Commission on the Status of Women 2005: Beijing+10 implications for the UN human rights system

Report by Maeve Taylor for Banúlacht [1]

The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action

The Beijing Platform for Action (BPfA) was the outcome of the Fourth UN World Conference on Women held in Beijing, China, in September 1995. The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BPfA) were adopted unanimously by 189 world governments. The Beijing Declaration promised to remove all obstacles to equality for women and to ensure a gender perspective in all government policies and programmes. The Beijing Platform for Action is one of the most comprehensive articulations of Governments' commitments to the human rights of women and girls. It is based on the principles, and develops the strategies of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). It contains an analysis of the underlying causes of poverty and discrimination, and its strategies and actions outline what human rights commitments to women would actually mean. At the core of the Beijing Platform for Action is the idea of accountability-that governments have a duty to implement these commitments.

The Beijing Platform for Action was drafted and adopted by governments, and thousands of women activists worldwide have contributed during all the phases of developing, drafting and then monitoring and implementing the Platform for Action. The Beijing Platform for Action is not about abstractions—it addresses issues that affect the lives of women and girls worldwide everyday. But the recommendations in the Platform are only meaningful if governments demonstrate the political will to translate them into action. In practice, this means that women and women’s organisations must know and understand them and use them to further policy and action at all levels.[2]

Banúlacht and the Beijing Process
Since the 1990s, women’s organisations in Ireland and worldwide have used the review processes of the Beijing Platform for Action to demand that governments fulfil the commitments that they have made in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in many subsequent human rights treaties and world conferences. These review processes include the annual meetings of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW),[3] and the Beijing+5 Review held in 2000.

As a development education NGO with a focus on development issues from a feminist perspective, Banúlacht works to promote dialogue and debate on gender and development. A central focus of our work over the last ten years has been the implementation of women’s human rights in the context of development cooperation. Banúlacht took an active role with regard to the Fourth World Conference on Women held at Beijing in 1995. Representatives of Banúlacht participated as advisers on the Irish government delegation to the preparatory meeting for the European region in 1994 and as members of the government delegation to the World Conference. Banúlacht also coordinated the participation of Irish women’s organisations at the NGO Forum held in parallel with the Conference. Between 1998 and 2000, we carried out awareness raising about the content and significance of the Beijing Platform for Action (Beijing Platform for Action).

For the Beijing+5 Review in 2000, we prepared a submission on the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action, entitled ‘Putting the Action into Beijing’. The submission was based on Banúlacht’s research and on our consultations with women’s organisations, and addressed implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action in the contexts of both domestic policy and development cooperation. As co-founder and member of the Pro-Beijing Women’s NGO Coalition, we participated in the drafting of a Beijing+5 Shadow Report, the production of a poster entitled ‘Promises Made Promises Broken’ and a series of regional consultations with locally based women’s groups.

Banúlacht representatives attended the Beijing+5 Review in an NGO observer capacity, and the 2004 UNECE PrepCom for Beijing+10 and the Beijing+10 Review/CSW 2005 as members of the Irish delegation.

In preparation for Beijing+10, Banúlacht liased closely with the Women’s Human Rights Alliance and Network Women in Development Europe (WIDE), and participated in a Global Strategy Meeting (New York December 2004) and a WIDE Strategy Meeting (Rome, February 2005). We produced a series of briefings for NGOs, development agencies and women’s networks and circulated information and analysis received through international women’s organisations. For Beijing+10, a key focus of our work was lobbying of the Department of Foreign Affairs (Human Rights Unit and Development Cooperation Ireland) in order first to secure places on the delegation, and subsequently in relation to advocacy points relevant to the political processes at the CSW.

Reviewing progress towards implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action

In 2000, the five-year review of the Beijing Platform for Action was held at the 23rd UN General Assembly Special Session. By 2000, there was already considerable backlash among neo-conservative groups and governments against the gains of the 1990s conferences. Right wing, anti-feminist groups were present in great numbers, as they had been at the CSW meeting earlier that year. The process of the Beijing+5 Review was a two-week negotiation to produce an ‘Outcomes Document’ reflecting on progress in implementing the Beijing Platform for Action and renewing commitment to accelerated implementation of the Beijing commitments. The negotiation of the Outcomes Document was slow and arduous, and governments were resistant to introducing stronger language on areas such as reproductive rights and sexual rights. However, the document does contain important new language, particularly on the negative impacts of globalisation, and on trade policy.[4]

While the Beijing Conference had been notable for its action-focused and forward looking approach to women’s human rights, at the Beijing+5 Review, only five years later, the rallying call was ‘No going back on Beijing’, and the focus was to protect the gains of earlier conferences, rather than further push out the boundaries of human rights discourse and analysis.
In the five years since Beijing+5 much debate has taken place within feminist organisations and networks on the desirability or otherwise of a Fifth World Conference on Women.[5] The decision was made in 2004 that the Beijing+10 Review would be held at the annual meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW),[6] rather than at a separate, higher level event. While the question of whether another World Conference should be held in the future is still open, many believe that now is not the right time. The election of George W. Bush to the presidency of the United States in 2004 ushered in of an era of heightened neo-conservative backlash. WIDE’s statement to the CSW, for example, identifies an increase in conservative forces in Europe, the United States and other areas of the world, the rise of religious fundamentalisms and a diversion of resources away from the fight against poverty to the ‘war on terror’, combined with a backlash against women’s rights and a weakening of many of the gains won in the 1990s UN conferences.[7] Many now felt that negotiations on substantive issues in such a climate would be more likely to jeopardise gains made at previous UN Conferences than to contribute to the evolution of human rights thinking. For many NGOs, the main lobbying point prior to the CSW was ‘no new negotiations’[8].

