U.N. Deliberations on Draft Convention
on the Political Rights of Women

Eleanor Roosevelt

As most of you know, the subject of this convention equal suffrage for women--is very close to my heart. I believe in active citizenship, for men and women equally, as a simple matter of right and justice. I believe we will have better government in all of our countries when men and women discuss public issues together and make their decisions on the basis of their differing areas of experience and their common concern for the welfare of their families and their world.

In the United States, and in most countries today, women have equal suffrage. Some may feel that for that reason this convention is of little importance to them. I do not agree with this view. It is true, of course, that the first objective of this convention is to encourage equal political rights for women in all countries. But its significance reaches far deeper into the real issue of whether in fact women are recognized fully in setting the policies of our governments.

While it is true that women in 45 of our 60 member nations vote on the same terms as men, and in 7 more already have partial voting rights, too often the great decisions are originated and given form in bodies made up wholly of men, or so completely dominated by them that whatever of special value women have to offer is shunted aside without expression. Even in countries where for many years women have voted and been eligible for public office, there are still too few women serving in positions of real leadership. I am not talking now in terms of paper parliaments and honorary appointments. Neither am I talking about any such artificial balance as would be implied in a 50-50, or a 40-60 division of public offices. What I am talking about is whether women are sharing in the direction of the policy making in their countries; whether they have opportunities to serve as chairmen of important committees and as cabinet ministers and delegates to the United Nations.

We are moving forward in my country in this regard, for we have had women in all these posts, but not enough of them, and they do not always have a full voice in consultation. I do not expect that there will ever be as many women political leaders as men, for most women are needed in their homes while their children are small and have fewer years in which to gain public recognition. But, if we are honest with ourselves, we know that all countries have a long way to go on these matters. I believe it is this situation, far more than the continued denial of equal suffrage in a few countries, which has spurred interest in this convention and brought it before our Committee today. This situation cannot be changed entirely by law, but it can be changed by determination and conviction. I hope we will use this discussion to deepen these convictions in ourselves and in our governments.

This convention is the result of work in the Commission on the Status of Women. The United States is proud of the contribution it has been able to make to this Commission through the participation of our representatives, Judge Dorothy Kenyon and Mrs. Olive Goldman.

The terms of the draft convention before us are simple. Articles 1 and 2 provide for the right to vote and to be elected to publicly elected bodies, such as parliaments, established by national law. These are the basic rights which all people must have to express their interest and protect themselves against discrimination or deprivation of liberty. The Charter of the United Nations reaffirms in its preamble the principles of equal rights for men and women. The first General Assembly endorsed these rights when it unanimously adopted the resolution recommending that all member states, which had not already done so, adopt measures necessary to fulfill the purposes and aims of the Charter in this respect by granting to women the same political rights as men. This convention spells out this recommendation in clear and practical terms, on which all parties in a country can unite.

I think I am correct in saying that 24 countries have taken action to extend suffrage rights for women since the Charter was signed in 1945. The most recent of these changes have been in Lebanon and Bolivia. Important gains have been made within the past few years in a number of other countries--Greece, for instance, and in Haiti.

Article 3 of this convention goes beyond the basic rights in articles 1 and 2 into the matter of public office. It provides that women shall be entitled to hold public office established by national law on the same terms as men, and to exercise all public functions in the same way. The object of this article to encourage opportunities for women in government service--has my hearty endorsement, and that of my Government. Women today hold many important Government posts and an increasing number are in executive positions and in Foreign Service. The wording of article 3 presents certain problems that I believe we should discuss, and in a moment I will go into them in more detail. In principle, however, I am sure we are all in agreement with article 3.

We are also asked to consider formal clauses to complete the convention, on the basis of texts proposed by the Secretary-General. The United States is in general agreement also with these proposals. This is a very simple convention, and it would seem to us that the formal clauses should be limited to the fewest necessary to make the convention effective. These would presumably be those providing for ratification or accession, entry into force, settlement of disputes, notification, and deposit. The Secretariat has proposed certain other clauses which, of course, can be included if the Committee desires, but they do not seem to me to be essential. The simpler and shorter we can keep this convention, the more readily people will understand it and the more effective it will be.

There are other questions we will no doubt want to debate in regard to this convention. I hope, however, that in our debates we will never lose sight of the significance and importance of our objectives.

