“Many times when we work with women’s issues, we don’t really think of children’s issues.” This comment was made by a woman who does political work for children in Kenya.
After the UN parallel event titled “Movement Building for Political Power: Experiences of Kenyan Women Based on the Sex Boycott,” during which this woman spoke, I had the opportunity to converse with her for a few minutes. What I discovered from that conversation opened my eyes to the way that many countries view their relationship with the United Nations and the goals that it promotes.
Kenya recently adopted a new constitution-one which contains many provisions for gender equality. How did women obtain this victory? Well, they boycotted sex. In 2009, women’s organizations in Kenya called for a sex boycott for seven days until the government agreed to undertake reforms that would benefit women.
One new provision of the Kenyan Constitution stipulates that courts “can invoke CEDAW” and “draw on comments of the committee.”
Pause. Let’s look at what this means. Wouldn’t this mean that in Kenya laws can now be made that are based on comments made in meetings by a committee (CEDAW) which neither is elected, nor has the authority to interpret treaties “in ways that create new state obligations?” This provision rightly raises some questions.
Not only is the provision itself questionable, but it also creates the potential for conflict with other articles of Kenya’s constitution. Kenya currently does not allow abortion, except in cases where a certified doctor believes an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. However, CEDAW has defined what it labels “sexual and reproductive rights” include the right to abortion.
Speaking to the woman from Kenya, I raised a question regarding the contradiction between Kenya’s current laws and the definitions of what CEDAW argues are certain “rights,” asking how this tension might play out in the Kenya’s laws and policies.
What the woman responded made clear that she sees the acceptance of CEDAW as an opening to work for better recognition of the rights of women within Kenya, but it does not necessarily mean that all that CEDAW stands for is supported by the people of Kenya. She stated that people in Kenya “don’t want a right to abortion.” They “don’t really care about ‘reproductive rights.’” The woman stated that in “taking this direction we show that we see international law in this way, but this is the direction we want to take it.”
After this conversation, I realized that while countries may take some direction from UN resolutions which promote certain principles such as those espoused by the movement for women’s rights, they do not necessarily think that the UN is correct in dictating how these principles should be defined in individual countries. I also realized that there are many people and countries that in fact disagree with the UN’s definitions of certain “rights” and in fact do not want those things, such as the “right to abortion” and “reproductive rights,” even among those countries that have ratified CEDAW.
Still, countries must beware that they do not place themselves in a position in which they may be manipulated into accepting such definitions and interpretations. They must be careful in their ratification of resolutions that contain things with which they disagree, for their endorsement of such resolutions may open the door to later pressures to commit to the specific interpretations made by those who created the resolution itself.