The Beijing+10 Review is in part the story of attempts by the United States to roll back gains on women’s human rights, in particular reproductive rights, and its almost complete isolation by the member states of the UN in this attempt. It is also a story of frustration and anger on the part of NGOs at yet again having to defend the gains of ten years ago, rather than looking to the future. The lack of the kind of negotiation of a lengthy strategy document that characterised both Beijing and Beijing+5, though strategically prudent, was also problematic. Issues that were not adequately addressed in the Beijing Platform for Action (e.g. globalisation, sexual rights, reproductive rights, definition of family) were not be on the governments’ agenda for discussion, and so progressive organisations were not be able to use the CSW to move forward UN thinking on these issues. The absence of debate on these issues, and the necessity of maintaining ‘holding positions’, rather than negotiating for substantive gains took its toll on NGOs and governments and contributed to a sense of disaffection and disillusionment with UN processes throughout the CSW meeting.

The Political Declaration of the CSW 49th session

The agenda for the CSW was publicised many months before the meeting, and focused on exchange of good practice and review of barriers to implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action. However, as regional preparatory meetings[9] were held, it became clear that there would also be a Political Declaration from the CSW as the mechanism by which the CSW would express political will for the reaffirmation and implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action. The wording of this Declaration represented a diplomatic challenge of great delicacy. It would have to reaffirm governments’ commitment to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in terms that were at once unequivocal enough to leave no doubt as to the validity of the documents, and uncontroversial enough to allow of agreement by consensus without further negotiation.

It was not until late February that the Bureau[10] of the CSW first circulated a Draft Political Declaration to UN member states. The one-page Draft Political Declaration called for the reaffirmation of the “Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly”. It emphasized the essential importance of the “full and effective implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action to achieve internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration” and to integrate “a gender perspective in the preparations for and the outcome of the High-level Plenary meeting on the review of the Millennium Declaration.” Furthermore it recognized the mutual reinforcement of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. It welcomed the progress in achieving gender equality, and expressed commitment to “full and accelerated implementation.” Finally the Draft Declaration called on the United Nations and the international community to “intensify their contributions to the implementation” of the Beijing documents.

Note on process: (1) Informal consultations at the UN are closed meetings whose discussions, unlike those at the Plenary sessions do not form part of the official record of the meeting. These informals are used to hammer out agreement on documents, such as declarations or resolutions, before they are formally proposed in Plenary session. The sponsoring country (or usually countries) of a resolution, for example, will hold informal consultations with the other member states to hear proposed amendments which may or may not be accepted and included in the final draft submitted to the Plenary. The aim of the sponsoring county is to gain support for the resolution to be agreed by consensus: if it is clear that support will not be forthcoming, the sponsor can withdraw the resolution, or put it to a vote. At the discretion of the Chair, NGOs may be permitted to attend the informals. (2) At intergovernmental meetings such as this, the EU operates as one bloc; the country that holds the EU Presidency in a particular year speaks on behalf of the EU at the meeting. Daily EU coordination meetings are held to develop common positions on issues.

Discussion of the Declaration began in the week prior to the CSW, during two days of ‘informal consultations’. The United States introduced two amendments to the Draft Declaration. Quite apart from the content of the amendments, their introduction could have opened the door to a lengthy negotiation of the entire document, thereby stalling the CSW process. The proposed amendment that caused most dissent would have inserted a phrase into the first paragraph stating that the Beijing Platform for Action and the Outcomes Document of the Beijing+5 Review “do not create any new international human rights, and that they do not include the right to abortion”.[11] The United States justified their amendment by references to comments made in their 2004 concluding comments by the UN Human Rights Committee[12] stating its deep concern about Poland’s abortion laws and recommended that Poland should legislation and practice on abortion.[13] According to the United States, these comments effectively reinterpreted prior agreements on abortion. The United States, therefore was not only challenging the CSW, but sending a message to the Human Rights Committee that its relatively recent shift to addressing systemic violations of women’s rights, such as restrictions of reproductive rights, is not acceptable to the biggest non-paying member of the UN.

After a week of negotiations, the United States finally agreed to join the consensus, but made the following explanation of position:
The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action express important political goals that the United States endorses. We reaffirm the goals, objectives, and commitments of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action based on several understandings. We understand these documents constitute an important policy framework that does not create international legal rights or legally binding obligations on states under international law. Madam Chair, we have heard no delegation disagree with our interpretation. In addition, we appreciate your own assertion that the Beijing documents “should not be seen as creating any new human rights.” This week we heard an international consensus on this point, which is useful to clarifying the intent and purpose of Beijing. Based on consultations this week with states, we further understand that states do not understand the Beijing or Beijing+5 outcome documents to constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion. Our reaffirmation of the goals, objectives, and commitments of these documents does not constitute a change in the position of the United States with respect to treaties[14] we have not ratified.

Many countries, among them the European Union very strongly welcomed the adoption of the Declaration as a clear expression of international commitment to gender equality and gender justice, the United States however insisted on the inclusion of their “explanations of vote” into the official report, where they repeated all their arguments. This strategy was followed by Costa Rica, Panama, and Nicaragua.

The Beijing+10 Review and the Millennium Development Goals

A concern of many NGOs, including WIDE, as they entered the CSW process was that the human rights agenda of the UN was being sidelined by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and that the strong linkage to the international system of human rights accountability in the Millennium Declaration was greatly weakened in the MDGs. WIDE’s statement to the CSW makes this point very strongly:

“Unlike the BPfA which takes into account deep inequalities within and across countries, the MDGs ignore the structural nature of poverty as well as the structural nature of gender inequality. There is a central contradiction within the MDG process that asks governments to invest in ‘pro-poor policies’ while at the same time employing neo-liberal economic policies that only serve to increase the impoverishment of marginalized women and men. WIDE therefore calls for a far more democratic and gender aware MDG process, one that is accountable to the global women’s movement, and which makes gender equality, women’s human rights and women’s empowerment central to the achievement of the MDGs. It is critical that Governments ensure that the MDGs draw on the Beijing PfA as integral to all MDG goals.”

