A REVEALING UN-MEETING

by: Helene Bos
date: 5/10/2005
Category: Society

THE MEETING ADOPTING THE DECLARATION BEIJING+10 ON WOMEN.

A Revealing UN-meeting.

Summary.
The famous UN Women’s conference in Beijing, 1995, was planned to have a follow-up meeting after 10 years. This took place this year, in New York. Compared to the 1995 meeting this one was a small and almost hidden meeting. Nevertheless, the agenda was as important as in 1995, that is: securing universal access to reproductive health-services for all women. In circles of feminists and some UN circles this always means the inclusion of the right to abortion on demand. Demanding that their agenda will be woven into all the declarations, and programs of action that come out of the UN, this time they stealthily tried to connect it to the upcoming review of the Millennium Goals. Although they brought it to that meeting in September as a “contribution”, the hidden intent was to put all member-states under the obligation to implement access to reproductive health services in their nations.
My estimation is that opposition was foreseen by the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), and the strategy chosen was such, that the feministic agenda could be pushed through. However, the organizational and legal setup were so cleverly manipulated that only insiders, both feminists and pro-family lobbyists, could discern the shrewdness of it. The deceitful denial of this goal was exposed within two weeks after Beijing +10 closed. This is a daring assessment. But read for yourself, as I describe a meeting that seems to be very matter-of-fact, but in fact was cleverly orchestrated to achieve the already foregone conclusions and to silence the opponents.

The goal of this report.
From February 28th till March 11th 2005 the ten-year review of the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing 1995) was held, not as a separate independent conference but combined with the forty-ninth session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in New York.
As NGO member, I attended the meeting on Friday, March 4th, in which the Declaration was adopted that is meant to be a “contribution to the High-level plenary meeting of the review of the Millennium Declaration, 14-16 September.”
During the days preceding Friday many discussions on the Declaration took place. This report presents a) what this Declaration is about, b) what the different parties wanted to achieve through it, c) what the objections against it were, and d) the procedure that was followed.
The presentation will be as factual as possible, so that the reader may get an impression regarding the “objectivity” of the goals of the CWS, led by feminists, and the “transparency” of their methods. The reader will then be able to form his own judgment. I believe that it is important for people to get an idea how a Declaration, meant to have an impact on member-states for the next ten years, comes about. I think that it is revealing.

Setting the scene.
In 1946 the UN established within her system a body that had to make policy recommendations to improve the status of women, the UN Commission on the Status of Women, CSW. This body made international efforts to protect and promote the rights of women in the world by preparing treaties. The object was to care especially for women in areas where they are considered to be the most vulnerable.
It may be useful to make a note here about the different aims of the feminists of the first and of the second wave. The feminists of the first wave fought for the right to vote, and the right to own property. In many nations they have achieved this. Not in all nations, so there are feminists of the first wave still trying to achieve these rights. The feminists of the second wave, and these are the ones who speak very loud at UN-meetings, are fighting for unlimited sexual freedom, abortion on demand, and no-fault divorce.
At the end of 1979 the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. By that time the first wave of feminists was more or less replaced by feminists of the second wave. In 1982 a Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW, was set up as a “treaty monitoring body,” to oversee the implementation of the Convention.
As in many treaties coming out of the UN, there are many good points in the Convention, with which I, and I believe most Christian men and women, do not have a problem. But, also as in many treaties coming out of the UN, questionable objectives are also put into these treaties, cloaked in layers of words and articles. How can the real meaning be detected in a sentence composed of 62 or even 108 words? Yet, often these hidden objectives are objectionable for Christians.
Also, the demands of the Convention on member-States are so numerous and concern so many issues that one may wonder if there is any government in the world that can ever honour them. Many NGO’s however are trained to be watchdogs in their nation and to pressure governments to fulfil the demands. This creates tensions between governments and their citizens. One may sometimes even ask if these tensions are not created on purpose.
Over the last years the members of CEDAW have also pressured governments to implement objectives in the Convention that the governments were not aware of in the first place when they signed and later ratified it.

