At a time of celebrating the achievements seen in Beijing twenty years ago, and of commitment to the accelerated implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, what women don’t need is an outcome to the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) weakened by its lack of engagement with women on the ground, and lacking in vision and commitment. This is the view put forward in this article by Naureen Shameem, published by the Association for Women’s Rights in Development.
Shameem writes that despite nearly 9000 activists from around the world attending the 59th session of the CSW, the political declaration was drafted by state missions weeks before the event. As a result of this locking out of women’s rights and feminist groups, the final version of the declaration is weak and general, and fails to achieve the promise made in Beijing two decades before. Shameem notes that civil society voices have also been largely excluded from the Working Methods resolution process.
Shameen argues that while the opening of the Political Declaration is heartening – highlighting women’s and girl’s full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms – the language is so general as to elide the clear links between the work of the CSW and many other international human rights bodies, mechanisms, and policies. On this historic occasion, Shameen says, the Declaration reads as ahistorical; state’s are merely encouraged to consider ratifying CEDAW, there is no reference to the universality and indivisibility of human rights, and most references to human rights have been culled from the final document.
The reason suggested for this is the removal of civil society and women’s groups from the process, even so far as removing references to key civil society actors (including feminist organisations and women human rights defenders) from the Political Declaration. Progressive messages to fall by the wayside included references to decent work for women; grassroots and feminist groups; to an inclusive definition of women and girls “in all their diversity”; almost all references to gender-based violence; specific protected grounds for discrimination including disability and HIV status; and, alarmingly, the Declaration makes no reference at all to women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Shameem closes the article with a warning that the Working Methods resolution further reduces space for civil society participation, with the majority of the work having been done prior to CSW59. Shammem suggest that this is both alarming and indicative of a growing trend.