The Political Declaration of the CSW and the High Level Panel on the MDGs recognized that the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action and CEDAW are essential to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the time bound targets for eradicating poverty and implementing the Millennium Declaration. In his statement to the CSW, Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, highlighted the seven strategic priorities proposed in the MDG Task Force on Gender Equality, and reaffirmed the critical importance of taking focused action on these issues. The seven priority areas are: (i)expanding efforts to combat violence against girls and women; (ii) guaranteeing sexual and reproductive health and rights; (iii) guaranteeing women's and girls' property, land and inheritance rights; (iv) eliminating gender inequality in employment, such as eliminating the earnings gap; (v) increasing the number of women in national and local governments; (vi) investing in the infrastructure necessary to reduce women's and girls' time burdens, so that, for example, the amount of time women spend on gathering fuel, water, and other basic necessities is drastically reduced; (vii) expanding girls' access to education, secondary as well as primary. [15]

United States Draft Resolution on Women and the Economy

Note on process: The negotiation is conducted by the government delegations. With 10 resolutions proposed, most member states had to spread their delegations very thinly, and focus on a small number of resolutions. Few countries had the resources to have delegates with sufficient expertise to follow the negotiations on more than a small number of resolutions. NGOs can attend in the observers’ gallery, but are not entitled to receive documentation or to be consulted. NGOs therefore depend on friendly governments and on colleagues in the government delegations to provide them with access to the documents being discussed. Some governments automatically share documents with NGOs, some refuse to. When there were a large number of NGOs working tracking the negotiation it was possible to get access to documents, translate them, and comment on them. Some NGOs kept track of the positions adopted by different governments, others noted and summarised all the agreed changes. Coordination meetings of NGOs provided opportunities to analyse and comment on the proceedings. This work then formed the basis of other NGOs’ lobbying of their governments. NGOs on delegations could organise meetings with officials, or hand them lobby material in the negotiating rooms. In some cases, even the delegates have trouble getting access to documents. The US facilitators of the Economic Advancement of Women resolution for example e-mailed the latest copies of the to the governments’ missions at the UN text only hours before the informals, leaving little or no time for preparation or coordination. The negotiation at the ‘informals’ requires a high degree of technical knowledge on the part of delegates and NGOs, and thorough familiarity with the agreed language of the Beijing Platform for Action and Cairo. General Assembly resolutions essentially recycle the language of past declarations and agreements: the choice of words is never random or unthinking. The omission of some phrases is as significant as the inclusion of others, as each represents a kind of coded message about the values and principles governments prioritise and the solutions they favour to the problem being addressed. Everything from the use of singular or plural and the placing of a comma is potentially contentious and open to debate. The informal consultations are lengthy and complex. As more and more amendments are proposed, the Chair from time to time will offer to ‘clean up’ the text and produce ‘facilitators’ texts’. In the case of the draft resolutions, these texts incorporate the changes proposed by other states that the proposing government accepts, but omit many others and may include new paragraphs which are then subject to further discussion.

The CSW also had to consider proposals for General Assembly resolutions; ten such proposals were tabled.[16] Informal consultations on the draft resolutions began in the second week. Banúlacht followed the process of the resolution proposed by the United States on ‘Economic Advancement of Women’. In an explanatory note, the United States explained that it intended to “discuss the need for women’s greater access to free market factors, in order to create more women entrepreneurs and thereby accelerate economic development.“ In accordance with the World-Bank-supported efficiency approach the authors of the resolution maintained an approach throughout based on investing in women’s prosperity so that, “the entire society benefits as well as those women’s families. Empowering women creates a rising tide that lifts all ships”.
The draft focused primarily on women’s micro- and meso-entrepreneurship and enumerated such measures as promoting equality of education, provision of training in business skills to women, the collection of disaggregated data, increasing women’s access to saving and lending, to opening their equal access to information and communication technology. The framework for these measures would be a “strong enabling environment for women entrepreneurs” which includes “a sound macro-economic framework, accountable systems for managing public resources, (..) an attractive investment climate, competitive markets (.--.) and reduced barriers to international trade”. NGOs, among them Banúlacht, WIDE, IGTN, WICEJ, WEDO and ICFTU, in their proposals for amending the text, highlighted the rights-based approach of the Platform for Action and of CEDAW. They emphasized the role of the state in ensuring sustainable livelihoods and employment in formal and informal economies. They affirmed that the empowerment of women must go far beyond micro-credit, micro-enterprises and individual responses and must deal with systemic causes of poverty. They called for a strengthening of national and international investment regulation to be included in the operational paragraphs. They highlighted the crucial role of the public sector in providing adequately funded and affordable essential services, including primary health care, sexual and reproductive health and rights, housing, education, water and sanitation, energy and transport. However, it was notable how few NGOs, especially in the second week, were following the process of negotiation on the economic resolution.

The resolution in its original form focused on providing enhancing environments for business women as well as furthering the agenda for trade liberalisation. The draft text was met from the beginning with criticism from many sides, governments as well as NGOs. Revisions proposed by governments added new language balancing the resolution with clauses on poverty alleviation, references to collective bargaining and to the principles contained in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and the Rights at Work. The informal consultations were lengthy and complex, with the United States, as sponsor of the resolution, producing a number of ‘facilitators’ texts’. The delay in producing facilitator’s texts, which meant that delegates generally did not have them until just before the consultations (and blocs such as the EU did not necessarily have the up-to-date text for their daily coordination meetings) added to the air of frustration.
Three final amendments to the Resolution on the Economic Advancement of Women on (1) sexual and reproductive health rights, (2) the role of the public sector and (3) recognition of the negative impacts of globalization were carried to a vote in the final plenary in the General Assembly, because of the opposition of the United States. Initially, the United States stated that "because reproductive rights does not include abortion”, they could "reluctantly accept" the language. However, a phone call from Washington meant that immediately, while they still had the mike, the United States contradicted this, and said, "no, we won't accept". The United States’ representative then said she wished to withdraw the changed text from consideration. But, as the Cuban representative reminded the Chair, UN rules state that once a resolution is amended the co-sponsor cannot withdraw support. The United States was effectively outmanoeuvred, and left with no choice but to vote (with Nicaragua) against its own resolution.[17]

The role of the United States at the Beijing+10 CSW

In the wider context of the international system of accountability for human rights, the United States position at the 49th CSW reflects an ideological position in relation to human rights in general, and not only reproductive rights, which is of great concern. Human rights concepts are not static: the UN system since the 1990s has been a space where human rights language and concepts are constantly interrogated in the context of changing global realities. The women's movement rightly celebrates the recognition at the Vienna Conference of violence against women as a violation of human rights, and the recognition in the 1990s of rape as a war crime. Such developments should be seen as the articulation of human rights principles as applied to these issues, not as the 'creation' of 'new' human rights.