Connecting Beijing and CSW with the Millennium goals: well thought out or cunning?
Before the conference on Women started at the end of February, the draft for the Declaration contained a proposal to make the document a contribution to the review of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) coming September.
I do not know on whose initiative the CSW decided to propose this. But many women reviewing the Beijing Platform of Action (BPFA) at this conference became frustrated with the connection of the 1995-BPFA with the 2000-MDGs. They wanted to go forward on the Beijing document and come up with new targets and indicators. They feared the risk that these could be weakened, diluted or ignored in the review process of the MDGs. Their argument was that the “full and effective implementation” of the Beijing documents was essential to achieve the MDGs. “The biggest fear is that the attention being given to the MDGs is going to dilute the gains made so far in coming up with targets and indicators on gender equality as provided for in the Beijing platform of Action.” And “The danger is that we are being told to operate within the MDGs, when the same goals are lacking in many things. What needs to happen is for the MDGs to fit into the BFPA and not vice versa.”
Other delegates however desired that the review process of the MDGs should not be mixed up with feminist aspirations.
That means that those who wanted to stretch the BPFA feared the connection with the MDGs, while those who were not happy with the BPFA wanted to see the MDGs being saved from the connection to the Beijing documents and the demands of CEDAW. Why these opposite desires? The Beijing document was never a binding document as there was absolutely no consensus on it in 1995, neither in the follow-up meeting in 2000. Yet, CSW and CEDAW have suggested many times that they were adopted by consensus, which is blatantly against the evidence, because many nations at those meetings made “reservations” concerning certain issues, especially regarding the “reproductive rights” of women.
The point is that CEDAW suggests again and again very loudly that “reproductive rights” and “women’s rights” are human rights. That sounds logical but it was never established legally and always successfully opposed by opponents. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, as a binding document for the member-states. Over the last decades however have feminists tried to reconceptualize the human rights from a gender perspective. Suggesting leaving the Declaration of H.R’s intact, by using the same exterior forms and words, they tried to modify it from within. The suggestion over and over that reproductive rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights, is such an attempt to modify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New delegates of nations often do not fully grasp the meaning of the complicated documents of previous conferences and what the language of the seasoned feminist lobbyists means; that is a trap here that nations need to be aware of. That complication again played a part in the discussions about the Declaration during the first week of the 49th session of the CWS. (Mind: many UN-meetings end with a Declaration. The Declaration that was discussed in the CSW on march 4th 2005 is not the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, adopted in 1948.)
In the proposed draft CSW- Declaration the Beijing documents and the CEDAW Convention were presented together as a contribution for the review of the MDGs. Now it must be understood that the MDGs were intended to help poor countries and did not contain articles on issues of reproductive rights. However, if both documents were accepted into the MDGs, it would mean that the MDGs, which are expected to become binding documents (!), would (again) become an instrument of the feminists to push through the reproductive rights in nations. That was the stealthy way of the feminists to achieve their objectives.

The action starts.
The United States therefore, recognizing the intention of the feminists, proposed an amendment to the Declaration “to reaffirm that they do not create any new international human rights and that they do not include the right to abortion.” (This precaution was not a superfluous measure, as the events, after CSW closed, has shown.) The experience is that not only CEDAW but also other groups supporting the vision of CEDAW, like the Center for Reproductive Rights, CRR, have been trying to impose abortion on countries by using the Beijing documents. At the end of 2003 a series of secret memos from CRR became exposed in which it explained detailed how they, along with many pro-abortion allies throughout the world, plan to expand international laws well beyond their current scope and to impose these new laws worldwide, even upon individual nations that do not explicitly assent to the changes.
One way would be to work in order to radically expand the interpretations of already-accepted international rights, what CRR calls "hard norms," into vehicles for its reproductive rights agenda. In the memos CRR claimed to have found, or "grounded," a right to abortion in the right to life, the right to health, even the right to enjoy scientific progress. They favored, as they admitted in their own words, this way of achieving victory, “ there is a stealth quality to the work: we are achieving incremental recognition of values without a huge amount of scrutiny from the opposition."
Another approach is by just stating that the Beijing- (and also the Cairo-) documents have recognized abortion as women’s and therefore as human rights (which is not true). The CRR keeps repeating that the “soft norms” (of Cairo and Beijing) include abortion and sexual autonomy. And their strategy is to create hard norms by repeating soft norms again and again. By repetition of language from these international conferences, in many regional and international settings, like in the European Court of Human Rights and with the help of CEDAW and a number of other UN-agencies, customary international law is being created. And unlike treaty law, which depends op the action of member states, customary international law is binding on the nations of the world even if those nations do not formally consent to be bound by that law.

