Global Policy Forum

By Marilyn Henry

The five-year follow-up assembly to the landmark 1995 UN women's conference in China ended at the crack of dawn last Saturday, proclaiming that it had fulfilled its mission. That meant it could be dubbed Beijing-plus-five, instead of Beijing-minus-five.

The special session at the United Nations in New York, called "Women 2000: Gender Equality, Development and Peace for the 21st Century," drew an estimated 10,000 women representing some 185 governments as well as nongovernmental organizations. They intended to create a blueprint for actions to ensure the full implementation of the commitments made in Beijing.

The 1995 event in China, with 17,000 in attendance, was the largest-ever gathering of government and nongovernmental representatives, according to the UN. It came up with a platform that specifically called for effective measures against poverty, violence and armed conflict; for education and training, health care, human rights, institutional mechanisms for women's advancement and protection of the girl-child and of the environment; and for women's meaningful participation in the economy, in government and the media.

When the New York event ended, Secretary-General Kofi Annan pronounced himself "delighted" that the gains made by women were "consolidated, protected and advanced" in Beijing-plus-five.

However, some of the strongest women's advocates disagreed. They seemed simply relieved that the Beijing Platform had not been eroded by the first review conference in five years. And Amnesty International called the UN General Assembly's special session a disappointment, saying that some governments are unwilling to fulfill their commitments towards women's human rights, or to admit that they have a responsibility to do so. "When it comes to women's human rights, there is a persistent lack of political will," it said in a statement as the session closed. "We regret that there was not enough political will on the part of some governments and the UN system to agree on a stronger document with more concrete benchmarks, numerical goals, time-bound targets, indicators, and resources aimed at implementing the Beijing Platform," the Center for Women's Global Leadership, a think tank at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said on behalf of numerous nongovernmental organizations.

And the American delegation seemed to qualify its enthusiasm for the conference's final document, called the "outcome document," which was adopted by consensus. In a letter to President Bill Clinton, the delegation distanced itself from some provisions of the text by issuing an "interpretive statement" that outlined its disagreements with the final document.

Western women's advocates pushed, without success, for more explicit support for accessible and safe abortions, homosexual rights, and sex education for adolescents, which was seen as especially important in countries where AIDS is epidemic. "Since Beijing, nearly 400,000 women have died unnecessarily from unsafe abortions," said Betty King, the American envoy for economic and social affairs at the UN. "Even when abortion is legal, too many countries have unsafe doctors, nurses or other health providers."

The European Union and the US, however, were attacked for pressing for what was dubbed "sexual colonialism." The Vatican, meanwhile, criticized the Beijing Platform, arguing that it put too much emphasis on reproductive rights. The Vatican, for instance, had feared that "pressure groups of large international organizations" and western countries would "impose human rights that have never been codified, such as 'sexual rights,' which support programs for the promotion of abortion in the world, and legal recognition of unmarried couples."

Although seen as reactionary by many Western delegates because of its stance on reproductive rights, the Vatican delegate argued forcefully for social and economic aid for women. "Millions of women have problems, such as lack of food, water, education, work, and are subjected to violations of human rights," said Kathryn Hauwa Hoomkwap of Nigeria, from the delegation of the Holy See. "These are serious emergencies that should take precedence."

Such conflicts were expected as delegates and advocates tried to navigate through the sensitivities of diverse ethnicities, political systems and cultures.

The conference's concluding document called for laws and legal reforms to ensure that women have equal access and control over land, property rights, and the right to inheritance. The document calls for legislation and swift action against all forms of domestic violence, including marital rape. And, in a ticklish reference to traditional societies, it calls for laws and educational programs to eradicate harmful customary practices including dowry violence, female genital mutilation, early and forced marriage, and "honor" killings, such as those in the Middle East, in which women have been killed for ostensibly shaming their families. It was said to be the first time a document issued as an international consensus included these issues.

The conference also emphasized the need to speedily conclude negotiations on an additional protocol to the Convention on Transnational Organized Crime to help stem the trafficking in women (see The Magazine, Page 10). Israel is one of the world's centers in the trafficking of women, which is a $ 2 billion-a-year industry in the state, said MK Yael Dayan, a member of the Israeli delegation. "I feel defensive because it (trafficking) is there," she said in New York. "I don't feel defensive because we are taking care of it."

There were ambitious goals set for education, one of the few instances in which the conference set actual targets. The conference called for a 50 percent improvement in adult literacy, as well as ensuring free compulsory primary education for both girls and boys by the year 2015.

There were other aspects that drew dissent, especially from the Americans. The US rejected the conference's implication that foreign occupation was automatically a human rights violation.

The document also asserted that the UN establish priorities for disarmament. That, however, is seen in the West as the prerogative of nations. Further, the conference proposed that funds saved as a result of disarmament be used for social programs that assist women and girls. That linkage was not universally supported.

Finally, there was an unresolved question of how proposals made by the conference would be funded. WHILE there were not many gains made by women's rights advocates, there had not been the retreat from the Beijing Platform they feared. However, the value of the conference's concluding document is open to question.

The document is not binding on governments, although it has some moral force. At the same time, some of the more significant human rights tools for women, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, do not have universal support. The US is among the hold-outs on the convention.

The American delegation also appeared to undercut the value of the entire UN conference with its "interpretative statement on the outcome document of Beijing-plus-five." The interpretation was widely released as a letter from King to Clinton, which essentially conveyed the view that the conference's work consisted of nice sentiments, not commitments. The US understands, King wrote, that any commitments referred to in the outcome document are "not legally binding, and they consist of recommendations concerning how states can and should promote the objectives of the conference."

At the UN, however, the tone was more upbeat. Angela King, the assistant secretary-general, called the document a "clearly defined road map for the continuing journey toward gender equality." "The women of the world now have a tool to assist them in achieving their goals."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.