At the CSW 2005 the proposed sentence stating that the Beijing Platform for Action does not ‘create new human rights’ was not inserted in the Declaration. However, many of the States that made interventions after the agreement of the Declaration used the phrase, thereby tacitly giving a degree of validity to the United States position. The anti-abortion and anti-feminist organisations at the CSW were quick to point this out and claim a victory for those who oppose the expansion of human rights concepts.[18] The EU did not use the phrase in its intervention.
The UN human rights system is not perfect. But during the 1990s each world conference brought gains for women and expansion of the thinking on human rights. The openness to evolving human rights thinking is narrowing every year, and the moves of the United States at the 49th CSW represent a further attempt to narrow the definitions of human rights, to close down spaces for dialogue and to ensure that central human rights issues such as the recognition of rights relating to sexual orientation and the specific discriminations experienced by lesbian women, for example, are not recognised internationally.

That the Political Declaration was agreed by consensus and without the inclusion of the United States amendments is undoubtedly a very positive indication of the political will of the other UN member states to challenging the overbearing tactics and the regressive approach to human rights of the United States. However, assessed on its own terms as a UN document, the Declaration is weak: it contains no references to the future, no commitments to increase resources, and none of the agreed language of the Cairo Programme of Action on reproductive rights.

Positive as the reaffirmation in the Political Declaration of the intrinsic link between implementing the Beijing Platform for Action and achieving the Millennium Development Goals is in terms of NGO lobbying in relation to the Millennium Summit Follow-Up, September 2005, the contrast between the attention to development issues at the Beijing Conference, with its focus on equality, development and peace, and the CSW Beijing+10, was stark. Apart from specific events focusing on the MDGs, debate and discussion on sustainable development was extraordinarily low key. The United States seemed to be trying to take development out of even the Millennium Development Goals, and to focus the MDGs on security concerns and the ‘war against terror’.

The United States’ proposed amendments to the Political Declaration, and its references to the Human Rights Committee as ‘interfering’ with states sovereignty are clear indications of Bush administration antagonism both to linking abortion to human rights, and to the UN approach that sees human rights as an evolving framework. By focusing the debate at the informal consultations on it amendment, the United States was not only attempting to pre-empt the development of UN discourse on reproductive rights. By framing the amendment in terms of the ‘creation’ of a ‘right to abortion’, the United States was playing to the fears of Bush’s electoral stronghold. Playing to a domestic audience, Washington was constructing a caricature of the UN, of feminism and of progressive NGOs and governments as concerned only with abortion, and of the United States as the protector of traditional values and of the ‘family’.

The framing of the issues in the two resolutions proposed by the United States is indicative of its intention to dismantle the gains of the UN conferences of the 1990s, and to undermine the structural approach of UN treaties such as CEDAW and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. These treaties lay the groundwork for an approach to human rights that places obligations on governments to address root causes of inequality and of systemic violations of human rights by taking specific actions to redress such violations. This is expressed in the principles of interdependence, indivisibility and universality underlying the Beijing Platform for Action, and the principle of intersectionality introduced at the World Conference on Racism. Both United States resolutions were based on an interpretation of human rights founded in individualism (the individual women entrepreneur in the case of the economy, the individual client in the case of trafficking) and a narrow view of freedom, rather than the holistic, multifaceted and complex approach to human rights envisaged in the Beijing Platform for Action.
In the context of a UN gathering where the attitudes and positions of the United States dominated the agenda and the media attention, it is tempting to see the EU as a champion of progressive causes. To some degree this analysis is justified: in the negotiations on the resolution on ‘Women’s Economic Advancement’, the EU proposed amendments incorporating language from CEDAW on adopting temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality, eradicating gender stereotyping in the work place, and eliminating discrimination in the workplace, and also language on gender mainstreaming, collection of gender disaggregated statistics, and on the equal rights of women and men to decide freely the number and spacing of children and sharing family and household responsibilities, in the discussions was to. However, in terms of challenging neoliberalism, the EU is no champion: the centrality of a neoliberal model of ‘economic freedom’ in the United States resolution on the economy, and the resistance of the United States to accepting inclusion of agreed United States language on key development issues was of concern. At the Beijing+5 Review in 2000 the ‘buzz word’ was globalisation, and it was seen as imperative to bring a focus on macroeconomic issues in general and trade policy in particular into the UN human rights discourse. Apart from efforts by governments such as New Zealand and South Africa to raise these issues in the discussion on the economic advancement resolution, they were not major issues.

Conclusion

The annual meeting of the CSW is a key focal point for the review of implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action, of gender mainstreaming, and progress towards gender equality. However, like all intern-governmental gatherings, it is primarily concerned with configurations of power. The story of the 49th Session of the CSW is a story of United States isolation and the resistance of other member states. The United States attempted to introduce anti-abortion language into the Political Declaration, and failed, it tried to block the language of reproductive rights in the economic resolution, and failed. The Bush administration has just appointed an avowed critic of the UN, Robert Bolton, as the United States ambassador to the United Nations. How will he tell the story of the CSW? No doubt as one of the cumbersome inefficient process, slow and bureaucratic, and unable even to agree on basic principles and ‘common-sense’ ideas. And it is certainly true that the process of agreeing text at the UN, the endless nuancing of phrases and recycling of agreed language is slow, frustrating and tedious. The UN machinery and the annual meetings of the CSW are immensely complex: a reading of the media reports in the days after the Political Declaration was adopted made clear that everyone, from the United States, the Vatican, the so-called 'pro-life groups' , to the feminist groups, networks and organisations and progressive governments was claiming to a victory of sorts. And this, ultimately, is the nature of UN processes: there isn't one unambiguous outcome, there is no simple tally that can be made to sum up the process. Such a major meeting, with its lengthy series of preparatory conferences and panels, its mix of negotiation and plenary sessions, of diplomacy and advocacy produces multiple outcomes and multiple, sometimes complex readings of both text and of political positioning.

