Home | Contact Us | Newsletters

UN headquarters in New York becomes an annual  feminist Mecca during the last week of February and the first week of March  when the sisterhood  from all over the world gathers for the ruminations of the UN's Commission on the Status of Women (CSW):  this year was the 52nd such talk-fest.    A document of  "Agreed Conclusions" was  produced at the end of the two-week session.

The  themes for 2008  were "Financing for gender equality and the empowerment of women", and  "the emerging issue of gender perspectives on climate change”.  (If you are wondering what climate change has to do with gender perspectives,  I am mystified  too).  Translated,  these themes  mean that developed countries  have to provide financial assistance to developing countries according to  specified targets. The latest ambit claim by  feminist NGOs  is a “Gender Equality Architecture Reform”  (GEAR UP) campaign demanding  a billion US dollars  to create another UN entity  pushing  women’s rights, headed by a UN Under-Secretary General.  International  Planned Parenthood Federation, the world's largest abortion provider, sponsors this campaign.     The UN already has  entities  INSTRAW, DAW, UNIFEM, and OSAGI,  working to empower women  (perhaps they  should  have one with the acronym GREEDY)   but feminists  apparently believe that developed countries have an endless supply of money to fund their wish-list.

There would be little  objection to  helping women in developing countries  if the money was  spent on the education of girls and women and increased opportunities for employment through  micro-credit schemes like the Grameen Bank, and   many  of the speeches in the Plenary session  by   leaders of national delegations did focus on education and employment.

However,  the real debate on the "Agreed Conclusions"  goes on in smaller negotiating groups which invariably bog down on terminology about "sexual and reproductive rights" and the meaning of "gender".  Translated,   this means lesbian rights and free access to   abortion on demand,  contraception and sterilization.  There are five official languages at the UN for which simultaneous translations are provided through ear-pieces, but one needs mental  translation   even when  documents   are in English  - it is like being in a foreign country.

Because of the focus on  abortion rights, the CSW   meeting has become  an annual  lobbying  task for   pro-life, pro-family NGOs  which have achieved  Observer status  through accreditation with the    UN's Economic & Social Council (ECOSOC).  We try  to focus attention on the real health requirements  of women:  maternal and infant care, access to clean water, immunization, anti-malarial drugs, treatment for TB  - the needs are great - but  we often  hear there are tonnes of shipments of condoms and contraceptives  to African countries but a  paucity of antibiotics.  This year our task was made more difficult as representatives of pro-abortion UN agencies like the UN Fund for Population Activi ties (UNFPA) were allowed in the negotiating rooms but  pro-life NGOs were excluded and we  could only speak to  official delegates as they  went in  and out.

In his opening statement  UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon highlighted a serious issue: "Through the practice of prenatal sex selection, countless others are denied the right even to exist. No country, no culture, no woman young or old is immune to this scourge....".  By distributing flyers and speaking to delegates, Campaign Life Coalition publicised  the financial and social impacts of the selective abortion of girl babies.  However, it is difficult to  see how the UN could stop sex-selective abortions without imposing restrictions on abortion  itself,  and any restrictions  would be totally unacceptable to the UNFPA and its cohort of  pro-abortion NGOs.

Pro-life Breakthrough

A non-EU member Norway, probably  acting as a stalking horse for pro-abortion EU countries, proposed inclusion of the term “sexual and reproductive health and rights” in the  draft of the  "Agreed Conclusions".  Norway's move caused  dissent among EU members. This  year   pro-life NGOs  were delighted when  delegations from Malta, Poland and Eire  opposed  the mainstream European Union position supporting abortion as a "reproductive health right"  because the EU rarely splits on questions of social policy at the UN.

Ambassador Saviour F. Borg said, "Malta firmly continues to maintain that any position taken or recommendations made regarding women's empowerment and gender equality should not in any way create an obligation on any party to consider abortion as a legitimate form of reproductive health rights, services or commodities."

This dissent from the EU's position  was significant  because it demonstrates to developing countries, some of which are  pressured to liberalize policies on family planning and abortion in order to receive funding, that they do not have to compromise on issues related to life and the family.  During negotiations, the United States stated that the term "reproductive health"  was extremely problematic for many delegations and that insistence on its inclusion might prevent a consensus.

El Salvador, the Holy See and some Muslim countries  also called for deletion of the term “reproductive health” which is code for abortion.  It is tragic that at the UN we have to rely on some Muslim countries for pro-life votes, while so-called Christian countries like New Zealand  and the EU vote anti-life.   Kiribati called for deletion of the term and proposed “access to basic maternal and newborn health care as  necessary to promote a healthy outcome for mother and child.”  Archbishop Celestino  Migliore,  Observer of the Holy See to the UN,   called for "courageous policies to reward the  work of women within the home".  Previously, the Holy See had  tried to short-circuit the endless debates about "gender" by suggesting  that  member-states "once again  understand the term 'gender' as grounded in biological sexual identity, male or female."

Negotiations for the final  CSW document concluded  in the small hours of  8th March. Pro-life efforts helped keep the controversial term "sexual and reproductive health and rights" out of the main document and  this  term was also kept out of the other negotiated documents, on female genital mutilation and  on HIV/AIDs. Several delegations thanked the lobbyists for remaining at the UN throughout the night, one delegation admitting  that delegates needed to be held accountable and know that their actions were being  watched.  Pro-life NGOs feel it is important for national delegations to  see that there is a pro-life presence here: "As long as they  are working on documents that could affect unborn lives, we will be here to bear witness.”  It is important to keep UN documents untainted by references to abortion as a human right as  feminists then bully national legislatures claiming  this has become "customary international  law".

Though “sexual and reproductive health and rights” did not make it into any of the CSW documents, a problematic reference to the International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights was included in a resolution on “Women, the Girl Child and HIV/AIDS.”  The Guidelines call for abortion-on-demand, the legal recognition of same-sex unions and criminal  penalties for any “vilification of people who engage in same-sex relationships.” Though the  government of Uganda was assured by the facilitator of the meeting that the reference to the  document would be struck, the resolution was adopted by the CSW with the reference still  included.

Parallel Events

Alongside the official CSW, there was also a calendar of  "parallel NGO events". Endeavour Forum  held two workshops (see next column).   Sue Fryer of Canada held several workshops on Billings Natural Family Planning (WOOMB, accredited through the Catholic Women’s League, Australia.

But there were also some weird workshops.    An NGO called "The Human Lactation Centre  Ltd" held one  on "The Exorbitant Cost of Sexual Abuse".  Being interested in promoting  breastfeeding, and also concerned about sexual abuse  (although I  could not see the direct  connection)  I attended this workshop.  One speaker declaimed:  "God became tired of eating  lamb, so He asked Abraham to sacrifice his son.  Abraham was upset but reluctantly agreed to do so, and then God relented.  Abraham was happy, and Isaac joined a Survivors Network".

This was not merely a parallel event  but more like entering a parallel universe  - and that perhaps is the real flavour of two weeks at the UN.

Sources: Samantha Singson, C-Fam and  LifeSiteNews: 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08022807.html )