Sen. Joseph Biden invokes the Declaration of Independence in support of U.S. ratification of CEDAW, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Christina Hoff Sommers, "Look Who's Preaching to Us!" editorial page, June 26). But the Declaration is Exhibit A against CEDAW.

The Declaration is a document of general aspiration; that is why its premise that all men are created equal and are endowed with unalienable rights applied to both women and men and in time become a powerful weapon in the battle for women's rights. And the Declaration was much more than aspiration: It was a self-executing political act. The men who signed it thereby took responsibility for realizing its aspirations by establishing free and independent states, failing which they would be hanged.

CEDAW, in contrast, is, like the old Soviet constitution, a long list of policy promises drafted by people who, for the most part, have no intention to take responsibility for achieving those promises. No one thinks CEDAW is going to produce "comparable worth" wage regulation in Haiti or Uganda, or end forced abortions of baby girls in China or North Korea, or provide rudimentary legal rights for the women of Saudi Arabia or Yemen. The governments of these nations (all CEDAW signatories) could, if they wished, actually pursue those policies at home--and take the political credit or blame according to the views of their citizens--rather than just recommending them to others. Sen. Biden is an influential political leader in his own nation; if he really wants to promote nationalized day care (as Vice President Gore proposed to do in the 2000 presidential campaign) or equal wages for stenographers and firemen, he has the means and responsibility to do so without reference to CEDAW.

CEDAW promotes the notion that rights are things that exist in the abstract--manna from globocrats, NGOs and activist lawyers rather than the responsibilities of nation-states and their political leaders. Those who signed the Declaration of Independence stood and fought for the opposite proposition--that rights are secured by governments whose powers to do so are derived from the consent of the governed.