No one who attends a UN meeting, not the NGOs, not the officials, not the diplomats or the radicals think that they are there to change the world; no one believes that the UN is the most important force in world politics or that it has the power to implement the policies it generates. However, if the groaning old talking shop often seems like a waste of time and money, and the immense meetings rooms seem to produce little more than hot air and hot tempers, it is worth remembering that just by existing, the UN is a focus for radicalism and talk of transformation. It focuses the mind on the power of words: UN gatherings bring together thinkers and activists, poets and academics; the gathering together inside the UN building is only one side of the story.
Just by existing, the UN calls forth the energy of the women’s movement through paper and through the internet, there is a flow of energy and intellect into the papers and seminars, workshops and informal meetings that parallel the official meetings. And for every enervating session spent politely teasing out the acceptable phrases in the official meeting rooms, there is a parallel event where there is a meeting of minds, or a clash of ideas, or a sudden inspired articulation of a new problem, or a chance meeting of old friends or new allies. Spaces where women are prepared to spend three hours standing listening to new and challenging thinking after spending a day sitting listening to the drone of officialdom. And it is in these spaces, not in the official halls that the women’s movement thinks beyond Beijing and into the future. And when the two spaces converge, as they did in Beijing, at least in the myth of that conference, the creaking machine of the UN can produce radical texts and frame progressive agendas. It was this same slow, cumbersome process that produced the Beijing Platform for Action: when the political will is there again, who knows what it may produce?

[1] See also WIDE CSW report
[2] Ref Charlotte Bunch article
[3] See below, note 6.
[4] Banúlacht 2004 ‘Looking at the Economy through Women’s Eyes: a facilitator’s guide to economic literacy’, p. 125.
[5] See WIDE web site discussion forum on a Fifth World Conference, www.wide-net.org
[6] The UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) was established in 1946 and meets annually for a period of ten working days. The object of the CSW is to promote implementation of the principle that men and women have equal rights. The CSW makes recommendations to the UN on urgent problems requiring immediate attention in the field of women's rights, and carries out reviews of the critical areas of concern in the BPFA. The CSW consists of 45 members who are elected by the Economic and Social Council for a period of four years as follows: 13 from African states; 11 from Asian states; 4 from Eastern European states; 9 from Latin American and Caribbean states; 8 from Western European and other states. Source: www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw
[7] WIDE web site: www.wide-network.org
[8] See for example Development Alternatives for Women in a New Era (DAWN) www.dawn.org
[9] Five regional PrepComs were held for Beijing+10, for the ECE region (whihc includes not only the EU and other European states, the CIS (former Soviet), Central and Eastern European states, Central Asian republics (e.g. Azerbaijan, Belarus), Russian Federation, Turkey, but also Canada, Israel and the United States); the ECA (Economic Commission for Africa), ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and Caribbean), ESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for Asia Pacific) and ESCWA (Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia – i.e. Middle East).
[10] The Bureau of the Commission on the Status of Women (forty-ninth session, 2005) comprised the following members: Kyung-wha Kang (Republic of Korea), Chairperson; Marine Davtyan (Republic of Armenia); Tebatso Future Baleseng (Botswana); Beatrice Maille (Canada); Carmen-Rosa Arias (Peru). While most member states send delegations to the CSW, and all delegations participate in the informal consultations, only the 45 members of the CSW may vote.
[11] The second amendment, would have changed the wording of the final paragraph to state that “the need to ensure that the integration of a gender perspective” was justified for the preparations, but not for the outcome of the High Level Plenary Meeting on the Review of the Millennium Declaration.
[12] The UN Human Rights Committee is the body of independent experts elected by the UN General Assembly that monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (source: www. ohchr.org)
[13] Human Rights Committee 82nd Session December 2004, CCPR/CO/82/POL (Source reporting by CGWL on CSW informal consultations 25th Feb 2005)
[14] I.e. CEDAW
[15] IWTC Women’s Globalnet #274 ‘Turning Promises into Progress’: Statement of the Linkage Caucus From the 49th Session of the CSW March 11, 2005. www.iwtc.org
[16] The resolutions were: (1) Reducing demand for trafficking women and girls (tabled by the United States); (2) considering the advisability of a Special Rapporteur on laws that discriminate against women (Rwanda); (3) women’s economic advancement (United States); (4) women, the girl child and HIV/AIDS (Mauritius); (5) mainstreaming a gender perspective into national policies and programmes (United Kingdom and Bangladesh); (6) integrating a gender perspective in post-disaster relief efforts, particularly in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster (Philippines); (7) situation of and assistance to Palestinian women (tabled by Jamaica for the Group of 77); (8) support for the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW), (Philippines); (9) indigenous women (tabled by Bolivia); (10) and the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan (tabled by Luxemburg for the European Union). All ten were passed. The matter of appointing a Special Rapporteur will be taken up at the CSW 50th Session in 2006 (the Special Rapporteur will be appointed by and would report to the CSW for an initial period of three years, the first such position to be created by the CSW.

[17] Reporting by the ICFTU, the Centre for Women’s Global Leadership and DAWN
[18] So called ‘Pro-life’ NGOs quote comments made by the CEDAW Committee and the Human Rights Committee, as well as by NGOs, as evidence that the Beijing Platform for Action, Cairo Programme of Action and CEDAW are being ‘blatantly misinterpreted and used to promote abortion’. For groups such as the NGO Pro-Life/Pro-Family Coalition, unequivocal reaffirmation of documents such as the Beijing documents contribute to the establishment a right to abortion as part of customary international law. (Source: flyers supporting the United States amendment circulated by the the NGO Pro-Life/Pro-Family Coalition).

