Women's rights activists push back against fundamentalist opposition at the annual Commission on the Status of Women (CSW57)

* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.

At the conclusion of the two-week long CSW57 meeting held at the United Nations’ (UN) New York Headquarters on the theme: Elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls (VAWG), UN officials and women’s rights activists  celebrated the news that the CSW57 ended with Agreed Conclusions (ACs), unlike last year’s CSW 56 that failed to adopt agreed conclusions.

The majority of States accepted the overall text and commended it as ‘fair and balanced’. Feminists and women’s rights advocates also welcomed the ACs as an achievement and the result of hard work and determination.  It is a sign of the times, however, that rather than being able to focus on the implementation of programmes to expedite women’s access to and realisation of rights that were hard-fought for decades ago, women’s rights activists had to spend two hard weeks pushing back against fundamentalist opposition attempting to roll back women’s human rights.

The strong acknowledgement by government delegations of the critical role played by civil society - who were described as “fierce and hard-working” - credits the dignity, strength and temerity of all women’s rights advocates. Despite opposition and compromise, it was indeed another step forward.

Strong fundamentalist opposition

A small group of conservative countries were in full force this year - an “unholy alliance”, including diverse States such as Iran, Russia, Syria, Egypt, some States in the African group and the Vatican. United in positions against women’s sexual and reproductive rights, and sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) rights, these States obstructed negotiations and lobbied hard to water down language that was agreed to decades ago. As a result, this year’s ACs reflect flexibility and compromise, necessary to avert a similar situation to last year.

For example, midway into the second week of negotiations Egypt’s ruling Muslim Brotherhood, lambasted the proposed CSW outcome document, saying that the document, which calls for an end to VAWG, will “lead to complete disintegration of society… eliminating the moral specificity that helps preserve cohesion of Islamic societies”.

In their 10 point statement the Muslim Brotherhood were clear on their objections to – among a number of things - granting women sexual and reproductive freedom and rights, equal rights for ‘homosexuals’, respect and protection for ‘prostitutes’ and the right of women to lay charges of rape against their husbands. The Arab caucus at the CSW - women’s and human rights groups from Egypt, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Jordan and Tunisia - expressed concern and opposition to the Brotherhood’s statement, and feminist and women’s organisations issued a statement raising concerns about “the very alarming trends in the negotiations of outcome document of the 57th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women”, calling on governments to say “NO to any re-opening of negotiations on already established international agreements…commend those states that are upholding women’s rights in totality ... and reject any attempt to invoke traditional values or morals to infringe upon human rights guaranteed by international law”.

The ACs reflect both advancements for the elimination of VAWG and obstacles:

Advances

1. One of the major milestones was for Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRDs) with the inclusion of language in the ACs, for the first time ever, that requires States to “support and protect those who are committed to eliminating violence against women, including women human rights defenders in this regard, who face particular risks of violence.” The tireless work by members and allies of the Women Human Rights Defender International Coalition (WHRD IC) who advocated with member States to include strong language in the ACs paid off for WHRDs. Members of WHRD IC welcomed the recognition of WHRDs in the ACs but also note that it could be stronger and should include commitments to ensure WHRDs can carry out their work in defence of human rights without fear of reprisals, coercion, intimidation or any such attacks.
2. A second advancement was the explicit reaffirmation of accessible and affordable health care services. Sexual rights and reproductive rights and health organizations and activists fought hard for this and also ensured that gains from previous agreements (1) were not rolled back.  Sexual and reproductive health services include emergency contraception and safe abortion for survivors of violence, and governments were urged, for the first time, to procure and supply female condoms.
3. Governments committed to strengthen and coordinate programmes and services addressing the intersection between HIV and VAWG as well as recognizing the need to focus services on the diverse experiences of women and girls.
4. Governments made specific commitments to ensure safety of girls in public and private spaces as well as commitment to end early and forced marriage. They also committed to preventing, investigating, and punishing acts of violence committed by people in positions of authority, such as teachers, religious leaders, political leaders and law enforcement officials.

The ACs reaffirm that States should “strongly condemn all forms of violence against women and girls and to refrain from invoking any custom, tradition or religious consideration to avoid their obligations with respect to its elimination as set out in the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women.” The retention of “religious” in the first paragraph and the inclusion of “religious leaders” were hard fought for by progressive States.

Obstacles

1. Putting it simply, conservative States are not ready to accept and advance rights related to SOGI. There was continual reinforcement of traditional normative relationships in the language of the ACs and complete refusal to acknowledge groups that do not conform to traditional gender identities and roles within a traditional patriarchal construct. While there is growing consensus regarding the need to include explicit language related to specific groups that face particular forms of violence, including lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LBTI) women, no agreement could be reached on this language, with conservative States blocking language that highlights the violence women and girls experience in the diversity of relationships they engage in.
2. States failed to reach consensus on the role of families in combating VAWG as conservative governments and the Vatican would not recognize that diverse forms of families exist.
3. There was strong opposition to language suggesting that rape includes forced behaviour by a woman’s husband or intimate partner. Although some States strived to retain intimate partner violence, a term that more adequately captures the range of relationships and spaces where violence and abuse take place, in the end, it was left out of the ACs.
4. Also disappointing was the lack of support for Brazil’s proposal to apply measures for combating violence against sex workers. Given that the CSW was discussing prevention and elimination of VAW, the failure to recognize sex workers as a vulnerable group is a huge loss. Disappointingly several governments took the opportunity to call for the elimination of demand for prostitution and/or to conflate sex work with trafficking; and worse yet to promote the simplistic view that the proposal was encouraging women to engage in prostitution.

While feminists and women’s rights advocates agree that they did not get all the language in the ACs they had hoped for, this process and its outcomes certainly bode well for the work ahead to influence the Post 2015 Development Agenda[2], and ensure that VAWG is a priority for the achievement of sustainable development, peace and security, human rights, economic growth and social cohesion.

 [1] The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and in the Programme of Action at the International Conference on Population and Development and the Key Actions for its Further implementation.

[2] See AWIDs Friday Files: The Post 2015 Development Agenda – What it Means and How to Get Involved and The UN Post-2015 Development Agenda – A Critical Analysis

With research by Susan Tolmay, Marisa Viana and Shareen Gokal.