rights to the poor benighted women of Afghanistan and Iraq and now the US does not support these rights? Have they lost their minds?

Which brings us to the big bucks question. Are they serious or is this a safe way to pander to the Christian right without it actually affecting Americans - just millions on millions of other human souls, but who really cares about that? Imagine if they actually tried to carry their posturing at the UN across into where it would impinge on your average insular American conservative. Immediate schism. The Republican Party would irrepairably fracture down the already vulnerable line between the Christian fundies and the libertarian rationalists. The party simply would cease to exist forever. It's not going to happen.

So we are left with the inescapable conclusion that the Bush administration are playing to the peanut-gallery back home, and in so doing playing games with the lives of millions beyond these shores. Given the contents of recently leaked tapes that shouldn't really surprise us, but it still leaves a bad taste at the back of the mouth. I would not be at all surprised if many libertarians with that taste in their mouth handed back their party memberships. Want to see why?

Harky, try telling your wife that you support Bush on this one...