"World Cafe" discussion at Violence Against Women-A Global Crisis: Accountability—Activism—Action a conference organised by Banúlacht, the Clare Women's Network and the Limerick Women's Network 26th November 2009

The conference closed with a "World Cafe" stlye discussions--participants gathered around tables to discuss a number of questions in relation to the conference theme. After each question, everyone moved to a different table to talk with a different group. In addition to talking in groups and commenting in the plenary session, there was also the option of writing on the cafe table cloths: see below for a selection!

"Feminism: the radical notion that women are people."

"Commit Act Demand locally and globally – Local, Speaking about d.v. Raising awareness with family and friends. Through campaigning, Through campaigning – educate the boys through awareness. Opened my eyes to a lot of issues. Made me think of how to stop it in solidarity with all women globally."

"Having international speakers excellent global perspective. How to prevent violence not just reacting when it occurs. How to open the issue up to other groups – not just preaching to the converted, encouraging men to attend different discussions."

"Solidarity – empowerment (displacement) disclosure (safe place – feelings of love) Domestic abuse conversation stopper. Any action we can commit to that will challenge d.v. locally, globally. Singing doesn’t cost money. Keep the message out there. Deliver a message. Making connections – Community involvement – We need to get men involved. We need to target different groups."

"Get men involved otherwise we will not be challenging violence against women. Education programmes for men especially in Africa on HIV – support programmes for women to control their sexual lives. Education of children early intervention – Speak out against the cuts to women’s programmes – funding campaign (coffee mornings etc) Go beyond just talking."

The Clare Women's Network Community Singing Group, which performed at the event

The Clare Womens Network in collaboration with photographer Martina Cleary have developed a poster campaign to highlight this 16 Days Campaign. The posters depict only some of the abuses which women face everyday in Ireland and globally and are accompanied by facts relating to violence against women. A poster will be released everyday for the 16 Days Campaign. Contact clarewomen@eircom.net

Members of the Limierick Women's Network with T-Shirts created for the candle-lit "Washing Line" event that had taken place the evening before the confernece at Limerick City Hall.

Exhibition by the Joint Consortium on Gender Based Violence (http://www.gbv.ie/)

16 Days of Activism: Violence Against Women-A Global Crisis: Accountability—Activism—Action Conference

Major conference organised by Banúlacht and the Clare and Limerick Women's Networks, 26th November 2009 for the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence

Nata Duvvury in her key-note speech reminded us of the origins of the 16 Days:

"Nearly two decades ago, in a basement in New Jersey, a group of women strategized on how to advance advocacy on violence against women. A key decision these women made was to launch 16 days of activism linking together November 25th, International day on Violence Against Women which marked the martyrdom of the Mirabel sisters and December 10th International Day on Human Rights. The group of women were not a small set of white women but were women drawn from all over the world as part of the first global women’s leadership institute organized by Rutgers university. The idea originated by these women grew out of a deep solidarity between women of the global south and north and underscored that violence against women is a global problem and a gross human rights violation. The 16 days of activism has grown into a vast movement with legs of its own and is a critical moment of mobilisation by women across the globe from Tanzania to Kenya to Philippines to Brazil to Ireland to Poland to Turkey to Iraq to India. Overall 2000 organisations in more than 156 countries have participated in 16 days campaign since 1991." (For the text of the full speech, as well as other spepches and inpts from the event, see http://www.banulacht.ie/conferences.htm)

Dr Nata Duvvury and Leila Sheikh, key note speakers, listen to Margart Martin, Women's Aid at the conference.

What is the 16 days campaign?

One in three women worldwide face abuse, violence and rape everyday. In no country of the world are women free from this fear and terror. In Ireland, it is estimated that 213,000 women are living with severe abuse from their boyfriends, husbands and partners. The 16 Days Campaign is an international campaign that started in 1991.

Limerick Local Area Network on Violence Against Women – "Washing Line Gathering" outside the City Hall in Limerick to launch of the 16 Days Campaign, which also included the "In Her Shoes" Exhibition at the City Hall. The washing line was also on display at the conference.

Since then, over 2000 groups in 154 countries have taken part. The 25th November (UN Day Opposing Violence against Women) and 10th December (Human Rights Day), were chosen to symbolise the link between violence against women and human rights abuses and to highlight that today, women and girls are subjected to many forms of human rights violations solely on the basis of their gender. The 16 Days period includes other significant dates such as International Human Rights Defenders Day (29th November), World Aids Day (1st December) and the anniversary of the Montreal Massacre (6th December).

The 16 Days Campaign is an opportunity for individuals and groups around the world to call for the elimination of all forms of violence against women by:

Highlighting the nature and prevalence of violence against women
Raising awareness of violence against women as a human rights issue
Showing solidarity among women around the world
Promoting women's leadership
Lobbying government
Strengthening local work to tackle violence against women
Making women safer in their own homes

(Source: Women’s Aid)

Martina Hynan and participants in the arts workshop "Drawing the Local and Global Together"

Conference: Violence Against Women-A Global Crisis: Accountability—ActivismViolence Against Women-A Global Crisis: Accountability—Activism—Action

Thomond Park, Limerick, 26th November 2009
A conference organised by Banúlacht-Women in Ireland for Global Solidarity, the Clare Women’s Network and the Limerick Women’s Network for the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence.

200 women attended the conference.

"Surpassed my expectations—range of participants was enriching—lots of opportunity to discuss and listen at round tables over lunch and in main room."
"It was an inspiring event and it was great to see the organisations coming together for a common good and to have such strong powerful women."
"It very much brought it home to-day of the problems of domestic abuse in the world."
"Excellent local-global perspectives reflected throughout the day."