Now I want to go back to article 3. This is a very interesting article, for the right to "hold public office" includes both elective and appointive office. The right to be elected to public office has usually been recognized along with the right to vote. For instance, the Inter-American Convention on the Granting of Political rights to Women, formulated at Bogota in 1948, includes the right to vote and to be elected to national office. Article 2 of this convention covers a part of this right, the right to be elected to such bodies as parliaments. However, the right to be appointed to public office has not previously been included in an international convention, so that we are now considering its expression in treaty terms for the first time.

In relation to appointive office, the language in article 3 is very broad.

The term "public office" is taken to include appointments to posts in the (1) civil service, (2) foreign (diplomatic) service, and (3) judiciary, as well as (4) posts primarily political in nature, such as cabinet ministers or secretaries. The number of appointive offices established by national law is usually large, far larger than the number of offices filled by election, and the tasks to be performed by appointive officers are likely to vary widely in substance and in level of responsibility.

Article 3 specifies offices are to be held "on equal terms with men." This is also an inclusive phrase, covering such matters as recruitment, exemptions, pay, old age and retirement benefits, opportunities for promotion, employment of married women. All these are important matters on which women have sought equality for many years.

As I said before, in the United States women have the rights specified in this convention, including the rights we believe article 3 is intended to cover, and we have long urged that women in all countries have similar opportunities. A question does arise, however, as to whether the term "public office" is intended to include military service. My delegation believes it is not so intended. Almost all countries make some distinctions in the kinds of military duty they regard as suitable for women. The most usual distinction, and a natural and proper one, is that women are not used as combat troops and are not appointed to certain posts which might involve the direction of combat operations. Our attitude toward article 3 is, therefore, based on the understanding that it does not include military service.

The United States also has some difficulty with the phrase "public functions," which occurs in the second part of article 3. The U.S. law "Public Office" covers all public posts and this may be true in other countries. The term "public functions" accordingly does not seem to add anything to the text. The phrase might be clarified. however, if the words "related thereto" were inserted after "public functions." This would make it quite clear that no traditional or legal limitation on women--in any country, such as restrictions on a woman's right to serve in certain professions or to bring suits at law would interfere with her capacity to serve in public office.

If the phrase is retained in its present form, the view of the United States would be that the public functions referred to in this convention are coterminous with public office.

This convention on political rights of women is not in itself an answer to the problems of modern government. But it points up, I believe in useful ways, how governments can expand their resources by taking full advantage of the energy and experience of their women citizens. Women's organizations throughout the United States have stated their belief in its principles and its value. The convention is a symbol of the progress women have made in the past 100 years, and a challenge to them to claim and make full use of the political rights they achieve. It is for these reasons that the United States hopes that this Committee may agree on a text to which we can give unanimous endorsement.

Statement of December 15

I want first to say just a little about the statements which the distinguished delegate of the Soviet Union and several of her colleagues have made on the situation of women in the United States. These delegates seem concerned, for instance, that in most of our States women share the domicile of their husbands and vote from it as their legal residence. Of course, this is true also of the men; their legal residence is the family domicile shared by their wives. In the United States we assume that husbands and wives wish to live together, and we protect their right to do so, and to share in the management of family affairs and the guardianship of their children. If the woman desires to be separated from her husband, she can set up a separate domicile. The courts also decide how best to protect the welfare of children of separated couples, and unless there is good reason to the contrary, the mother is almost always preferred to take care of young children.

A great many of the other comments which have been made seem to spring from the same source--a difference of opinion, really, as to the importance of the family in all our relationships, including our responsibilities as individuals toward our governments. We were struck, for instance, with the distinction the distinguished delegate of Byelorussia made Saturday afternoon. She said, I believe, that one of the great values in the provision of creches and nursery schools in the Soviet Union was that it permitted a woman to fulfill her role as mother and at the same time share in the public life of her country. We do not think of the "role of mother" in our country as separating women or denying women a full share in our public life. We feel rather that it is the family which is the center for men and women alike, and for their children, and we try to make it possible for the father of the family to earn enough so that the woman can stay home and care for their children if she wishes. At the same time, as you all know, American women participate fully in all professions and public activities, and more than half our employed women are married women.

Our family relationships result in a number of legal and judicial distinctions which limit the husband as well as the wife. Our laws are changed if these distinctions become unjust to either party, and changing conditions, particularly in modern business, have led to various changes. But the family is still the center of American living.

I am puzzled by certain other comments that have been made because, so far as I can see, what my Soviet colleagues wish us to do is to discriminate against men.