So the proposed amendment by the US ambassador to the UN, supported by the Vatican, was a precautionary measure, based on seeing through their opponents. Pro-life lobbyists tried to help delegates from many nations to understand that it was in their own interest to support the US amendment and to have that explicitly registered in the official documents. In that way their nation could be protected in the future against the pressure to change its laws concerning abortion by those who, like CEDAW, misinterpret the Beijing documents to include a right to abortion. The pro-life lobbyists advised the nations to make an interpretative statement or reservation that would put their countries’ views on this issue on record.
Pro-choice NGO’s became upset about the discussions on the amendment that took place. They felt that the progress in women’s rights they wanted to come out of that week’s meetings was delayed or even held back.
All this had taken place before the meeting on Friday, March 4th, at which delegates could give their opinion regarding the Declaration. Or rather: at which delegates should have been able to give their opinion regarding the Declaration.
For what happened?

The Meeting.
At 3 o’clock on Friday, March 4th, the meeting started. The conference room was filled with many curious people. Representatives of NGO’s filled all chairs on the balcony. Quite a number of them had pasted a sticker on their mouths or, a big one, on their bosom on which a big red mouth spoke: “Say no to fundamentalism.” That group represented Catholics for a Free Choice, a group that does not acknowledge the pope and the dogma’s of the RC Church. Some time ago their leader gave as her opinion that an abortion is the real right time to celebrate the Eucharist. (The Roman Catholic Church does not acknowledge them any longer as valid members.)