(Comments by participants)

The scoreboard at Thomond Park Rugby Stadium, Limerick

The conference aimed to raise awareness of violence against women as a human rights issue globally, to highlight the work of women’s organisations in challenging violence against women and to promote solidarity between women in Ireland and women in the global South.
Violence against women has been termed a “global pandemic”: The conference explored diverse aspects of this pandemic and highlighted the work of organisations in Ireland and the South that are working for the eradication of violence against women. This conference was funded by Irish Aid and Trócaire.

Key-note speakers: from left, Ailbhe Smyth, Feminist Open Forum, Dr Nata Duvvury, NUI Galway, Leila Sheikh, Tanzanian journalist/activist.

Workshops at the conference included:

1. Local and Global responses to Violence against Women
Nata Duvvury, NUI Galway (NUIG), Maria McLaughlin, Adapt House

"Nata’s input was very inspiring and thought provoking." "Examples given by speakers encouraged lots of comments and practical examples from group. Very relevant." "I am so happy to be part of it today as we discussed in teams how locally and globally we responded to abused women." (Comments from participants)

2. What is Violence against Women?
Denise Dunne, Clare Haven House and Siobhán Curran,
Joint Consortium on Gender Based Violence/Amnesty International

"I found the exchange of experiences and the engagement and interaction among the group really interesting and at times challenging." " Very enlightening." "Really interesting and informative about what responses have been put in place – globally and also comparison to how we respond locally and nationally."

3. One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Making Services More Inclusive
Nobuhle Ncube, AKIDWA; Emma Jane Hoey, National Traveller Women’s Forum;
Iris Elliott, NUI G

Nobuhle Ncube (workshop 3) with Leila Sheikh (workshop 2)


"Very interested to hear others experiences and work." "Excellent discussion – networking"




4. Challenging Violence against Women through Feminist Activism
Ailbhe Smyth, Feminist Open Forum


"I thought it is amazing. I never realized I was a feminist till today." "Very open and happy discussion with intelligent ideas."


5. The 16 Days Campaign: Community-based Responses
Maria McLaughlin, Adapt House; Aileen Foran, Hill Street FRC


"Excellent. Overwhelming. Uplifting. Educational." "It was very emotionally challenging—great ideas were shared."




6. Looking after Me: Relaxation Skills
Noirín Long


"Wonderfully uplifting" "Very helpful" "Lovely"




7. Where the Legal System Fails Women
Ursula Regan, Family Law Solicitor/Women’s Aid

"Very inspiring" "Opened my eyes" "Very good workshop"




8. Violence against Women and HIV: A Global Pandemic
Leila Sheikh, Tanzanian journalist/activist

"Leila Hassan is such an ocean of experience. She’s a great inspiration in how to recover from the ashes of life. The workshop gave way to loads of questions, facts, information and a huge insight of life for the women of Tanzania and Africa."

"Enlightening, thought provoking, upsetting and uplifting"

9. Women and Armed Conflict
Gorana Mlinarivic, NUI Galway; Deirdre Ni Cheallaigh, Joint Consortium on
Gender Based Violence/Trócaire

"Enjoyed it: great learning on something I had no understanding of."
"I listened with interest as I had not given much thought to this before. Amazed at the level of knowledge among other women in the workshop."

10 Drawing the Local and Global together
Martina Hynan, arts facilitator

"Totally enjoyed it. Got all the experience I needed"

Martina Hynan with the piece of art work created with the particiapnts in the workshop at the Thomond Park conference.

For copies of the programme and the keynote speeches, see http://www.banulacht.ie/conferences.htm

From Dublin to Dar es Salaam: Development Education in Action
by Niamh Farren

Member of a credit copperative in Lugoba Village, Mwanza.

A memorable two weeks in Tanzania offers a unique insight into another culture. Niamh Farren took part in an exchange organised earlier this year by Banúlacht : Women in Ireland for Global Solidarity.

From Dublin to Dar es Salaam
I arrive in Dar es Salaam Tanzania to a sunny September morning. I’m greeted by a collection of exotic and unrecognisable smells, an unfamiliar landscape and kaleidoscope of colours. It’s only dawn, and already the heat is stifling. The anticipation of entering my two week adventure in Tanzania and Zanzibar fills me with energy, despite minimal sleep on a long flight. Backpackers, and honeymooners spill out of the plane, to create memories of climbing Kilmanjaro, and spice tours in Zanzibar. Almost everyone on the plane is white.

This trip is the outcome of an incredible amount of preparation and planning. We are eight Irish women active in the community sector, all from different parts of the country and who have signed up for this experience. Over the past few months we’ve cautiously volunteered some personal information about ourselves, given that we’ll be living out of each other’s pockets for the next little while. We’ve devoured the Lonely Planet, taken a crash course in Swahili, and googled every unfamiliar place mentioned on our itinerary. Our bags are stuffed with products designed to protect our western skin from unfamiliar climates. Our two week itinerary is packed – from attending the Gender Festival organized by the Tanzania Gender Networking Programme, to a field trip to a rural housing project in rural Mwanza at the foot of Kilimanjaro, and onto experiencing Ramadan on the exotic island of Zanzibar.

Just off the plane in Dar es Salaam

Banúlacht, a feminist NGO based in Ireland organised an exchange between Irish women and women in Tanzania, with the aim of deepening the understanding between women in Ireland and women in the Global South. Over the past two years I’ve been a member of the Banúlacht Executive, and this exchange has constituted a key part of our workplan during that time. Banúlacht has cultivated a strong relationship with TGNP (the Tanzanian Gender Networking Programme), and invited both Mary Rusimbi and Gemma Akilamali to speak at conferences and meet with women’s groups all around Ireland.

Gemma Akilimali

The exchange is funded through the Development Education Unit of Development Co-operation Ireland, Trócaire and Concern, all of whom support the work of Banúlacht. In addition, each exchange participant was required to fundraise in order to get here – by packing bags at the local supermarket, organising table-quizzes - one woman even climbed Croagh Patrick barefoot to fund her contribution.