For instance, people in the United States speak many languages. Here in New York you will hear many different languages in the streets and restaurants. In some of our states, however, one seldom hears any language but English. In those States, voters are usually required to be literate in English. But in others--for instance, our Southwestern States, where Spanish is frequently spoken--voters may qualify in either language. In our courts, interpreters are always provided for those who cannot speak or understand English. In no case is there discrimination against women as such.

The distinguished representatives of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet countries have spoken also of the situation of Negro voters in the United States. As you know, great progress has been made in recent years in assuring Negro voters full security in casting their votes. Many more Negroes voted in this past election than ever before in our Southern States as well as Northern. The figures these delegations quoted seemed to be somewhat out of date in this regard. It was implied that the difficulty Negro women have experienced in regard to suffrage is connected with the existence of a poll tax in some of our Southern States. The poll tax is a per capita tax, once usual in many countries, but it is now being replaced almost everywhere by other forms of taxation. It now exists in only five of our States. It applies equally to all people, whites as well as Negroes. However, since it applies equally to men and women, I do not see how any provision on the poll tax could be included in this convention without its resulting in discrimination against men.

I have been glad to hear that Soviet women hold many public offices and participate widely in public life. I have been glad to note this year that the Soviet Union, the Ukraine, and Byelorussia have included women on their delegations to the General Assembly. There have been very few women on these delegations in the past--in fact, I do not recall any since the first General Assembly in 1946. I hope that this convention may lead to greater participation by women in the true organs of power in the Soviet Union, such as the Presidium and the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, in which I understand no women are now included. The experience women have achieved in the more formal and subsidiary bodies throughout the Soviet Union should entitle them to recognition also in bodies which determine the major policies of their Government.

The Soviet Union has brought in a number of amendments, and I want also to discuss these briefly. I understand those on the first three articles of the convention are similar to those presented in sessions of the Commission on the Status of Women and in the Economic Council. Both the Commission and the Council rejected the changes and additions in these proposals on the ground that they are unnecessary in so simple a convention as this one. I would like to point out, however, that the language proposed by the Soviet Union, presumably to assure application of this convention "without discrimination," is in fact very discriminatory, because it enumerates only a few grounds and omits others. The most notable omission is in regard to political opinion. The Soviet amendment also omits the phrase "without discrimination of any kind," which might otherwise cover "political opinion." It seems to me that in a convention on political rights, if you are going to provide any guaranties against discrimination, the most important one would be freedom for all types of political opinion. But, as I said before, the intent of this convention to apply to all women is entirely clear, and we believe any such additional clause would be confusing and might in fact have the result--as the Soviet proposal does--of limiting its effect.

The proposal to expand article 2 by enumerating certain other bodies also seems unnecessary, since all those mentioned in the Soviet draft are included within the phrase "publicly elected bodies" already in article 2. Neither does it seem necessary to add their proposed article 4, calling for implementing legislation. In so simple an agreement as this, the convention itself is sufficient.

Another proposal has to do with the proposed clause on settlement of disputes and provides for arbitration rather than a reference to the International Court of Justice. The United States regards this proposal as a departure from the procedures already approved as part of our U.N. structure and will oppose it accordingly.

Several countries have proposed that the convention include a clause on the extension of the convention to non-self-governing and trust territories. Women in all territories under the administration of the United States have the rights in this convention, and we believe all women everywhere should have them. As I said earlier, this is a very simple convention, and the simpler and briefer we can keep the formal clauses, the easier it will be for people to understand it and the more effective it will be. However, the United States has no objection to the addition of such a clause, if the majority desire it.

We have been listening with great care to the statements on this convention, because, you remember, the United States indicated in its statement the' we do not believe the convention applies to military service, and asked whether that was the general opinion among the delegates. We, therefore, appreciated greatly the strong expression of agreement with our position by the distinguished delegate of France, and also various other statements which supported this view. I believe no contrary view has been expressed and take it there is general agreement that the present convention does not include military service. As I said earlier, the United States regards the obligation it would undertake under this convention with regard to "public functions" as coterminous with "public office."

I have not answered certain charges against the United States as to the economic situation of women--Negro women especially--because this is a convention on political rights, and I have not wanted to take the time of this Committee for irrelevant matters.

From Department of State Bulletin, January 5, 1953, pp. 29-32.

As edited by Allida M. Black. See her collection, What I Hope to Leave Behind: The Essential Essays of Eleanor Roosevelt. (Carlson Publishing, Inc., 1995)