The chairwoman was a CSW-member. Seated to left and right of her were other CSW-members, plus an UN official. They served as a panel to which the delegates could address questions. (This in itself was strange, as there were only two hours reserved for such an important topic, one hour to discuss the Declaration, and after a very short break, one more hour for nations to clarify their vote.)
The first one to speak was a member of the panel. She spoke at length on behalf of (all, many?) Arabic women, and commended the Declaration highly; from now on the Arabic women “could move forwards again.” Then another panel-member, from South-America, spoke her heart, also at length. Next the chairwoman introduced the only man in the panel, a UN employee. Whereas the chair had introduced the previous speakers briefly, about this man she told detailed what he had studied, what his career had been, when he had joined the UN, and what his responsibilities had been and what his responsibilities are now in the UN. Then this man gave a long speech. When he, finally, finished an African lady on the panel, overlooked initially by the chairwoman, spoke. She was the only one of the speakers who was condensed. All these introductory speeches took more than half of the total time planned for the session before the break.
As we were already short in time, there was, as the chair informed the delegates, "unhappily" not much time left anymore. She would therefore allow one delegate to speak on behalf of a group of four, three nations plus one NGO. The two other nations would, of course, then not have a possibility to speak anymore.
One wonders: who set that meeting, late in the afternoon on Friday, who ordained that this discussion-time would last only one hour and that a UN official could usurp so much time for his own opinion? The chairwoman evidently also avoided the question, how one nation can suddenly comment on behalf of three other nations, regarding a document that will be the source for radical decisions for another ten years? How will they so suddenly come to an agreement about a comment? And then, how can they so quickly and without any preparation weave in the viewpoint of an NGO, opinionated as many of them are? But none of the delegates objected to this way of presiding the meeting. Were they just too speechless?
Then some nations started to read a comment. Obviously they had it all prepared. Long comments. No summaries because of lack of time. Statements concerning just their own position, and not including the concerns of the nations for whom they also had to be spokesman. Time was running out. So then the chairwoman announced that every speaker had to limit her/himself to two minutes! (Two minutes on behalf of three nations plus an NGO). After a few had spoken she told the delegates to limit their comments to less than one minute! After a few more commentaries, “unhappily” time was up. Of all the delegates not yet ten percent had been able to share their opinion.
Then the chairwoman ANNOUNCED that the Declaration was accepted! She herself applauded, with a part of the audience.
A short break followed and another chairwoman took over. The remainder of an hour delegates were allowed to respond.
First some nations spoke complimenting the CSW on the result of the conference after which they started to give long speeches. It seemed as if they had prepared them beforehand and could not restrain themselves and give a short comment.
The ambassador of the US gave a short, strong speech, in which she maintained the amendment. She received applause. The chairwoman said: “No, please, silence.” The large group of women on the balcony with the sticker “Say no to fundamentalism” on their mouth and/or bosom then howled, but were not admonished to be quiet.
After another delegate a representative of an NGO was allowed to speak. This was remarkable. Was this time not meant to be the time for delegates of nations to make reservations on the declaration? This NGO read out her opinion on behalf of the women of Latin America, a long written statement. She was not admonished to be short. In that statement she stated something like: after Beijing we have to move forward, the women of Latin America are independent, and have nothing to do any more with an old man in a far away country with his ancient ideas, and his followers with their sacred book. Loud applause from “Catholics for a free choice” followed. No request for silence.
Again some delegates held long speeches, without any real contribution, just consuming time. Then a few very short statements and reservations were made. One of them, delivered by the delegate from Costa Rica, was very short, very sharp, supporting the US. Pro-life NGO’s clapped. The chairwoman asked: “Please, don’t do that.” The big mouths howled, but no reaction from the chair now.
The chair requested to make statements shorter than two minutes, and after two statements that took much longer, she asked for statements shorter than one minute. Again some long stories.
Then time was up. “Unfortunately,” it was time to close the meeting. It was five o’clock. Friday afternoon. A pity for all who had also wanted to make a reservation or an interpretative statement; they were invited to make their reservations part of the official record of the meeting and document. Till six they had the opportunity to file it. Then the week was over.

Comment.
Outwardly the behaviour of the two chairwomen was very well-mannered. But factually they were manipulating the meeting to reach five o’clock without damage to the planned adoption of the draft declaration! This was the climate in which the declaration was adopted, the atmosphere of the meeting, the strategy used by the two chairwomen.
Do not think that this was an extraordinary meeting. I have been in a number of meetings throughout the years, and I have heard many testimonies of delegates and lobbyists. The way of handling meetings and delegates during UN conferences may differ in the details, the well-thought out strategy is aimed at achieving their own goals, anyhow, anyway. The UN does not aim to allow delegates of member-states a polite opportunity to share their opinions, unless they support the viewpoint of the UN and its goals. The outward good manners turn out to be full of disrespect for the participants for whom the conference was said to be organized. It sounds absurd. It feels as if you are in a book of Kafka. That is the UN.

High level deception.
To update this information: within two weeks after the adoption of this declaration, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) had a two-day conference, in which they laid out the Strategy of the UN for a major progress review of the MDGs. You may not be amazed to learn that the conference participants agreed that these MDGs should be expanded in order to include a broad feminist agenda, in which universal access to reproductive health care, including “family planning” (that is with access to abortion on demand) should be included.

In other words: early March the CSW gave as reason why the US amendment was unnecessary, that the Beijing declaration does not contain the right to abortion, and is not a binding document anyway. Many delegates trusted this argument. Their credulity, which was the cause that the amendment was not accepted, was already exploited within two weeks.
That is also the UN.

The international press spread the news that the US ambassador to the UN had tried to go back on the progress in all women’s rights… That was not true. But she had seen through the set up very well.

[^ top]