Banúlacht works in the context of development education by organising training and capacity building initiatives, and raising awareness about women’s human rights issues. Irish Aid defines development education as ‘an educational process aimed at increasing awareness and understanding of the rapidly changing, interdependent and unequal world in which we live. It seeks to engage people in analysis, reflection and action for local and global citizenship and participation. It is about supporting people in understanding, and in acting to transform the social, cultural, political and economic structures which affect their lives and others at personal, community, national and international levels'. This is the theory behind why I’m here. While my experience has given me some insight into the reality of women’s lives in Tanzania, my perceptions and attitudes are very much shaped by the images of Africa that haunt mainstream media. I’m wondering if being here in person will change that.

Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world following an economic crisis in the 1980s and has been identified as one of eight priority countries in Africa by Irish Aid, the Irish governmnents funding programme which targets ‘developing countries’. The statistics speak for themselves and make the case for aid – life expectancy averages 46 years; almost one third of adults living in rural areas have no formal education. Poverty is further exacerbated by a high incidence of HIV/ AIDS. In 2005 it was estimated that almost one and a half million people were living with HIV AIDs in Tanzania. But it’s not only through aid that Ireland and Tanzania are connected - the cultural ties run deeper, when you think that Nyerere, the African socialist who was president of Tanzania up until the mid eighties was educated by Catholic missionaries.

Lost in Culture
The Gender Festival hosted by TGNP is an event that happens every two years. We arrive the day before the beginning of the festival as the shady grounds surrounding the offices are converted into workshop spaces, exhibition stands and market stalls. The festival is a four day event which this year aims to explore the theme of ‘African Feminist Struggles in the context of Globalization’ – the first day providing some of the context, the second day identifying the key issues, the third day is about ‘putting patriarchy on trial’ and the fourth and final day examining the way forward. Workshops group participants together according to their interests – from education and information to gender based violence, women’s participation in politics and decision making. The participants may be speaking Swahili but the similarity of the issues is striking.

The event is a dizzying and vibrant display – from the colours of local kangas (traditional Tanzanian dress) to the fiery outbursts that follow the keynote address, the personal experiences that have been rehearsed and are now articulated with emotion to an audience of over one thousand. A roving mike and facilitator allows the opportunity for these very personal stories to be told. But this isn’t only about the serious business of gender and development; it’s also an opportunity for dancing, performing and celebration. From the provocative theatre piece ‘Putting Patriarchy on Trial’ to the alternative Miss Tanzania competition, this is an event which experiments with every creative option in order to engage everyone present. The other thing that surprises us is the visible presence and participation of men in the festival.

Drama Group at the Gender Festival

In terms of the issues facing women, we’re not just lost in translation, we’re lost in culture – the cultural framework here is so different, that it defies and challenges our own western analyses. In Mwanza we learn how older women in rural communities have recently become a target for violence. The type of cooking fuel used by the women often causes their eyes to go red by the time they reach 60 and in some cases these women are branded as witches. They now constitute an extremely vulnerable group in society. Local community initiatives have developed a new type of cooking stove which prevents the women from developing red eyes, and now what they really want to do is run an educational campaign on this issue in order to try and change people’s attitudes.

Working in Solidarity
Another challenge faced by community initiatives in the rural village of Lugoba involves dealing with the impact of HIV and AIDS on rural communities. A unique peer education model in operation there trains local people so that they can identify the symptoms of HIV/ AIDS and promote preventative measures, but also link those who are HIV positive into existing services in the area. Later that day I meet a teenage girl who is raising six children because her mother died of AIDS, which really brings reality home to me. It was an emotional few days for everyone in the group – the personal stories of abuse, poverty, and the level of violence experienced on a daily basis by women made for difficult listening. Obviously, these projects and initiatives are desperately in need of resources. But this is only one part of a more complex solution. Sometimes the expectations around what aid can achieve over a short space of time can be unrealistic. ‘Capacity Building and community development takes time’ says Ashililya Nyanda, Manager of Mwanza Rural Housing Scheme. Maimuna Kanyamala of the Kivulini women’s rights organisation also points out the need for research and statistics, which document the levels of violence experienced by women around the country, thereby making the case for additional resources or changes in legislation. The women we meet also encourage us to talk about what we have seen, and to raise awareness to the reality of women’s lives in Tanzania. Globalisation connects us all, and we have the opportunity, but also the responsibility to advocate in support of organisations like TGNP that are working in the face of huge challenges to advocate for women’s rights in Tanzania.

A Learning Experience
There’s not enough space to list all the things I’ve learned from being part of this exchange. Maybe not just what I’ve learned, but how I learned it. From the politics of aid, to my very basic greetings in Swahili; things I would never have learned about Tanzania in an academic environment. Although women in Tanzania experience difficulties, they believe they have come a long way. Within the credit co-operative in Lugoba, women occupy positions of power that they would never have years ago. Men are seen as partners in the struggle for gender equality, although the key decision-making roles within TGNP will always be occupied by women. Better access to education is giving women more choices. The individual and collective stories of women, setting up their own small enterprises, walking for miles to attend classes, gathering in community centres and making changes happen in their communities, despite huge obstacles, will continue to be an inspiration for those of us who were lucky enough to meet them. And that inspite of our differences, we have so much in common. Our final day in Tanzania included a meeting with the Irish ambassador to Tanzania and embassy staff who manage the Irish Aid programme. We talk to them about what we have seen, and raise the issues that the women have spoken of. It seems like a small thing, but a few days after our return we get an email from Maimuna telling us that the Embassy will be visiting Kivulini Women’s Rights group. Let’s hope that it goes well.

Niamh Farren represented NEAR fm on this recent exchange. She recorded interviews with the group with a view to producing a one hour radio programme documenting the experiences of the group. The programme received funding from the BCI (Broadcasting Commission of Ireland) under the Sound and Vision Broadcasting Funding Scheme. For more information on the exchange see www.banulacht.ie