Either in or out

Jordan’s six periodic report submitted to the UN Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women has just been scrutinised in Geneva; the delegation listed, during the debate last week, the great strides made by the country in meeting its obligations under the convention. 

The convention was adopted in 1979 and is viewed as the “bill of rights for women”. 

It defines discrimination against women as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex, which has the effect and purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women of their equal rights with men”. 

The Jordanian delegation chronicled in great details the series of achievements, and they are indeed many, made in this context, including the fact that women enjoy, in equal measure with men, many political, economic and social rights.

Women, the report said, made progress by securing greater participation in Cabinets, Parliament, the judiciary, high posts in the private sector and education, to mention only a few.

Women, the delegation also pointed out, can now obtain passports without the consent of their spouses or male family members, have freedom of movement and travel and can now seek and obtain divorce when needed.

The report also said that women enjoy now more protection from domestic violence and opportunities to enrol in higher education on par with men.

Yet, as the committee members pointed out, there are still persistent pockets of serious violations of the convention in the country, including the right of women married to non-Jordanians to pass their citizenship on to their children.

Jordan has maintained a series of reservations on the convention principles throughout the past decades, which suggests that gender equality in the country is not absolute, defying the purpose of the convention. 

The Jordanian delegation told the UN committee that the country “has no intention of removing these reservations” because of cultural, political or religious reasons.

Countries that have such reservations often keep the door open for reconsideration at a future date or when circumstances change. It does not seem to be Jordan’s case.

Under international law, including those governing human rights, any reservation that defeats the purpose of international treaties is null and void in any case. 

Jordan, therefore, should reconsider its stance on reservations it maintains not only in regard to the rights of women, but to all other human rights conventions.

Violations of basic human rights norms are exactly that, and the international community, of which the country wishes to be part, will persist in following up on them.

Either we are part of these treaties or are not. We cannot hang midway.